Although this law failed to stop Adam Lanza, it might have helped others. According to NPR, in its first 10 years, this law resulted in the seizure of 2,000 guns, with most complaints coming from spouses.
What do you think? It's no ban on assault weapons, but allows police to err on the side of caution instead of waiting until someone goes on a rampage.
Below is a video from former NFL star on the importance of gun safety.
101 comments:
Excellent idea. I mean, I think that today, in the year 2012, we should take a look at private ownership of any firearms. They are not necessary. There is no good reason for anyone to have a gun at all. We have amended the constitutions for other reasons, why not this.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people?" OK....but the possession of a gun makes the difference between injuring and killing in most cases.
So, coming from that perspective, Hell yes it's time for a gun seizure law. If someone is determined to be a threat, their guns should be removed immediately.
No one is going to get hurt by NOT having a gun.
Overall I think it is a good idea. There would need to be some healthy checks and balances in order to reduce the risk of abuse of the law by people who want to use it to get back at someone and over reach of Government authority.
Appropriately implemented could be a great thing.
Being gunless can be a real threat to some peoples lives.
So re ANON 12:38 yes it could lead to someone getting hurt or perhaps if in security becoming unemployed.
And of course relationship conflicts are filled with exaggeration and lies. tempers and emotions.
Agreeing with Bill @ 5:00 I would not throw the idea out, but think that it would have to be well written to suspend a constitutional right to bear arm.
Surely something like this cannot be abused? A vindictive spouse/friend/coworker etc filing an unlawful compliant and the individual then loses his guns for up to a year.
I am also sure the government entities such as the ATF (Always Think Forfeiture) will also not abuse.
Enforce the laws already on the books. If you are convicted of a felony, if you have been committed for mental health issues, you lose your rights to bear arms. If you are convicted of making terroristic threats of bodily harm, you lose the rights to your guns.
But to strip an individual of his rights based on the potential here say of another is a back ended way to circumvent the 2nd amendment.
I would add this, greatly increase the penalty for using a gun in ANY level of crime. Even petty shakedowns after school.
If budding, young punks know they will get a guaranteed 5-7 years, they will be less likely to even touch those things. Doesn't solve the mental health problem, but could reduce the number of guns out there, and slowly change the culture.
The mental health, "whistle-blower" thing is interesting. We have something like that with potential cases of child abuse.
Bernie, I believe pa already has a similar act on the books, the Protection From Abuse Act. Where Judges find abuse or threats of violence, law enforcement is ordered to seize all guns the defendant owns, even if guns weren't used or threatened to be used. Albeit, family and sexual partners are the only ones who can file for a PFA, but don't you think this law is in line with the thesis of your article? Just wondering your thoughts on this matter.
You realize Lanza had no guns to seize!
I realize this. Obviously, the law failed to prevent what happened.
This law is much broader than the PFA, but the PFA does provide for seizure. Automatic.
The problem is the definition of mental defect. You go to various council meetings and many of the people speaking at the floor could be deemed mentally disturbed.I could name a few regulars.
China and USSR used mental hospitals for political control.
I do think our mental health support is lacking as we worry too much about rights of the people in the system. Easier to propose gun laws as it doesn't upset the ACLU folks.
It seems like we're trying to fit a gun control solution to the problem, when it's becoming increasingly apparent that gun control (or even increased seizure laws) would not have stopped this incident.
I think the President's rush to "do something" is merely a smokescreen, and his allies are using the natural emotions from this tragedy to promote a predetermined agenda.
It is no smokescreen. Plenty of us are fed up by this gun violence an are searching for answers. I agree that gun control alone is not the answer, but am sick and tired of the unwillingness to recognize that this is even a problem.
I'm with 12:38 AM.
To hell with the Constitution. What did those old racist teabaggers know anyway?
But why stop at the 2nd Amendment?
No voting rights for welfare recipients. They are bribed every election. And a vote in the hands of those who might be bribed is far more dangerous than any gun.
While we're at it, DUI checkpoints 24 hours a day, on every street where there is a tavern or restaurant with a liquor license. Forget the downside, the "If even one tragedy is prevented" rule should prevail everytime, everywhere, right?
"There is no good reason for anyone to have a gun at all".
Alrighty then...
-Clem
Clem, The Second Amendment does not translate to a tank in every driveway, nor does it deprive the state of the ability to impose meaningful regulations that are designed to achieve a legitimate public interest. I would think that the preservation of children's lives would be right up there. I can see no justifiable reason for a weapon that allows magazines holding 20 or more bullets, except perhaps in your home. I see no justification for a 50 caliber sniper rifle or pistol. None. I do think people who are acting erratically should have their firearms taken away until a mental health evaluation is completed. I also think we need to consider additional security at schools and malls and at any places with large numbers of people.
Actually, the 2nd Amendment did mean that. The intent was clearly to provide for the people to never again be held hostage to an overreaching government. Arms is a broad term, intentionally used. They did not say to keep and bear "muskets" or "pistols".
Others here have it right. No law would have prevented this tragedy.
-Clem
Bernie: I asked this in the other thread, but as a non gunowner, how many rounds do you think i should be able to have to defend myself and my family? And do you think it is reasonable that criminals will abide by whatever baseline is established?
Also Bernie, how many people do you think were killed in the US by 50 cals last year? I bet it is under 5 if any.
Everybody is sick of the gun violence Bernie, and i think you will be hard pressed to find ANYBODY who thinks what happened at Sandy Hook to be remotely ok. But gun control is not the answer in the least.
Clem is also correct on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It has nothing to do with sport shooting or hunting etc. It is an additional check over the government by the populace against the potential of an over reaching government.
The Second Amendment has been construed to protect an individual's right to bear arms, although that is not what it says. Funny how strict constructionists look the other way on that one. Be that as it may, the courts have also upheld state attempts at gun regulation.
As far as the magazine count you should have in your own home, are you expecting an invasion? I'm no expert, but I would think a shotgun should be the best gun for home protection, even if your aim is off and there is more than one person. There simply is no need for a high capacity magazine. That would be determined by the type of weapon. For example, a BB gun could be high capacity.
Finally, in response to the question about the criminal use of 50 caliber sniper rifles, I would first point out that there simply is no legitimate reason for a civilian to have that kind of armor and bulletproof-vest piercing weapon.
Below is a link showing its criminal use over the years. I don't have last year's facts bc the ATF stopped publishing which fatalities are caused by which weapons. You can thank the NRA for that.
http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm
"Actually, the 2nd Amendment did mean that. The intent was clearly to provide for the people to never again be held hostage to an overreaching government. Arms is a broad term, intentionally used"
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Any strict constructionist would conclude that the right to keep and bear arms, which is vested in "the people" and not in individuals, relates to a "well regulated militia."
Now the Supreme Court has upheld the individual's right to bear arms, but that is not what the Constitution says.
WOW, for once I actually agree with Clem!
Bernie, tell us more about the 50 cal pistol. That really sounds like something.
Check out www.vpc.org .
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
The Bill of Rights grants 'rights' to 'individuals' not groups. Whether militias, the ACLU, NAMBLA, etc. no 'group' is given rights in the first ten ammendments.
That's not entirely true. The Tenth Amendment provides, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That creates or reserves rights to the States. I never read the S Ct decision, but that sounds like it must have been one of the arguments used by the Court.
In the Tenth, the use of the word "people" does seem to refer to individual people. So if you take that in connection with the Second, you might be right.
To hell with the Bill of Rights.
Take them all except shotguns.
PA Constitution:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Period.
No mention of "well regulated militia, simply the right of the citizens.
That said, changing laws--like any other decision, public or personal--is typically ill advised when acting out of passion rather than when cooler heads prevail. Have we as a nation put some restrictions in the past as to the type of arms available to the general public? yes. Is a knee jerk reaction because a loon stole his mother's guns (no law would protect against that) before killing her and then proceding to a gun-free zone the answer? doubtful.
Honestly, I think the understandably frightful response many have to Newtown, are the result to societal changes. Fewer law abiding citizens own guns, and hence somewhat fear them. I recall in my youth, it was not uncommon for people to have gun racks in their trucks. I remember my first job interview as a teacher, and the principal's office was lined with shotguns because students were allowed to bring them so they could leave for hunting directly after school, but had to keep them in his office. People generally had a respect for guns, and for their proper handling. Alot has changed in a mere generation.
Is it time to reassess what is available? Maybe, we did have that conversation in the 30s in response to gangsters with Tommy guns for example. However, the discussion should be with cool heads, and tread very carefully.
And while talking with cooler heads, perhaps we can look at the wisdom of closing the ASH's of the world and pushing people out into society. Seems like too much talk about guns, and not enough about mental health policy. Putting more restrictions on lawful, sane, gun onwers, while advocating that those with mental or severe cognitive issues have their "rights" to the "least restrictive environments" seems somehow backwards.
Here we go again with another senseless shooting in upstate NY with the victims being volunteer firefighters, no one is safe it seems...
Guns & people kill people, how many more will we read about this holiday season?
Lighthouse, I was not quoting the Pa. Constitution, but the U.S. Constitution, which trumps the state. I agree with the sentiment that we should look at this dispassionately, but we can't ignore what is happening any longer.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/24/16125861-4-volunteer-firefighters-shot-2-dead-in-apparent-trap?lite
Very sad.
Whatever the perp did in Rochester is ALREADY against some law on the books!
Let's do a much better job with the laws we already have. Besides, you can't legislate away all wackos. We've already failed at legislating away booze, drugs, cheating, wife-beating, etc.
Paul Carpenter got it right. Bernie goes with the fabricated pseudo-definition.
It's not about the reality of it anyway, so what's it matter here at LVR?
I have no idea what you are saying, but am glad to hear that Paul Carpenter has a different view than mine. I just went and read his column, something I don't usually do. I agree with his point about mental health, disagree with him about Mexico and Switzerland.
My point being: he got the definition of an " assult weapon " correct. You made your own definition up,
That makes the use of the English language problematic in any given conversation.
PS GREAT Vidieo on this post. You correctly post the US Constitution on Secound Amend. of course and again correctly remind readers its trumpts Pa Constitution ------ but then call to gut sections of the Bill of Rights you find problematic .
That pesky Bill of Rights again!
Assult Wepon is by definition, select fire. Simple English. What's not to understand?
Is it Time For a Gun Seizure Law?
What it's time for is for parents to start paying attention...attention to what their children are watching...Do not allow violent video games to be baby sitters.
...time to pay attention to the mentally ill among us. It is not enough to pat them on the head, give them a prescription and "hope for the best".
The guy in Connecticut might have driven an automobile into a schoolyard crowded with kids, if he did not have access to a gun. His mommy bought it.
Four planes were hijacked in 2001...they used box cutters......
What's not to understand?
Knee-jerk reactions.
There ya go with facts again. This is supposed to be an EMOTIONAL reaction.
NOT a factual response.
Well said, 2:59!
After a few public uses of sarin gas, we could hear calls to make deodorant sprays illegal.
One step at a time. Ban $3,000.00 one shot 50 cals
( Cost per round, approx $7.00, if you can find them.)
After all, THEY are a major problem. ( More Americans are killed yearly by Philips head screw drivers.)
That's 50 Cal ban will be a BIG step in the right direction, plus it will FEEL so good.
The way I look at it, a 50 caliber is an extremely dangerous weapon that serves absolutely no useful purpose but has the potential of wreaking havoc. It can pierce the body armor worn by police officers. It can even be used by terrorists to take down commercial flights at take off and landings. Are we supposed to wait until someone goes on a killing spree and then say oopsie? So yes, I would support an outright ban on 50 caliber sniper rifles. Since as you point out, the ammo is so expensive and it is used so infrequently, why not agree on this one?
"You made your own definition up,"
Not really. The Clinton law made up a definition to keep the NRA happy. I consider weapons assault weapons if they can be used to assault. A high capacity magazine makes that possible.
By the way, the gun industry eon't use the term "assault weapon" on anything they sell. Instead, it's terms like "tactical" weapon.
The "industry " doesn't sell assult( full-auto selector/ select fire) weapons to civilians now. So why would they erroneously label them assult weapons.
Any weapon that can be used in an assult? Well ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, friends and neighbors, brothers and sisters, that makes it pretty darn clear where Mr. O'Hare stands on this issue......
and on the Bill of Rights.
Nuff said I think.
I think you'll find that I am a diehard defender of the Bill of Rights. I do not equate objections to 50 caliber sniper rifles and Bushmasters with being opposed to the Bill of Rights or even the Second Amendment, which by its own terms calls for regulation. Also, I do think weapons intended for assaults are assault weapons, regardless of whatever artificial definition might be imposed by a gun lobby.
I agree there should be some type of "gun control" put in place.
What I don't agree with is a ban on gun ownership.
A ban on gun owner ship would create a black market not unlike drugs and alcohol. The criminal element and whomever else was intent on "getting a gun" would still have access to firearms.
I can fix this. It's a great deal.
Ban all guns.
In return, ban all abortion.
Deal?
Bernie,
Merry Christmas to you and all of your readers!
May you and all of your loved ones have a safe, peaceful, blessed, and fruitful Christmas and new year.
Peace be with you, ~~~alex joseph+
Merry Christmas to you, too, Fr. Alex.
You don't know anything about guns and you oppose 50 caliber guns. Bernie, are you aware that 50 caliber guns are a very popular deer hunting rifle? They are also used for bear hunting, elk hunting, caribou hunting, and amost all big game around the world. Do you know what you are talking about? Someone uses the terminoligy "50 caliber sniper guns" and right away you go on a tangent against 50 caliber guns. There are millions of 50 caliber guns all around the world. They are popular sporting arms.
I didn't say I know nothing about guns. I said I'm no expert. I would defer to what someone who is more knowledgeable has to say.
I am talking about the 50 caliber sniper rifle. The US and the rest of the nations in NATO use this gun to take out things that a normal round cannot, like armored vehicles. I imagine it could be used for elephant hunting or taking out a rhino, but it would blow a buck's head right off of him.
I really can't think of a legitimate civilian use. You want to hunt deer with a compact rocket launcher? Geez.
50 cal for deer or other game???????Only if you want your venison vaporized .
In black powder only, another entirely different beast.
Golly the lack of real understanding going on here could sink a battleship.
........ anyway, peace to you all and all your families on this beautiful Christmas Eve, and esp to you BOH.
For a hack your not such a bad guy.
PUNISH the LAW_ABIDING CITIZEN.
The COURTS and the GOVERNMENT created the present situation with the MENTAL HEALTH system!
Bernie,
Your FIRST MISTAKE is believing NPR!
To you Bernie, and to LVRamblers, friends and worthy adversaries alike, a very Merry Christmas!
An interesting experience at last night's 8:00 pm Mass at St. Jane's. Priest who has been here a week started on gunowners and gunshows.
I had a couple of things I was going to say to him after, and my initial reaction was to keep my envelope in my pocket (see how knee jerk, emotional reactions are often misguided?) In the end, realizing the greater good, I kept my trap shut and did the right thing.
But I wonder if he would have been receptive to my points:
1. Shall we ban all priests, or the Church itself, so that even one child is not molested? After all, it was not just one or two isolated incidents. It was systemic crime against children not much less horrific than the recent gun tragedies, and there were scores more victims whose lives have been forever damaged.
2. Have you considered that, without those vile guns, at the time held by individuals who volunteered to use their own weapons and risk their own lives in defense of religious freedom and individual rights, you might just be reporting to the Archbishop of Canterbury? That is, if those vile guns didn't later stop a madman that might have just outlawed Jesus entirely?
-Clem
Enough of this nonsense about guns. The Old men who wrote the Constitution were well aware that you need to protect yourself.The poor need guns to protect themselves from the rich.The rich need protection from poor and we all need protection from dangerous persons the courts keep leaving out of jail.
Clem, You want to play a priest-gun analogy? Obviously, we don't want to ban all priests, but I sure as hell would support priest control. I'd insist they go to the seminary. I sure as hell would be leery of the phonies ones like the Fake Rev. I'd ban him. Maybe we should have blog control, too. I'm sure my blog is an assault blog.
Merry Xmas.
"Bernie,
Your FIRST MISTAKE is believing NPR!"
Heh heh. I LOVE NPR. mI enjoy Terry Gross' Fresh Air, Marty Moss Coane's Radio Times, and Talk of the Nation. Yes, there is a tilt to the left. But they try to avoid it and even though they fail, provide great, in-depth coverage of issues.
My favorite of them all is Marketplace, a half hour every night. It's the best program I've ever heard and I don't even care for business all that much.
WDIY is pretty shitty as a NPR station. But WHYY is excellent. I also love listening to the World BBC, which is broadcast there after midnight. If you want to hear a journalist ask tough questions and insist on answers, listen to that sometime.
Did you read about that nitwit in NY that set his house on fire only to shoot and kill two firemen and wound two others. And then he did himself in. Did you read what were some of the kinds of guns he had: a military-style .223-caliber semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle with flash suppression. Amazing!
Clem,
When the time is right, you need to approach and speak to that priest. He needs your feedback. He needs to know what message came across to you. That will be the only way he can get better. He doesn't know he is doing something wrong, isn't reaching you, or conveying the wrong message unless he gets feedback. It is not anything personal. It's his job. And he can't do it well, if he can't relate to the people. He won't get offended or upset. He will actually welcome your feedback. He might not agree with you, but at least you told him. Then the ball is in his court. Peace! And thanks for the well wishes. Merry Christmas right back to you!
Wow----three times in a week I agree with Clem!
Wonders never cease!!!!!!!!!
Here's one thing for certain----two weeks ago Bernie didn't have a freaking clue what a Bushmaster was.
He still doesn't know what the definition of an assult rifle is ( I know, I know, he's made up his own definition.)
Here's hoping Santa brought the poor boy a dictionary. ( I know, I know, he's got his own definition.)
What is an "assult rifle"?
Bernie's still a little confused about the flash supressor thing, etc.
But he's an authority on Bushmasters....one of millions of new experts on military look-alikes like Bushmasters.
What is it they say about a little bit of knowledge?
Bernie's still a little confused about the flash supressor thing, etc.
But he's an authority on Bushmasters....one of millions of new experts on military look-alikes like Bushmasters.
What is it they say about a little bit of knowledge?
Anon,
Believe you are confused. Hit the "Publish Your Comment" button only ONCE, please. Either that are it is time for your drug cocktail ...
Miss Manners, an assult rife is a rifle/carbine of relatively light weight, in an intermediate caliber, with the ability to fire in fully automatic mode, controlled bursts( three to five rounds) and semi-automatic ( one trigger pull on discharge) at the flip of the selector switch. Hence, "select fire".
A rife like the Bushmaster shares similar calibers( ie not particularly destructive as ammunition goes, considered too light for white tailed deer hunting for example ) and similar COSMETICS. The receiver of a Bushmaster etc , has a completely different receiver( the working guts) than an assult rifle....... and critically-no ability for full auto or select fire.
First produced by Germany in the waning days of WW II. soon after copied by the Soviets, then the USA... see Armalites/ M15.
Thanks for asking. No productive solutions can be found if ignorance and disinformation prevail on either side.
3:11, You are clearly more knowledgeable about Bushmasters than I, but I don't think a disagreement with your definitions constitutes either ignorance or disinformation. If anything, the NRA is spreading disinformation. It refused to take questions at ts news conference last week. It is behind the successful Congressional effort to prevent ATF from reveling which weapons were used to commit which crimes, something it used to do routinely.
You are correct about how the Bushmaster came about. It is, by your own description, a variant of a military assault rifle. The Bushmaster became popular precisely bc of the Clinton ban, which defined a semi-automatic assault rifle as one that had two or more of certain characteristics.
" The requirement that you have at least two of those meant that gun manufactures could say, 'Aha, we can keep the ability to take the high capacity magazine and just knock off the rest of these bells and whistles [and] we still have essentially the same gun, ... but it's now federally legal. And that's what Bushmaster figured out. They actually rose to prominence after the 1994 semi-automatic assault weapons ban because they took off all the truly irrelevant bells and whistles and just produced a basic gun."
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market
Talk all you want....Every Republican and Conservative Democrat is AFRAID to confront the issue....NOTHING WILL CHANGE!
THIS A RIGHT...
BLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Can you say Eugene Stoner?
Not if your Burnie, he has his own private history.
Bernie, it all began with the Colt AR 15 Sportster, quite some time before Bush Master got in the game.... and quite some time before the Clinton ban.
I appreciate your willingness to learn, and I can see your learning. Keep it up. Whatever your position, knowledge makes it more valid.
PS lots of good information on these weapons on YouTube..
Re.NRA---- you haven't heard me defend them BOH.
I do belong.... but I've have more than a few issues with them.
Sadly, the Violence Prevention Policy people are really all over the map.
I'm surprised Terri Gross's producers had them on Fresh Air. Very lame, the NRA looks good by comparison.
The NRA was asked, and declined, to come on the show. I thought Diaz was quite well spoken and has an impressive background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Diaz
I still think you are wrong on your gun stance Bernie, but i do want to wish you and your family a merry christmas and health and happiness in the new year.
Well spoken, well spoken with a pedagree for that matter, does not necessarily equate to well informed.
Or honest.
Diaz plays fast and lose with the facts. He's an idealogue with an agenda. An agenda that doesn't square with the Bill of Rights,
( Saying that is FAR from a blanket endorsement of the NRA.)
Plenty of us "" guns and ammo" types( a bit insulting,no MM ?), mean to keep our 2nd Amendment rights, and feel responsible for contributing to solutions, real and effective, not bullshit feel-good, solutions to keep our children, families and communities safe and healthy.
Well, what are they? Other than trashing MM, NPR and Diaz, I've heard nothing. Instead, I get an argument over what constitutes an assault weapon and the history of the Bushmaster.
Well, Bernie . .
Schools are pretty much easy-to- define complexes. They CAN be strengthened even more.
Simply adding an armed guard is not enough. ASD has had those in several buildings for at least a decade now. If the armed guard is in the building, yet a half-block away on another floor, he/she won't have any idea the incident even happened until it's too late.
My suggestion, while costly, is to build on to each classroom a 3 foot wide vestibule of sorts. It would be locked and bulletproof.
A one way mirror would allow the teacher the option to call for help, push a button, saying there's someone outside my room that makes me uncomfortable, come and check it out.
Even THIS is not foolproof, but NOTHING can ever be.
Don't plea away gun charged.
Mandate education classes for CCP holders with mandatory resertification, like hunter safety.
SROs in all schools over 1,000 students.
A comprehensive individual safety program for all schools.
Background checks at all gun shows.
Additional funding and affordable MEDICAL INSURANCE THAT CAN'T EXCLUDE MENTAL HEALTH CARE ( ram that down Bernie's throat.)
Limit Magazine capacity to 30 for long gun, 20 for pistols.
A surcharge/ tax of 10% on all ammo and 15% on all new gun purchases to fund research into reducing intentional violence of any sort.
Engage dialogue across disciplines,Cops and Trama Docs, Gun Manufacturers and the CDC for example, to explore additional options.
Just for starters .....,
Hows that for starters.
We sent a man to the moon for f#*k sake. Eradicated smallpox.
Why not just have a metal detector at the school?
Because the perp can enter with SOME OTHER means to harm kids, like a plastic gas canister.
Wow 3:11 Anon!
Your superior knowledge between an assult and an assault weapon are commandingly devastating!
Now does it matter?
Will any of the dead in the NY, PA, or CT shootings come back to life?
PS I listen to MPR, fond of MM,want abortion safe and legal, belong to the NRA AND the ACLU am a left wind Democrat and thins Diaz is full of shit, LaPerrier is only marginally better.
I also beleive in the Bill or Rights, all ten of them. Pesky as they can occasionally be.
Life/ politics-- not as simple ad Clem and Armstrong view it.
Miss Manners ... sadly no, it won't bring back those beautiful children, lost to unfathomable madness,missed with unfathomable grief.
But details, research, and knowledge are everything when attempting to establish positive, effective public policy.
But maybe your amoung those satisfied with knee-jerk emotional reaction? If so, your certainly not alone.
You think Diaz is full of shit but have not said why. You think that what happened and is happening is tragic, but have not shared a damn thing that you would do to stop the madness. And neither the Bill of Rights nor the Second Amendment gives you the right to carry bazookas or heat seeking missiles. I think you would agree with that. So we've established there is a right to regulate. Now let's do all the research you claim needs to be done and enact measures to minimize the kind of tragedy that occurred in Newtown.
9:23, Those are all reasonable proposals.
Thanks. I do appreciate that.
Diaz twists facts and data. Isn't willing to look to engage in meaningful discussion and plays too much to emotion..... In this he is like the flip side, the NRA at its worst.
Additionally : architectural modification of existing schools, and improved designs of new buildings with security in mind,absolutely plays a role in making these buildings harder targets. The architectural discipline of "target hardening", alternately called "safety by design".
Metal detectors are some limited use. they may well be a tactical piece in schools overall individual safety/security plan.
Complex safety / security issues require complex responces..... and still are of limited use in stopping a dedicated madman. But we can..... Indeed we must, do better.
Perhaps I've made a modest contribution to the conversation. Thanks for the oppertunity.
A merry,safe and warm white Christmas to all, and to our friends and family who have gone before,or can't be with us this beautiful night.
Actually the second amendment offers no limits to what "arms" the people may bear for their protection.
See what happens when you try to buy a missile launcher.
Ask JUAN WILLIAMS about NPR and Fairness.......
They are FAR_LEFT WING and funded by the TAX PAYER.
As a regular listener, I can say they are not far left wing. There certainly is a bias like there is in just about everything. But this post is not about NPR.
When you OUTLAW GUNS, then only CRIMINALS will have GUNS!!!
Remember when SMOKEY THE BEAR,Said ONLY YOU CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES....I don't remember Politicians saying Let's control matches, or Outlaw Matches.
ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION
Recently learned that DAVID GREGORY host of "MEET THE PRESS" is being investigated for displaying a large capacity "empty" Rifle Clip on the show. He is now a SUSPECT in a Crime.
WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF CONTROL
anon 3:30pm, let nme guess you heard that on Fox, right?
Anon 3:00
Presumably you're talking about a magazine.
Create very strict gun controls...
Intensify the War on Drugs...
Let the government take control...
and everything will be just fine...
...like Mexico.
Since passing a law is such an effective strategy for dealing with problems, wouldn't it just be easier to make a law against killing people?
That would cover guns, knives, fists, broken glass, poison, bombs, cares and trucks...it would be much easier than separate laws to ban each possible way to kill people.
Like your style, 4:01!
No more crazy than what's going on now. Let's just get it over with, pass a law to prohibit everything anyone finds to be a problem.
That's the ticket. More laws!
"wouldn't it just be easier to make a law against killing people?"
Point taken. Rather well played, I might add.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The current gun laws are unconstitutional except that some unelected court has upheld those on the books. Perhaps if everyone carried a gun and had an assault weapon our society would be more peaceful.
Boy Bernie, recall 34 years ago.
You and I were on the phone.
An Operator entered and interrupted our call...
An urgent message for me.
Call home.
My clinically treated and mentally disturbed brother.
Gone!
Who knows, maybe the legislation discussed here might have changed the course of events.
I remember that very well.
Post a Comment