E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAs Vice President Joe Biden prepares to present sweeping gun control proposals, residents of Newtown are speaking out. Meanwhile, investigators continue to examine what triggered Adam Lanza's rage. NBC's Michael Isikoff reports.
NEWTOWN, Conn. – Police Chief Michael Kehoe has a message for the White House: “Ban assault weapons, restrict those magazines that have so many bullets in them, shore up any loopholes in our criminal background checks,” he said in an exclusive interview with NBC News.
As Vice President Joe Biden prepares to present his gun violence proposals to the White House this week, the residents of Newtown — including first responders and some families of the victims — are speaking out on gun policy for the first time.
Few have a more personal connection to the issue than Kehoe: He was one of the first on the scene at the Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14 after reports came in of a shooting. He says he’s still haunted by flashbacks of what he witnessed when he entered the school from the rear -- the eerie silence in the hallways, the smell of burnt gunpowder and then the bodies of dead children on the floor of the classrooms.
“I was sickened. I was angry,” he said. “It was something I never could have imagined could have happened in any school in Newtown.”
But as a veteran law enforcement officer, what was most striking to Kehoe was that the gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, had heavier firepower than Kehoe and his officers. The police had Glock pistols with 14-round magazines; Lanza had a Bushmaster assault-style rifle, two handguns and multiple 30-round magazines that allowed him to squeeze off an estimated 150 shots.
Although it’s still not clear if Lanza ever fired at responding officers — Kehoe thinks he took his own life when he heard the police sirens — the disproportionate balance in firepower bothers him.
/
Newtown, Conn., Police Chief Michael Kehoe at a news briefing on Jan. 2.
“We never like to think we’re going to be outgunned in any situation we’re dealing with," he said. “We do a good job of securing dynamite in our society. … (Assault rifles) are another form of dynamite. … I think they should ban them.”
Kehoe’s comments come as a new grassroots group — called Sandy Hook Promise — is planning a news conference Monday in which residents of Newtown and some of the victims’ families plan to call for a “national conversation” on gun violence, mental health and school safety. The goal: to prevent “similar tragedies from ever taking place again.”
But there is far from unanimity about what should be done about guns.
Marie-Claude Duytschaever, the grandmother of 6-year-old Noah Pozner, the youngest victim that day, said she, too, wants a ban on assault rifles.
“Noah had the right to go to school safely,” she said. “He had the right to live, to have a job and a normal life. I think that’s more important than to have a gun that can obliterate a whole room in seconds.”
Sandy Hook Promise group will not call for specific gun control measures at Monday’s press conference and a few have expressed concerns that the White House is moving too rapidly with its proposals — and without seeking input from the families of the victims of Newtown.
Vice President Joe Biden will present his task force's gun policy recommendations this week – among them, most likely, to reinstate the assault weapons ban. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.
The national headquarters of the National Shooting Sports Foundation — the trade association and lobbying arm of gun manufacturers — is just down the road from the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Its representatives met with Biden’s task force last week, and this week it will hold its annual SHOT SHOW in Las Vegas, an event at which major gun makers get to exhibit their wares.
The group didn’t respond to requests for comment. But last week it posted this statement on its website: “Semi-automatic firearms are now the most popular type of firearm in America and are used for a wide variety of legitimate sporting purposes, including hunting, small game control, target shooting and personal defense. They should not be banned.”
It is not clear whether Biden will include a ban on assault weapons in the proposals he submits this week. Any effort to ban the rapid-fire rifles in the United States is expected to face tough opposition in Congress.
More from Open Channel:
- 'Zero Dark Thirty,' the CIA and 'enhanced interrogation techniques'
- Exclusive: DEA agents arranged prostitute for Secret Service agent
- Rossen Reports: Metal water bottles can endanger kids
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
They're a-comin' for your guns, cowboys - what'cha gonna do about that, huh?
Not gonna happen.
Keep dreaming you anti-gun nut.
Just remember that it only takes less then a minute for someone to break into your house and kill everyone in it. It can take the police anywhere from 4-10 minutes to get there after you call 911
I like my chances better knowing my guns can save my families life.
it's unlikely an assault weapons ban will get through Congress....
and if there was one already last month, Lanza would have just used the 2 pistols and the shotgun he had with him and would have killed just as many
an assault weapons ban won't solve this problem.... Chicago had about 390 firearm murders last year and none were assault weapons... this is fixing something that isn't broken
Cho killed 32 with 2 pistols, one of those a .22 with 10 round magazines the other a Glock with 15 round magazines. As with most of these mentally ill killers he took his own life when he heard the police break into the school. The 1994 ban on 'assault weapons' did nothing and another ban will do nothing either. Until mental health is addressed in this country there are going to continue to be mass killings!
MSH-1048531
What a distorted perception of gun owners you have. You actually sound like a bully hiding behind his bigger friends.
SOMEONE ELSE POSTED THIS BUT RE-POSTED BECAUSE IT NEEDED TO BE --------------------
We're not trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms, we're only trying to take away certain types of arms that no one has any business with anyway.
We're not trying to take away anyone's right to free speech, we're only trying to take away certain types of speech that no has any business with anyway.
We're not trying to take away anyone's right to religion, we're only trying to take away certain types of religion that no has any business with anyway.
We're not trying to take away anyone's right to a free press, we're only trying to take away certain types of free press that no has any business with anyway.
You know? It sounds really damn weird when you try to make these anti-second amendment arguments apply to the first.
And you know, I don't hear anyone complaining about the subversion and erosion of our 4th amendment rights. Our good ol' government recently renewed the warrant less surveillance act. Where's the outrage?
When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet." -– Lyle Myhr
Well if this guy can't shut some of you gun nuts up..I don't know WHAT ever will. He witnessed something first hand that NONE of you ever will, and he is speaking up. No one is coming to take your stupid guns...it's called banning the ones that are completely hazardous to society, in every way. CHILL THE F OUT.
whiskey eye:
why do stop signs?
i can't believe this fool,he already knows that assault rifles are banned and yet he has to call for a ban? nora, you are right,if "assault weapons" are banned,there will be more handgun shootings(i could do alot more damage with two handguns and 10 magazines then this coward at newton did). and ANNA he's a person that is passive aggressive(no nuts to say something to your face but will do things to you secretly). they want your guns alright( i have none) and the wording will be vague enough,i mean semi-auto assault rifles?, that they will try to get ALL of them. we smart people know that "assault rifles" are already banned,have been since the 30's. those AR15's look SCARY huh my liberal americans?(can't in good coscience call you friends,as you are willing to give up RIGHTS and destroy the constitution because of YOUR FEARS)
@Nora:
If what you say is true, then maybe we need to look at addition gun bans? How about no semi-automatics, period?
People need to realize that creating a myth based perception of security for a school is not the same thing as making schools safe with actual security. The myths I am referring to are the myths of police protection and the myth of a rule based safe place.
How can there really be such a thing as police protection? Police have a response time. If someone is
pointing a gun at you or someone you love, do you really have the luxury of calling 911 and waiting 5, 10, 15 or 20 minutes for police to come through the door? Simply stated, the time required for police to respond is longer than the time required for a nut that has gained access to shoot people. When someone walks into a building and starts shooting, seconds count, and the police are always minutes away.
Another relied upon myth is that a place can be made safe with rules. There are two basic reasons why a rules based safe place is a myth. First, the rules employed to create the rules based safe place never change behavior anyway. More and that later. Second, the rules used to create the myth of a safe place usually remove the necessary means of neutralizing an intruder should the situation require doing so.
The rules based safe place leaves the innocent totally defenseless which is even more dangerous than relying on a myth for security in the first place.
These “safe places” are known to be gun free zones which invite the terrorist, religious fanatic, or suicidal idiot to come there and shoot without fear of having to deal with someone returning fire. This was certainly the case at Virginia Tech, and seems to have been the case at Newtown, CT as well. One can only imagine the different outcome that either school could have had if the security plan in effect had allowed the necessary means of repelling an intruder to be present and on site at the school and in
well trained hands.
The goal in these discussions should be to arrive at a metric of dead students =0. You don’t get to that metric by relying on myths for your security.
As for rules themselves, rules never work anyway for anything. Anyone that thinks otherwise does not understand the basics of rules and penalties. If rules worked, we would not need penalties for breaking the rules. So why is it then, that when someone creates a new rule, they always create a penalty for breaking the new rule? The only logical answer is that rules don’t work, penalties do, at least to some point. Think about that for a moment and you will realize that rules do not, and have not ever changed behavior on any level. Changing behavior is the purview of penalties but there are strings attached to this purview.
If a law that says you cannot drive faster than 65 miles per hour actually worked, no one would ever drive faster than 65 miles per hour and we would not need traffic cops, courts, and fines. So why then does there exist the need for a penalty for breaking this rule? Because people drive faster than 65 miles per
hour, because a rule changes absolutely nothing. Never did. Never will.
The rule has no value as far as changing behavior is concerned. It is, and always has been the fear of the penalty for breaking the rule that changes behavior, and never the rule itself. And the fear of the penalty is based in the severity of the penalty, the likelihood of it being enforced, and whether or not the penalty is relevant to the rule breaker.
This is why traffic slows when it sees a state trooper on the side of the road. In this scenario, the fear of penalty enforcement is heightened because enforcement is sitting in plain view on the side of the road and the penalty is still relevant. No police around? People speed. It’s the way we are wired.
In the same vein, it is the lack of a sufficient penalty, either because the penalty is too weak, or it is not sufficiently enforced, or it is not relevant to the one breaking the rule that can make rules totally ineffective. Take for example the problem of illegal entry to this country. Are there rules against this behavior? Yes there are. Is there illegal entry into this country despite the rules that state it is not allowed? Yes, obviously. Why is that? It is because the penalties for breaking the rule are insufficient in severity and enforcement to deter the behavior. Since the penalties are not sufficiently severe, nor sufficiently enforced, the bad behavior is not avoided. We have a rule. The rule has no meaningful penalty, and millions come here illegally as a result. So much for rules with little or no penalties.
Therefore, if you want to change behavior, you need to employ a penalty that is sufficient to deter that which you do not want to take place, and the rule and the penalty have to be enforceable, and the enforced penalty has to be relevant to the rule breaker for the penalty to have any chance of changing behavior. If you are an advanced reader, you have already realized that penalties then, are at best only partially effective and have no effect at all if they are no longer relevant to the rule breaker. So when is
a penalty or enforcement of the penalty no longer relevant?
If you are going to fly an airplane into a building to kill people, any penalty man can apply for breaking the rule that says you should not hijack an airplane, or you should not kill people, or should not do any of the other things you are doing that have rules that say you should not be doing this are all no longer relevant to you the rule breaker because you will very soon be dead. So without a relevant penalty, even though there are rules and stiff written penalties, if the penalties are not relevant, the bad behavior simply cannot be deterred. So if the actions to be taken are suicidal, then what penalty can backstop the rule and make the rule relevant? Answer. None. Bottom line here is you can’t make a place safe with rules. Therefore a rules based safe place cannot exist. It is a myth. It is only the perception of security and as stated above, the perception of security is not real security.
These two myths, police protection and the rules based safe place are used over and over to create security for children. They are never used to create security for large amounts of money , politicians, judges, airports, members of congress, the president, very wealthy people, valuable corporate assets and
employees, etc. It also makes no difference how many schools rely on these myths for security, these myths will never provide real security. Got it? In other words, doing something stupid over and over does not make what is being done any less stupid. It only reflects the stupidity of the people that are doing stupid things over and over. Relying on myths for security is just a stupid policy carried out by stupid people. I say stupid people because we have seemingly learned nothing from past events. We have to at some point face facts qs they present themselves, not ignore them and stick our heads in the sand and hope for better outcomes. That will not get to the desired metric.
With over 30 students and faculty murdered in the Virginia Tech massacre, society evidentially learned absolutely nothing. At Blacksburg, a murderer was allowed to just walk into the building unchallenged. He wasn’t even challenged when he chained the doors shut to prevent for a while anyone else coming in to oppose him. And since Virginia Tech had created a rules based safe place, the students and faculty, following the rules of the university, lacked any means of repelling or neutralizing the intruder. Bone headed thinking by those running the university had decided that responsible college students and faculty should not be allowed to possess guns on campus under penalty of expulsion (a very relevant penalty to a student). However, since there was no way to prevent nonstudents from coming onto the campus with a gun, the rules based safe place made no sense. It only protected students from being shot by another student, and then only if the shooter was not suicidal (that nagging relevance thing again).
The rules based safe place simply disarmed the students and faculty and since there was no allowance for paid guards nor aother means of dealing with an attacker, a killing field was unintentionally created by the rules employed to supposedly make the place safe. Once the shooting started, the shooting continued because of the reliance on myths. The enlightened academia running the university believed in the myths of a rules based safe place, and police protection. So much for both myths. The cost for proving these security measures to be just a myth was very high. So what was learned? Absolutely nothing!
Years later, in Newtown, CT, an armed intruder walked into the school carrying a long gun. This time the intruder was challenged at the door by brave individuals, but to what end since they had no mens to repel the attacker? Having no means of repelling the attacker because once again, the perception of security was the rule of the day, brave adults lost their lives and the attacker was not stopped. The same two myths were once again being relied upon, and once again proven by events as they unfolded, to be nothing more than myths and only the perception of security, not real security.
Another very high price was paid in Newton, CT for relying on myths for security. What was learned? If you listen to Dianne Feinstein and others of her ilk, you would have to admit that nothing was learned. Ms. Feinstein is trying to make hay with this tragedy as she has done in the past, but her comments on how to actually make a school more secure are few and far between to the point that she has ridiculed the only rational measures as presented by the NRA, instead of offering anything “real” herself.
The same politicians that have long been anti-gun are using yet another tragic event that was allowed to happen by reliance on myths to further their political agenda to ban guns. To them, it seems to not make any difference that banning the gun will not make schools more secure. That is not their worry. They live and work in a cocoon of non-myth security and their agenda seems to be simply that banning guns will make schools more secure.
I don’t care what political persuasion you happen to be, this is really sick behavior on the part of politicians to leave schools unprotected to further a political agenda. Yet this is what they seem to be doing. You don’t see them relying on myths for their own protection do you ?. Yet this is what they force onto our schools.
Politicians that want to ban guns just can’t admit publicly that most public schools are relying on myths for protection, because that would undermine their argument that we need to ban something. Unless we actually learn from these horrible incidents, unless we begin to face reality, unless we move away from the perception of security based in myth and move instead towards real security in our schools, we will most likely continue to suffer more of the same atrocities. It takes an evil person to kill children in a school, but it also takes a willing political power to continue to allow it to happen. Maybe if a few politicians were forced to have their security removed they would think and act differently. Or maybe if all members of Congress were forced to send their kids to public schools without exception, maybe then the myths would be put to rest and real security options would be explored.
In my consulting practice, I find it useful to get to the root of a problem and solve it before wasting energies and resources trying to solve the many derivative problems growing on the problem tree as a result of the root problem being allowed to flourish. Well, the root problem here is simply this. There are really evil people in this world. that's it. We need to protect our children from these people. This is the
definition of the problem we need to solve and you can’t do that with a myth. Focusing on anything else other than this root problem is denying real protection to our schools and kids. This is an intentional act of denying real security, not an accident. So why are politicians doing this? What is it that makes their agenda more important than protecting our kids and teachers in our schools? The shortest answer is
narcissism and greed.
The reality is we can provide our kids with the myth based perception of security while trying to ban guns, or we can actually protect our kids with real security and severely damage the argument for banning guns. It is as simple as that. Here is another thing to consider. The gun ban discussion actually requires the myths of police protection and a rules based safe place for the gun ban argument to seem logical (which it isn’t). This is because the gun ban approach when boiled down is simply this. If we ban assault
rifles, then schools will then be safe. Obviously that isn’t true, but that is what their argument is. Silly
isn’t it? Yet this is the argument being used boiled down to its essential elements and exposing their argument and its total lack of logic.
The gun ban argument ignores the fact that rules don’t work. It ignores the logic that penalties have no
meaning in a suicidal attack. The argument ignores the fact that police response times at Columbine, Lancaster, VA Tech, and Newton, CT all prove police protection is just a myth. The argument also
carefully ignores the fact that even if you ban a gun, the school is still relying on myths for security. The big question to me is why is society so stupid to swallow this drivel in the first place? To admit that our current security is based in myth, is to abandon the reasoning behind why we need to ban certain guns. Therefore, we will not be allowed as a society to have the real discussion we need to have about how to make schools more secure so long as the false argument of banning something is the darling of the media and political circles. Who loses because of this? The next round of kids that die as a result of relying on myths for protection. Their grieving parents. Their teachers. Kids everywhere that hear of these tragedies
and now live and go to school in added fear. A shocked and saddened society as a whole.
But the gun ban politicians never lose because every time something like this occurs, they once again seize upon it to further their careers and their political agenda. They never actually make a single effort to
actually make our schools more secure. They never provide schools with a means of limiting access, nor a means of repelling an intruder, even though they themselves are working and living in a cocoon of protection that does exactly for them what they refuse over and over again to provide for our kids.
Think I am being too hard on politicians? Then ask yourself this question. What have you heard to date
that translates into real protection in our schools from any politician that is discussing banning guns? The only entity that has offered a real world solution to the root problem is the NRA and they were shouted down during the press conference, ridiculed in the biased press, called Nazis and other vulgar names, and mocked by the very politicians in office that have the power to do what the NRA wants to do, but these politicians have chosen instead to rely on myths and protect their gun ban agenda at all costs. Go ahead.
Prove me wrong by citing a name and a public recommendation that amounted to providing real security in our schools.
Personally, I would not trade the life of one child for the entirety of congress. That is how much respect I have remaining for the legislative branch of our government. I have long said to Fire Them All, for cause, for gross negligence, for spending us into oblivion, for mismanaging our nations affairs, for laundering what amounts to bribes through PACs, and now for once again leaving our kids unprotected while attacking the second amendment. All of this is done to further their own careers and pad their pockets because they have no choice. It boils down to who they have sold themselves to and that is not something they can change and remain in office. We really do need to fire them all.
Factually, the only thing standing in the way of protecting our children is the very government that controls the debate, blocks the real discussion on how to make schools more secure, and sets the
priorities that says politicians and judges and government officials and offices are so valuable that their working environment deserves to be protected with real protective measures, but our children are not deserving of any such protective measures. Translation? Our children to them are simply subordinate to their agenda.
Politicians appropriate and fund protection for themselves, but nothing for our kids is inexcusable behavior. Why do we allow it? Are politicians more valuable? We can afford to bail out banks and car companies but not protect our kids? We provide grant money to private businesses in exchange for political contributions but we can’t find the funding to protect our kids? We can fight wars in foreign lands that have little to do with our own security but we can’t protect our kids? Department after department in our government gives out billions of dollars in grants, but we cannot find the funds to protect our kids? We can build schools, roads, and public works in foreign lands, but can’t find the funding to protect our own kids in our own country? Why do we allow this behavior from those that work for us?
The painful and inescapable truth to all of this is simply incidents like Newton, CT happen because they are allowed to happen. When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting on the floor of congress? When was the last time there was a mass shooting in the Whitehouse? How about in an airport? Can’t remember? Well, you probably can’t remember any of those things happening because those things were not allowed to happen. Incidents like Newton, CT happen because they are allowed to happen. They happen because up to this point in our history, our children have not been important enough for the most politically powerful among us to see the necessity of providing protection for our children. I am trying to change this. Please help by passing this on to as many as you can. I submit to you that we have elected and appointed the wrong people to serve us and this is another root problem we need to deal with and soon.
Who's THEY???
The Obama Administration? Congress? The Kardashians? The Addams Family? The StarTrek Enterprise crew? Whoever you mean, THEY aren't going to do jack krap, because THERE are too many of US - hate to bust your bubble there, sporty.
It isn't a gun problem. It's a people problem. Banning certain guns will have no impact on random acts of violence perpetrated by crazy people. Remember, all it took to level a Federal building was fertilizer and kerosene. Will those items be banned next? How about cars? Cars kill many more people in this country than guns. Stop blaming guns and start blaming the crazy people.
Save your bad breath for your toothbrush buddy!
You are so typical!
The Police Chief gives an articulate, argument based on first hand experience...
not "If someone attacks you"
I can't believe all of you gun sucks believe assault rifles are already banned. If that were true, why would the government want to start banning them. Do you know something the government doesn't? There was a ban. It's now gone. With any luck it will be back. Hallelujah.
It's harder to get into a prison with a gun than it is to get into a school with a gun. What's wrong with this picture? Will banning anything change that fact? No.
Glenn, a little long-winded for most here but you are absolutely correct.
When the constitution was written, it took the average citizen about one minute to load and fire a gun. We were still fighting a war against tyranny without a standing army. There were no police officers, we needed guns to provide food for our families. If our founding fathers were here today, they would be shocked at what has happened in our society. I believe in the 2nd amendment as much as anyone. I've owned guns, I've shot all kinds of guns from a .22 to an M16, and all kinds of pistols and rifles in between. There is absolutely NO need to own a gun that can shoot 20, 30, or a 100 rounds in a matter of seconds. These guns are used for only one thing: to kill people. But what about protecting yourself from the bad guys, you ask. Criminals don't buy guns, they steal them from law-abiding citizens. They don't buy them because they have to register them! More children are killed with guns in accidental shootings every year than were killed at Sandy Hook. Think about how you would feel if your child was killed by your gun and then react.
Why do you people want to hang on to assault rifles and semi-automatics? Don't tell me that BS about hunting animals. If you can't knock an animal down in one or two shots, you can't hunt worth an ar**cr*ck. You like the feeling of having the power to kill a large number of human beings in moments and I bet you fantasize about that from time to time.
You can keep your muskets. But for the safety of everyone, give up your assault rifles. FYI assault rifles are way more powerful than pistols, so even an indirect hit has a greater chance to kill due to shock.
I own the very types of guns or semi automatic rifles that you and so many others want to ban. The reason I like them and I use them is not only for hunting but for sport. It is a complete adrenaline rush to be at a range and squeeze of a couple of hundred rounds for FUN. I spent 8 years in the Marines protecting what I now see as an unworthy society. Trained with all sorts of small and large arm weapons from as small as the M-4 / M-16 to the .50cal machine gun. Yes when needed, guns are used to kill bad guys and more importantly bad guys use guns to kill innocent people. I am tired of firearms owners that are responsible owners, taking the whole blame for the lack of sense that this society has clearly lost in the last 20years. The most scary thing about it is most of you don't know you have lost it and only react emotionally. That is why the military and the police and people like me and others that have been trained or sought to be trained and arm ourselves enforce our rights. You can't help stupidity.
I own more guns than most people I know on my block. 2 are used for home protection(time response for police on my block 6 minutes / time to my safe to open and lock and load 48 seconds as tested and practiced daily by me and my wife in case of intruder. What is your reaction plan(call the cops?). Take a look what happened in Georgia last week.
My desire to own 30 round magazines(by the way I never load that many due to jams(27 max) is because when I go to the range I can shoot at multiple targets. I also have side arms that hold 10 rounds. I can load and reload my semi automatic gun 5 times in less than 1 minute. So the theory on reducing magazine size is relevant. Your argument doesn't hold water because you are reacting emotionally. Unlike, you the first thing I said abuot Newton was not the fact of how many children and adults were killed but I knew he was mentally disturbed and had access to ANY weapon. That's the part that you and so many are forgetting. It is not the gun, we have in our midst people(Americans and Non-Americans that have mental problems tht need to be addresses. Our society had deteriorted because we like to turn a blind eye to the problem. People are and always be the problem. We as a nation cannot control ourselves in anything we do unless specifically trained to do so. Banning my or my neighbors guns are not going to change anything. Accidents will always happen because of people, people will ALWAYS die at thehands of other people by what ever means, but banning my semi automatic rifle, which by definition is not an ASSAULT rifle(which people still are too stupid to know the difference) is not going to solve the problem with PEOPLE. My multi magazines, and firearms are always locked, they are not easy to get to with my children but when needed they will stop an intruder or an over zealous citizenry or government inate on curbing my rights as the Constitution of this great nation has it written.
I think the NRA already said it has Congress in it's back pocket. It's going to be interesting to see who they are, and how many. Those lobbyists are worst than terrorist with their assaults/attacks, on America.
Assault rifles are already illegal.
To be classified as an assault rifle it must have three modes of fire, single, burst and full auto. Full auto has been illegal in the US for decades.
But it sure sounds scarier if they call them assault rifles, doesn't it? Don't be fooled, they are just using the public's emotions and the media's inaccuracies to further a political agenda.
"...shall not be infringed..."
I wish the people backing that racist in the White House's ideas on "gun control" would understand that THIS is exactly how Hitler came to power, as he did. First elected on the guise he would save the nation, then removal of guns from the populace...
The 2nd Amendment was FOR military grade weapons. It was so that if ever a force came to assult the Nation (be it forigen or domestic) we, the people, could defend ourselves. That racists in the White House wants the US to be a subservant nation, he wants a weak nation so his ilk can rule for years to come. Why else would he attack assualt weapons when they're not even part of the nation's problems?
SoSickoftheGop
I can't tell if you are ignorant or just plain stupid. So I will try to educate you, so that at least I can fix your ignorance. As Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid".
The FCS of 1934 prohibits the manufacture of Automatic weapons for sale to the civilian market. It is still legal to own and transfer automatic weapons, as long as you pass a background check, register it with the ATF and pay a $200 transfer tax.
So in essence "Assault Rifles" are banned.
This is the really amazing caveat to this though. If you are associated with law enforcement, i.e. a sheriff's deputy, you can buy a brand new assault rifle. The scary thing is, I know a few of the "Deputies" and they make Barney Fife look like a smart man. Also, I have read a study(although I have not been able to verify it) that shows there is a lower incidence of crime among CCP holders than among police officers. But hey, all you liberals keep screaming that only law enforcement should have guns.
You must be talking about the so called "assault WEAPONS" ban of 1994. And if you understood anything at all about firearms, you would know that this does absolutely nothing to stop or prevent mass killings.
My suggestion, why don't all you liberals go light up another joint, and let us grown ups fix the problems.
Sure lets do this chief.
Then only YOU will have these weapons.
America was not made to work that way.
You had better be glad the dumbass kid didn't have a twelve gauge Remington shotgun with 00 buckshot and a
pocket full of THOSE little magazines.
The answer is not the guns.
It's the people who get their hands on them.
I am all for extensive background checks.
But you cannot take weapons away from the American People.
It will not happen.
A storm is coming.
Maybe I am just getting cynical in my old age.
But has anyone else noticed that it is the Police Chiefs, who are always calling for gun control? And it is the rank and file officers who generally oppose it. Ever wonder why?
This is my theory, the Police chiefs know that crime will go up if they implement gun control. And as a consequence, they will need to hire more officers, which means a bigger budget, which means a bigger salary. Meanwhile, the rank and file know that crime will go up and they will have to work harder, and be placed in greater danger.
How much are the Chiefs of Police in New york and Chicago paid?
Have you noticed that Obama has taken advantage of every opportunity to create divisions in our country? There is actual hatred festering between the different sides of almost every single demographic division. It's truly frightening. This is just the latest ploy to further divide our nation.
Even Jimmy Carter said, "This country has become so polarized that its almost astonishing…. Not only with the red and blue states… President Obama suffers from the most polarized situation in Washington that we have ever seen – even maybe than the time of Abraham Lincoln and the initiation of the war between the states.”
WHY is Obama working so terribly hard to create conflict?
No doubt the Divider in Chief has every opportunity taking advantge of any crisis to continue his destructively divisive tactics. His goal to restructure and fundamentally change this great nation has never been more determined than it is now that he has another 4 more years.
His thinks his reelection gives him the power to institute executive power of all other branches similar to a self proclaimed Dictator in Chief....................
Fortunately dictators will be never allowed to prevail in our great republic The United States of America.
Do you really believe if the Government wanted to become a Police country, little guns would do anything against Tanks, Helicopters, Jets and Submarines? Might help ya a little, but it's not going to make any difference at all. If the Army and Cops are fully going to help Congress and President act in such a way, guns are not going to do anything with the full support of the Army and Cops.
Surprise, Surprise! Gun Control is coming and it's coming because a MAJORITY of Americans want it! If congress can pass DOMA, the defense of marriage act, which is a direct refusal to recognize an entire minorities right to marry then congress can easily take your right to own a gun away as well.
If you think that your right to possess enough firepower to kill a platoon is an inalienable right your WRONG! The guns going, going, GONE!
Today Portland, Oregon's new mayor also joined the growing ranks of American big city mayors calling for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and for universal background checks.
The leaders of the Republican Party in Congress had better consider long and hard if they wish to make this just one more demonstration that they are out-of-touch with reality, and out-of-sync with the rising tide of American thinking.
If the Republican leadership bows again to the NRA and gun industry lobbyists, as they have so many times before, and fails to lineup on the correct side of history on this, they are just adding another nail to the coffin of the GOP. The 2014 Congressional mid-term elections will be a bloodbath.
As of now, however, they seem hell-bent to self-extinguish. We are watching a once major but fast-declining American political party build a funeral pyre and then throw themselves into the flames. We can only shake our heads in dismay and bewilderment and ask "why?"
Am I the only one who remembers the first articles about Sandy Hook which mentioned the "assault gun" was found in the car?
-Anna-
Is that supposed to be meaningful what was reported in the first hour after the shootings?
It has been known, and reported in every newspaper and on every major news outlet in America for the past 31 days that the weapon found in the car was a shotgun. The weapon the murderer riddled the bodies of 20 six and seven year old children with was a semi-automatic AR-15 Bushmaster assault style rifle, and he numerous 30-round magazines and two semi-automatic handguns on his body.
Initial reports were all over the map--as information was hard to verify. Remember they had the wrong brother as Perp?
Adherence
I am always amazed that people actually demand to be defenseless, think the government can keep them safe at all times, and believe that banning guns will make them safer.
In my opinion the government of the United States of America used to be the most amazing government in the history of the world. Most governments cannot wait to disarm citizens as soon as possible, but not this government, this government wanted citizens to be able to protect themselves not only against invaders, but even against their own government, should this government become a dictatorship. The Founding Fathers wanted you to be able to protect yourself, your country, and your fellow citizens, they wanted you to be responsible citizens, not to be subjects.
In Russia, where the gun laws are more severe than here, they have a murder rate that is twice ours. In Canada, eventho their overall murder rate is lower then ours, they have many cities where the murder rate is much higher then many of our States. Vermont for example, where the gun laws are the least severe, where everyone can carry a gun without a permit, have a murder rate of 1.5 or so, in Winnipeg (Canada) on the other hand they have a murder rate of 5.08, despite much more severe gun laws then Vermont. You have to look beyond the overall rate, you have to look at each City, each State, the population.
Personally I strongly believe that banning guns will not make us safer, it will be the opposite, honest citizens will be left defenseless, as they are in most countries. I strongly believe that it is our health care system that needs to be revised, especially the part concerning mental and psychological health. Among other issues, right now in most cases an adult cannot be forcefully medicated, or put in institution, despite being a danger to themselves and/or to others.
United WE Stand
Yes, you're absolutely right. And isn't it interesting how often we are seeing the incorrect information which was first reported in the confusion of the first hour or two after the shootings, resurrected weeks later (as if it had validity) and repeated over-and-over by those dissembling in an attempt to try to confuse the focus on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines?
Debating, and strenuously arguing ones own point of view is to be respected and defended. But intentionally dissembling (and effectively debating through the use of lies), is not at all honorable.
Just my tuppence.
Truth I take it you have never heard of places like Vietnam and Afghanistan?? Since a determined small force held off and eventually defeated the US military with mostly small arms you need to rethink your statement.. In reality a semi auto rifle is a second rate choice for close quarters combat.. Simple fact is a pump shotgun with a bunch of home made speed loading tubes could have caused 10x the carnage.. They will be next on the list for the gun banners then bolt action rifles and 150+ year old technology like revolvers.. All this will solve nothing since humans are intelligent and inventive especially when it comes to violence.. We have been killing each other with spears and swords for thousands of years and a gun ban will not end violence.. Far too many people believe the violence in movies is real and things like that actually happen..
Adherence Yep bans really work don't they.. Prohibition was a total disaster for the US and the last ban on certain weapons was ill conceived and more of an emotional tampon.. This rush to socialism is what Obama the Communist organizer wants.. They have an illegal police force already that can violate your Constitutional and Bill of Right powers given by the founding fathers.. They are called Homeland Security and the TSA.. All these thing in direct opposition to the desires of freedom and liberty..
United WE Stand
Very true United. I just remember seeing many articles in the days following the attack, that the AR-15 was left in the car.
Robert in Oregon
Calm down Robert, it was a simple question, no need to get rude.
I am saddened about this horrific tragedy. The Police Chief complains about being out powered. Did the Police ever fire even one shot. I don't think so. The Police should get high powered rifles if that is what they want. People, idiots, fools, criminals and crazies are what need to be stopped. I don't own any assault rifles. I don't go hunting. I do possess a concealed carry permit. I carry on trips and keep in my home for my family protection. I don't have a problem with people owning assault rifles and 50 caliber rifles that shoot 1 mile. Deal with the problem. Don't blame Brass that is used for making bullets, lead nor steel. Don't blame the gun when the problem is people. Deal with the problem people.
Roadrunner0 wrote:
What a shame. You were making some pretty good arguments, until you got to that part (above) and you totally blew-up your credibility and made yourself look like just another whackadoodle.
If you moderate your rhetoric and make good points (as you did in the previous part of your post), rather than coming across as just another 'RWNJ' (as you did in the latter part of your post copied above) you will have a much better chance of being persuasive. Isn't that the point of debating issues, trying to persuade ...instead of alienating?
Yes Kannin..Obama told that wacko nutjob to go kill a bunch of innocent children- just so he could instill a new gun law. Good God are people this delusional? Your conspiracy theories are a bit entertaining. Nobody's gun rights are worth a damn compared to ONE OF THOSE SLAIN CHILDREN.
Viewer…the police chief is right….so live with it!
I read all the time that it’s the people who are the trouble, not guns. That being the case, then let us help the people who can’t help themselves by removing assault weapons from sale followed by their removal from circulation, county by county, state by state. What’s wrong with that?
Hey chief Kehoe. Take your so-called calls to ban assault weapons and shove it where the sun dont shine. I can have any damn rifle I want. Whether its an AR15/M4 variant to a 22LR 10/22 rifle with 25-30 round mags. You do not and you will not make my choices for me.
Every wonder why when they write these restrictions, they never apply to the Police? Here in California our gun restrictions don't apply to Police, active or retired. Go in a Gun shop here and you'll see either stickers or an entire cabinet stating, "Police only." It's like the vote down on Unions, lets leave the first responders out of it so it appears we have their support then the unknowing will go along with it as they are easily led.
@Robert, you are trying too hard to sound like you know.....why dont you do a little more research and come back once you find out what they gunman actually had with him..... but we will still have to ignore you entirely.
Smaller magazines equal more reloads....evil will accomplish evil no matter what it uses! Remember that. Having a police chief put out that there should be a gun ban shows ignorance and brings to light that he should probably be replaced. Lets look at statistics of the police shall we? Look up how many bullets strike the threat from police and how many were fired. Fact is the police do not train as often as they should for stress filled bullet firing situations because of funding and lack of knowledge....just because they carry a badge and a gun does not mean they are aces with their firearms. Look at the NY empire state building firefight. How many friendlys got hit by bullets?
The evil is not going to disarm. Background checks, they are done nationally and what "holes" need to be filled in them there police chief? Reducing magazine capacity? really? What about reloading? Next will come that the average person can only have 2 magazines for each firearm, etc. It does not stop, the amount of ignorance that is being created by those that should not be making decisions is immense. Starting at the top! It is coming down to states separating and becoming their own countries and then the fights will start. Good job Dems you voted a great person in.......you should be proud that because of you.....you have destroyed this great nation!
"Have you noticed that Obama has taken advantage of every opportunity to create divisions in our country?"
No -- I haven't noticed that at all. The reality of the vast majority of people in this nation favor universal background checks, support limiting the size of ammunition clips, and favor the limiting the sale of military style weapons. It's not President Obama who is creating division in this nation, it's the NRA and the right wing entertainment people like Rush the junkie, Beck and Fox propaganda.
I agree with you that no amount of legislation is going to end gun violence in this country, but why do you think that tighter background checks will infringe on your right to own a weapon? I'll also like to point out that the election of President Obama has nothing to do with the decline of OUR once great nation. The fact that we as parents fail to teach our children the value of an education, moral and ethical treatment of our fellow human beings or the fact that our society has turned into a narcissistic, self-absorbed group, that not only depend on others to teach them, but demand it! We as a nation are run by special interest groups that serve only themselves and not the American People.
@Sadallover
I agree with tighter background checks. It wouldn't infringe on my right to own whatever I please. The problem is that it won't stop at just background checks. I think the "fear" that most gun owners have is that the bill that will be put forward to be pushed through will have smaller loopholes within it. These will create babysteps leading toward a total gun ban. My right to buy whatever I want should not be taken away. I think you're correct again on the fact that parents fail to teach children certain values. This is the problem that needs to be fixed, not restricting gun sales.
However many people favor the elimination of the right of the People to Keep and Bear state of the art military small arms ("assault rifles"), is irrelevant in America as we are Nation that is ruled by Law, not public opinion. At one time public opinion favored the killing of all Native Americans, the enslavement of African Americans, the restriction of women being allowed to vote, the elimination of alcoholic beverages, etc., etc. The Law which rules all other Law in America is the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment as protecting the right of U.S. Citizens, not just the government and its agents (military & police), to possess firearms for self defense. The Militia, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, was defined by the drafters of the Bill of Rights as the People. They intended that every citizen should have the same small arms as the the Standing Army; that there should be no disparity between the small arms of the Militia and the government as in countries which viewed "ordinary" citizens as inferior vassals. After all, if the People are the Government, then what does the government have to fear? The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except that government agents will be entitled to keep and bear muskets, but other citizens shall only be permitted to keep and bear crossbows". The Militia as established by the Founding Fathers had the mission of assisting and replacing the standing army to protect life and property in times of emergency, and it still has that role as defined by U.S. and State Law (see U.S. Code, Title 32, Sec. 313, "The Unorganized Militia"; and various State Defense Forces). As the Citizen Militia's role is a military mission, to limit its weapons only to 19th Century technology hunting rifles not only compromises its effectiveness, but undercuts the basic philosophy of the Patriots who fought our Revolution - that the People would be Free of subjugation of an all-powerful ruling government. When police officials state that the people should not have the same weapons that they do, they are essentially espousing an elitist philosophy; that the police are cut from a finer cloth than "ordinary" citizens; that ordinary citizens are not capable of exercising the same judgment and control that they do. If they receive some type of training that enables them to operate on a superior level, then laws should be formulated to make this training available to citizens, not the elimination of weapons. Banning weapons suitable for the police from the People, the Militia, is the mind set embodied in the Police State. This Chief would be right at home in Nazi Germany.
IndianaEngineer wrote:
This is the "slippery slope" argument. And the problem with the "slippery slope" argument is that it changes the subject, rather than addressing the actual question.
If someone proposes to us that "2+2=4" it's appropriate to respond "Yes I agree" or "No I disagree" (and then present your arguments in rebuttal). But it is a cognitive disconnect to respond "Well, you say 2+2 now, but I know that what you really mean is 10+10, and therefore I can't accept your proposal."
We, as adults (and voters), need to learn to deal with the actual questions at hand and the legislation and laws proposed, NOT the illogical fears and speculations of where those laws 'will inevitably lead.' The "slippery slope" argument is a logical disconnect.
If "loopholes" are discovered which are not acceptable, we can close them. But we shouldn't just assume they will be there and refuse to discuss the good because of fearful speculations of the bad.
If legislation is proposed which is an "overreach", we can reject it. But we shouldn't reject the reasonable and practical simply because of fears of restrictions which are not even on the table.
Let's deal with the questions at hand, as intellectual exercises in logic, civics and sociology, ...not just continually change the subject to divert the discussions to something else and continually dwell in irrational fears and paranoia.
CommonSense_not2Common wrote:
What the gunman "actually had with him" (four guns: specifically the two semi-automatic handguns and a semi-automatic AR-15 Bushmaster assault style rifle found with his body, and the shotgun which he had left in the car) are exactly what I noted in my previous response.
This information has been reported consistently for the past 31 days following the first confused, inaccurate reports in the hours immediately following the shootings.
Doing "a little more research" is not going to change these facts. These facts have been stipulated by the NewtownConnecticut Police and the Connecticut State Police. Facts are facts.
But then you stipulate that even if I did do "a little more research" and came back and again presented to you what the gunman actually had with him ...
So, "CommonSense", is what you are presenting here the sort of logic which passes as "common sense" for you?
What it looks like to me is that you simply ignore or refuse to believe facts which do not comport with your opinions and suppositions.
I have news for you, that's not the definition of "common sense."
I'm puzzled, weren't "assault" weapons already banned in the nutmeg state? Further, Robert... I don't own an "assault" weapon like the dreaded AR15, but there are many other military surplus weapons out there that you would call an "assault" rifle. The old M1 Garand can launch grenades, The piddly little M1 Carbine can hold higher capacity magazines. I can load eight rounds into my 1911A1 .45. Lets ban poor parenting, off-kilter and felonious people.
Evidently I hit a little too close to home, with my comment at 2.2, as it got collapsed. funny, it was just an observation, with a theory. ;-)
Another funny thing, I read an article(haven't been able to verify it yet, anyone else who can please let me know) about a study done that indicates there is a lower incidence of crime associated with CCP holders than with Police Officers.
Now I am not saying anything about cops as a whole, most are fine, outstanding citizens, doing a tough job. But we need to remember they are people too, and subject to corruption as are all of us. But when they put on that badge, they represent the Government. It used to be the government was "We the People", but more and more people are divorcing themselves from this reality and the Government is becoming more (at least being thought of as) a separate entity. We must be on guard against this.
This is what confuses me, when there is an article about police corruption, the left seems intent on "pulling the teeth" of the Police, but when there is an article like this, they seem intent on giving them more power. I wish they would make up my mind.
When you mop up the carnage, it's easy to realize that it could have been avoided. Whos needs assaults in civilian life?
Please do define what an "assault weapon" is. It's nothing more than a made-up term by media groups over the past two decades, because they know they can't call them "assault rifles." Assault rifles are fully-automatic weapons that have to be grandfathered in and are already heavily regulated.
The problem, like '94 AWB, is that they're going to be basing their banishment of weapons on the appearance of the weapons rather than their lethality. Oh, it has a flash hider? Better ban it! Oh, a bayonet lug? Ban that too! You can still walk into any sporting goods store, find a Remington 870, Benelli Nova (take your pick of pump action shotgun), and for around 300 dollars, still go on a rampage.
While I'm not saying that gun violence isn't a problem is this country, people are woefully unaware of how ineffective coming legislation is going to be in regards to it.
Exactly.
But, they will have no problem letting their kids play video games with the same weapons depicted.
Only FULLY automatic, with "unlimited" codes.
Very few civilians own assault weapons.
You have been force feed crap by the media who back liberals.
The ones who do own them are heavily licensed, checked and taxed.
And they have VERY specific reasons to own them.
You can probably count those people on your hands and one toe.
Tell that to someone defending his or her home during a riot like the one in LA during the 90's. That said, there comes a responsibility with that freedom. The mother paid for that with her life.
But why did the kids and teachers have to pay for her Freedom
Why should all of us people be treated as if we are insane people who should be institutionalized? I am not trying to be a troll here it just seem like every time something bad happens our society rushes to a knee jerk solution--one that causes more loss of personal freedom. I apologize if my logic makes it seem that my heart is not ripped out by the tragedy, because it is. My kids are the same age as the victims, however I do not wish them to live in a country where they have no freedom because it was gradually chipped/given away gradually.
They prevented the next 911 when they made the cockpit doors bulletproof, yet we willingly walk through a machine so other people can see us naked.
Take care and thanks for reading.
Jonnotjohn
@SUKmebollix: Nancy Lanza and her millonaire ex-husband were irresponsible, sedated, suburban nitwits posing as parents- that's why.
SUKmeBollix..... innocents will always have to pay while gun groupies refuse to accept any responsibility for the weapons they keep in their arsenals and care nothing for anyone elses safety or rights. You can count on one of these folks trying to distract attention away from their obsession with hair splitting jargon about what is and is not an assault weapon. Most of us have better things to do than study firearms. Any weapon that is designed to kill many people very quickly should not be in the hands of amateurs. Trying to find any "sport" excuse for possession of these weapons is even more pathetic. AR-15's are not toys. Let these guys keep their handguns in their dresser drawers if it makes them less afraid. No one wants to take away legitimate hunting rifles except in their imagination, but gun groupies' refusal to accept any compromise to protect public safety is unacceptable. The gun manufacturer engendered hysteria they all subscribe to, that the "big bad government" will take away their guns is unsupported in the 236 years since this country was formed.
@SUKmeBollix....Why is it ok for HUNDREDS of children to die every year because of a direct link to alcohol (drunk driving crashes, mv vs. pedestrian, child abuse, binge drinking, etc.). A WHOLE lot more kids die because of alcohol, not to mention adults...EVERY YEAR..but I don't hear ONE single person screaming about banning it. Almost 100,000 people in the US die annually directly because of alcohol, including hundreds of children. There are an average of 31,000 deaths per year because of guns, most of them handguns...and generally over half of them are suicides. The numbers don't even compare. None of this is justified, and is highly hypocritical of all who are calling for it. Especially since most of them probably drink. It's just a means of control..as has been shown time and time and time again throughout history.
Viewer_Ready,
You have made the same error that the media and the anti-gunners make. You have confused assault WEAPONS with assault RIFLES.
Assault RIFLES are capable of firing in the fully automatic mode. You are correct in that they are tightly controlled beginning in 1934, again in 1968, and again in 1986. The 1986 law, Firearms Owners Protection Act, made it illegal for private citizens to purchase newly manufactured fully automatic firearms - machine guns - assault RIFLES. Only those in existence prior to 1986 can be purchased by private citizens and then only after an extensive background check, numerous forms to be filed, one that must include the signature of the chief of the local law enforcement agency, and a $200 stamp tax. After all that, the price of a machine gun is likely to be somewhere between $15,000 and $35,000 depending on what it is and its condition.
Assault WEAPONS was a term created in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The only operational characteristic included in the definition of an assault WEAPON is that it is semiautomatic. ALL ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE SEMIAUTOMATIC! They are not machine guns. They cannot fire in the fully automatic mode even though their appearance is identical to assault RIFLES that can fire in the fully automatic mode. An example is the AR-15 semiautomatic assault WEAPON and the M-16 assault RIFLE. Their appearance is identical but we do not arm our soldiers with AR-15s. We give them M-16s because they are capable of firing in the fully automatic mode.
It's very important that this distinction become clear and widely known because the media and the anti-gunners are using the confusion to make people think that there are hundreds of thousands of people "out there" who own machine guns. Consequently, these mislead people are clamoring for legislation to ban assault WEAPONS because they think they are machine guns.
If there is to be an assault WEAPONS ban, at least let it be because a majority of people and their elected representative want to ban semiautomatic "shoulder weapons" that happen to look like fully automatic assault RIFLES. Let's be clear on what it is we're banning.
Personally, I think the people who think banning assault WEAPONS are motivated primarily by their emotions. Such a ban will do nothing because assault WEAPONS are used in so few shootings. I think Chief Kehoe's statements are primarily emotional. After what he's witnessed, why wouldn't they be?
I don't see the logic in banning certain types of guns & magazines from law-abiding citizens that are still out there for criminals to acquire. For the entire 1st day after the shooting, the media reported that the Bushmaster assault-style rifle Lanza had was left in his car, unused. That's still not the point. Why attack the machine as if it did this on it's own? It was the person behind the gun that was problem, not the gun itself...
Also: What ever happened to the guy they saw running off into the woods? Why has the media completely stopped discussing him? Same thing in the Holmes case; Why doesn't it seem as though they are still investigating when witnesses saw someone let him into the theater & a 2nd gas mask was found in the parking lot?
bezsenny52
Thank You for bring up them points. You will never read that here tho.
"Assault Weapon" is a term created by the firearms makers. Not the media. It was created to increase sales of weapons styled after military weapons. This new spin on the words Assault Weapon IS new coming from the NRA and it's backers. The features of a weapon that make it an assault weapon:
1) Chromium bore
2) Capability to load high capacity magazines
3) Barrel covers to prevent burns
4) Short barrel for close quarters combat
5) Folding stock
6) Flash Hider
7) Usually 5.56 mm round (developed for humans)
8) Bayonet lug
Those are the features that most assault weapons have.
@bezsenny52
I keep trying to tell people that over and over. They won't listen!
#3.11
I guess when your an elitist cop it is easy to volunteer everyone elses right to protect themselves. Its the same ol chit in this country. People that didn't like rock music and long hair wanted it banned. people who didnt like tatoos wanted tatoo shops banned. People that dont like the naked body want strip clubs banned.
There have always been and always will be @!$%#s that think they can change the world to their liking instead of letting everyone do their own thing.
Problem is for them that guns are protected by the second amendment and are a civil right.
Do you really want to give up a civil right.. If so, be my guest. Ill keep my rifle..thank you
SUKmeBollix
They didn't. In fact if the school hadn't been a gun-free zone, if a few of the teachers had been armed, they most probably would have been able to stop him, the children and adults who were killed paid for the anti-gun mentality, for people who think that wishful thinking will protect them from criminals, for people who think that when they call the police they will be there within a few seconds and don't believe they will ever have to defend themselves or their family.
Lanza intended to kill people, and he would have done so just as well with a bomb, which he was smart enough to build. Also eventho he shot each of them many times, he could have killed them just as well with 1 or 2 bullets each. Even with a machete, considering no one was armed other them him, it would have been very difficult to stop him.
And its not "her" freedom, its the freedom of each and every citizen, the right to protect themselves, their country, and their fellow citizens.
bezsenny52
Exactly, and I don't see who else then the police could have given this information to the journalists. And this was all over the news medias, not only in one article. And then a day or 2 later they changed the story. The mistake about the identity of the shooter is much easier to understand, as they mentioned Adam Lanza had his brother's ID on him.
Obama has stated he would rewrite the Constitution if he could as it has far too many roadblocks to achieving his agenda.. They want to disarm us in the worst way and this is step one.. Disinformation and psy op distortions lead me to believe that something fishy is going on.. Look at the lengths they went to cover up the things from 911.. The lust for power over a population through fear and dependence is obvious.. If they crash the economy it is going to get real messy..
jack 4645934 Elitist why...? Because as a cop he is responsible to the community for their safety? Elitist because he has to walk into rooms full of bullet ridden bodies of first graders and women? And let's be clear... he's wrong because he doesn't let everyone "do their own thing" like tatoos, long hair, strip clubs and slaughtering babies at will.? How mean of him! Well just too bad about that one because the baby shooters are protected by the second amendment. Right? And they(I assume we mean these same cops) want to change to world to their liking.... to create a world where 6 year olds are safe in their classrooms. How very wrong of them! You hang on to your AR-15 buddy or maybe lend it to a friend. You have your rights, after all. Who do you want to shoot today? Might be better though to hang on to your civil right to remain silent.
OBAMA would have helped the Mexicans murder American immigrants in Texas 1836.
He's helping Mexicans invade the United States TODAY!
"Queue the pro-gun hysteria".
You will NEVER get rid of the kind of guns you people will want to ban until the United States SEALS it's southern border. So the law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns. There still remains the problem of getting rid of guns from criminals who will NOT turn theirs in. You still have the problem of illegal weapons being smuggled in from the southern border. You've solved NOTHING! Sealing the border will not happen under the Obama administration due to wanting the latino vote. It's just common sense. Stop with the BS.
Obama wants the Latino vote? He isn't eligible to run for president again, genius.
viewer:
The answer is not the guns.
It's the people who get their hands on them.
Isn't that the point?
Ref: OBAMA Loves OBAMA
Since this police officer thinks the ban will work, as soon as the pass they law, law enforcement need to turn in their weapons. No one will have weapons because of the law so they will be as safe as the everyday citizen and will not need weapons. OR he knows the ban will not work and will want to keep his officers with weapons. Sorry buddy, can't have it both ways. Either the law works and he disarms his force, or he knows it won't work and we shouldn't pass the law.
odumbo, if you read captions of his book, has plainly said he wants to bring America down because we are a colonialist nation. He and his wife both hate America, please tell me where he got all the money to run, it was not just from the American public, he had to be backed by someone who also wants to see America fall, he is bankrupting it and working on taking away our 2nd amendment and is working on the 1st as we sit here typing.
save the environment #3
Sandy Hook was the second deadliest mass shooting in U.S.History. The deadliest mass shooting was the Virginia Tech Massacre in 2007. Instead of an “assault weapon,” the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns and killed 32 adults, not including himself. Now, do you honestly think that an assault weapons ban would really have made any difference with Sandy Hook?
I think an excellent idea would be to have the authors of all of these posts testify before the Biden Committee. That would clarify the problem immediately.
The children at Newtown were "2nd Amendment Casualties".
The kids and teachers didn't pay for her freedom. You obviously missed that the mother was also a victim. The kids and teachers died as a result of someone else's mental instability.
Nice try at spinning it onto another victim. Typical American - blame someone other than the one responsible.
The Police CHief gave articulate reasoning based on FIRST hand experience
There was no : " if if , if, if, someone attacks me"
It was REALITY based.
Fine. If the gun nuts want to have their assault rifles, I'm building a nuke in my basement.
bezsenny52
I don't see the logic in banning certain types of guns & magazines from law-abiding citizens that are still out there for criminals to acquire. For the entire 1st day after the shooting, the media reported that the Bushmaster assault-style rifle Lanza had was left in his car, unused. That's still not the point. Why attack the machine as if it did this on it's own? It was the person behind the gun that was problem, not the gun itself...
Also: What ever happened to the guy they saw running off into the woods? Why has the media completely stopped discussing him? Same thing in the Holmes case; Why doesn't it seem as though they are still investigating when witnesses saw someone let him into the theater & a 2nd gas mask was found in the parking lot?
#3.11 - Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:38 AM EST
You are absolutely right. Our government, in an attempt to control us, spinned a fabricated story...written in the blood of those innocent children, about the AR-15 being the primary weapon used. It's hard to push for an "assault weapon" ban when one wasn't used. They found a damaged ME, who nervously lied to the American public. Now they've found a damaged general to push their agenda. I would hope that there is still some honor amongst the LEO's involved, and the story comes out. America may pay a heavy price for this deception. What? They wouldn't lie, you say? Remember Gulf War 2? Remember when they sent arms to Mexican drug cartels to destabilized the country and spread terror? They are not above reproach.
Whether it's true or not that Lanza left the Bushmaster in the car, or if he tried to buy one of his own and was denied, doesn't Connecticut already have a broad statewide ban on this whole category of guns?
Mexico has the toughfest gun regulations in the hemisphere, we all know how well that worked out.
Licensing guns will work out about as effective as licensing motor vehicles prevents drunk drivers from driving, or drivers with suspended licenses, or accidents or thefts.
How about requiring all the nuts jobs registering like sex offenders, at least you would know who they are and where they live.
So sad that the mother of the shooter and the shooter himself had more of a right to have those weapons (she got them legally) than those kids had a right to live. WOW to live in a society where so many people value the right to have certian weapons more than the life of innocent children and others. These gun advocates care nothing about these victims from gun violence. They put the blame on everything else and not the guns. I keep hearing guns don't kill people, people kill people. I find that the most assinine comment ever. People with guns DO kill people and guns are a weapon made to kill people. Guns are not a picture on the wall to be admired, they are not a pair of ski's to use to slide down a mountian. I hear people say a gun on the table doesn't kill, another assinine comment. Guns are not made to be on a table and admired, they are used to kill! They are no different than a bomb, a missle or dynomite!
In their desperate attempts to compare the genocide the US is experiencing at the hands of murderous"gun enthusiasts" and highway fatalities, these wannabe Rambos are only exposing their own ignorance. They are also unwittingly laying the foundation for similar rules to control and regulate the ownership of their deadly playthings.
Auto deaths have been dropping to the point that in 2010 they were the lowest since the 1940s. This sharp decline in highway fatalities is the direct result of legislating changes in the design of motor vehicles to make them safer and at the same time legislating proper rules of responsible automobile operation, particularly with respect to DUIs and road rage. If we apply the same principles to gun ownership (modified only slightly) we would see the same progress: Extensive training and testing procedures as a firm condition for the ownership of a firearm. Registration of all firearms and liability insurance on every weapon as a condition for ownership. Changes in weapon design to make them safer with requirements for modification on existing firearms to make them comply with current guidelines. Finally, strict laws with stiff penalties for violators for any and all violations.
Sounds like a good plan, doesn't it? The only people who will object willbe the selfish, immature wannabe Rambos who are laboring under the sad delusion that the Second Amendment exists solely to protect their right to acquire pointless arsenals of deadly playthings.
Gun control now. It's the right thing to do.
"...tell that to someone defending his or her home during a riot..."
That, folks, is the type of person we DON'T want to have a gun in their hand. It's like the flipped-out civilian gone Rambo in the movies. Unbelievable.
Sounds like all Newtown needed to do was keep firearms LOCKED UP from crazies..........
Considering that 5X as many deaths occur every year from knives as opposed to all rifles combined (not just so-called "assault rifles") does that mean that "knives don't kill people, people with knives kill people"? Come on, this is ridiculous. Banning a civilian sporting rifle like the AR-15, is not going to accomplish anything. It is simply a feel-good measure and everyone that has ever fired an AR-15 knows that. Personally, I use mine for target shooting and it is no more and no less deadly than my little .22 semi-auto rifle.
Calling gun enthusiast "murderous" or irresponsible does nothing to accomplish your goals of restricting firearms. You don't like them. We get it. Does that give you the right to limit the choices of responsible, law-abiding citizens? Absolutely not. Should there be universal background check? YES. Should the gun show loop-hole that exists in a couple of the states be closed? YES. Anything else? NO.
As a Libertarian, I never thought I'd say this but... thank goodness we have Republicans in congress that are going to block any kind of measure that's put to a vote.
JonLester - CT has a ban on assault weapons. The bushmaster in question is not considered an assault weapon. That's why the whole "assault weapons ban" is stupid anyway. By the time all the lobbies insist on creating a thousand loopholes in any gun control law, there's no sense in having it, so why bother?
That's right Lee, It probably won't work because gun manufacturers, people who run gun shows, iresponsible gun owners who will sell a gun to any joe smo off the streets, dealers, and gun owners who don't lock up their weapons when leaving their houses don't do anything to prevent criminals from having the guns. Plain and simple it is NOT non gun owners who are allowing criminals to have guns. You folks also don't want to do anything about it until the criminal has already killed an innocent bystander.
roadrunner: "Obama has stated he would rewrite the Constitution if he could as it has far too many roadblocks to achieving his agenda." I understand that he is having an alien landing pad built on the White House lawn. He will be leading the aliens assault on the solar system - claiming that campaign will be fully achieved by 1974.
Really? I see that 8 others are entertaining this pathetic assertion. We don't need 'gun control' - we do need 'stupid control'.
oh geez but why would you want to take away my right to be able to KILL with just the pull of a trigger shame on you what if being shot at by some one else that has the right to KILL with just the pull of a trigger aww nooooo what a cruel cruel world
There are several locations around the globe where there is no real gun control. Juarez, Mogadishu, Medellin, Peshawar. Maybe we could learn from their experiences.
Odumbo? ...really? You truly are a dumbass.
Banning assualt rifles is merely a bandaid on the problem of gun violence. If assualt weapons are banned, then those metally disturbed individuals who perpetrate the violence will use other types of firearms. If all firearms were to be banned, they would find other kinds of weapons. The list could go on and on. Weapons violence is a complex problem that definitely includes the effects of violence in TV programs and motion picture on mentally unstable people. The current background check procedure is ineffective and does little -- if anything -- to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not be entrusted with them. The program needs a major revamp. And, that is where the solution to the entire problem should begin. Without tackling all components of the problem it will persist.
Jacquiethedog
If that is the case, then why was this Nut refused twice from buying one?
High capacity magazines will be eliminated from public availability. Background checks WILL be tightened so right wing nuts won't be able to buy 50,000 rounds of ammunition. No one needs that many rounds. You dont have the right to prepare for a war. If you want to do that join the military!
I know some fine people that own guns, and support their right to do so. They are responsible about storing them properly so that there are no mishaps. Many of these friends are former military. These friends are parents, and they support a ban on assault style guns. That type of gun is not for sport, and it way more power then a civilian needs to defend their STUFF.
The NRA has/had an option to be part of the solution, and they chose to blame video games for the gun violence in this country. Others blame bad parenting, not enough prayer, not enough spanking, you know, the usual BS from those stuck in 1950's Mayberry.
Background checks need to be more thorough, and there needs to be mental health certification before someone can obtain any gun. Guns should be registered, and insured. If your gun causes a problem, you should be liable. Just like your car. Licenses should be required, with 1-2 year renewals that include testing on gun safety/storage.
No RESPONSIBLE gun owner takes exception to gun control regulations. Think about that, and think about how responsible you are with your gun.
Adherence Have your own interpretation of the Constitution do you.. Seems our founding fathers all but demanded that the citizens be armed.. The goons that made MILITIA a bad word seem to ignore whats in the Constitution.. Even the Ohio Constitution has similar wording that states 17/63 we are all compelled as citizens to be unorganized Militia and can be called upon at any time to protect the citizens of our state.. Having ample weapons and ammunition seem to a requirement for being a responsible citizen.. If you see a bullet or gun animate themselves and start killing you let me know.. Till then I will keep them locked up in fear of that happening..
Moral decay is the biggest part of the problem.. 1950's No drug gangs controlling entire sections of major cities back then although there were urban crime issues.. The liberals attack the moral code of the religious groups along with the fact that they gather to believe in something other than big brother in Washington.. Seems a drivers licence and insurance does not prevent highway deaths the last time I checked.. In fact inattentive driving from cell phones and other gadgets has spiked the death toll.. But ask these driving fools to give up the cell phone or car stereo and they would be marching in the streets..
What type of gun are you refering to United we stand.. Since many people do use them for hunting and target shooting you have no clue.. A shotgun would do far more close quarters damage then a hand gun so it would make the list sooner or later.. Just because it looks evil, oh that makes sense as some people think all firearms look evil.. If a gang banger jacks your car and while being chased runs into a crowd of people killing several the cars owner should go to jail for life or get lethal injection and be labial for all the law suits.. That what you have in mind??
All REAL AMERICANS need are 13,000,000 rounds and an army that won't be afraid of the Latino vote that won't exist after we get those gutless Spanish babblers a runnin' back to the craphole they call their nest....
adherance-you believe noone should have them right? how about telling me your take on "homeland security buying 1.6 billion rounds of AMMO last year(most of which are hollow points for AUTOMATIC WEAPONS),think they need that? there jurisdiction is american soil ONLY! and it was created why? oh yeah for our "security"? i thought we had military for that? guess our MILITARY isn't up to the job? does anyone else see a pattern since 911, it's a deadly road we are on,you folks that want to ban "assault weapons",HELLO they're already banned! you won't here anymore about the AR15 being left in lanzas' car because that doesn't FIT THEIR AGENDA! wake up my liberal americans,what are you going to do if this were to pass(which it won't) and NEXT on the AGENDA is the FIRST AMENDMENT?
Thank you! Short, well spoken and right to he point of the matter.
obama loves obama-- Oh, so you are publicly threatening to run the Latinos out of this country, even if it means to kill them so that the ones who live will return to their country? Well, I'll have you know you probably live in an area like the ones that you describe where the Latinos live. I know some Latinos who are a better class of persons than YOU present yourself as. I'd rather have them around me than the likes of you.
Get off your high horse-- in your case it is your high ackjass-- and try to act civilized. Note I said TRY-- that is all you can do.
obama: I see the gun lobby is employing their usual reflective, rational and constructive approach. The type of people posting (most) pro assault weapons comments prove that mental health issues are the key.
Ref: "OBAMA Loves OBAMA"
Adherence--What does it matter to you how many rounds of ammunition someone has? Do we need to limit people that if you have beer you can't have a car? More people are killed by drunk driving than guns. How about the China method one child per family? Do you also disagree with free speech? How about womens right to vote? Please tell us oh wise one.
The bigger problem is trying to get those individuals who are breaking the law the follow the law.
Banning this type of rifle will not help however a ban on extended capacity clips should happen. Capacity for centerfire long guns should be limited to 5.
_you: "does anyone else see a pattern since 911,..? Absolutely.
We have to remember that a majority of these horrific shootings used weapons other than assault weapons. So, why all the emphasis on assault style weapons? Maybe if some legislation gets passed on this it will pave the way for more restrictions in the future.
The point is that when people meet a roadblock they will find a way around that roadblock if they really want to get to their destination. All the roadblock does is delay their arrival.
Adherence - It is clear from reading your posts that you have no real knowledge of firearms. You are not alone. The media has done a great job of misinforming the public. It's too bad that people so readily accept what the media feeds them. That will eventually destroy this country.
United -
So if someone steals your car and hits or kills someone with your car, you want to be held liable? wow...
No but your insurance company will be.
There's no better close-quarter weapon than a shotgun........
susie: I don't know any Latinos that aren't "a better class of persons than.."OLO.
Given the stonewalling by some gun-crazy extremists, there might soon be a few "cold, dead hands" with guns in them, just like at Waco and Ruby Ridge. That's unfortunate, but I'd bet most gun owners will simply fold and move on. A cowardly monkey with a gun is still a cowardly monkey.
And you would lose the bet.
Cowardly sheep might give up a few.
Real Americans will never give up.
Al Kyda,
Your assumption that gun owners are cowardly monkeys is just that: An assumption. You may or may not be correct. If you are, things may unfold as you predict: They will simply roll over when the government comes to take their assault weapons. If you are not, well, it's difficult to predict other than to say that terribly violent conflict may result.
In my opinion, in either case, this is a lose - lose situation.
Al Qaeda, obviously you have no clue about anything especially ownership of legal firearms. Try taking my rights away and you will find out what being afraid is. Talk is cheap, action speaks louder...................
Real Americans are the majority of us who want sensible and comprehensive gun regulations and you are correct that we will never give up until the RWNJs are put in their place...even if that means in the ground.
what are you going to do culheath when there is NOTHING protecting YOUR 1rst amendment RIGHT to free speech? and NO you are NOT the majority,those AR15'S look AWFULLY SCARY to you don't they? you are a fool if you think giving up RIGHTS(especially the second) will protect anything you value. funny how you liberals love to spew YOUR views and to hell with others views. you like being able to voice your opinion? try that with NO protection of your first amendment RIGHTS. and don't say ALL we want are your "assault" rifles" the wording this LOUSY congress we have will be so vague as to leave us ALL open for future take aways(does that not compute?) i could do more damage then lanza with two handguns and a handful of magazines,are those next? when will you be happy,why don't you go and physically remove the criminals guns FIRST? think of a REAL solution,you are trying to give the criminals the upper hand which makes me believe you are one.
@!$%#_you,
You certainly are not protecting my 1st amendment rights with any weapons you might own, not mention I can do my own protecting. The only threat I see is your paranoia.
_you: Your screen name speaks volumes. The perfect Patriot - hates everyone. Luckily, after reading one of your delusional rants, we are thereafter forewarned. Do those around you tend to give you sidelong looks, and move away?
That's great, hero. Would "action" include driving trucks full of fertilizer up to federal buildings, as in Oklahoma City?
It is common sense to most intelligent people that assault weapons should not be in our society
Then ban assault rifles in Blue States...
You have no shot in Red States
Please do define the term "assault weapon." People keep throwing around the word but can't adequately describe it.
Then take them away from your local police.
assault weapons are weapons designed for war
Shotguns have been designated for combat usage, as have pistols.
So since some special operations teams use the SIG-226 as a sidearm, that means they should be banned?
See how slippery this slope gets?
INFINITY, you are exactly right.
And the weapons the media talks about are NOT assault weapons.
Viewer_Ready, are you saying Army General Stanley McChrystal doesn't know what assault weapons are?
Nice appeal to authority there, a logical fallacy. Just because Staley McChrystal has a false understanding of what an "assault weapon" is (rather, I should say, a made-up term with an intended, fixated image in mind), doesn't mean that we should follow his example.
Poor reasoning there.
@Ranman87 not all Shotgun's are intended for military use. Other type of shotguns uses include hunting, skeet shooting and Law Enforcement (IE) short barreled shotguns for riot control situation's. The P226 is used by SF personnel but there are other better pistol's in the inventory and the civilian model of it is nice but not all that special.
The only differences between tubular length, what the stock and other components are made of, and barrel length. All are capable of firing buckshot, birdshots, slugs, etc.
The only differences between any of these weapons are what they look like and what attachments they have. Functionally, they are the same.
Ranman87, I trust the General has more knowledge on weapons than you do.
Well, that's your decision, but please learn what an argument from authority is and how it's a faulty line of logic and why I refuse to follow it.
They are not all the same there is a difference between pump action and semi-auto.
It's not authority but experience and knowledge
You say that as if it's common sense, but once you look into the topic you'll realize that it's much more difficult than that.
For instance, I'd like you to define what an "assault weapon" is. I'll give you a hint: many "non-assault rifles" are semiautomatic and can accept magazines. Once you change from a wooden to a black plastic stock, people will begin calling it an "assault weapon" even though the gun itself is still the same model.
A pump action Winchester Defender will fire as long as you pump the action and keep the trigger pulled.
It can hold eight rounds of 00 buckshot.
And is completely legal.
You can empty one in a matter of seconds.
I think your shotgun may be defective the reset in the sear may be worn out or broken.
@Dowhatisright76- An Ithaca model 37 will do the same. The disconnector was redesigned on more modern models- get educated on these models. Rack the action on an Ithaca M37 keeping the trigger depressed and as soon the round is in battery- bang. Repeat as fast as you can rack the action.
I guess I buy higher quality shotguns. Never owned an Ithaca cause I read some reviews claiming reliability problems.
The New Ithaca company, again restarted in the early 2005, is 4 or more owners removed from the original one. They are in Ohio now, not NY. Older pre-1968 M37s are fine. John Browning designed the action in 1915- not inferior design- just CURRENT inferior production and materials to save money. But, that's the NEW corporate American ideal.
Any 6 or 9-shot Mossberg 500 or 590 will do. It's just a shotgun. The Marines were using the Mossberg M590-A1 ( steel receiver ), also available to the public with a bayonet lug! Oh no- a bayonet lug. I have a used $200 REM M870 Police Magnum, only a 5 shot, but so what. Bargain.
infinity8project,
Assault weapons (AR-15) ARE NOT weapons of war. Our soldiers are armed with asasult RIFLES (M-16) that are capable of firing in the fully automatic mode. They are machine guns.
Assault WEPONS cannot do that. They are not weapons of "modern" warfare. Arming our soldiers with them would put them at a significant disadvantage.
Please get clear on the difference between an assault WEAPON and an assault RIFLE. After that, if you still think assault WEAPONS should be banned, at least you'll have an accurate idea of what it is you want to ban.
However, I think an assault WEAPONS ban is just an emotional, feel good attempt to solve the problem of violence in our society. Assault WEAPONS, though featured in recent shootings, have been used very rarely in shootings.
ranman: A US Army General doesn't understand what an assault weapon is, and you do? Google 'delusional'. I had no idea how far out some of you have become.
As I read how the police and politicians want to take away all our freedoms I am reminded about all the news articles of police brutality and corruption.
Makes more sense now.
Good luck America.
An unarmed population is a population controlled by anyone that has money, guns and thus, power.
You mean like what we have right now even with all these guns owners?
All this noise about gun control has increased gun and ammo sales more than 50% in the last couple of weeks. Where people used to buy a hundred rounds they are now buying a thousand. I don't supposed the anti gun politicians have noticed their efforts are enriching the gun dealers and arming America even more.
ranman: "..learn what an argument from authority is and how it's a faulty line of logic." Does that apply to a neurosurgeon, an airline pilot, a firearm use instructor, your math teacher, your kids Little League coach, your priest?
I'm quite the 'authority questioner' myself, but I didn't argue with the guy that put in my stents.
There may be a faulty line of logic here.
SDN, I notice you make more ad hominem attacks than points, but given that more people die yearly at the hands of their doctors than do in all gun related incidents, you may do well to question the guy that put in your stents.... just sayin'.
POTUS Purple Lips won't get his gun ban, he doesn't have the votes....
Too bad Liberals, We win in the end
This would be the first police dept I have heard of that does not have officers with patrol riffles, ie; Long Guns or the basically the AR-15. Most larger agencies through out the the US who own their riffles rather than force the officers to purchase them have have the full auto versions that that when selected fire three round bursts when you pull the trigger. If this agency isn't with the times they should get with it not expect others to give up their modern weapons. If this department still uses old DOS computers should we give up our newer technology till they can catch up and be able to solve crimes commuted with modern devices.
Here is another story I am not seeing reported yet, how about it NBC, the douche-bag paper who posted a list and map of all the people who have gun permits in White Plains, NY has caused EXACTLY what was predicted when they did it. Two men broke in to one of the listed homes in hopes of stealing his guns. Fortunately the owner had a decent safe they coud not get in to otherwise these criminals would be in possession of guns the are prohibited to have under law, yea crooks really care abouts the laws. This is gross negligence on the part of the paper, while I certainly believe in free speech I don't think that extends to recklessly endangering the general public
Our little police dept only has 2 officers and the chief Bill and they have a fully automatic HK MP-5 they take on patrol with them in case they need more firepower along with their shotguns.
Well, why would you want the gov't occupation forces to have more sophisticated weapons? Ask Iraqis what it's like to live under the USA's military/ mercenary/ police occupation- +900,000 Iraqis dead; 15,000 in prison most without charges being read against them. Yeah, wonderful. Newtown, CT's dinky, ineffective police chief can screw himself. They're lying about the weapons Lanza used anyway- he used pistols only.
@dou44
Do you have proof to your allegation that Lanza used only pistols?
do you have PROOF that he used more than pistols? Not reports....PROOF....no we are at the mercy of what they choose to release......just like the discussions Biden had being closed door...why? We have near 24/7 coverage of sporting events, we had 24/7 coverage of the newton tragedy, but then shut the public out of the discussions to determine what should be done.....those should have been and should be broadcasted more than the President's upcoming inaugural speech should be broadcasted! Why don't they open the doors and turn on the cameras...what do they have to hide? Think on it
united-original news stories put the AR15 in lanzas' car,i was online when the incident happened.what about the guy they found in the woods? CIA? after two days they started reporting that he had it on him,which is unlikely,seeing as the police would have been the ones to know first hand and have to tell the reporters, it was changed to fit the ANTI-GUN AGENDA. some people ONLY see what they WANT and don't REMEMBER anything really pertinant. it's too bad but the liberal media controls what we are force fed to fit their views.
bill: Your last sentence. How far should it extend? It's a 'slippery slope' according to what I'm hearing about the Second Amendment.
Why doesn't just one of us fess up and tell the rest of us why your guns mean so much to you?
NBC report - no AR-15 Bushmaster used in shooting. Repeat - no assault rifle used in this shooting. 4 handguns (ONLY) were found with shooters body. There was an semi-auto shotgun found in the trunk of his car, that wasn't used.
They stripped out the URL - but go to YouTube and search for "
Sandy Hook- No "Assault Weapons" Used"
SDN two years ago I was walking my little dog in the city park three teenage punks with base-ball bats attacked me they killed my little dog and almost killed me I had three broke ribs a reptured spleen and the broke one of my arms some other teens stoped them and helped me home I got my hand gun and went back to the park, they were still there and one asked me you want some more old man ? I shot and killed him and the other two ran like hell to get away,and that is why my guns mean so much to me, I'm a 62 year old combat vertan and I had to kill in order for them to beat me half to death?? I open carry now so don't give me any @!$%# about gun control I wont harm you unless you try and harm me..........................................
Sure, whatever you say. Are you posting from prison? Google "gullible".
sdn your nothing but a troll and a fool
SDN,
I'll take a whack at why they mean something to me. I am 60 y.o., never been in the military and was "gun agnostic" for 58 years. I have always been a registered Democrat and a relatively liberal one at that. I was outraged when GWB pushed the "Patriot Act", invaded Iraq on the shabbiest of pretenses, started illegal wiretapping of Americans and torture of "enemy combatants". These actions were not those of the country and government I had grown up to believe in. I supported Obama with my money, mouth and vote, really believing we would see a change. Quite simply there has been no change and Obama is truly furthering the same policies of GWB. Where is the Democratic outrage? I have also been keeping an eye on the economy and the way Obama is bringing in more of the very same crooks that we were so outraged about when Bush was in office. Why are those people now above the law? Zero prosecutions for multi-billion dollar fraud-Where is the outrage? Now we have DHS militarizing our local police forces (Recently had 30 SWAT officers in our little town turn out in full gear with fully automatic "Assault Rifles" in response to a man standing along side the road holding a knife to his own throat!). What does our government know that they aren't telling us such that they need that kind of firepower? The police have no real ability to protect anyone, I mean they don't even show up for a bank robbery before the guys get out and they have alarms wired directly to the PD. So why would they get there in time to help me and my family? My conclusion from the big build up in military capabilities of the police and the fact that DHS is buying hundreds of millions of rounds of (semi-automatic) ammo, while the world economy is going down the toilet is that the U.S. government expects a wide spread breakdown in society-Then why would I, as a responsible parent, not avail myself of some modest insurance against that possibility? Further, who am I to determine what another equally serious and responsible person feels that they want for their own protection or enjoyment? Don't like guns and don't want one-then don't get any, but the constitutional civil liberties of American citizens are not up for a majority vote. The Constitution stands against the tyranny of government as well as against the tyranny of the majority. Just my opinion, but you asked.
The Newtown families are the last ones to ask about an unemotional idea for resolving violence in America. Kehoe has no business opening his yap. This massacre happened on his watch. He should resign. obama and his gun grabbers will lose big on this. They better start worrying about the debt ceiling. When the country goes bankrupt and all the welfare cheats don't get their freebies, I'm gonna need my assault rifles.
I think you are the one that should keep your yap shut , because this country has heard enough from cowards like you that feel the need for a big gun to feel like a man .
@SUKmeBollix please don't make generalities about people that you know nothing about. You don't know why people have the firearms they do, but it is their right to have them. I served 8 years in the US Air Force (USAF) and 5 years in the North Carolina Air National Guard (NCANG) and I have my AR-15s because it was the closest I could acquire to the M-16s that I trained on while on active duty and in the Guard. My firearms have not harmed a soul and will not do so unless provoked to do so. Your remarks only show your closed mindedness and do not reflect good on you.
@youSUKbolls As a victim of rape, home invasion & domestic violence, having a gun doesn't make me feel more powerful, just more secure. Just because you feel more comfortable leaving yourself defenseless doesn't mean the rest of us do, or should have to.
Paul from NM,
Do you actually own assault RIFLES? Are they possibly assault WEAPONS? Please clarify as the confusion between the two may be fueling some, if not much, of the antigunner's movement.
paul: You're not suggesting we limit Chief Kehoe's First Amendment Rights, are you?
Your comments are so sad - what is wrong with you??
paul: "The Newtown families...better start worrying about the debt ceiling." That is the most callous statement I've heard since the Newtown massacre. Congratulations. You are a disgrace to this species.
bez: Might want to reassess your lifestyle.
What would be the difference in banning certain types of guns to limiting the purchase of ammunition of said guns?
None.
Neither will be banned.
Problem with limiting purchases of ammunition is how easily is it to acquire from south of the border, as well as being able to make it from home.
No guns that shoot more than on bullet at a time. Seems pretty simple. You can not stop all tragedys but you can still try and not make it so easy so a few gun nuts can have their big weapons. People who want those kinds of weapons are a minority. this is all about gun company profits they just hide behind people like RAMAN the idiot.
What about double barrel shotguns? They have been around for centuries. Are they going to be classified as Assault Weapons by you?
BTW. Only one bullet comes out of a barrel at a time with a machines gun. Several bullets(shot) comes out the barrel of a shotgun at once. FOOL!
The VAST majority of gun violence and murder in America are Obama voters in Major Cities...
Stupid statement ^^^^
Stupid but true.
and THAT is your spin on a serious issue?
Ban that crap. There's no use for it.
And where do you live?
And what protection do you have other than condoms?
Mr. Binkie is a pacifier without regard as to others' self preservation- just like the police chief in Newtown, CT.
Liberals just don't want Semi Auto Rifles, they want all guns...
Semi Autos is just the start, although they will loose....
You're going to see a number GOPers on this push for it. Elitists on the Left and Right Wing authoritarians are spit swappers. It's BIG gov't control they have in common.
Banning assault guns or ANY type of gun will accomplish absolutely NOTHING!!
It's all a dog and pony show. unfortunately, too many people believe the show and are aiding in the demise of this country.
banning assault weapons is the demise of our country?
Banning weapons of any kind is the demise of any nation.
Just ask Germany.
And I could add more.
Huh?
Germany is a thriving and intellectual society where firearms are heavily REGULATED, not banished. You have to be a part of a shooting club as well as prove ownership of the firearms, but otherwise, it's still very much legal to shoot.
Getting really sick of both sides misinforming everyone else. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't comment on the issue please.
I was talking about the Hitler era.
Hitler confiscated weapons and gave the farmers single shot .22's for varmint control.
I happen to own one.
Made in Mella-Zellis Germany.
Sorry you didn't catch the drift.
Gun control was implemented in the Weimar society of Germany as well to keep the Freikorps from opening another rebellion. People who think that gun control is what allowed Hitler to rise to power are ignorant of historical fact, considering large majorities of the population supported him.
I'm sorry, but it's not simply just gun control + Hitler = rise of Nazis. It's just not that simple. I really wish people would stop using that line of argumentation. It oversimplifies what happened WAY too much.
Gun control did not help as much as the brainwashing.
But he did have the weapons seized.
And yes, they did support him.
This is why they gave up weapons.
They were told they would be protected, and did not need them.
The farmers and the Hitler youth corps had the .22s.
The one just like the one I own.
I have been to Germany a few times.
And have done research on this subject.
That is a fact friend.
Going to Germany gives you no further knowledge of the subject or time period at all, and unless you speak German and are able to read through governmental documents from the late-1920s through the 1930s on the time period, then you really won't know yourself.
Jeese--you gunners need to look at sources other than your right wing rags--the Versailles treaty took all guns away from German citizens--the 1938 Weapons act passed by the Nazis gave em back--see this here is called the iternet and we can check your BS--Look it up--weapons act of 1938
Versailles Treaty was in reference to military armaments. Private arms weren't a part of the equation.
Before you decide to lump me in a group and insult me, perhaps you should learn the facts yourself?
The 1938 Nazi weapons act prohibited Jewish citizens from owning any firearms.
The Nazis did a lot of things outside of gun control of the Jews. They denied their entry into the country and even leaving the country, even with passports.
Any gun control measure passed wouldn't strip firearms away from anyone, but would rather limit the types of firearms that you would be able to purchase. It's a false analogy.
Nobody is taking away your guns, but instead they are attempting to limit the kinds and amounts of new weapons you can buy.
OBAMA: You couldn't distinguish between a 'loyal American' and shopping bag.
"OBAMA and his LA RAZA supporters from Mexico considers loyal Americans NAZIS."
I think Homeland Security should devote all of their assets to a national program of encouraging emotional maturity.
Libs, are you willing to come and take them away yourselves? If you are, you better have the means to do so, and you know what that means.
Any upcoming AWB would likely be, if passed, dealing with the new manufacture of anything that meets the laws in the books. You could own as much as you already have purchase items from someone else, but the manufacture of future rifles/pistols/shotguns/whatever they're trying to do would be prohibited.
Something along the lines of what happened in '94. Stop being paranoid. They're not going to come house to house confiscating what you have. It wouldn't even be feasible.
It's not feasible.
And most sane gun owners are not worried about it.
But the liberal anti-gun nuts think that is what is about to occur.
They think that we will all be disarmed and flowers will bloom and the sun will shine down on them.
"If you are, you better have the means to do so, and you know what that means"
What does that mean and please tell us. You sound tough but I like to see what you're going to do if they decide to come and take them away from you.
viewer_ready:
save ur fingers - ranman has no concept of reality and cannot see beyond his ego.
He does know somewhat of what he speaks.
And I respect that.
But he appears to be blinded with anti-gun rage, as am I to a certain extent.
So you decide to attack me instead of my argumentation. Nice.
Where have I been anti-"anything?" I only commented on this article to find a middle ground between understanding how both sides have points to their arguments, but in others, just fall way off. There has to be a sensible middle ground on keeping firearms out of people who obviously don't need to be in possession of one as well as educating "anti-gunners" (if you want to call them that) on the limits that legislation will have on weapons and their influence in American society.
I just get really tired of reading the same illogical and false-analogical arguments time and time again on news stories like this, while having people insult me because my opinion doesn't fully match theirs. What has happened to us? Why is it that it seems that none of us can come to the table anymore and concede that while we're right on some issues, some people have a better understanding in other areas?
People that comment on these articles have completely threw honesty to the side and instead want to yell at the top of their voice, no matter how right or wrong they are. It needs to stop, or we'll never find a true working solution.
Ranman87,
I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Unless both sides of the issue of gun control and violence can renounce the purely emotional elements that they think support their positions, nothing of significance, nothing positive will happen.
Emotions pretty much come and go on their own accord. No effort is required. In contrast, logical thought takes effort. Unfortunately, I think too many people take the easier path.
The point you make about conceding to those with greater knowledge or better ideas is well taken. However, I think that's not likely to happen until the emotions cool.
In the mean time, keep up the good work.
western: Whatever you say Wyatt. It means anyone with patience and intelligence would prevail. You lack at least one of these characteristics.
western: "The cheaper the gunsul, the gaudier the patter." (Dashiell Hammett)
whats an assault rifle? (question for the gun control advocates)
Those idiots would not know an assault rifle from a purple dildo.
Notice the terminology difference between "assault rifle" and "assault weapon." An assault rifle is clearly define. A rifle of an intermediate caliber that fires more than one round with each pull of the trigger, where an assault weapon has no clear or concise definition. Like I said, it was a fabricated word created by media groups because they knew they couldn't weasel out of defining what an assault rifle is.
Ranman when the gun nuts resort to an argument about terminology it means they've lost the argument on the central issue--I wont tell em what it is if you wont
the first assault rifle was designed by the Germans--it was called the "Sturmgewehr". The Armalite Corp desinged a weapon for the US militarty-it was called the AR-15. Colt bought them out and came out with two slightly modified varients--the 601 and the 602's, I shot the 601 during the Viet Nam war. Any weapon descended from these is rightfully called anh assault weapon--the ability to fire on full auto is not needed as a design feature to make it an assault weapon--the military did away with this feature itself too much ammo too quick----ban them all, next question please
David, only part true. The military changed from full auto to a 3 round burst to conserve ammo, and neither the full auto or 3 round burst models are available to the general public.
Not true. They are NFA-weapons that can be legally transferred if you have the cash and can find one. They have to be grandfathered in, but the prices on an NFA weapon can be in the tens of thousands. They are not cheap AT ALL.
The military version was actually the M-16. The AR-15 is for civilians and can only fire semi automatically.
As a former NFA weapon owner, they are expensive. An m16/ m4 that is civilian transferrable is now $12K-$20K+ depending on the model and make. There are less than 200,000 transferable machine guns of any type available to the public last time I checked. Thank GOPer hero, gun control jerk Reagan for that ban in 1985.
Anything that can wound 20+ people in under a minute.
Yes, I see, the police chief in Newton never came up with a plan to protect the children before Lanza, never approached the school about hiring part time retired police to provide security during the school year, much like 911, our leaders, or rather those in the position to take preventive action, failed miserably to prevent, even with all types of warnings.
Now, it is simple, only they, police, can have guns, and the criminals, and not those who wish to protect their family or abide by the Bill Of Rights. I will always remember seing on You-Tube the two innocent, welll behaved women, raped on the side of the road by a Texas State trooper, for simply throwing a cigarette out of the window and an officer thinking he smelled pot, no pot at all. That police cam on You-Tube showed me just how important it is to have assault rifles, and guns, to protect our selves from the Government, and I for one am willing to die to protect that Bill Of Rights, and at this time I only own an old semi auto 22 rifle. I now plan on buying what I think I may need and desire.
We must all remember that in Afghanistan the U.S. owns the skies and the oceans, but the lightly armed Afghanie "insurrection', has fought us to a battle field stalemate, that is the power of a determined people, armed with assault rifles. So never underestimate our ability to hold of a Federal power determined to enslave us!
We can not base gun control on wacko ideas like Joel in spewing. How silly it is to think that private citizens could defeat the US federal government in any scenario. Not possible so it is a ridiculous notion. Detached from reality. No automatic weapons of any kind. No grenades, no rocket launchers.
Rtypo
That means a shotgun is an assault weapon.
I wouldn't include a shotgun because of the limited range and (non modified) ammo capacity. A standard load .12 ga shell is accurate out to what, 20-30 yards maybe? Technically speaking a 6 round, .38 revolver could wound 20+ people in under a minute if the crowd was dense enough and the shooter was close enough to the victims.
I'm not talking about every hypothetical situation, a gun shouldn't have the capacity for a deliberate kill shot upon 20 people or more from the same magazine imo.
beast: What you tell your fellow gun afficianados you own.
Must be looking for votes
I did not see one gun kill anyone it takes people to kill people no gun law will stop this
examining the mental health institutions in america seems the best way to address this. this all could have been prevented if the mother had been able to commit her son for psychiatric care and testing, as she wanted, rather than being forced to care for an unstable individual on her own.
I love when Liberals compare Northern European countries to the U.S.
Those countries are lilly White and educated, they don't have millions of Treyvons running around.
Just another ignorant racist.
Yeeeeaaaaaah, enjoy your ban.
@thomasswipeweirdoo That's pretty rash being that Treyvon was a kid who was stalked & killed, mostly likely just due to his skin tone. Racism is a disease on this planet & the World would be a much much better place without you & those like you in it.
bezsenny52
I think you need to be updated on that story... It has been proven that he WAS NOT Stalked and that he WAS on top beating George...
Stop reading this trash here on this sight and read Honest Reporting.
Ban away. Then the only ones with these weapons will be criminals, terrorists, mentally ill and the Foreign Countries manufacturing them and selling them on the Black Market. Sounds logical to me. Say how is that War on Drugs doing. 43rd year? How are those bans doing.
And American Citizens unwilling to complete with a dictator.
randy: 'complete with a dictator'? Is that anything like 'becoming labial'?
Again, so you people understand....
Yea, yea, yea, we've heard this mindless drivel from the NRA for decades now. All of you "patriots" who are going to take on the tyrannical government when they come for you with M-1 Abrams tanks, helcopter gun ships, F-18 fighter/bombers, 155mm long guns, howizters, heavy machine guns, and how bout a few nuclear submarines for good measure. You're gonna hold them off with your stupid AR-15, is that it? Please, you are embarrassing yourself.
Stop with wrapping yourself up in the flag and spouting off about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Most of you people know NOTHING about the Constitution. Does the Constitution way the government cannot regulate guns? Does 'the right to keep and bear arms" include all the above heavy weaponry I listed? Should you be allowd to own rocket launcers, .50 cal. Brownings, hand grenades, 4" mortars and god knows what else you gun crazies lust for. We banned fully automatic weapons because of all the mob violence in the 1930's why is it unconstitutional to ban qausi-military assault style weapons which are the new choice of weaponry for every demented crazy person out there?
If the situation ever arises where they're using M-1 Abrams, Apache gunships, and bomber aircraft against the civilian populace on our own soil, then would there not be a better time to resist them with whatever you have?
It would be highly illegal for the government to use the military especially to enforce an unconstitutional law. If the Pres. were to issue such an order the DOJ would have no choice but to issue an warrant for his arrest.
We've been enforcing illegal wiretaps and violations of the Fourth Amendment over the past decade in the name of terrorism. So just how many more violations of the Constitution is it going to take?
However if a group of nuts manage to take over a city/count/state government and declare themselves the free state of Texihouwhiterepublicon or whatever - you will see a response from the feds and it won't be anything an AR-15 or other 'legal' weapon will be able to stop.
The government and the corporations that own you just want you to be happy consumers working at your cra) jobs with low pay.
The only way they are coming for you is if you are a whack job demanding the arrest of the pres or some other BS that will get you locked up in a mental ward.
Ozzy Boy, you assume that the military will come and attack it's own population because they were ordered to do so. What you fail to grasp is that the military is made up of US citizens, and if the situation in our country ever came destabilized to the point of mass rebellions requiring military intervention, it is highly likely that members of the military would have defected and would be taking sides also. It's a logical fallacy that the US military would just crack down and start blasting fellow citizens with tanks and combat aircraft. And the military is vastly outnumbered by the population, both in terms personnel and in number of weapons, they only account for about 1% of our population.
Every service member takes an oath to defend the Constitution and to obey all legal orders given by those appointed over them.
Dowhatisright76,
You have made a significant point. All military, commissioned officers, warrant officers, and enlisted, take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They swear to obey all LAWFUL orders given them by their superior officers.
I would hope and I think that if an order was ever given by our Commander-in-Chief to turn our military against our civilian population, that the oaths of commision and enlistment would immediately come to mind in the thoughts of every single soldier, sailor, airman, and marine along the entire chain of command and that such an order would be recognized as unlawful and therefore not be carried out.
hmdicowii
All commissioned officers in the United States military must make the following oath of office when they are appointed in the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy or U.S. Marine Corps
“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foriegn and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Please Note that it does Not say anything about Obeying Lawful Orders.... That is for the Enlisted only.
Any weapon you want is available on the Black Market. Where do you think the Blacks in the Major cities are getting them from? Anyone denying anyone who wants to purchase a weapon today to protect whatever he or she deems necessary should have the right to do so. Those of you that slam the NRA don't know anything about them and what they stand for. You don't want guns? You want to ban everything. Don't worry one bit. While your family is being murdered in a home invasion I'll just turn up the volume on my TV. Check out what happened to Dr. William Petit in Connecticut. Look up on Google about Home Invasions. Especially note in this article how easy it is to get any key for any lock. Then take your wimpy anti-NRA, terrorist supporting criminal spineless azzzz and get out of my way.
http://www.lockjawsecurity.com/pdf/LockBumpingFactSheet.pdf
ranman: Seems to me that would be the worst time to "resist them with whatever you have." Facing the US Military head-on? Surely you jest. Secrecy and surprise? That would be my choice should this scenario ever arise.
You realize that any group comprising less than 50% of the population fomenting civil war would be, and should be, considered 'domestic terrorists'? The US Military is sworn to defend this country against 'enemies foreign or domestic'. If this realistically tiny, albeit hysterical, fraction of the population tries to overthrow the government, they will be treated as such. This is a democracy, the electoral process is intact, and the legally elected President is Commander in Chief.
Boozer the law was written when the had only muskets and cannons. They could not forsee the future. Figure it out you moron.
Times-Running-Out,
You are correct and I was in error as to the oath for officers. However, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which applies to all military, does make it clear that only lawful orders are to be obeyed and further indicates a duty to not obey unlawful orders.
Let's see some rational basis - some evidence that preventing normally law abiding citizens from buying new "assault rifles" will have any effect on shootings in the next 20 years. We cannot take away constitutional rights based upon on a politically motivated "guess." Why is it that liberals are so quick to whine about the rights that are important to them, but so quick to take away others rights? You are horrified that many right wing people think abortion is murder, and should be against the law. You say "it is my body" (when actually "it" is the body of a fetus or baby). You would never allow limits on violent video games or movies, or rap songs about the violence to women, right? Entertainment industry would scream "First Amendment, censure ship." But, in that you don't want to own a gun, you want to control others' rights to do so. Seems a bit hypocritical. How about outlaw "assault weapns," and in exchange out law abortion. No? Not fair, huh?
And some of idiots really think a criminal is going though some kind of back ground check when they buy a gun ..haha you guys need more koolaid if you really think more gun laws will stop a criminal when they want a gun....
Shows how much you know smart guy. Over the last several decades many hundreds of thousands of appicants have been denied the purchase of a gun. Of course, with all the illegal transactions that take place at gun shows, there has been an easy way around it. The kid who shot Gabby Giffords walked into a Walmart and within a few minutes he had a small arsenal.
You're a fool!
Ozzie you are simply wrong - even under existing laws nothing happens "in a few minutes." Plus, have you seen the damage a 12 gauge shot gun can do in 30 seconds? 7 rounds of 00 buckshot = about 70 9mm bullets - you think you will prevent a shooting? Why don't you focus on preventing the insane over breeding of homie punks that kill hundreds of people a year - they steal their guns. You want to interfere in my life because 2 or 3 psychos killed 40 people. Which they would have done anyway. But, you also want me to pay to support the black welfare gangbanger babies who grow up to be more gangbangers.
A background check doesn't protect against first time offenders.
Ozzie:
Ya need to get your stroy straight...
@Lee Blake-
WTF kind of racist crap are you spewing? Get help!
This police chief is a fool, people need to quit using the word assault in front of anything!. Is it an assault pencil, or an assault toothbrush, maybe an assault Labrador? Lets ban all of these because I used the word assault before the object or animal. The term assault is so of kilter that anyone who uses this word other than a physical assault is extremely unintelligent and really just need to shut their mouths including this dumbass police chief. You are all fools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fred: "You are all fools!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:"
Uh, huh.
Ok now that we agree on banning asault weapons to the law abiding folks what do we propose to do about keeping the criminals from getting them? Killing 20 people is already banned unless you do it while they are still in the womb. So in all reality I dont think banning assault weapons will deter a person who is planing on killing 20 people at all.
It's ironic that Chief Kehoe has the same last name as the perpetrator of the Bath, Michigan Elementary School Massacre of May 18, 1927. There 38 elementary school children and 4 adults were murdered by an unhappy school board (Andrew Kehoe) member using dynamite and improvised incendiaries. This guy is unreal. First, he told us that the psychotic gunman used two semi-automatic pistols and had left the "assault rifle" in his vehicle. Next, he tells us HE DID use the "assault rifle". Hummm? Then on a national news interview he tells us that "assault weapons" (sic) are not like other firearms "they were made to kill people". Hellooooo, Chief. All weapons were made to kill people. It's just that today's weapons are technologically more advanced that the FORMER military weapons like muzzle-loaders and bolt action rifles. Norway has some of the MOST STRINGENT "sensible gun control laws" in Europe. But on July 22, 2011, on Utoey Island, near Oslo, Norway, a 33-year old racist murdered 77 TEENAGERS and wounded many others AFTER PASSING EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT OF NORWAY'S HIGHLY RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS. This isn't "Minority Report". We don't have a "Pre-Crime" Unit, even in New York City under Emperor Bloomberg. It's IMPOSSIBLE to stop all evil. You certainly don't do it by rendering the whole of the population defenseless against the would-be predators among us. tinyurl dot com/Jim-McCauley