did not even take a day, this is just what is being reported.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/18/gun-sales-surge-after-connecticut-massacre/

Put a $1,500 surcharge on every high capacity magazine.

All that will get is rich mass murderers.

well said, you are 100% correct. Late is better than never.

Why is everyone talking about banning an inanimate object??????
The crux of the matter is the PERSON who is mentally ill....
Does anyone else know the story of the guy who killed more than 20
people with a KNIFE in China, the same day this happened in Conn....???
Look it up!!!! Its not the guns people!!!! Wake up don't loose sight of your freedoms

DM, please tell me you're joking.

The deranged person in China who attacked people at a school with a knife WOUNDED 20.

NO ONE DIED. Not one person. Zero fatalities.

In addition, the shooter in CT gained entry to the LOCKED school because he SHOT his way through plate glass. Good luck doing that with a knife.

THAT is why we are talking about better regulating guns.

How does the government protect citizens exactly? Sorry, but that's a pretty uneducated statement right there.

Actually, no they are not WMD's. Wait... maybe this is what Bush meant when we invaded Iraq. He thought any gun was a WMD.

As usual...
Cars - primary purpose is transportation. Guns - primary purpose is killing.

Still using that lame excuse? So last century.

ok heres one simple question sir:
Cars are needed for transportation to get to work, school, etc... what is an autamatic assualt weapon needed for?

Again. Another stupid comment. How can you compare the two?

I actually support zero tolerance to driving under the influence of alcohol -- one drink, you drive, you go to jail.

Actually, my gun's primary purpose is to put some food on the table for my family. I go hunting and kill animals for food all the time.

I guess you are saying that's so last century, too.

“As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.” Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s. Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure.” - Nicholas Kristof

If you need that big of a gun to hunt your a sh*tty hunter ... get some practice!

>> If you need that big of a gun to hunt your a sh*tty hunter ... get some practice! <<

Karen, we need big guns to fight oppressive government, not hunt deer. Do you suggest we start practicing now?..

"Maxim" did I say that? I said if you need it to hunt .... Move to another country if you feel our government is "oppressive"

>> "Maxim" did I say that? I said if you need it to hunt .... Move to another country if you feel our government is "oppressive" <<

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, Karen. If you see the word "hunting" there, lay off the bottle and move to Cuba, in any particular order.

I totally agree with you, Caldwell Resident. Why do we need guns in our homes where young children are? People who love guns should see the danger in this. How many of our beautiful angels must be slaughtered for people to wake up? Ban ALL guns. They are not necessary. Just killing weapons.

There are not enough police to protect you. They respond after the crime has been commited.

I go hunting all the time. Why should my right to go into the woods and kill a deer so my family can have dinner. You are saying that this should be illegal?

And I agree with Rusty. What if there was an armed security guard in the lobby of the school. The kid would have been taken out right away and the security guard would have saved the lives of all those children.

Why do I own a gun - simple. When my safety or that of my loved ones hangs in the balance of seconds, I know that the police are only minutes (try to find a response under 10 mins) away. Why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy.

As for wanting to change or do away with the 2nd Amendment, let me caution you and the rest that think this way. Once that process starts, others will be changed or eliminated too. I take it that by you placing a comment on this blog that you enjoy your 1st Amendment right to free speech and freedom of expression? How will you, and everyone else, react when they want to take that away? A chip taken here, a chip taken there, and next thing you know, there's nothing left to take. The bottom line is this - if you don't want to own a gun, fine, don't own one but don't take away my right to have one. While you're at it, feel free to exercise your 1st Amendment right (while you can) and post a sign in front of your home telling everyone you are unarmed. Lastly, why does the President and his family get be protected by those with assault guns and I can't?

Why are guns needed to hunt? People did it for thousznds of years without them, didn't they?

A) so far,every single mass shooting that has ever occurred in the history of man, a gun has been involved. If golf clubs were used in 16 mass killings this year like guns have, we can start to think about banning golf clubs too.
B) the argument that "people will still be murdered" does not hold any water. do we make heroin legal because "people will still be getting high on other substances"?
C)If the only reasons that you need a gun are for "target practice or hunting", other hobbies can substitute.
D)If you need something for self defense, use a car, steak knife, straight edge razor, baseball bat, golf club, brick, or hammer. apparently they are just as effective.

Vehicles, steak knives, razors, baseball bats, golf clubs, bricks, hammers...every one of these items has a primary purpose other than killing.

Guns primary purpose? Killing.

Defending yourself against a firearm is harder than defending yourself against any of these other items when they are used as weapons. Murder with a firearm is easier than with the other items...you don't need to be strong or big or even within arms' reach.

if lanza used a steak knife, a razor, a brick or any other idiotic object you compared to an automatic assualt gun do you think so many people would have been killed?

last week when a man attacked a school with a knife 22 people were injured. what do you prefer 22 injured or 27 dead?

Badbul. You are right. However, not in the manner in which guns and assault weapons are used. Killing so many in so few minutes. That is the difference. If you cannot see the difference, you had better look a bit harder.

LVresident - So far every mass shooting has taken place in a gun free zone. Ironic, don't you think?

Chris, the so-called correlation between gun controlled areas and higher violence is a myth sold to you courtesy of the NRA. The fact is, the U.S. has some of the most lax gun regulation in the developed world, and has the highest rates of gun violence in the world.

Jersey: No this is not a myth perpetrated by some NRA people. It is a fact that I read in the paper.

"Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone."

Fact from USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/16/gun-free-zones-larry-pratt/1773473/

Chris, I can also show you the fact that Japan, which has the strictest gun bans/controls in the world, has the lowest amount of gun violence. My point is, it's not that simple.

If you're interested, read this - I'm not seeking to change your mind, but since you clearly are interested in the topic, you might find this worth taking a look at.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

(For the record, I am not advocating a Japan-level gun ban at all, though I am interested in better regulation. Think MADD... I don't want to take away cars. I wants to beef up our legislation and policing so they kill fewer people. That's all.)

Jersey, that is a very interesting article you posted. Some good things and some bad things. I agree with the tougher screening to get a gun. I mean, its a pretty simple process right now, but I agree with the fact that people should actually have to go to a hospital and get a mental health screening. I am sure that there are def crazy people out there who shouldn't have them.

But to outright ban guns. I mean, sure, if we take all the cars off the roads, then there will be no traffic accidents, too! And I def don't want to travel to Hawaii just to shoot a gun.

But, one thing we have here in the United States is a ton of open land with a plethora of wild life. I guess nobody in Japan goes hunting? Are there no farms in Japan? My friend has a farm with horses. She has to has a gun to protect herself and her horses from bears. She has never shot or killed anything, but a gun shot is enough to scare a bear away. If that bear came and attacked her, are people saying that she shouldn't be able to defend herself? The only thing pepper spray does is make it even more mad.

Now, of course, not many people live in the rural area's of NJ and not many people go hunting, but why should those of us who do have to have our rights and freedoms taken away because of the stupid actions of some fool?

Chris, it would appear that we're closer in our points of view than we are far apart. I think that's the case with much of the population on this issue, thankfully.

My husband has a firearms license and hunts. I've been trap shooting (and I'm actually a pretty good shot). I don't seek to take the right to hunt or protect one's home away from responsible citizens.

My husband and I would happily undergo mental health screenings to buy a gun. We'd wait though background checks, get referrals, not buy 10 guns at a time, etc. We don't believe in 30 round clips on semi-automatic weapons. You may disagree with that one - there is a lot of room for reasonable people to disagree on these "gray" areas.

The important thing is to try and get a handle on the situation in a reasonable, measured way. I mean, Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban for God's sake. Today, the NY Post - the POST - editorialized that it's time for change.

God willing we can do something to prevent these kinds of massacres in the future.

Chris, that is probably the most well stated argument I've ever read. I have always been on the fence, so to speak, as far as how much gun control is necessary and you've really made some great points. Perhaps you should be the voice in congress. It's nice to see someone be able to argue their case without name calling and immature nonsense.

Wrong badbul. Guns are designed to kill. Period, end of story. In any hand they kill.

LVresident, your myopic argument shows your prejudice as it just references shootings, how about other mass killings that have been committed by poisonous gas, bombs, tainted kool aid, machetes, strangling, arson, etc., etc.? Regarding your "D" comment, I guess you've never heard that criminals have GUNS, and only a fool try to stop one without a gun. So if you take the guns away from the law abiding citizens then the only ones with guns will be the nogoodniks.

Machine guns and guns with high-capacity ammo magazines are made to kill .. not for "sport" or self defense (unless you are a soldier at war)

none of those items can kill that many people that fast ... its an idiot response really ... its not proving any point but people defending those kinds of guns are idiots ... its really sad that this is the best you can do to defend your point .... please go tell the parents of those children that if he had a steak knife or bat or hammer he would have been able to kill all those people ... PLEASE go tell them that!

Let's think differently - insurance:
http://prorev.com/idguns.htm

I've got a couple, if you don't mind.

(1) Close the gun show loophole. Require background checks for all purchases of firearms. There is NO reason a felon should be able to walk into a gun show and purchase a weapon, no questions asked.

(2) Prohibit the sale of firearms to people who are on the Terrorist Watch List. Sound like a no-brainer? The NRA has strong-armed D.C. on this one, if you can believe it. People connected to terrorist groups can legally buy a gun, because to prohibit that would "threaten the 2nd Amendment".

(3) Require mental health screenings for any person who seeks to purchase a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. No need to seek mental health records (which is tricky from a privacy standpoint and can be useless if a person never sought treatment). But submit to an assessment. The military requires it prior to arming soldiers, as do police forces, why not?

My husband has a firearms license, we support responsible gun ownership. But it is time to set limits. You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer. A schizophrenic person should not have an AR-15. A terrorist should not be allowed to buy any gun.

These suggestions seem reasonable to me.

Jersey, even I - a staunch 2nd Amendment rights supporter - won't argue with the first point. The gun show loophole is ridiculous. Do we even have them in New Jersey?

Terrorist Watch list is a trickier business. There is zero public control over it, and (naturally) zero transparency as to how names get into it. There's a notorious DHS instruction to consider preppers, anti-abortion activists, people criticizing the President, and even combat veterans as potential terrorists. Nothing would prevent the government to add, say, all its political opponents onto the list.

The third point is also a bit slippery. Brain functioning is a very subjective matter. Whether the evaluations are run by governmental or physicians, they would have incentives to bias their decisions, either for political or commercial reasons.

Unfortunately, there is no legislative replacement for eternal vigilance.

Maxim, fair points.

I would think that the Terrorist Watch List issue could at least be resolved with a more thorough review process of the applicant. Much like how it leads to additional screenings at the airport, perhaps we could just require some additional background checking for people on the list. I think it's a little conspiratorial to think that any administration would just start adding names to screw with people, but that's just me. There could be a way to say, look, the CIA has seen this guy all over the internet supporting terrorist plots, let's slow the process down and look a little closer before letting him buy a Glock.

As for the mental capacity, also a fair point. But subjective decisions have to be made all the time. The military and police require people to pass mental fitness exams, and they make the call. There has to be a way to do it. Maybe you leave personality disorders and/or mild depression out of the mix, maybe you target mental illness that causes lack of capacity to understand right versus wrong. But it IS worth talking about. I really think that a country this advanced can make the determination that if "the voices" are telling you to go get an AR-15, you're going to get a big "sorry, no way. Not happening"

Jersey, doesn't issuing a NJ gun permit, as of today, require a psychiatric history review in addition to criminal record check? It is the main reason why issuing takes so much time, but that's a nuisance I'm willing to cope with. As for TWL, I definitely don't want to entrust my in-state rights to a federal agency. Also, real terrorists don't give a rat's arse for laws and will obtain guns even if it means killing a cop for it. Therefore, whatever restrictions TWL imposes on gun ownership will be pointless.

If I were to suggest a measure, it would be mandatory range exam, say once in 3 years, for every registered assault weapon owner. We impose same on drivers, so the general public won't object, and NRA may actually support the idea. It will decrease the stock of "idle" firearms that are most prone to theft and misuse, take dangerous toys out of hands that can't use them, and instill the sense of responsibility.

Maxim Sapozhnikov: In the state of NJ, you have to apply for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card. Separately, you also have to apply for a Permit to Purchase a Handgun.

The ID card says that you can go into a gun shop and buy a long gun (i.e. a shotgun, rifle, ar-15.. whatever). With the ID card, you can buy as many long guns as you want.

With the handgun permit, you have to apply for a permit for every handgun you wish to buy.

Furthermore, you also have to register your gun with the local police department.

So technically, they do and do not issue a permit to own a gun. It depends on if that gun is a hand gun or a long gun.

Chris - thanks for the information. I applied for both ID card and handgun permit simultaneously so didn't remember exactly which form is for what. I was told by the local cop who took the forms that psych history review is a part of the background check now.

Chris, thanks for that info.

Maxim, my understanding based on my husband's experience in attaining a license for a handgun (not a hunting rifle) is that in NJ, you have to submit to having your mental health records reviewed. That's different than submitting to an affirmative mental health screening. The difference is this: Someone who has never been diagnosed or treated for mental illness would come up clean in NJ's system. But perhaps they'd be snagged in a screening.

Incidentally, I find it crazy that once you have a firearms permit like my husband has, you can go out and buy an AR-15, but you have to do more for a handgun. I get it, handguns can be concealed, but this may be a point worth discussing.

In addition to the mental health background check (which is currently illegal under HIPAA laws) - do a prescription drug search. Insurance companies do both before you get coverage. We'd know who needs treatment, who is or isn't getting treatment and who is addicted to prescription drugs. All should be part of the background check.

Why is it we are required to take tests and learn how to operate a car safely yet there is no need for this to get a gun? All the idiots who are now running out and getting guns and have no clue how to use them safely .... its easier to get a gun then it is to get a drivers licence .... your personal doctor should have to sign off on the permit that you have no mental illness at this point ... Im a supporter of guns BUT ... Im sure the constitution didnt mean machine guns....

Hardie:

Well said, I like it. "O" guns in USA. Let hem start with that idea of FREE USA from Guns.

I agree totally. Enough of this crap. Guns are not toys. Maybe as a parent, I went a bit too far when my children were little but I refused to ever purchase a toy gun or even a water pistol for them. The meaning of these things was only for shooting. So call me a bad mother. I felt good about it and I raised three wonderful and caring boys who turned into wonderful and caring men.

Do you mean aged senators?. My be we need young clean blood in administration.

Freedom to go out and kill 20 innocent 5 and 6 year olds and 6 innocent and wonderful adults. Is this the freedom you are referring to? If so, hardcorebiker, stick to your bike and get a brain. This is what you are missing.

I am not sure Americans are so civilized. Moreover, Russia, China and most other modern nations were also founded on guns.

Smoking was YOUR choice. It could kill you and you were warned about the danger of smloking in many different ways. How can you compare what happened on Friday in CT and a stupid person smoking?

I dont smoke but I have to pay for those who do.

As a matter of danger to people's lives, smoking is the no.1 preventable cause of death in America. Why is it still legal if 500,000 people a year are dead from it? 2nd hand smoke is alos a danger - pregnant women who smoke kill ther babies and harm their health - that's not the child's choice. What are they supposed to do?

11,000 people die in drunk driving accidents a year - the innocents who die - was it their choice?

I like your smoking analogy, but people will always argue that it is off topic because while it kills exponentially more people than guns, it takes more time to kill someone with cigarettes and doesn't produce an emotional news story when people die from it.

Sorry Gene obesity has topped smoking as the #1 preventable cause of death. Also the biggest fiscal burden we have as a nation - in health care costs, hospital retro fitting costs and disability payments.

OK, so the logic here is take away the guns and less people will die. How about using that same logic to take away spoons? Obesity is the #1 killer in this country now, so if you take away spoons people will eat less and less people will die.

And which freedom is that Mr. Gartenlaub?

i find it almost comical when people try to bring up the 2nd ammendment. i have the utmost respect for our finding fathers however i understand they were not fortune tellers. the constitution was written in 1787 it is now 2012. when the second ammendment was written they meant every man should have the right to bear arms, mainly to protect themselves from a british attack or indians which was a likely possiblilty in 1797. by arms they meant Flintlock pistols and Flintlock Muskets which were the type of guns that were avaliable then.
if you really think the 2nd ammendment was intended to give a middle age women the right to have a collection of guns including assualt rifles in a house with a child with mental illness and behavior issues then i thnk you misunderstood what are founding fathers meant.

if you conservatives really cared about the constitution you must consider bush the worse president of all time. the patriot act is the most anti constitutional law EVER passed. however most logical thinkers realize our founding fathers did not think terrorists would be flying planes into skyscrapers when the consistution was written in 1797

Bush actually was second worst President in my adult memory, though I'm sure Lyndon Johnson or Woodrow Wilson could give him a good run for the money.

As for the Second Amendment, it was given to us so the President wouldn't decide one day that he doesn't really need our consent to rule, and that he much prefers the Chinese form of government. Perhaps they *were* fortune tellers, those Founding Fathers, huh?

>> Carried weapons save lives and property of their owners every day <<

You must be referring to incidents like that teacher that shot a "masked" person in "self-defense" and found out it was his own son? Think he is still glad he was packing heat that night and didn't try something else?

Or maybe that guy in Minn who executed two teens who sneaked into his house...admitting to cops that "he had fired more shots than necessary." He was just "protecting himself" when he fired a handgun from under her chin up through her head as she lay on the floor gasping.

No, Mr. Munchkin, I am referring to these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwT3v5OpSFQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBlelqDE1RI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiiQQP4-Ijw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntk0n1Q5nMk

Want another few thousand examples? Guns are like blades. They can kill, and they can save lives, depending on who uses them.

Nobody caries around assault weapons for protection or needs a high capacity magazine to protect themselves or their property.

agreed with spartacus. Arguing for high capacity magazines is absurd.

(0) does that mean freedom of speech only applies to spoken word and print, the only ,means of expressing an opinion at the time? Does it still cover anonymously posting on the internet?

Well said.

Pete, you left off the first phrase of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment has historically been seen not as providing the right for an individual to bear arms, but rather, the country's militias. As the NRA morphed from a gun safety organization into one of the country's largest lobbying contingencies, it started to push HARD for a different interpretation. It was only recently that Scalia decided to lead the way to change over 100 years of caselaw on the issue (in Heller). Thank your lobbyists.

The NRA, through its propaganda, often refers back to Nazi Germany as an example of why we must keep guns in the hands of our people. But the analogy doesn't work for a number of reasons. Most importantly.. If a tyrant of some sort rose to power such that he was able to take control of the government, he would have the U.S. Military, FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals and police forces under his command. The civilians would be doomed.

On the other hand, if such tyrant was taking over other civilians, those military and law enforcement groups would handle it.

The purpose of guns is killing. The purpose of food is life.

BTW, guess you are suggesting that we need more government regulation of food.

The number of homicides committed using firearms in this country far exceed the number of people who die from food poisoning.

S.G.:

Dear, I was being sarcastic, but I guess that went ovine your head.

I am Spartacus:

I was referring to mass shootings where the media and politicians descend like vultures before the bodies are yet cold—not Saturday night in Newark.

Every gun owned by a citizen is a another opportunity that it will end up in the wrong hands. Did we learn nothing last week?

i have a friend who keeps his gun in a safe in his bedroom, he has kids so he keeps the gun in a safe at all times. he tells me the gun is for his families protection incase someone breaks in. i always think what if youre in the basement or kitchen when someone breaks in, are you gonna ask the robber to be excused while you go get your gone from your safe upstairs? what if its more than one robber with multiple guns?
technically if a robber came to your house your family would have a much better chance of surviving if you cooperate and give them what they want instead of trying to get into some kind of shoot out with them.

(0) What about in cases where what they want is not something you are willing to part with? What if they are there to harm your wife or children? What do you do then? To think these are unlikely scenarios is a bit naive.

(0), when a robber breaks in, you should show him to your valuables, then kindly inform him that you are against gun violence and voted for Obama in both '08 and '12. See if it works, and report back to the forum.

maxim- if i took your suggestion my family would be much more likely to survive. when a robber breaks into your house pull a gun out (if you can get to it in time, pretty sure robbers dont call ahead to make sure you got your gun ready) once he sees you have a gun he will immmediately strat shooting even if that was his original intention.

(0), New Jersey law forbids using (or even brandishing) a gun unless one's life is in direct and imminent danger - see, Democrats value safety of violent criminals higher than that of homeowners, they have to protect their faithful voting bloc. What you suggest me to do is breaking the law, which I will not do. A baseball bat or a machete will have to suffice unless the intruder pulls out a firearm, in which case I'm free to shoot.

We a robber breaks in, I would say: "here are my valuables, take them."

My valuables are insured. At full replacement cost. I would probably be ahead of the game... ;)

But more important, only a psychopath would justify killing a person to save their bling.

Deleted. You have the most sane post here. Odd are very much in favor of an armed attacker being more versed in handling guns. Statistically speaking, gun ownership does not make an individual safer from violent crime -- it increases the risk, especially for women in households where guns are owned.

(0), I repeat for you and others who keep asking the same question. Private citizens need military-grade weaponry to use it against the government, in case said government decides to cancel elections and impose a regime change. If you believe such move to be impossible or even unlikely, I suggest that you re-read some history books, and listen to the current President who openly praises the superiority of Chinese political regime.

Maxim, unfortunately people in America are so blind that they don't even consider that a possibility. "It would never happen in America." I fear this country is going to learn its lesson the hard way.

so maxim, we should ignore these horrific incidents and keep allowing 20 yr olds with mental problems to be able to obtain guns just incase obama tries to become the next hitler?

(0), we need to keep the weapons out of the hands of mentally incompetent people and, failing that, protect our schools better. "Gun-free zone" poster discourages a murderer about as much as a "Free stuff here" poster discourages a welfare queen.

As for Obama, he's already far down that way. Not that Bush was much better...

Maxim, respectfully, that argument is dead. That is, the argument that we have to be armed against a government.

Here's the thing. Our "government" is never going to impose a "regime change" because that doesn't even translate into today's U.S. government. What are the scenarios here, really?

- An elected President decides to "cancel elections" - um, no. Not without our legislative branch and judicial branch signing off.

- the legislature goes bonkers and tells the CIA, FBI and military to do their bidding. Good luck, they can't even agree on tax reform.

- Some tyrant comes in and shoots up the capitol to "take it over" - good luck agains tour military.

Anyone who does pull a successful coup in today's U.S. government would have to take control of our military, ATF, FBI, police forces, etc. Good luck to any civilian group using any available weapons against a nuclear military.

Be rational here.

Jersey, a very possible scenario of a regime change may present itself in a very short future. If the GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling (unlikely yet possible) and Obama refuses to cut spending (as likely as sun in August), Obama will (again, quite likely) instruct the Treasury to ignore the Congress and issue T-Bonds. We'll have a full-blown Constitutional crisis that may usher in a regime change, or at least an attempt thereof (sample case: Honduras, 2009), possibly with some shooting and rioting involved. To answer your other argument, the Army will not interfere in such crisis but will likely attempt to mediate between the sides to prevent massive bloodshed (sample case: Egypt, 2012).

Another, somewhat less likely scenario that will spiral down into a regime change is Obama's attempt to run in 2016, either as a President (sample cases: USA, 1941) or Vice President (sample case: Russia, 2008); the latter may arguably be legal. The Republicans in the Congress reject and denounce the attempt (likely) and cry foul, whereas the Democrats will nominate him nevertheless (very likely).

Yet another, even less likely but still possible scenario, involves emergence of unambiguous, publicly acceptable proof of Obama's foreign birth (assuming, of course, that it exists). That will immediately lead to a constitutional crisis, with the Democrats shielding Obama from impeachment procedure and the GOP calling for his figurative (and possible literal) head on a pike.

(cont.)

I could come up with other unlikely yet possible scenarios that don't involve a tinfoil hat (dollar collapse, for one). In each of them, I would rather cling to my guns rather than a flimsy hope of police protection.

Maxim, I'm going to respectfully spep away. I'm an attorney. I'm a person who has studied history and Constitutional law in great depth compared to the average citizen. I don't proclaim to be a scholar in this area, and trust me, I learn more about it every day. But your scenarios are so disjointed that I don't even know where to start.

The paranoia you live with is exactly the problem with this country. I'm not stupid or unaware of the history of other nations. But there is no rational reason to think that President Obama (as black as he is) is going to cause a national uprising.

Hell, the man has done NOTHING to control guns. Clinton passed or signed a number of gun control measures (oh and P.S., Reagan supported Brady as well as the Assault Weapons ban too) and yet here we sit, everything in terms of our government structure is intact.

Ugh I am so tired of talking to people who are paranoid from NRA pamplets/magazines (I've read them, they are insane).

Jersey, none of the scenarios I outlined is likely, but saying that they are impossible is outright stupid. You say you're an attorney and a Constitutional scholar? And I'm a Chippendale dancer and a millionaire. Yeah, about as likely. This is Internet. You can claim whatever you want, especially when you don't sign your real name. Either your capacity for logic doesn't match your claims, or your political bias clouds your judgment; in both cases, your legal office wastes a salary on you.

PS: Oh, and allow me an extra kick at your butt. I'm neither an NRA member nor even a supporter. In fact, I don't even like them. As for my experience with assault rifles, google up "IDF".

Maxim, I suggest you read more carefully. I said I am an attorney. I am. I understand your skepticism as you're right - I could claim to be anyone. But I said I DON'T proclaim to be a scholar in Constitutional law - just that I've studied it more than the average person. This would make sense, as Con Law is a requirement for all attorneys, first year. I was also a poli-sci major in undergrad where I took courses on Con Law. That's all I was referring to.

My original point stands. In terms of citizens protecting themselves from the U.S. military, the Second Amendment is essentially moot. Even Rupert Murdoch has come to his senses on this one.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/post-editorial-2nd-amendment-obsolete.html

Furthermore, I didn't say the scenarios you presented were "impossible". I said there was no reason to believe any of them would happen. That they are paranoid scenarios.

Seriously, I suggest you read more carefully. You have made some good points in some of your posts, and I have said as much. It's disappointing to see you flip your lid and call me stupid because you're putting words into my mouth. (Incidentally, are you 10?) Perhaps you just have a political bias clouding your judgment.

Jersey, you have no reason to question my age since I have a picture attached to my profile, and quite a few people on this board can testify that it is my real photo. I apologize for expressing doubt regarding your intelligence, your job, and your qualifications, but you have to accept it as a price for being anonymous (and liberal).

Any quote from NY Mag in an allegedly non-partisan discussion is about as valuable as that from The Onion. I wouldn't trust a glossy so rabidly liberal if they recited a multiplication table. As for Rupert Murdock, invoking his name carries zero weight with me; last time I watched Fox News was during debates. In fact, I'm not even a Republican, and I did not vote for McCain in 2008. Does it take my political bias out of the debate?

The scenarios I outlined are not paranoid. If you get out of liberal echo chamber (hint: NY Mag is a part of it) you may realize that some of them are horrifyingly realistic. Ever saw "credit card denied" blinking on a register? There are plenty many people who will flip off when the whole country runs out of Bernanke's funny money. And you've seen a few days ago what flipped-off people are capable of, with or without large magazines.

Maxim, my question about whether you were 10 was sarcastic.

Look, regardless of your impression of what a screaming liberal I am, I actually look at news sources across the spectrum. I think MSNBC is generally as useless as Fox News, though I watch both so I know all of the arguments. Of course NY Mag is a liberal rag, just as the NY Post is crazy right-wing. My post was only to show that the NY Post editorialized that the 2nd Amendment is obscolete.

Thank you for the apology. Again, I think you make some interesting points. I just cannot wrap my head around any reasonable situation where the government goes into tyranny mode and bands of citizens go up against the whole of the U.S. military and all of its weaponry and stands a snowball's chance in hell.

But I'm also pretty pro-military and pro-police; that makes it hard for me to believe that our armed forces and law enforcement would be turning their weapons on our citizens anytime in the foreseeable future.

Jersey, they say that "denial is not a river in Egypt". For many Americans, 9/11 came as a horrible shock because they could not imagine such an atrocious act; for an Israeli, it was a day to day routine. A regime change, or a currency default, are equally hard to visualize if you haven't seen one, but I did, and lived through both - in Russia. See, triple citizenship comes with some experience baggage.

I can't say for military - google up "Waco siege", by the way - but our "law enforcement" is turning their weapons against citizens daily, with death toll far above that of all mass shootings combined. A significant fraction of those deaths (larger than reported, I suspect) are innocent. So no, I would not call myself pro-police.

Is the agenda here to shift gun violence to murder with blunt instruments, or to reduce homocide. Perhaps we should look at overall homocide, perhaps look at similar demographics, gang prevalance...adding this data takes it out of the rhelm of agenda based soud bites and makes it a real discussion about root cause and prevention. Making weapons HARD to obtain illegally makes MASSIVE sense to me...making them illegal to posses only removes them from the hands of law abiding citizens.

There are all sorts of rational things we could be doing to protect schools, treat mentally ill people, balance the budget, fix educational challenges, etc... but they all require we work together...

If we are to pass a law here, let's make sure it effectively targets the problem, and that it can be implemented without a civil war. If you want to remove the 2nd from our Constition, or amend it... there is a process for that... if you want to pass new laws, propose one that is fact based, logical and can be implemented. A ban on hi cap mags would not have stopped the CT shooter...nor would a ban on assault weapons... he had two pistols. Had the school been constructed to resist forced entry, like it was constructed to resist fires, the exchange might have been between him and the police instead of him and tiny children. We need to stop the next one from getting through... a feel good, do nothing law will not get us there

i agree with what you said, however he did not use the pistols he used an assualt weapon. im not saying things would have been different but if he was just using pistols there could have been a moment when he was reloading to tackle him. assualt weapons should be illegal because of the amount of harm it can do in so little time.

>> In fact, the US population is about 1/2 of the other 22 rich nations, but we have about 20 times the number of gun homicides of all those nations COMBINED. Really, this is absurd. <<

That might have something to do with those urban minority folks that liberals cherish and adore so much. Diversity and tolerance come with a blood price. Do you perhaps have statistics stratified by race?

When you really think about it an armed citizenry is exactly what a belligerent government would want. That way they can use extreme force and blame it on the citizens. Even a house full of assault rifles can be mortared from a safe distance. Look at the difference between what happened in Egypt and Syria. Egyptians didn't use weapons, short conflict, Syrians did, long and bloody conflict. Of course when the second amendment was written and passed, there was no standing army. Now we have a two million man force that wouldn't break a sweat wiping out the few pockets of resistance that decided to fight with guns. More and more successful revolutions are peaceful, because they don't play the Government's game. Just something to think about.

Prentiss, it is a very wild assumption that the U.S. Army will shoot at its country's citizens at the President's behest. That's why Obama declared - a direct quote here - that "we've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as U.S. Army. Though such army would unlikely include artillery or tanks, is it your suggestion that citizens deal with this kind of force with handguns and hunting rifles?

I don't mean to suggest that the US government ever would attack it's citizens, just that thinking that an armed revolution based on civilian weaponry would be anything but a loosing blood bath is wrong. We already have a system set-up for changing the way the country is, it's called voting and we do it peacefully all the time.

Prentiss, the Germans had the secret ballot in the 30-ies, the Soviets had the secret ballot, and so do the Russians and the North Koreans of today - you knew that, right? The right to cast a vote gives you exactly squat if you can't verify or enforce the results. No rogue dictator can prevail while this country has "a rifle behind every blade of grass" waiting for his henchmen. So the first order is, of course, to ban those rifles...

Jim, if we're being honest about the Second Amendment, it was written for the purpose of arming militias. Militias, in the sense of what was sought at the time, have been replaced by the U.S. National Guard.

For over 100 years, the government, justice system and general population of this country saw the 2nd Amendment as a right for militias. It was not until the NRA decided to change from a gun enthusiast and safety group to a radical lobbying group that we saw a change in sentiment. Good job, Heller turned the 2nd Amendment caselaw of over 100 years on its head.

And for those Republicans who claim the right to call themselves Strict Constructionists - BULLSHIT on this issue. Because if you read and understand the Heller case, Scalia literally ignored the first clause of the Amendment. He said as much, that's not some radical left-wing interpretation. Read it. It's absurd. (You probably won't think so b/c it supports your opinion - but the man decides that the first clause, written in a Latin construction and indicating that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of militias, is tossed out and ignored.)

No elected or police official anywhere has requested that "law abiding citizens give up their guns", merely they've suggested limitations on the sale of semi-automatic weapons and/or ammunition magazines that could be readily converted to accept more than 10 rounds. Let's not over-dramatize this into a stormtrooper scenario whereby you lose everything dear to you.

Nancy, you do not really need at least 2/3 of your handbags and shoes. You have to donate them to underprivileged women on welfare for the public good.

Oh wait, perhaps I shouldn't judge which of your private possessions you need, and which you do not...

maxim, go explain to the parents of those poor children why it was within this womens right to own a semi atuomatic weapon in a home with a mentally disturbed child. to compare a weapon that killed 27 to handbags as things you dont need, shows how idiotic you are.

How would have an assault weapon ban or hi-cap ban have stopped the CT shooter? From what I have been able to gleen, he reloaded multiple times, shot each victim multiple times... and...he had two "non-assault weapon" pistols with him. There are laws that could have stopped the shooter, ask the experts (LT Col Grossman for one)...

As soon as you explain to them why none of the teachers or custodians had so much as a handgun to protect their children. In a gun-free zone, only criminals, madmen and policemen will have guns - and "when seconds count, police is only minutes away".

An assault weapon ban and ban on high capacity clips would have reduced his rate of fire and might have let a few more people escape. Really, who needs an AR-15 or high round clips? Are people really suggesting honest law abiding gun owners would be harmed by outlawing those? I am no fan of the left but even I think it is completely idiotic to allow the sale of those items.

Nancy Duggan - I was not suggesting that officials are at this moment calling for a complete ban. I was responding to the comments on this article that are indeed calling for a completely gun free America. I do not believe that I am over-dramatizing anything, and I am still entitled to voice my opinion.

My major concern right now, given that the major shootings are being committed by the mentally ill who should not be on the streets (or home), is the lack of calling by voters and government for better access and facilities for mental health care, particularly for teens and young adults. I believe our time would be better spent looking at that issue and the other actual causes, rather than a tool. I don't understand blaming and further regulating an inanimate object, instead of the humans who commit the crimes.

And thank you Maxim!!

Ojo Rojo, I can reload a regular-capacity magazine in my semi-auto in about 3-4 seconds, and I'm by no way an action hero. A madman with a pocketful of loaded mags will be exactly as efficient as one with a powerful rifle. In fact, a madman with a buzz saw will be even more efficient. Anyone here for banning or licensing buzz saws?

Governmental monopoly on weapons is an inevitable stepping stone to every tyranny. Do I have to remind you that, according to history books, tyrannies eventually start slaughtering their original supporters, whom they refer to as "useful idiots"?

Red, again you jump to the most hyperbolic and slightly self-pitying conclusion. Where was it suggested that you weren't entitled to your opinion?

And in those 3-4 seconds between clips, people have more time to get the hell out of your way. Nobody and I mean nobody needs high capacity clips.

Ojo Rojo, in case you failed to read my earlier posts... You no more get to decide what people need and what they do not than I get to decide how many pairs of socks you can own. Think of it: you want to exercise control over someone else's needs and private property. Think what it makes you. That's *exactly* why powerful weapons have to remain in people's hands: in case someone with the same inclination as you goes a bridge too far in his desire to control other people.

Nancy - I don't believe that anyone who says "The issue is not wanting guns, the issue is not wanting to be killed by them." should be calling anyone else an exaggerator. I have not called you names of any sort. Yet you have said that I'm hyberbolic, self pitying, and over-dramatic. If you have a contrary opinion on my post, please feel free to share relevant thoughts. Otherwise, all that's there is name calling and reguritation of the original article, not peoples views on the article.

I am simply suggesting that the elected officials look to the actual causes of violence of this nature, not the tools that are used.

another issue is allowing a women who has no need to for a powerful assualt weapon to be able to obtain one and keep it in a house with a mentally disturbed child. but i guess thats her "right", i would love for one of you defend her right to one of those childrens parents

clyde - Exactly!!!

(O) - As a gun owner and parent, I completely agree with you. To me, Mrs. Lanza made a very bad decision. I don't understand her thoughts on that either. I certainly can't defend her decisions, but I didn't know her and have no idea what she was going through.

But there are so many parents out there who don't know what to do with their out-of-control children. There are very limited resources for them, the police often tell them to press charges so that the child can be sent to jail. Very few parents are willing to make that choice and so they end up hiding their child, shielding them as best they can, until that child bursts out into the public eye in ways that no one can truly predict. That is the problem.

When you purchase one of those EVIL assault weapons in NJ, you are required to sign a document explaining that it is a felony to allow children to gain access to the weapon. I signed and fully understood the responsibility. Mrs Lanza may have signed a similar document... I don't know if the law is only in my state or if CT has similar. I suspect Mrs Lanza was murdered by her son as the result of her Felony crime. There is certainly a sensible gun law in the making here that could also comply with the USSC Heller ruling. It might even work to prevent future child murders..unlike a feel good ban

Jim, he was 20 years old, not a child. Granted, she should have had it secured.

no problem with a women owning a shotgun for protection. however i am against a women being able to own an assualt riffle in a house with a mentally disturbed son. no one is trying to ban shot guns or logical guns, the main cry is to ban assualt weapons

I agree with the comment below. I do not have any problems with a shotgun for defense or hunting. As well as a bolt-action rifle. The issue is assault rifles and other semi-automatic, high-capacity guns.

Again: there is no call for "a full ban on guns" and no need for melodramatic anecdotes.

A selective ban on guns will make no difference in preventing these types of crimes. The guy could have walked in with a pistol with 6 bullets in the chamber and killed 6 people. Does that make it any better? Or he could have carried in 3 pistols all fully loaded and still killed 18 people. The "only ban high capacity gun" argument really isn't going to make any difference. You either ban guns or you don't.

"The guy could have walked in with a pistol with 6 bullets in the chamber and killed 6 people. Does that make it any better?"

---tom, this is utter nonsense. you REALLY don't see the difference between 6 dead and 20+ dead? are you that heartless a human being? how sad.

"The "only ban high capacity gun" argument really isn't going to make any difference. You either ban guns or you don't."

---this is ridiculous absolutism---the only way you can justify (however pathetically) having assault weapons that you have no need for.

Ummm, Arbetto - My point was that this would have been a horrible tradgedy if even 1 person had died, let alone 20+. So what you're saying is if only 6 people died instead of 20 this wouldn't be as much of a tragedy? Who's the one being heartless...?

People are focusing way too much on "assault" weapons. Any gun can kill no matter how it's labeled. Fine, ban the assault weapons. Then when, god forbid, some other tradegedy occurs as a result of a small pistol we'll be having this same argument later that the non-automatic guns should have been banned too.

The issue is not wanting guns, the issue is not wanting to be killed by them.

Actually, all 10 amendments are meant for the individual. If you make a case that the 2nd is only for the army, does that mean that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, fair trials, only belong to the armed forces? Do you truly believe the average gun owner is planning to wage war on the government? The majority of gun owners are average citizens who want nothing more than to go to work, raise their children, enjoy their vacations, live an average life.

The two most common definitions of militia are: "The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms." and "A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government." Do either of those sound like America's armed forces, or does that sound like citizens ready to defend themselves?

The US Supreme Court in a recent ruling (try Googling Heller USSC) re-affirmed the interpretation that the 2nd is an individual right not bound by association to a Militia...there is actually a metric ton of fact based information to totally and completely debunk your position..

Red, incorrect. Jim, Heller didn't "reaffirm" - it OVERTURNED over 100 years of caselaw supporting the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment was for the protection of militias, not individuals. Scalia, the so-called strict constructionist, decided that the first clause of the Amendment didn't "matter" or whatever.

That opinion made me laugh out loud before I almost cried. Strict constructionist my ass.

Here's the reality. In today's world, if some tyrant or crazy person tries to "take over" or invade the citizens' property in some way, the U.S. Military, FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals and police forces are there to respond. If that crazy is in control of all those groups/divisions, no civilian group stands a chance. They have nukes. Drones. Tanks.

I mean, can we be serious here??

Heller did not overturn anything. It AFFIRMED the longstanding view that the Second Amendment applies to individuals. There has never been a ruling on this topic by the Supreme Court precisely because the right was explicit to most people with a functioning frontal lobe. not until the outright handgun bans in D.C. and Chicago did idiots take it upon themselves to challenge enumerated Constitutional rights. I really wish more people were educated on the Second Amendment, but most people are willfully ignorant of many things.

A Coroner on the witness stand in a murder case was asked how he knew the victim was dead by the defense He replied that the body was on my table and had shown no signs of life. The defense asked him "Does that mean you are sure he was dead?" Reply "Yes" the defense" couldn't you be wrong about that " "No I am a trained Coroner his brain was in a jar" Defense" Could he not still be alive without a brain?" answer I suppose he could be practicing law somewhere " The point is that half the lawyers who go to Court are wrong. This question is for the Congress and the President to design legislation that will stand Constitutional muster. Scalia is a wingnut that also gave full rights and personhood to the pieces of paper that form Corporations.

>> Scalia is a wingnut that also gave full rights and personhood to the pieces of paper that form Corporations. <<

Dan "Golden Age" Grant strikes again, misses as usual. The majority's opinion in Citizens United was written by Kennedy, not Scalia. Now wipe foam off your mouth and get your foot out of it: you've managed to make a fool out of yourself yet again.

As i have said before...no, it isn't that easy or that fast, especially when there is adrenaline involved. Ejecting the empty magazine, taking the full one out of the holder on your belt, inserting it firmly into the weapon, chambering the first round. etc.

The difference is the 5-10 seconds it takes, that may allow an officer to take down the shooter. Or a victim to escape.

Imagine yourself in the crosshairs and then count...one-thousand-and-one, one-thousand-and-two...

I would disagree. Sure, when you are calm, standing at the range, you can do it pretty fast. If you're psychotic, on the move, I doubt they are that efficient. It would give someone the 5+ seconds they need to close the distance and tackle him or get away. Incidentally, 20 round clips are already banned in NJ.

I've shot a gun. Here's what I've read: As soon as the shooter heard the police storming in, he killed himself.

If he was only allowed 5-round clips, he would have had to reload at least 4 times (but really, way more as we know he put 3 - 11 bullets in each victim).

He may have only killed 18. Or 15.

Maybe you don't think that matters. But ask the parents of the last few kids who were killed if it did. They would probably disagree with your assessment.

ha ha! talking about mixing unrelated issues. note how you cannot debate the issues---you can only fall back on tired tea bagger tropes.

you don't have a compelling need for assault weapons and you know it.

Within days of the Newtown massacre you have the nerve to compare the regulation of ammunition designed to kill and maim humans and supplied in a way to maximize the number of humans affected... to limiting the size of sodas in NYC?

Arbetto, FOAD. If you need to rant somewhere, write on your toilet wall. Using sexual slurs is not acceptable on this board.

S.G., please spare me the emotion and the outrageous outrage. Both bans are cases of a government-empowered tyrant pressing his will on his subjects regarding the issue that he perceives as beneficial for them. At least with Bloomberg, we can assume that he legislated the ban for benevolent, if possibly misguided, reason. With Obama, I wouldn't be so sure - the guy is measuring for the crown.

Arbetto you still haven't provided a compelling argument for a NEED to ban "assault weapons". The Virginia Tech lunatic killed 32 people and it was with a handgun, not an assault rifle. The Gab Gifford shooting took place with a handgun, not an assault rifle. You can walk down the street concealing a handgun in your pants, but not an Assault Rifle. Please be articulate in telling us why there is a NEED to ban assault rifles when almost all gun related violence is caused by handguns.

Yes it did, but fat people are lazy so it solves the issue.

"Why does it all of a sudden have to be extreme measures like banning all guns? What ever happened to responsible ownership of them?"

Right... but how do you control that?

Again, no one, no one, is suggesting banning all guns. It wouldn't have a chance of becoming a law in any state, let alone the federal government. Why does the idea of banning the sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines frighten people? We're not even talking about, making current ones owned by citizens illegal. Your freedom is not being threatened, we're trying to enhance our safety.

"Why does it all of a sudden have to be extreme measures like banning all guns?"

---it's not sudden, and no one is seriously talking about "banning all guns", you paranoid freak. but what is the compelling argument for allowing assault weapons on the streets legally?

Prentiss, the safest place on Earth is jail. Just hand over the keys.

"Caldwell Resident
9:09 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
All guns need to be banned. There is no reason in modern society for any citizen that is not in Law enforcement to own a gun. The right to bear arms was created in a time of frontier, when the average family needed weapons for protection and hunting. This Amendment needs to changed for the protection of people.
A ban on magazines of more than ten bullets magazine is not enough."..... yes you are right... no one on this thread mentioned anything about banning all guns

Actually no, the airplanes and collapsing buidlings was what killed all of those people, not the utility knives.

No. The answer was to more strongly regulate utility knives such that they are no longer allowed on planes.

I tend to agree, but no parent and wants to send their kid to one of those places and who would willingly check in? You want to encourage people to get help and I don't think it's the right way to do it. Increase the access to treatment from a psych professional and stop allowing physicians to prescribe anti-depressants without a talk therapy program.

Susan, it seems that the Newtown shooter's mom shared the same sentiment. THAT worked out well.

Steve, it seems to me that very few people are talking about getting rid of guns. We're talking about better regulating them.

Cars don't kill people, drunks using cars do. So MADD took up the cause and fought like hell for better awareness, regulations, criminal law and law enforcement in the area of drunk driving. They didn't ban cars - they regulated their use. And drunk driving deaths have plummeted as a result.

It's not an all or nothing issue.

I agree 100% that mental health needs to be addressed in tandem with gun regulation. Absolutely. Our mental health services are a joke.

That said, let's be clear about something... Not all of the shooters have been severely mentally deranged. Some have - I'm talking, they hear voices, think they're the Joker, totally whack-job nuts. Not all though. This is a really complex area that deserves attention, no question. But the fact is, if these people had less access to legal guns, we'd have less carnage. (The perps of mass shootings tend to acquire their guns legally - they don't know how to get them any other way - let's be serious.)

I find it hillarious when someone like stewart here start in with political affiliations. How do you know what my political ideology is? Oh yea, conservatives like guns. You're right , we do, and we fight to keep that right. If it wasn't for conservatives, you know, the people who make up most of the military, people like you and me would not have the right to voice our opinions. And another thing, the right to bear arms was written into the constitution not only to give one a means of providing for and protecting themselves and their family from attackers BUT also to keep the government in check should another revolution be needed to return power back to the people. Look into it.

There is a big difference between a regular citizen being equipped with an assault weapon with the aim of defending against a bad guy or a group of bad guys with similar weapons and the police force with assault weapons. What a joke. Do I really need to spell out the difference???

Whats the difference between a police officer and a trained custodian? Are there not armed police in some of our schools? There is no difference. They are people. What if the cop went bad? The fact of the matter is no group can be 100% trusted. There are always going to be incidents. Look at how many police officers take their own lives each year. Compare that to custodian's. who's more trusted now? Just saying. Arm every law abiding citezen. Israel does.

There was someone with a concealed weapon in Tuscon. He came out of the store and saw the man holding a gun. He was ready to pull his gun out and shoot him but thought if he did he might be confused for the gunman and get shot himself. Luckily, he didn't shoot because the man holding the gun was the person that wrestled it away from the shooter.

The Empire State Bldg shooting that killed 2 and injured 9: The killer assassinated one person, during his getaway the NYC police killed him and injured 9. The shooter never fired another shot other than the one to kill the first person.

In Steve's fantasy of 50 ppl in the movies, how are they to know the other 49 shooting aren't part of the attack, especially when they miss their target and shoot innocent ppl?

"Many people say what do you need an assault rifle for with a magazine of 30 rounds? Why do we need guns at all? My answer, because I want one and I want a specific type of protection. Why does anyone need a 500 hp Corvette? Why does anyone need a $2000.00 Louis Vuitton purse? Because you want one! "

I couldn't say it any better! Two thumbs up.

You are saying if there is a mentally impaired relative or family member living with someone who is interested in having a gun, then a process should be in place to make sure the situation is "safe". Fair.

Lets assume for a second a family member of yours has recently developed a mental disorder with aggressive and unpredictable behavior and you currently own some guns. Since your "database" system is not in place yet, what would you do? Do you make independent assessment on the situation yourself without the benefit of a third party opinion or do you want to play safe by getting rid of those guns?

You nailed it. Nothing else needs to be said here.

you indicate that the mom did not properly secure her guns. Actually you do not know anything about what really happened. Probably never will.

If you lock up your car and later realize it is stolen and used illegally, can we assume you did not properly lock up your car?

Isn't that the same logic here?

also, what does altering school building codes have to do with this? do you want firemen get into the building in case there is a fire and front door malfunctions?

what mental health laws will help in this case when the shooter reportedly was paranoid of going into a psychiatric hospital? This is a like a normal person being anxious of going into an elective surgery. There are no laws that can alleviate fear and paranoia.

Although you probably will never know if the guns were properly secured, it is safe to assume that they were not. "Properly Securing" a firearm means the gun is unloaded and not only has a trigger lock/chamber lock (which are supplied with most guns), but is also stored in a locked location (whether it be a locked cabinet or a gun safe). If the mother was aware that her son had enough mental issues that he couldn't be left home alone and he still had access to these guns, you can assume that they were not properly secured. No kid is going to crack a gun safe, and if he was provided with the code, responsibility falls on the mother.

BRER if anyone other than the owner can access those guns they are not secure, end of story. If the key to the safe is stolen that doesn't change that as a fact.

Brer, Any decent gun safe is either a combination or Bio-metric. I have both types as stated on the other thread.

This falls on the irresponsibily of Nancy Lanza. She knew her son was unstable for many years and records have verified this already. Nancy kept guns in the house with a mentally disturbed son (her choice, I wouldn't as already stated to you) mistake # 1, Nancy's son accessed her own firearm and shot her with it! Thus unsecured guns, no if, ands or buts. If they were in safe, she provided the code or key to him. Mistake # 2, It is also documented that Nancy Lanza took Adam to the range and allowed/taught him how fire these guns. (She knew his mental state, and that the state would never issue him a Firearms ID card) mistake #3. Nancy's poor choices allowed this to happen.

Agreed. That's why high count clips have to go.

Yeah how BRER, did he read her mind after she memorized the combo or did she write it down somewhere and he found it, or did she give him the combo? Minus the vulcan mind reading, it still shows and responsibility flaw!

My point is that it is common sense even responsible individuals like you can make mistakes. On a daily basis, we make mistakes deciding things we can do well and then realize later we actually cannot handle as well as we have previously thought.

That's not the point Thirty Four! It was my comparison to the individual wants and needs. It's not comparing assault weapons to LV bags or vehicles. What you think I need or want is your opinion. If I think you don't need a LV bag, do I have a leg to stand on. Of course not. Again it's not comparing anything. Please read and not assume!

Of course people don't understand what it is like living with a person who has a mental illness. A responsible parent should know that the family member needs the required help. Failing to do so results in Newtown! So you are suggesting because of the selfishness and self absorbed pain that a mother feels warrants not getting the required help?
Aggressive video games? We have been down this road before and it means nothing. My child has and currently still does play those type of games. It's not the video games or movies. There is something wrong with the individual!

You really should not be that paranoid that bad elements will come after you with M79 fire power. Consider switching your line of work and be happy with automatic weapons:)

So you decide what is relevant for us to discuss? Name them then.

Your bottom line that ALL issues which result in any tragedy are ultimately the result of some act of irresponsibility is laughably inadequate. Many people are tragically affected by Sandy. Who is irresponsible about a hurricane???

No you don't if what you are saying is not factual and in fact what you are saying is in fact not factual.

Not that I have to explain myself to anyone, or lower myself to a person like you, but I have and currently do more than you will ever do in your entire lifetime for this country. You have no idea who I am and just made the most ignorant comment in this posting. You are obviously part of the problems we have in this country. Lastly, I would never resort to childish name calling as I hide behind the Internet. You call yourself a parent, please grow up and set a good example for your children.

Keep going with your unjust comments! I never said that or believe that!

I have no idea what you are talking about. M justice was being extremely insensitive to parents with mental illness children and calling them irresponsible without any facts to support his nonsense. I am not ashamed to tell M justice exactly what I think. In fact, you should be ashamed to make a very vague post about nothing in support of M justice. Shame!

BRER no one has said that this CT mom was irresponsible in seeking psychological intervention for her son. What is being said is that she was irresponsible with everyone else's safety knowing he had explosive uncontrollable tendencies and she still chose to leave her arsenal in a place which was assessable to him. Furthermore, by definition insensitive means "feeling no concern for others' feelings". The content in M.Justicel's posts indicate nothing but concern for others. Seems to me your name calling and criticizing others opinions is insensitive.

Not bragging about who I am! Just responding to your ignorant post earlier. Your rants don't bother me one bit, I realize you are part of the devastating problem we have in this country. I hope you can someday realize that you are one of the people that need psychological assistance.

I'm not an important person just someone posting possible ideas. Verify who I am, who are you? I have no reason to lie about who I am or hide behind the Internet like you are doing. Also I have a grown child in college so your idea that I'm sitting home playing video games is ridiculous just like the rest of your comments!

Your level of comprehension is absurdly low. I was responding to a post where the poster was saying any tragedy is caused by someone being irresponsible, thus i quipped: who is responsible for the tragedy brought about by Sandy...

Perhaps this stuff is too deep for ya, M. Go eat some lunch,,,your sugar may be too low.

jim, your point is well taken on delaying entry. Perhaps if the glass in bullet proof in this case, he would have a harder time gaining entry.

I am not against gun ownership even though I am against shooting innocent live forms. But I think it must be much more heavily legislated to screen out bad or unstable elements. People who own illegal guns must face much harsher sentences.

Hi Jim - I was thinking the same thing this past week. Many schools have the "buzz in" security feature. But I was thinking back to my old military days when we had the secured entry into the AAA or weapons storage area - you walk in one gate and then that gate is locked behind you. Then you exchange your badge with the security police behind the bulletproof glass and then and only then do they open the second security gate to allow entry.

This is of course an extreme solution, do we really want our children to have to endure this type of security check? Many schools already have armed security and metal detectors. Perhaps just implement this for visitors to the school? It sure would have stopped this incident from happening (well assuming the nut-job did not go through a window at that point) but you get my meaning.

Bottom line is we need intelligent solutions. We cannot ever eliminate all evil in the world. Thinking that banning 30 round mags or whatever else is being bandied about will stop gun violence is silly. But, as with most knee-jerk reactions from the politicians in this country (and their useful idiots), it will make them "feel" good that they are "making a difference" and thus they can pat themselves on the back and sleep easier at night.

Wow BRER, you just don't stop! You can't compare a natural disaster to this tragedy. Are you feeling OK. Again, your ludicrous comparisons about video games fall on deaf ears. Let us work toward a solution and stop trying to reinvent the wheel. If you don't want your kids to play video games or watch certain shows, don't buy them and turn it off. It can't be any easier.

Ed be prepared for BRER! They are typing right now about to bash you. Nice post!

Terrible post, so loosely sewn together. If I were a pro-gun person, I would have be ashamed for this sophomoric effort. I have a hard time believing anyone reading this post will actually go tell Christie. Perhaps M justice will do that, but he is out there:)

Perhaps you are clueless and were clueless when you pronounced something that has M justice severely confused, lol

A love of weapons is a sign of denied sexuality and emotional immaturity:)

so it is not off topic after all? :) i love the way you generalize. If i don't know better, I'd be tempted to believe you have point! :)

calling someone irresponsible just because you are entitle to is fine with me, just not that adult like, as you aspired :)

There is a big big difference between mom letting the kid have access to guns willingly vs he somehow figured out the lock combo. If you simply broad stroke both as irresponsible, as equal, then I see why you adore your M justice, haha.

Symptoms: no coherent logic, inability to punctuate, excessive use of smilies, multiple references to emotions. Diagnosis: 17-19 year old troll, basement room, no stable income, no life outside Internet, hairy palms.

no problem with me how your opine. Thanks for investing the time:)

When you run out of sensible arguments, suddenly, things become incoherent gibberish:) Sure, that is convenient.

she is dead not because of home invasion but because of his son's action.
Yes, for most folks who are not that trained with expert use of weapons, yes, calling 911 is the best bet. use the money instead to develop a safe room or something.

what if a lady homeowner decides to defend herself with a gun and there are intruders hiding in 3 locations all aiming at her. Originally they are for money, now they may really shoot her. Don't you see the absurdity in this type of amateur do gooders???

Case in point.

Max, whomever BRER is there's no descriptive. Completely lost in a bottle as far as I'm concerned. It is amazing how many people see the same things and they still don't get it. Then they attack your Russian heritage. Sad!

You know, Concerned was giving you high marks and scolded me for calling you names, but it seems that his validation on you has inspired you to be all you want to be by going way above calling names. But it is ok because Concerned will just brush it off . I don't drink and I don't take medications as you insinuated. I have a lot of free time because I have worked very hard in my youth and sold my companies a while ago. Now I spend time doing charity works all over and bash pompous asses like you:)

And I don't watch much TV either. Boring.

And stop calling yourself a peasant. That hurts good farmers :)

BRER if M. Justicel gives a bad name to the good farmers of the world, you give well educated people a bad name by masquerading as someone who has any knowledge when clearly the knowledge you possess is minimal at best. Dont you have some charity work you should be getting back to?

You can twist things around to sound good to justify your lack of logic and integrity. One key element is a debate is honesty. If you said something incorrectly, own up to it.

For the record, I did not call you anything like you calling me a pompous ass! It seems when people have lost, they tend to do exactly what you just did resort to childish name calling. You need help.

You sold companies? Come on. Always easy to stretch the truth when you can hide behind anonymity. Let me guess, you look like a super model to? Why don't you get a better hobby than this. Read others posts, you have no supporters. And I just commented on Max's post, not trying to create an army against you.

>> The shooter's mother had guns. It didn't protect her, did it? <<

That's because she was not allowed to carry inside the school.

Enjoy: http://totalfratmove.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/f138e15c912cde86b522c328cab0a26551540188.jpeg

It might have if she had been carrying one on her and then none of those people would have died.

Rich, maybe she was. Maybe she thought carrying a gun would protect her from her son?
Bottom line, owning a gun didn't protect her. It sealed her fate.

Mrs. Lanza was asleep in bed when her son shot her.

I know quite a few law abiding people that sleep with a gun under their bed or next to them while they sleep. Owning a gun did not keep the shooter's mother safe.

Stop making sense! :)

Jersey-- Mrs. Lanza had it coming. If you have a mentally unstable son with full access to your house and your guns aren't hidden and trigger-locked, you deserve the fate that eventually befalls you. Too bad some innocent children paid for her mistake with their lives. I might be a gun aficionado but I believe (and teach my children) that freedoms & responsibilities go hand in hand.

Oh, c'mon Jersey, lighten up and smell some coffee. Of course it's a joke. Line breaks in the article are a hint. It's still funny, though. :)

I don't want to live in your version of a totalitarian dictatorship. Move to North Korean if you want live in that kind of brutal, controlled society.

A round of welcoming applause to our local hammer-and-sickle propagandist, Mr. Dan Grant. What are your today's talking points on what "sane gun control" is, Dan?

If she would have drowned the kid like an unwanted kitten 20 years ago, those kids and adults would be alive as well. How's that for logic Dan? Should have, could have, wish she had.

Wow, Look at that more posts to prove I am right. Clyde, Max, Tony thanks for competing but Edward still has the lead, although Max is always in the running.

Dan's moderate suggestion for gun control compels drama queens Clyde and Maxim to scream "totalitarian dictatorship" and "hammer-and-sickle propagandist" prompts one to wonder about their capacity for self-control, not to mention simple civility.

So Dan, Mr. Democratic Politician, Sunday School Teacher, Church Elder, blah, blah, bla. You should be outraged that this little punk sat and played video games like Call of Duty and Halo that actually taught him how to kill people in closed quarters, in buildings and desensitized him to seeing bodies blown apart as a part of these games. I have news for you, they don’t teach that at target ranges, most do not even allow targets that take a human form. Hundreds of children are killed every day by abortion, sucked to pieces while still alive by “doctors”.You affiliate with a party that supports abortion under the guise of “women’s health” and then have the audacity to attack law abiding, familyloving, taxpaying, gun owning citizens. Any gun owner that I know would have loved the opportunity to take this kid out before he walked into that school, while people like you, elect two faced politicians that shed crocodile tears at this tragedy, then allow children to be murdered by the hundreds every day. He was a sick bastard and in case you missed it, he stole those guns and blew mom's head off. Take your liberal bias and stick it. There are over 250 million guns in America, and thanks to anti gun rhetoric like yours, people that had no interest in owning weapons like this, are buying them in droves, as a matter of fact, they are sold out everywhere and no laws that are passed will ever be able to get those guns back. Pat yourself on the back Dan, great job.

Edward, That is about the dumbest statement on here. Are you saying those weapons didn't come from her? It is absolute fact that his access to that kind of firepower was because she had it. No weapons of that type in her home and those kids and their teachers would be alive. End of story. You and Max should get together for coffee You would have much to agree on, I'm sure. PS Max, based on your previous posts and your gun ownership, if I were law enforcement I would take your's away right now.

>> PS Max, based on your previous posts and your gun ownership, if I were law enforcement I would take your's away right now. <<

Communist fanatics are hell bent on confiscating private property from law-abiding citizens, what else is new? That's *exactly* why I prefer to keep my guns, Dan - to give you a proper welcome when you try.

Not Stupid Dan. You are just too stupid to put it together! Do you need me to connect the dots for you?

jim how bout this fact; America more guns than any other country and more gun related murders than any other country..
if your the theory is 'more guns= more saftey" than America quickly proves that theory wrong.
More guns = more gun related deaths, basic math

>> More guns = more gun related deaths, basic math <<

More minorities = more gun related deaths. They just can't keep their guns (and other parts) holstered. Check European statistics when they reach 34% of minority population.

are russians a minority?

>> are russians a minority? <<

Would you please elaborate how is that related to the issue being discussed?

umm look at your above comment
"More minorities = more gun related deaths. They just can't keep their guns (and other parts) holstered."
so i was wondering if russians are considered minorities in the US, and if you hold them responsible for crimes.

Russians probably get their share of violent crime in NYC, but they are not considered minorities in the US. People of limited mental capacity - not to point a finger - often assume that only Russians live in Russia. So if there was an implied personal insult there, it's kinda lost on me.

The US murder rate is down too...it's unrelated to gun control.

No, Jersey, and I really have no idea who Jim is. I just don't enjoy seeing people insulted for making sense, and that's what you did. Moreover, a few hours ago you made a fool of yourself by throwing the same insult my way. Don't do it, please.

Jersey, the difference is that Mr. Dan Grant hails from my town, I know him personally, and he actually *is* a hammer-and-sickle propagandist. For a lawyer, you are awfully quick to jump to conclusions.

Maxim - You mean this Dan Grant?

http://ourmontville.typepad.com/montville_election_2007/

I love the part where he files a complaint with NJElec, and ends up getting fined by NJElec himself!!!! Dan should never own a gun, as he would certainly shoot off his own foot.

Max does not know me personally because although I have debated in front of him he has hidden like the mouse he is and never even asked so much as a question. He is nothing but a key board cowboy and loses his nerve face to face. The other guy posted a political diatribe made up by a developer who was unhappy. Happens in politics all the time . Just not the kind of thing I would do.

Yeah, this one. My town elected him a mayor in a bout of temporary insanity, but later people returned to their senses and promptly disposed of the garbage. The guy's a used car salesman now living off community funds. He's such a perfect basket case, I hope he lives long enough to serve as a political scarecrow for another generation.

Are you still in support of the immediate ban on firearms while the memory of the CT event is still in the forefront...even though you acknowledge that most facts remain unknown?

Brer, We may not know how and why he accessed his mothers gun, however we know he accessed them prior to shooting her. He did not have her finger print to access a Bio-metric safe, if the combination was in her head and there only (he would need to be a mind reader). Thus Nancy either didn't secure her gun (illegal) or provided her mentally unstable son the key or combination.
I do not believe that shooting should be provided as an outlet for a mentally unstable person, of course this is the reason states like NJ and CT conduct mental background screening before allowing someone to purchase a gun. By taking Adam to the range and allowing/teaching him to shoot, Nancy made a choice that she knew better then the Lawmakers and doctors and took Adam to the range. Adam may not have been a monster from day one, but his issues were documented by Nancy. Adam would not have been permitted into a range until he was 16 (with his mother), his problems were well known and documented by then. Again this goes back to Nancy being irresponsible. I do not think my guns are secured, I know they are. They have trigger locks and are in safes requiring my finger print or a combination that only I know.

Edward you don't know anything. First, I never said anything about taking your guns. I said it to Max because I don't believe he is normal. Second the form that I was fined for is a filing that says you will not spend any money and was for a primary in which I spent no money. No judge required me to do anything. It was a settlement that contained no word of apology in it. If I am not mistaken that puts me in the same league with our esteemed Governor.

>> No judge required me to do anything. It was a settlement that contained no word of apology in it. If I am not mistaken that puts me in the same league with our esteemed Governor. <<

Yeah, so much like Gov. Jon Corzine. Donate to Ogabe's campaign, get out of jail scot-free.

Max, You didn't move to Montville until I was out of office so you know nothing about the 15 years I was in office. I was never Mayor because Montville doesn't elect a Mayor. Finally the Governor is no longer Corzine and I was refering to our current Governor who was also sued for the same reason. Politics is a blood sport.

>> Max, You didn't move to Montville until I was out of office so you know nothing about the 15 years I was in office. I was never Mayor because Montville doesn't elect a Mayor. <<

And I certainly wouldn't consider moving into a town that have a Communist lunatic elected into the TC. Fortunately, Montville residents came to their senses just when I needed a house. Oh, and since your golden age shows so obviously, I'll remind you: Montville does have a Mayor, we just don't elect him (or her) by direct voting.

Until America can neutralize the very real deadly threats of the insane and drug addicts, I’ll continue to have firearms in my house and I’ll continue to push to make NJ a MUST issue state!

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Be mindful, when you begin the process of prescribing what is right for others, you open the door for them to do the same to you (this nation was once based on the premise of freedom..right up to the tip of someone else's nose...I kinda like that premise). Have you ever had a bad encounter with someone legally possessing a semi auto?

The trouble lies with the fact that the majority don’t create situations with an open invitation to get shot. People who arbitrarily perform acts of terror, whether in the private or public sectors are irrational to begin with. A nonchalant attitude with a wait and watch mentality only represents ones inability to react with a swift appropriate response. The kind of response warranted in a life or death situation in order to protect yourself and your family. I’m sure the masses would agree that no one wants to be involved in a situation where deadly force is the only remaining avenue to save oneself. But in this day and age, that need is becoming more prevalent than anyone is really comfortable with. Certainly and only to be used as a last resort. Preparedness is truly the key to self preservation.

>> 27 people are dead for God's sake. Can't you debate in a respectful manner for, at the very least, for these people and their memory. <<

Ms. Bohr, I don't think the deceased have Internet access in Heaven. Even if they do, they are very unlikely to bother reading the Patch. Thanks to our President's efforts, the country is so polarized these days that respect for the other side comes in extremely short supply. Let it better be Internet spats than blows and bullets.

Mrs. Bohr, I totally agree that these posts do turn in a direction which goes off topic and outright disrespectful to one another. Of course everyone is entitled to their individual opinion. Unfortunately, numerous things said here are not opinions. A distortion of fact is not an opinion. It is a lack of education on the subject. Do we all just allow everyone to be uneducated on the subject or do we try and help one another better understand? I don't claim to know everything but I know what I do for a living, and this tragic incident affects what I do in my daily job. I'm not going to allow anyone to regurgitate things just because they have a "right" to their opinion nor do I want anyone telling me what I can and cannot own as a responsible adult gun owner. Their opinion about gun control they can have all day long: more stringent background checks, more access to mental health records, less bullets in a magazine. I totally agree they can speak their individual opinions. My major problem is they want to dictate and control what I purchase and own. That opinion is wrong!

Respect? What is that Stacie? People should respect others wealth, unless they have too much of it? People should respect other peoples legally owned belongings, so long as they aren't guns? People should respect what I do on my private property, unless I want to sell it to a developer. People should respect my religion, unless I bring it out in public.

Respect? We don't live in a respectful country any longer Stacie!

I do not disagree with you. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!

Totally agree.

"Things like this don't happen in Texas", don't they? The Luby's massacre wasn't that long ago, and then there's Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald...

For example, of all home invasions, what percent to home with owners with or without firearm vs with? similarly to above, that invaders actually carry firearms?

of the invaders carrying firearm, what percent meant for killing the home owner vs for money vs for other purposes...

of those 3 types, what are the outcomes invaders with gun /without gun against owners with gun / without gun...

Some simple data will give people a much better idea of the probabilities...

For me, this article states it well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220293/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder-gun-hiding-closet.html

By no means am I suggesting that my idea of being prepared should be everyone’s approach. Statistics can’t predict where the next devastating, inexplicable, heinous act will occur. They only verify the likelihood of such acts. I absolutely, vehemently, and passionately have unwavering faith in law enforcement to protect my loved ones. I have no greater respect than for those who sacrifice their safety and wellbeing on a daily basis for mine. However, there can be instances where time is of the essence. I pray that I am never looking eye to eye with the evil among us, but should it occur I will at least do my best to protect my most valuable assets; those being my loved ones. Make no mistake; this kind of protection is a “no other options thought process” under the most extreme circumstances. I don’t spend my days thinking “today I am going to shoot to kill” I spend my days thinking “I hope I’m never faced with a situation where I have to”. Let me reiterate, we are talking about extreme circumstances. However, I appreciate and respect your stance.

Unless you can catch bullets, you can toss all you want and probably do. Zimmerman will safely live out his days in Texas, when he is acquitted.

Hrhppg, always remember there's always someone tougher than you!

And to clarify something about Zimmerman, Florida law allowed him to do what he did!

Raising the fines and penalties on DWI to in excess of $5,000-$10,000 sure slowed down the DWI's. I know no one who will drink and drive anymore, On one of the largest gun sales web sites, (Buds Guns) this morning, all the tactical weapons under $3,000 are all sold out, all the $10,000-$12,000 weapons all in stock. You can absolutely price people out of this market. I shoot competitively with pistols, the rules are 5 rounds at a time. Most people that target shoot do not use guns that hold more than 10 rounds and if you walked on a range anywhere in NJ with a 30 round magazine, you would be arrested immediately, as most of the time there is a cop either working or shooting there. I understand how passionate people are about this, there are extremes on both sides, but when the government threatens to take things away, people horde them. Before the presidential election one of the business webs sites ran a story about what Cabella’s and some of the other stores were going to load up on for the Holidays, Guns if Obama got in and apparel and skis if Romney got in. That tells you how divided this country is. Any gun owner I know is disgusted by what happened in CT and blame the mother and the video games, but get very defensive when the anti-gun rhetoric becomes irrational. The reality is that there are some may of these weapons and magazines out there, that any laws that are put into place will not make a difference, If someone wants to do this again, they will.

Well put Ed. Someone else who thinks on this post!

anthony years ago over 50% of americans owned guns. now its about 30%... more people arent buying guns, just the same insecure rednecks and gansters are buying more guns.
so when you say they are selling out of guns its not because more people are buying guns, its just the idiots think they wont be able to legally buy assualt weapons anymore. and if they dont have their assualt weapons how are they going to show off to there friends and look like a tough guys to make up for their insecurities.
most gun owners are like guys who buy fancy cars.... they are packing because they arent "packing" if you know what i mean

Compensation, people like you remind me of a quote in a movie that glorifies violence and really speaks to the nonsense you spew.

Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. .45 here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous a** in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that sh*t ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men.

Don’t have a gun, that is your right, my right is to have one. People that don’t own guns, typically don’t have the “balls” to use one anyway when it counts, if you know what I mean.

ROH, who is responsible for gun owner irresponsibility? The gun owner! Who else would it be? How many cases of accidental shootings because the gun owner was irresponsible. What happens to the gun owner? They are arrested! Liability insurance for who? The victim of the tragedy, or the irresponsible gun owner who now must live their life with the unmeasurable guilt of knowing a child has died because they didn't secure their firearm properly.

Yes, lets give all those teachers guns. That will stop these maniacs.

And while we are at it lets let the kids carry guns two. A killer will surely think twice about walking into a room if he thinks that a barrage of gunfire will come at him from the desks.

>> And while we are at it lets let the kids carry guns two. A killer will surely think twice about walking into a room if he thinks that a barrage of gunfire will come at him from the desks. <<

The idea isn't as stupid as it's supposed to sound. Kids who can legally carry should be allowed to - conditional on background check and shrink's permission. We sure had no problem with 18 year old kids carrying weapons in Vietnam, did we?

Not sure if you know, right now in Basking Ridge, there are already increased police presence during school, which is a good thing. More initiative on this topic is a better thing. Whether it is a volunteer based or fed supported eventually is no big deal to me. Even if I have to share with some increased tax is fine with me.

Smart gun idea is smart if guns around us are all registered legally which is not the case. It helps, but having better defense at the school is much better.

Jersey, let me dump some news on you: Israel already has armed guards in every school, every mall, and pretty much every other place where people mix and congregate. Is it the best solution? In Israel, it probably is, because the number of insane degenerates with access to weapons and explosives there is north of a million. Yesterday, I saw a cop assigned to monitor my daughter's school. The only thing he looked capable of stopping is a donut, and police overtime pay is notoriously generous.

I say, allow teachers to protect themselves and their students. A teacher about to go so irreversibly bonkers as to shoot his or her charges is awfully easy to spot in advance, and it doesn't happen too often. Failing that, fire one random administrator per school and spend his or her salary to hire a combat vet as a guard, with full union pay.

Max you are again 100% correct and spot on. The police officer comment was just shy of hilarious but unfortunately tragically true. Many are retired on the job!

The NRA's (Not Responsible for Anything ), is just rying to muddy the waters with these promises of programs They don't want anyone messing with their weapons of war no matter who gets killed. They have two many Congresspeople, both Democratic and Republican in their pocket or afraid of them. No one is saying take away hunting weapons or hand guns. Let's just get rid of the war weapons and unlimited access to ammunition. Person to person sales, no sales over the internet at all. There are lots of reasonable things we can do first.

In the 20th century, Communist regimes and their leaders killed 3 times more people than all wars combined. We have to ban Communists, starting with Obama and his worshipers, not guns that keep them at bay.

As for you Dan, keep vomiting forth your propaganda. We need comic relief.

Jersey, a good start would be to allow teachers who are capable of carrying, and willing to do so, to actually carry a weapon inside the school. In NJ, it would be already a monstrous improvement.

Now, count administrators in every NJ school. Hint: you will likely run out of fingers. Sack half of those worthless bodies, increase others' pay by 20% to compensate for extra workload, spend the rest to hire a combat vet as a guard (with good pay and bennies) and do some re-engineering of school entries. Short of a nuke, kids will be safe, and the taxes will actually go down. Too bad, so will NJEA contributions to Dems, so it won't ever happen.

>> You still can't argue that there is a guarantee that the guard wins the firefight. <<

No solution will ever give you a *guarantee* - that is God's territory - so we're talking probabilities. Whether guards, reinforced entries, or CCW teachers is a better one, I do not know. What I do know, however, is that ban equals punishing innocent people for a sin of few. Did you call for mass execution of Muslims after 9/11? Will you argue for mass castrations (starting with your beloved husband, of course) after some particularly gruesome and abhorrent rape case hits the media?

"Did you call for mass execution of Muslims after 9/11?"
No but the patriot act was passed which was most anti-constitutional law that was ever passed. however most americans realized we must give up some of our "freedom" to prevent anything like 9/11 from happening ever again. We havent had an attack like 9/11 since which could be parlty because of the patriot act.
Just like this situation most logical thinking americans realize we may have to sacrifice some of our freedom related to assualt weapons to make it harder for people like lanza and holmes to obtain them.

(0) More control by government results in less freedoms for the population. It is an extremely slippery slope to sacrifice any of our rights due to fear, lack of knowledge, or even distaste. As good intentioned as some change may be, different interpretations of expressed changes in law can cause a ripple effect. Resulting in the loss of more than was originally intended. it's a scary proposition.

I'll repeat the quote for (0), as well as those people who believe that they can buy safety buy sacrificing someone else's freedom:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamen Franklin

Maxim, based in your quote from Franklin, I assume you are against the Patriot Act...

>> Maxim, based in your quote from Franklin, I assume you are against the Patriot Act... <<

Of course I am. You're not much of a lawyer if you failed to notice me say a few times that I'm not a Republican. :)

I did not know that. That completely shoots a hole in the arguments all these people are making about putting armed mall cops in our schools.

>> Just wondering - you guys do know that there was an armed sheriff's deputy on duty when Columbine went down, right? There was a brief exchange of gunfire. <<

>> That completely shoots a hole in the arguments all these people are making about putting armed mall cops in our schools. <<

No it does not. No measure guarantees 100% safety, except to jail the kids into a padded room and throw away the key. In Columbine, the deputy failed. In Newtown, the gun-free zone failed. Some things are designed to work but occasionally don't.

Yet this god lifted not one all-powerful finger when four little girls were murdered in the 16th Street Baptist Church; quite the capricious deity you've got there.

Edward, where was God in the Catholic church when all those altar boys were being raped and molested? Just wondering, since you seem to think His presence would have stopped the massacre. Pretty sure "He" hangs out in His churches.

>> There is no reason to argue because closed minds don't listen. <<

Try checking the mirror for projections, Karen.

>> If your so worried about the US government that you need weapons of military grade please do us all a favor and go to another country. <<

We'll do much better than that, Karen. We will deport you and other moonbats who have a problem with the Constitution. Cuba sounds just the place. I heard Raoul Castro has a thing for wrinkled liberal crones, so we'll trade you for those Cubans who want freedom.

ditto

>> Maxim wants to deport people based on his problem with our interpretation of the Constitution. Does it get anymore fascist? <<

You're as much a lawyer as I'm a ballerina; no office would keep someone that dense and unobservant. Hasn't Karen suggested to deport *me* first?

Jersey, using legalese does not make you a lawyer. ;)

>> You are out-gunned, out-bombed, out-tanked. <<

You and what army? The U.S. Army is sworn to protect the Constitution, not the squatter in the White House. Suggesting that it will shoot at American citizens takes insanity to the whole new levels. As for police, they love themselves some rifles and sidearms as much as the other guy.

Max, Maybe it is because you come from somewhere else that you don't understand America or its history or our Constitution. There is no squatter in the Whitehouse. There is however a duly elected President relective of the "Will of the Majority". You don't like who is elected then maybe you need to go somewhere to form your own "More Perfect Union" You have obviously not yet learned about the times in America that the Military was used against Americans but that in no way would allow a group of citizens be a match against our own military. You also don't seem to be aware of the role of the Commander in Chief of our military. They are also commanded to obey his orders.

>> There is no squatter in the Whitehouse. <<

Riiiight you're Dan, he's not there. He's on Hawaii now, taking a vacay with Jabba the Hutt on our dime. How could I forget?

>> You also don't seem to be aware of the role of the Commander in Chief of our military. They are also commanded to obey his orders. <<

Obey his *legal* orders, you meant? I wanna see Obama order an Army unit to shoot into a civilian crowd. He'll promptly get acquainted with hemp if he tries, and not of a smoking variety. Even Egyptian army refused the order, and we're not Egypt yet.

Today 48 million teenagers will watch violent movies, play violent video games and they will murder nobody. They see it for what it is - entertainment.

When Superman TV show played in the 1950's there were a few kids who tied a towel around their neck and jumped off the roof pretending to fly. We didn't take the TV show off the air because a few kids did something dumb.

Claiming to be a lawyer while you aren't brands you a liar. Par for the course, you being a liberal and all. Also, it carries a criminal penalty - you haven't heard of that before, right?

Between you and Dan Grant, you liberals sure cornered the market for all the most respectable professions: a politician, a used car salesman, and a lawyer. We just need a reporter and a prostitute to fill the top five. Do you write for a 'paper perhaps, Jersey? :)

Now, we can continue bickering or we can go back to the topic at hand. Since I'm paid a salary to stay online and there's only so much news to read, I could do either all day.

Jersey, I'm not the first to compare your (alleged) profession with street-walking. Lawyers, in case you failed to notice, are neither liked nor respected, and credited (rightfully, as I subjectively see it) with many ills that plague our society.

Now, if you love your country, you should show respect to its laws, of which the primary is the Constitution. And since you allege professional knowledge of it, please tell me where it gives the government the right to infringe on both 2nd and 4th Amendments by considering a confiscation of my legally-owned and legally-used property. In fact, even licensing the firearms is blatantly unconstitutional, and is only made "legal" because people of this country are cowed into obedience. If my rifle scares you, it's YOUR problem, not MINE. Lobbying the government to violate the Constitution is tantamount to sedition.

Your position that there are two choices, to believe in Edward P. Campbell's god or become a mass murderer, is a chilling example of religious fundamentalism.

Edward, what God are we talking about here ... my God doesn't have 10 rules ... and I have never killed?? Hmm.... this is the problem "lets force the Christian God on everyone"

Common sense for extremists you mean. It was a prime example of how absurd the position of the NRA is.

'Call Me Crazy': Wayne LaPierre

Ad hominem attacks or self-proving statements never result in good legislation because they are seen for what they are. When somebody uses a statement like "common sense gun control" they defeat their own purpose. They might as well say "You are stupid and I am a genius so what you say does not matter." Not a good way to influence anyone to your side and that is what it takes to get good legislation in place.

define "well qualified" you dont have to be well qualified to own one ... just some paper work... you dont even need to know how to safely operate it!! The military who have been well trained to use MILITARY style weapons .. they dont call them civilian style weapons ... there is no sane reason NON military people need military style weapons

I am quoting M. Justicel who used the term "Military style weapon" ... To me this would mean weapons created for the purpose of use by the Military... but thats just me ... Im not sure of M. Justicel

I didnt say I wanted to take away your right ... but will you feel comfortable with your neighbors shooting off "Military style weapons" .. just went out and bought it ... no clue how to use it ... would you feel safe?

it would take more time then I care to spend reading the idiotic rantings (not saying by you) that have went on here.... I grew up around guns .. shot many guns as well ... btw .. you didnt answer my question ... if your untrained neighbor just bought a machine gun ... would you feel safe? they never used a gun before yet they can go purchase one... no clue how to use it safely .. would you feel safe?

Karen, My neighbor could not bring home a machine gun, they are ILLEGAL in all 50 states.

I was being dramatic ... OK an automatic weapon ... you still didnt answer the question

what need is there for a civilian to own a weapon like that ... sure I have freedom of speech too but if I walking around shouting hurtful racial slurs and curses at everyone I think I have abused that right thats not why we have it ... the right to own a gun was a right when there were no automatic weapons ....

What need is there for you or anyone else to voice their opinion? It is called our rights. Let me say this again because you seem to have a hard time understanding. IT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON. By the way, you can walk down the street and spew racial slurs and curses, however i am quite sure there would be consequences. Same as a gun owner breaking any of the thousands of laws of gun ownership.

Thank you for making that completely clear!!

Colorado has no NFA weapons restrictions ...