Storms Motors, Bridgehampton, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram
27east.com

Story - News

In Wake of Sandy Hook Massacre, Bishop Says Congress Must Seriously Address Gun Control

Publication: The East Hampton Press
By Rohma Abbas   Dec 18, 2012 5:28 PM
Dec 18, 2012 5:48 PM

U.S. Representative Tim Bishop is one of a chorus of national leaders calling for stricter gun control laws following a devastating massacre at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 people, mostly children, dead last week.

Mr. Bishop, a Democrat who represents the 1st Congressional District in Suffolk County, said on Monday that he’s in favor of enacting “reasonable gun control laws” that would be aimed at quelling a spate of mass shootings in recent years. Those massacres include the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut last week, a movie theater that was shot up in Aurora, Colorado earlier this year, a gunman striking at a supermarket in Arizona at U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others last year and the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007 at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the deadliest shooting in U.S. history.

“A, I very much hope that this is something that Congress takes seriously,” Mr. Bishop said. “And B, we cannot allow it to fade.”

There are three things Mr. Bishop said he’d like to see in a gun control bill. One component should speak to restricting access to “high capacity magazines” that allow individuals to fire multiple rounds at once without reloading. A New York State law limiting that number to 10 rounds already exists, and it’s one Mr. Bishop said he’d like to see implemented on a national level. He said it’s a “common sense” step.

“There is no sportsmen, there is no hunting argument that could be made to justify the availability of such high capacity magazines,” he said. “…This is not about deer hunting. This is not about denying sportsmen the right to pursue their hobby.”

Also, the congressman said he wants to close a loophole that allows people to avoid background checks by buying guns at gun shows. Also, Mr. Bishop wants to see an expired federal ban on assault weapons reinstated.

Asked if he feels attitudes on gun control are shifting in any meaningful way in Washington, Mr. Bishop said, “It’s a little early to know the answer to that question.”

“I think the public comment thus far is as you would expect, those who have long favored gun control such as myself are basically saying what the president has said, which is enough is enough,” said Mr. Bishop. “And that it is time to take serious steps to see to it that guns are not readily available to those who cannot be entrusted with using them properly as they currently are.”

The National Rifle Association of America, which has been silent on the issue since last Friday’s shooting, on Tuesday issued a press release stating that the organization was “prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again” and that it would hold a press conference in Washington, D.C. on Friday, December 21.

“The National Rifle Association of America is made up of 4 million moms and dads, sons and daughters—and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown,” the release states. “Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.”

East Hampton Town Police Chief Eddie Ecker Jr., who has hunted since he was a boy growing up in East Hampton Town, weighed in on the issue this week. He also said there’s got to be a “commonsense” approach in dealing with gun control.

He said he’d support a ban on assault weapons. He pointed out that shooting rifles on Long Island is prohibited, except at shooting ranges.

He said reforms like stricter background checks and limiting access to high capacity magazines aren’t a bad idea, but questioned whether they would actually prevent a weapon from getting in the wrong hands.

“Does that stop the carnage?” he said. “I don’t know. When you peel it all away, really with these mass killings like this, it’s crazy people getting a hold of guns. That’s what it is. It’s not the avid hunter or the altar boy that’s doing it. It’s people that are crazy. Now how do those weapons get in their hands? That’s the thing, I don’t know what the answer is to that.”

You have read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Yes! I'll try a one-month
Premium Membership
for just 99¢!
CLICK HERE

Already a subscriber? LOG IN HERE

Congress will seriously look into this but I have serious doubts that it will go anywhere. Congressman will not want to lose their jobs like they did after Clinton's AWB. I think the sates will enact much tougher laws, not that they will help, Connecticut has the 5th toughest laws in the country.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 7:05 PM
The gun lobby wants to assure that these shootings can continue.
It's good for the gun business.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 7:12 PM
1 member liked this comment
The left want to assure they infringe (even more) on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's good for politics and elections.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 7:26 PM
1 member liked this comment
You're defending the shooter.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 7:30 PM
1 member liked this comment
When you say things like this you seem dumb, which I'm pretty sure you are not. You actually seem pretty intelligent but you can post some foolish things. The gun business loathes tragedies like this. More restrictive laws means less revenue. In the short term, sales will spike as people fear that they will not be able to purchase ammo or guns. In the long run, firearms companies lose money. Phil, I understand what these gun companies do with money and lobbying efforts but to suggest that ...more
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 7:36 PM
2 members liked this comment
Phil - take a look at Smith and Wesson's stock in the last 2 days and tell me that they "want to assure these shootings can continue". With 4100 comments, I guess SOME of them have to be ignorant?
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 7:43 PM
1 member liked this comment
The gun lobby preys on fear.As soon as there is a shooting the NRA and gun enthusiasts start circulating the "they're gonna take your guns away" meme
The irrational rush out to buy more guns,and the stock goes up.
Look at the captain-he regularly ringfs the alarm bell to incite fear.He did it in his posts above.


People are less afraid of losing their rights than they are of the proliferation of unchecked assault weapons,which have one purpose-to kill.

Yes,inciting ...more
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 7:59 PM
Phil - S&W is down 20% in two days... investors are running away. Dicks and Walmart are pulling guns from shelves...
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 8:13 PM
Phil, you really are way off on this one. The NRA didn't even come out with a statement about this until today, maybe you should go read it.

The gun lobby isn't the only lobby that preys on fear, that is disingenuous.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 8:41 PM
1 member liked this comment
Look at how the gun lobby is projecting fear here.
I stated a long time ago what we need to do,but any mention of putting restrictions on weapons of mass murder is a threat to the gun lobby's manhood.After all,it's an extension of.....
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 9:03 PM
1 member liked this comment
Phil stay at home where you are safe! All the "assault rifles" in this country will be bought up by the time any legislation passes!
By ICE (1195), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 9:03 PM
Phil, you are the most divisive poster on this site. Please take it easy on the drama. Where is this fear you suggesting?
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 9:04 PM
Ok - clearly not worth trying to reason with Phil. Love how he doesn't bother responding to facts that are posted - just keeps spouting nonsense. Learned my lesson on this one! Have fun Ice and Nice
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 9:08 PM
1 member liked this comment
You're only offended because you don't like what I say.
Whats offensive is the defense of allowing more tragedies to occur.
The fear is from the insinuation that I want all weapons banned.
Go back and find what I said in earlier posts.
And how about answering my question?
The one you ran away from earlier?
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 9:10 PM
I dont answer BS trap questions. Like I said before, it is not an either/or question that you presented. You love this style of childish debate, making outrageous statements(defense of allowing more tragedies, gun companies loving mass shootings, etc.) and I grow tired of it so I am done responding to you on this topic. You obviously have your mind made up so I won't bother trying to point out the irrationality of your position.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 9:36 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 9:41 PM
good and let the manufacturing of these machines of lethality finally end for good, along with the ammo that fuels it. You know you are right, people kill people and that is precisely the most obvious reason we must have gun control. In no country do parents have children so that the deranged may kill them. The 4 million members of the NRA cannot stop the 296 million Americans who want freedom from fear and the liberty to not be shot. Some of these gun nuts believe people should have the right to ...more
By mo (84), Sag Harbor on Dec 28, 12 12:23 AM
Does anyone know what the curent concealed weapons law is in Conn. ? too bad at least a few of the adults in the school didn't have a handgun close by ( in a purse perhaps ) I once worked for a local bank who had more than one employee carrying a concealed handgun, I never felt safer !
By Bill in Riverhead (190), Riverhead on Dec 18, 12 7:41 PM
1 member liked this comment
and you probably want a policeman in yr bedroom.
By mo (84), Sag Harbor on Dec 28, 12 12:26 AM
Only if her name is Officer McNaughty.
By highhatsize (2092), East Quogue on Dec 28, 12 1:09 AM
Yeah- put your wife with a handgun up against the nut with body armor and a semi-automatic rifle.
By zaz (175), East Hampton on Dec 18, 12 8:17 PM
or just let her and her kids be mowed down without a chance of even fighting back, fighting for her life ... What is your answer ? Do you have any constructive thoughts ?
By Bill in Riverhead (190), Riverhead on Dec 18, 12 10:37 PM
My constructive thought is that sensible gun ownership doesn't include semi-automatic weapons, the ability to buy without full background checks (and penalties for lying on background checks), clips with more than 10 rounds or armor piercing bullets. For starters. "Arm the teachers" is the thinking of simpletons.
By zaz (175), East Hampton on Dec 19, 12 9:53 AM
1 member liked this comment
Tim, Tim, Tim…. as a legal and law abiding gun owner, I don't appreciate you, the president or your constituents through tasteless avatars wrapping tragedy in your own agenda and crapping on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and excusing personal responsibility and accountability for crimes committed by mentally unstable individuals or criminals. If a drunk kills with a three ton weapon does MADD go after the vehicle? You can misrepresent the names of guns like "assault style" because ...more
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 8:31 PM
3 members liked this comment
Captn, There is no fine line between accident and intent. Guns are designed to kill. Vehicles are not. Each child was aimed at individually, on purpose. Your gun rights murdered 20 individual children because that gun was legally owned in the home by the mad mans mother. There is no ignorance in that statement. The 2nd Amendment was written in regards to keep the government in check, not to defend your castle. There is no need for magazines for more than 5 bullets for any situation. Any gun enthusiast ...more
By hamptonteacher (13), East Hampton on Dec 18, 12 9:03 PM
4 members liked this comment
First of all, thanks for being a teacher. This must have hit you especially hard. The reason we argue for mag capacity is because the criminal can get hi-cap mags. Why should we be put in a situation where the intruder clearly has the advantage? Sounds silly but is entirely possible, even probable. It doesn't matter what gun or what mag capacity is, we cannot prevent these types of tragedies through tougher gun laws. CT already had very strict laws and it didn't help. I don't know what could ...more
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 9:45 PM
But we should arm teachers inadequately,making them a target,and inviting more violence?
Why don't we just choose up sides and shoot it out?
Gun laws are circumvented by gun manufacturers and policy decisions influenced by the NRA.
It's more important that we have more guns than we try to prevent more violence.
At least,that's the question that no one will answer.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 9:52 PM
Where to start. Yes this is a horrible tragedy, but wondering how may out there know on the same day in China 23 children in a school were stabbed by a mental person. Should we ban knives. Guns don't kill people do, just like driving is a privildge not a right, so is gun owernship. Ms. Lanza was a very irresponible gun owner. Knowing her son was mentally ill she should have never had a gun anywhere near him. Although I don't feel semi automatic weapons are needed. 80 millions responsilbe gun ...more
By sagharborparent (25), sag harbor on Dec 19, 12 6:54 AM
1 member liked this comment
People with guns kill people.
the common thread is guns.
No one died in in the attack China because the attacker didn't have a gun to shoot them 3-11 times each.

By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 7:15 AM
1 member liked this comment
God forbid in any type of attack, I have a better chance protecting my students against a knife than a gun. Common sense. Anyone can call their self responsible, but I rather have professionals/ officials make that decision. No one here blamed those responsible gun owners, and it is so sad that many first responses were defense rather than empathy towards those families and furthermore wanting change to prevent this from ever happening again. To me, it seems like they value their gun rights over ...more
By hamptonteacher (13), East Hampton on Dec 19, 12 7:35 AM
2 members liked this comment
Thank you for your appreciation and understanding my fear as an educator after this tragedy. I too understand fear towards break ins and home invaders. Just out of curiosity how often does this happen with hi mag weapons? Whose homes would they be invading? I understand the gang violence out in the Hamptons has increased but many of them can't afford weapons. Most of the crimes/ break ins were done with knives or hand guns. The Reservation had a few gun incidents as well besides breaks ins (shooting ...more
By hamptonteacher (13), East Hampton on Dec 19, 12 7:44 AM
None of the restrictions on gun ownership that have been mentioned would have stopped this tragedy. A REGULAR clip contains 10 cartridges (I believe); regular hunting rifles can hold 6; the semi-auto pistols the killer carried both held at least seven; they belonged to his mother so a sanity pre-screening would have been feckless.

At the same time, it was obvious to neighbors that there was SOMETHING wrong with this kid but it wasn't addressed. With better mental health oversight of children, ...more
By highhatsize (2092), East Quogue on Dec 18, 12 9:44 PM
Background checks should include all residents of a home where the weapon is to be placed. Why should we permit an array of lethal weapons to be placed in a home where no legitimate shelter would place a cocker spaniel? Requirements for securing firearms need to be enhanced with penalties for failing to do so especially if that weapon is used in a crime.
By VOS (599), WHB on Dec 18, 12 11:42 PM
to VOS:

Ownership of a Cocker Spaniel is not a Constitutional right. Furthermore, an "all-residents" background check such as you suggest is a mechanism to defeat the right, as would an "all-resident" mental health check. Such limitations can be construed widely enough to make the right moot.

If citizens want to change the 2nd Amendment, there is a procedure in place. That's the way to go. But it won't solve the problem of mass-murder by disturbed youths.
By highhatsize (2092), East Quogue on Dec 19, 12 1:04 AM
We do not need battlefield technology in the hands of civilians!!
Who really needs semi automatic weapons? All automatic weapons should be banned in the United States. If you want to shoot these kinds of weapons, join the marines.
Thnk you Congressman Bishop for taking such a stand for the correct course of action to protect out children.

By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 18, 12 10:22 PM
SHNative, get a clue. Automatic weapons are already banned. Semi-automatic weapons are marginally faster than their predecessors. Caliber or bullet type are much more important factors.

Bishop wouldn't know a stand if someone threw lemonade in his face.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 18, 12 10:38 PM
1 member liked this comment
"marginally faster"?! This guy's weapon in Connecticut was too slow for you? You gun nuts should try viagara to help you with your shortcomings.
By witch hazel (187), tatooine on Dec 19, 12 9:10 AM
1 member liked this comment
Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy firing three shots and hitting him with two of them in less than six seconds at a distance of around 160 feet with a crappy bolt action rifle.

Average response time to an active shooter scenario... several minutes to arrive and upwards of hours to fully clear the building. You do the math w h.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 10:52 AM
Does anyone in the country actually believe that JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald with a single shot bolt action rifle?
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 7:01 PM
Hey WH, where did I say it wasn't fast enough? You need better reading comprehension and less emotion, tool.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 19, 12 7:25 PM
Are you affirming your conspiracy theories here, or do you think it is not possible for a person to fire off three rounds in less than 6 seconds at at moving target 160' away?
By But I'm a blank! (797), Hampton Bays on Dec 20, 12 9:29 AM
Neither.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 9:49 AM
Bishop is not saying anything that hasn't been said before, did he just wake up?
By joan s (46), hampton bays on Dec 19, 12 7:44 AM
1 member liked this comment
Simple solutions are posted by simpletons.

Did the perp and all other murderers drink milk at some point in their lives?

Ban milk?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc?

NOT!

The causes of violence are myriad, and meaningful improvement will require mature, well-considered, and complex partial solutions.

Simple!
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 9:15 AM
Congratulation, pbr, on the most assinine post on this board!
By witch hazel (187), tatooine on Dec 19, 12 9:33 AM
Thank you for the simplistic post, confirming the point made above!
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 12:18 PM
Australia banned semi automatic long rifles 14 years ago after a mass shooting that left 35 people dead. It also ran a voluntary gun buy back program that bought back 650,000 guns, 1/5th of the country's guns. It hasn't has a mass shooting since. I am a gun owner, but I am in favor of reasonable gun regulations - no civilian needs an assault rifle.

By goldenrod (505), southampton on Dec 19, 12 10:07 AM
3 members liked this comment
Do your research, neither worked to lower violence. Numbers manipulation
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 19, 12 7:19 PM
“We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

– Ronald Reagan

By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 10:24 AM
1994. WASHINGTON — Three former presidents endorsed legislation Wednesday to ban the future manufacture, sale and possession of combat-style assault weapons as a closely divided House neared a showdown today on the hotly controversial issue.

Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan sent a letter to all House members expressing their support for the measure, effectively joining President Clinton in urging approval of the ban.

In their letter, the three former presidents ...more
By dagdavid (645), southampton on Dec 19, 12 10:38 AM
1 member liked this comment
The manufacture of weapons referenced in the letter continue to be banned today. Reagan’s position on the Second Amendment was well know. His stance was that violent crime would never be eliminated, with or without gun control. Instead efforts to curb crime should target those who misuse guns, similarly to the way laws target those who use an automobile feloniously or recklessly. Saying the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” Reagan added ...more
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 11:06 AM
I'll aadd that Reagan's assassination attempt did change his views. The quote however was NOT in reference to Reagan's stance on guns, but the common sense position that the individual is ultimately responsible and accountable.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 11:16 AM
the .223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine used by Adam Lanza in his murderous attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School would have been banned under the [federal] assault weapons ban which congress allowed to expire.

By dagdavid (645), southampton on Dec 19, 12 11:41 AM
Point already partially conceded, some are still banned, point of the quote being, by not holding the individual accountable, the left has now politicized the event by now seeking a collective solution against all oof society. The quote however was NOT in reference to Reagan's stance on guns, but the common sense position that the individual is ultimately responsible and accountable.

By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 12:15 PM
Unfortunately that time has passed. Just like the class clown, this maniac just ruined it for everybody-- not that I give two you-know-whats about the 2nd amendment.
By johnj (220), Westhampton on Dec 19, 12 1:43 PM
It would not have been banned even if the AWB didn't expire. Get your info straight dd.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 19, 12 7:23 PM
Thank you, Congressman Bishop. Now let's be sure to make it happen.
By dagdavid (645), southampton on Dec 19, 12 10:34 AM
I'm all for the ban on the sale of semi automatic weapons. That being said, the president, and the rest of these politicians are full of crap. How do you deal with the 300 million guns already sold? More lip service from all our political blow hards.
By chief1 (1289), southampton on Dec 19, 12 12:39 PM
a buyback in ONE city in Jersey brought in over 1,137 guns yesterday - a record for a one-day buyback in Jersey. It's a start, no?
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 19, 12 1:01 PM
Do you think gun owners like the Lanza's would turn in their guns? Did you know this Christmas season even before the Newtown shooting that 245,000 guns have been sold? They now say the sales are ratcheting up to record sales of weapons. Big deal 1,137 broken and stolen guns were turned in for cash to support some junkies habit.
By chief1 (1289), southampton on Dec 19, 12 1:25 PM
So, what's your solution, Cheif? Or do you only like to complain about others'? No need to respond. The answer is clear.
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 4:28 PM
The answer is clear? Lets be honest here our country was formed by armed terrorists who defeated the Brits with a militia. I am not for assault rifles or ammo clips with 30 rounds. That being said this country will NEVER EVER be disarmed there are 300 million weapons in this country. This incident in Newtown has actually empowered the nra which is gaining 8,000 members a day. People are so stupid to believe that politicians can do anything it is just lip service You can't punish the whole country ...more
By chief1 (1289), southampton on Dec 20, 12 12:39 AM
Chief - you are so delusional it's really sad. What's your solution?

From the article re: buyback in jersey~

"The state brought in 1,137 guns, surpassing the previous record of 700 weapons from a 2009 Essex County event. Among them were scores of rifles, shotguns and pistols, sawed-off shotguns, a century-old antique weapon, a rifle used for hunting elephants and five fully automatic weapons. Some 90 percent were in working condition. Many were illegal weapons under state laws; ...more
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 19, 12 2:20 PM
Buncha stolen guns turned in for some ching to buy crack!
By bigfresh (1191), north sea on Dec 19, 12 3:38 PM
How much crack did you buy with your exchange money? Probably a lot as you are clearly still smoking it.
By peoplefirst (787), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 4:27 PM
A fellow alumnus of mine who is even more passionate about American History penned this, and I thought I would share it:

I wasn't aware the Federalist Papers and other written correspondence by Jefferson, Madison and other founding fathers were the law of the land. Funny, this whole time I thought the U.S. Constitution was the rule of law. The Bill of Rights and Constitution were in fact a document to establish a government, what its purpose is and what its powers are. The Bill of Rights ...more
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 19, 12 5:57 PM
Take action for sensible gun control

Http://www.demandaplan.org
By dagdavid (645), southampton on Dec 19, 12 7:03 PM
Well said Mr Z.
To all of you right wing-nuts.....If after the Newtown shooting the first thing that you thought about was how to defend gun rights, you are a bad person.
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 7:03 PM
SHNative, you need more education(practical if possible) and less emotion.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 19, 12 7:12 PM
So, you are a person who thought of how to defend gun rights last Friday.
Yea...There is A Lot of emotion over this! When Madison wrote the second amendment he never intended for the kinds of assault rifles being used on our fellow citizens. When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 there were Native Americans, a need for hunting, and no police forces. And the "arms" of the time were single-shot mussel loading muskets.
Now we are burying six and seven year olds....you are damm right ...more
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 7:52 PM
2 members liked this comment
Hah! "Mussel loader".

Don't you just LOVE speech to text?

Polemics and passions aside, SHNative is 100% right. We don't need any level of automatic weapons, semi- or otherwise. What we do need is for the powers that be to get off their fat, overpaid, lazy arses and help clean up this mess. In case you missed it, it's your JOB, as well as ours as a responsible citizenry.
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 19, 12 8:00 PM
Not even close to 100%. Discussing topics on this site is an exercise in futility.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 19, 12 10:34 PM
We don't "need" alot of things. Let's try enforcing laws and keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them through responsible ownership and proactive mental health and social responsibility. That would certainly be a role for responsible citizenry in "cleaning up this mess."
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 19, 12 11:58 PM
Enforcing current laws does not cut it!!! As for Proactive Mental health?? You are the person who wants to cut these programs. I hope that you know now that we need social programs for this and other reasons.
This country has NO NEED for Automatic or semi automatic weapons.
These were first graders, teachers and administrators.
BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE UNITED STATES!
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 9:17 AM
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. The typical liberal reaction is to legislate laws that affect the masses vs. addressing the problem perptrated by the few. I don't ever recall lobbying to cut mental health programs. To the contrary we should have common sense social programs that address the problems at hand.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 9:59 AM
1 member liked this comment
Clicked Like rather than Reply...woops.
Yea Common Sense social programs.....No battlefield weapons in the hands of the population. That is now plainly common sense.
The Bill of Rights Never said anything about such weapons of mass destruction....no one needs them.
While you are thinking about your"Rights", please consider the rights of the innocents who's lives were cut short due to someone else's "Right" to Have and Automatic Weapon.
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 10:47 AM
That's just it SHNative, he didn't have a right a possess a firearm, in fact he was denied one. He stole them from his mother, who in an act of total irresponsibility, left the guns in an unsecured state with a child who was mentally unfit.( and once again, it was not an automatic weapon that he had)
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 20, 12 11:11 AM
Correct!
If we did not have automatic or SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons he would not have had access and we would not be burying six year olds today.
For the lif of me, I do not understand how some of you can defend the proliferation of modern military weapons in our society.
Again...Ban all Automatic and Semi-Automatic weapons.
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 12:54 PM
1 member liked this comment
It is absolutely ignorant to think that banning will stop a similar incident from taking place in the future. An unstable person hell bent on creating carnage will find a way to carry out their intentions one way or another, using any countless mechanisms and means. There are tons of examples to choose from.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 4:49 PM
If there was an existing ban on assult weapons there would be 20 children in Connecticut going to school tomorrow.

Also....you use the word "incident". Is that what last Friday was to you an incident??? That was a national tragedy not an incident. What is wrong with you?
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 9:11 PM
1 member liked this comment
SH, your discussion points are understandably emotionally charged. The biggest school murder took place with explosives in 1927. killing 28 school children. You have no basis to state with any certainty that a weapons ban would have resulted in 20 children going to school tomorrow. Please don't accuse the non guilty of trivializing the actions of the guilty. It's a tragedy by any measure and regardless of where we stand on the issue, we can all agree on that point.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 9:47 PM
1 member liked this comment
Ahhh yes, may I see your Proof of Need Permit...

In 1928, five years before the rise of Hitler, Germany's freely elected government enacted a "Law on Firearms and Ammunition." This law required anyone who owned a firearm, or who wanted to own a firearm, to make themselves known to the authorities. Anyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to get a "Firearms Acquisition Permit." If you needed ammunition, you had to get an "Ammunition Acquisition Permit." When you wanted to go hunting, ...more
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 12:05 AM
Germany is slighly larger than New Mexico, and if you actually might want to be factual, it was pretty much total anarchy in the waning days of the Weimar Republic. The gun laws you describe were enacted to end the complete prohibition of firearms in Germany by legislation enacted in 1919 BEFORE the Treaty of Versailles was signed, and were only amended in 1928 when the laws were RELAXED, and licensing was implemented. There were even registration laws in place in 18th, and 19th century America, ...more
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 20, 12 3:44 AM
Watch out,Z-if you piss cappie off he'll post pictures of your family on here and hope one of his unstable worshipers will take a shot at you,then deny any responsiblity for it.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 6:12 AM
That's what I love about you Phil, you add so much to the discussion.
Dec 20, 12 9:52 AM appended by Captn America
"It ain't gun registration that produces gun confiscation and genocide, it’s people who do." Sounds very familiar to guns don't kill people, people do.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 9:52 AM
You've proven that you're willing to put peoples' children in danger when you posted the picture of my son on here.
That's why the police are watching this site now.
Go ahead.Make some more irresponsible posts.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 7:26 PM
Seems to me, you're the only one who put your child in danger. I didn't identify him - you did. For all I knew, it wasn't even your child. What responsibile parent puts a picture on the internet for public view anyway, and THEN identifies him at that? I welcome the police involvement, you're plain unstable and your obsession and hate is just scary, it won't take them long to see how hollow your accusations are. You're known for making false claims to the police I hear. Who knows what else you ...more
Dec 21, 12 6:43 PM appended by Captn America
As a parent maybe you now appreciate how insensitive using Emilie Parker's picture was for nothing more as a pawn in your political fodder.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 6:43 PM
.You're the unstable one-you posted the picture of a child to be spiteful and cruel.
You don't put pictures of other peoples children up just to be spiteful.
You endangered my family,and now I'm making sure that everybody knows it.You are spiteful and vindictive and dangerous.
I would NEVER place your family in danger or threaten them.
You did both.
And everyone knows it.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 7:19 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 8:10 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 9:27 PM
DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!! Fairwind nailed it.
Part of the second ammendment mentions a FREE STATE, and it seems the founders in their infinite wisdom meant the well regulated militia and a well armed population as a check against a government trampling on the rights of the population. Large capacity clips would be a lot better in that scenario than a 6 shot revolver.
By bigfresh (1191), north sea on Dec 20, 12 3:38 PM
bigfresh / fairwind:

You two honestly think this tragedy is so simple and single-noted? It's extremely complex. Mental Health, Gun Control, Parenting, Education, Warning Signs, School Security etc. etc. etc. are ALL involved in this tragedy.

No one could ever imagine their child commiting an act this horrible - and frankly, it's the single worst act of mass violence in this country not linked to terrorism, probably ever. So, before this happend - no one in this country could ...more
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 20, 12 4:16 PM
"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."

What part of being in a militia is required do you not understand. Just because some borers, or lobbyists coerced the Supreme Court into a decision which financially benefitted the gun industry doesn't make it right. They also upheld slavery, segregation, and even corporate personhood.

FYI, if our standing military ever does come knocking ...more
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 20, 12 5:10 PM
1 member liked this comment
Mr Z, where does it say being in a militia is required? I don't see it and don't see how you could speculate that that was what they meant? They wanted citizens to be able to have guns in case a militia needed to be formed. Doesn't say that either, I know, but my guess is as good as yours. We can keep trying to speculate on what they meant, but the bottom line is that SCOTUS has already made their ruling and I doubt that is ever going to change.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 20, 12 6:05 PM
Good post Nature.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 20, 12 6:06 PM
1 member liked this comment
I will concur with Nature. Life is the "Great Unknown" after all.

D, I have said in the past if you want to understand History, daily life is the most important factor. Learning dates, and events, that is statistical. Actually delving into the daily life of the merchant who sold to Van Gogh, or the court fool of Henry VIII, that is the story. Who was one of the blokes that baked the bread for the City of Westminster under the old monarchy, and how hard did he drink?

The context ...more
Dec 21, 12 12:25 AM appended by Mr. Z
And D, the missing part of your puzzle, is the standing legislation of the colonies. Paragraphs, and sub-paragraphs regulating arms, and the amount to be stored were shall we say "on the books".
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 21, 12 12:25 AM
Good post by Nature about the complexity of the issues here. Simple solutions simply do not exist.

In my personal opinion, it sounds as if the young perpetrator here was a ticking time bomb for years. It would not surprise for the evidence to show detailed planning over a course of time. Weeks? Months? Years? Maybe.

How many relatives, schoolmates, teachers, etc. etc. had a nagging feeling in the pit of their stomachs that something was amiss, and said nothing, or withdrew from ...more
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 7:08 PM
A "hero" would be armed and ready if they allowed guns in schools.
But the police aren't interested in "heroes".
"Heroes" will end up dead in a situation like the one in Connecticut,because the police won't ask which side their on when they come upon them in an active crime scene like that.
Doesn't matter if it's Rambo,Chuck Norris or a teacher.They will not only impede the police,but will endanger lives,especially their own and the people they are trying to save.
The far right has ...more
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 20, 12 7:52 PM
Bisop says agrees with anything Obama and Pelosi tell him, End of story he is a turncoat !
By LovinLife (14), East Quogue on Dec 20, 12 9:11 PM
Well, thanks for the insightful interlude...
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 21, 12 12:56 AM
Schools need to start having armed security personnel on site. In the event of an active shooter, immediate action needs to be taken to engage and stop the threat. Waiting for for law enforcement to arrive after the initial 911 call is too long. The average response time of police is six minutes. Staging and gathering intel will take longer. The time it takes a shooter to do bodily harm to a great number of persons only takes a few short minutes and by the time police move into action, the event ...more
By Jaws (166), Westhampton Beach on Dec 21, 12 2:59 AM
There are many schools in this country (though mostly high-schools) which have police liasons who are stationed within the school. They are armed and in theory it would be helpful. However - it's not so helpful if the shooter goes after that person first. There's no simple solution - and until america realizes, understands and comprehends that, we won't get anywhere
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 7:47 AM
1 member liked this comment
Keeping in mind the statistical rarity and relatively tiny death toll of mass shootings to begin with, will banning high capacity bans lower the number of people killed in mass shootings? All we have to do is look at one of the deadliest shootings in the world: the Virginia Tech massacre.

With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn’t need any massive magazines ...more
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 11:18 AM
Great NRA response to put an armed guard in every school.

Escalate!

What a tangled web we weave . . .
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 2:06 PM
1 member liked this comment
The NRA just shot themselves in the foot. If the Executice Director (Wayne LaPeri??) should be on the unemployment line. Idiots.
By But I'm a blank! (797), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 2:21 PM
Four dead, three police hurt in Pennsylvania shooting
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 21, 12 2:42 PM
The NRA offered a solution, one that will definitely be met with a lot of resistance, but an offer nonetheless. What do you guys propose to curb violence and protect schools?
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 2:59 PM
Complicated problems usually require complex solutions.

See Nature's post above, with which you concurred.

The NRA's simplistic "solution" is insulting in its singularity of purpose.

NO VISION when they could have led the way to a mature, thoughtful and LASTING solution!
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 3:07 PM
Complicated problems usually require complex solutions.

See Nature's post above, with which you concurred.

The NRA's simplistic "solution" is insulting in its singularity of purpose.

NO VISION when they could have led the way to a mature, thoughtful and LASTING solution!
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 3:07 PM
NRA

No Rational Answers
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 10:03 PM
OK, what do you think that solution is?
Dec 21, 12 3:14 PM appended by dnice
Not trying to bait you PBR; you I feel like I can have a rational, intelligent discussion with.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 3:14 PM
dnice - there's no solution that can be put into a paragraph.

The NRA's response is a complete joke and embarassment. The did the right thing by being quite for a week - then drummed up this "press-conference" that made it seem like they were ready to make a REAL announcement and REAL changes (the media may be partly at fault for generating buzz) then they get up there and say "armed guards in every school". Seriously?

There are schools with police liasons in them, and they ...more
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 3:42 PM
Ditto, see comment under other article.

To quote Nature, "The NRA's response is a complete joke and embarrassment."

The NRA had a GOLDEN opportunity to LEAD here, instead of doing a simple Bandaid illusion of a QUICK FIX.

Folks, there is NO quick fix to any complex problem, let alone tragedies such as the one in Newtown CT.

For such a powerful organization to do this is a shame.

A real shame.
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 5:21 PM
PS -- After the lopsided electoral vote in the last election, the NRA should have gotten the message that it's power base may be eroding. Today's "solution" will hasten that erosion IMO.

Post-election "Compromise" is in the air, but the NRA has held its nose here apparently.

Sophisticated NRA members will seriously question the NRA leadership here, as well they should!
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 6:00 PM
PBR, Congress is also going to remember all of the jobs they lost when they voted for the 1994 AWB. I think this is going to be more of a state issue than a federal one. States will enact tougher laws but crime rate, murder rate, etc will not go down. Change is definitely in the air but it isn't the first time that the knee jerk reaction to appease the masses had no effect except to take more of our freedom.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 6:26 PM
NRA spokesperson, Wayne LaPierre, is described as "angry and combative," and his tone "combative," in published reports.

Sad, sad, sad . . . . .
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 6:33 PM
Correction, "defiant" tone.
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 6:34 PM
Did you really think the liberal media was going to approve anything that he said? As a lifetime member I have sometimes cringed at the things that come out of his mouth but they have done a good job at defending the 2A.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 6:37 PM
Nature, I absolutely agree that mental health should be the focus.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 6:40 PM
1 member liked this comment
The NRA should know escalation is not a solution. Never has been, never will be.
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 21, 12 6:59 PM
Neither is the opposite, never been proven as the numbers don't lie. So, the important thing is where do we go from here. We need real solutions. People's lives are depending on it.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 7:19 PM
How "free" are we if we need to have armed guards everywhere we go?
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 9:31 PM
35%-50% of civilian-owned guns worldwide are owned in the United States - and those are concentrated in 30-50% of the households. There are 88.7 guns per 100 people. The US population is 5% of the world.

Does anyone else see a problem here?
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 10:45 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 4:31 PM
Holy **** Nature, I actually agree with some of what you've posted! The #1 issue in ALL the shootings has been someone with severe mental issues.
Society has gone down the crapper, broken homes, violent video games desensitizing kids and a general decline in respect for authority. Go back 100 years, nearly everyone outside of a city had guns in the home, not too many school shootings then. Ditto for the next 30 or so years, so what happenned? Kids without 2 parents, latchkey kids, too ...more
By bigfresh (1191), north sea on Dec 21, 12 4:36 PM
3 members liked this comment
Thyen you agree with me as well;I said we needed to fund mental health all along;right from the beginning of this discussion when everybody ignored the shootings and made abortion the issue.

Here it is-

A.Restore funding of mental health programs, NOW.
B. Regulate gun shows, and their online counterparts, NOW.
C. SERIOUSLY explore early education in critical thinking, anger management, conflict resolution, and non-violent problem solving, NOW.
By philathome (4147), ...more
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 4:41 PM
Bigfresh - let's chalk it up to a Christmas Miracle.

And while I agree with much of what you are saying - I'll point out two major changes in the last 100 years:

#1.
1912 US Population: ~95,000,000
2012 US Population: ~313,000,000 (That's 218,000,000 more people who are potentially mentally unstable)

#2.
Vast increases in transworld communications/global awareness. My point being that there may have been many heinous acts that occurred 100 years ago that ...more
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 12:45 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many of you posting have any actual firearms experience? Real experience is completely different from anything you see on tv. movies or media. You can read all the books you want, or post endlessly about the evils of gun ownership, but unless you actually have spent time training with firearms, it would be difficult to understand why we value our rights.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 6:35 PM
1 member liked this comment
Bigfresh and philathome are both right in their posts just above. We need an all-of-the-above approach here, just like what people advocate for our energy needs. What we don't need is this zero sum mindset that taking one measure precludes taking another, as in using the admitted mental health need to eliminate the need for effective gun control. We need both at once, and a few other things, too.

I'd go with everything philathome suggests in his post, plus dramatically reducing the violence ...more
By Turkey Bridge (1095), Quiogue on Dec 21, 12 8:40 PM
It is not about hunting for me, I don't hunt. I practice defensive firearms, mainly for defense inside the home. What I am trying to convey is it is not the gun laws. Gun control does not mean less crime. Criminals are going to commit terrible crimes and I want to make sure I am able to protect my family against whatever the criminal throws at us. Unfortunately for the responsible gun owner, some cowardly nut goes on a rampage and here we are. We all know the cycle by now: Tragic incident ...more
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 8:55 PM
No one is denying you the right to own a gun to protect yourself-all we're saying is do you really need an assault rifle with a 30 round clip to do it?
What are you expecting to happen that you feel that you need that kind of firepower?
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 9:11 PM
Thanks,TB.
I said that the day after the shootings;no one wanted to hear it,and I was even ridiculed for saying it.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 9:28 PM
'facepalm'
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 21, 12 9:34 PM
1 member liked this comment
Here's the post,and the post right after it-

A.Restore funding of mental health programs, NOW.
B. Regulate gun shows, and their online counterparts, NOW.
C. SERIOUSLY explore early education in critical thinking, anger management, conflict resolution, and non-violent problem solving, NOW.
By philathome (4152), Southampton on Dec 15, 12 7:27 PM
Like Reply Report as inappropriate

SERIOUSLY explore early education in critical thinking NOW, anger management NOW, ...more
Dec 21, 12 10:23 PM appended by philathome
Note the date of the post,from the article "Bishop Looks Ahead Into New Term" http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/East-End/444702/Bishop-Looks-Ahead-Into-New-Term
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 21, 12 10:23 PM
"all we're saying is do you really need an assault rifle with a 30 round clip to do it (protect myself)?

Answer: Yes.

End of story.
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 8:31 AM
Isn't anybody going to answer?
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 9:46 PM
Plenty of answers in the posts below, especially in the longer posts for which one must click on the blue "more" link. dnice, in particular, has stepped up to the plate here with cogent detailed logical reasoning.
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 6:42 AM
You and your thirty-clip assault weapon are the problem....and so long as we have people like you it will not be "End of Story". Some sick person maybe you, who knows, will do some tragic act and we'll be here again.

By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 9:46 AM
SH, just go ahead and say it, you want all guns banned. It doesn't matter if gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Yes, I want them so I can defend myself, from either other criminals who have even MORE powerful weapons, the crazies of the world, the end of the world, or dare I say a government I don't trust. And BTW, not trusting your government in and of itself doesn't make you a bad American. You and your naive misinformed opinion is the problem. We'll continue to have ...more
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 7:51 PM
Your are sick and should not be able to own a gun.
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 11:42 AM
What was it, my reference to the Constitution, my desire to protect myself, or my desire to identify the problem and solution?
By Captn America (4082), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 9:31 PM
I still don't see the need for the fire power. Look at the last few shooting rampages. What was the weapon of choice? So why do we need weapons with such high capacity and fast rates of fire. Why? What's so wrong about limiting the firepower? 20 babies were wiped out in a minute. That doesn't have any of you questioning the need for these weapons? They are so important to you? You'll still have you guns, just not the ability to shoot 40-50 rounds a minute. You guys have lost me on this. You should ...more
By double standard (1266), Remsenburg on Dec 22, 12 10:49 AM
This is so sad, man. This unwillingness to at least consider that we don't need some of the weapons. The unwillingness to at least discuss there part in these mass shootings. Why do we need them? I haven't read a single reason that makes any sense.
By double standard (1266), Remsenburg on Dec 22, 12 11:00 AM
1 member liked this comment
You don't want to hear the reason. Neither does SHNative. Taking these guns away, or mags, won't prevent something like this from happening. He just happened to have an ar-15. He could have perpetrated the same heinous act with any number of other weapons. "Not to sound callous but Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. If we were to ...more
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 12:53 PM
1 member liked this comment
The reason why I've asked 5 times is because I actually do want to know. And though I don't disagree with the rest of your post, it still doesn't answer the real question. Why does someone need to be able to pop off 40 rounds or so in a minute? What kind of firefight are you worried about getting into? God forbid someone entered your home, and I assume that you have a loaded whatever you have at the ready, you get off one shot and the intruder is either dead or hightailing out of your home. We don't ...more
By double standard (1266), Remsenburg on Dec 22, 12 1:19 PM
2 members liked this comment
I might not completely disagree with a ban on 30 rounders except it won't end there. We let that happen, then eventually more things are banned. I can fire 30 rounds out of 3 10 round mags almost as fast as one 30 rounder. I think the diference was 8 seconds, not really a big difference. If i really thought that banning them would make a difference and keep me safe, I would be all for it. Besides, the horse is kind of out of the barn already isn't it?
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 1:43 PM
Part of the historical basis for the 2nd Amendment, as I understand it, was the concern that the domestic government (federal and/or states) could become as powerful and abusive as England had been. Having a well armed militia of citizens was seen as necessary to counter domestic governmental force with reciprocal force, if necessary.

In this context, assault weapons are basically a tit-for-tat arms build-up consistent with the governments' (plural) proliferation of armament (including ...more
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 3:06 PM
double standard, please read my post directly above, regarding the possible need for such firepower.
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 3:31 PM
PBR, I am sorry I did not see this post before. You are right on the money.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 23, 12 12:28 AM
And I in turn had not seen all of your post at 12:53 just above, one of the most cogent and brief overviews I have read anywhere.

It begins, "You don't want to know . . . "

I recommend that everyone read dnice's 12:53 post.
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 5:33 AM
The gun lobby has been fighting any limitations for years.
Any statements that limitations on large capacity clips will lead to a total ban is conjecture;there ned to be limitations on the types of guns available and the amount of rounds it can fire;there is a reason that no one has answered your question,PBR-because they want the large capacity clips in case they have to take on the government-to be able to shoot people if they have to.
The reason is paranoia.
By philathome (8740), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 7:02 PM
If someone were to drive a car through a shopping mall, injuring or killing dozens of people, would you suggest that we take away cars, a tool consequently that kills more people than guns do every year?
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 1:09 PM
Cars are designed for transportation. Using one to murder people is a misuse of its desired function.
Guns are designed to kill things. Using one to kill something is proper use of its desired function. They work well in that regard.
By double standard (1266), Remsenburg on Dec 22, 12 1:22 PM
Shooting a gun at an animal or human is only ONE use of this tool. Self-defense is a justifiable use. Possession of ANY weapon also has a deterrent effect on aggressors, another use of a gun.

Guns don't kill; people USING guns kill. There is a difference, and a broad-brush simplistic approach is illogical and unproductive IMO.

Complicated problems require complex solutions.
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 3:11 PM
2 members liked this comment
I agree PBR. Naturally people just want to target guns but in the end a lot more is going to need to be done to fix the problem and make us all safer.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 3:22 PM
Giving up any of our 2nd ammendment rights is a slippery slope. There are those who would deny us our rights completely if given that power. The founders in their infinite wisdom added that this right shall not be infringed upon.
By bigfresh (1191), north sea on Dec 22, 12 2:00 PM
What about the rights of the children who we buried over the past couple of days. Why are you not concerned about them and their rights?
We do not need Automatic weapons.
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 2:32 PM
SHNative, do you know how many people's lives are saved every year because they are allowed to own firearms and therefore have the ability to protect themselves? There are articles almost daily of people who thwart home invasions because they are armed. What happened in Sandy Hook is the worst thing I have ever seen, worse IMO than 9-11 because it targeted children but you can't take away the rights of millions because of one crazy who should have been prevented from having access to fireams.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 3:06 PM
BF, they also had no standing military, no police force, and were prone to invasion by every world power who existed at the time.

If you don't know what "context" means, LOOK IT UP.
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 22, 12 3:12 PM
Mr. Z, you are a very intelligent poster but you lose people with your air of superiority and your insults. You can't change people's minds by insulting them.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 3:24 PM
2 members liked this comment
It's only BF.

Fight fire with dynamite, I always say...
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 22, 12 3:26 PM
"only BF" ???

That is a little condescending, isn't it? He makes a good point.

Please see my 3:06 PM post above, regarding the historical context for the 2nd Amendment, and one rationale for the apparent arms build-up including assault weapons.

"Never say never?" [this will make sense after reading the post above.]
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 3:36 PM
I guess I should have said "with".

If anyone thinks I may have some superiority complex, I'll look kindly on the constructive criticism, and lend it to the party at the head of this thread.

Maybe I do come off with some air, but I'm too weary and sickened by the society I see to be nice about it any more. You get alot more flies with honey, but if you're too kind you'll have bootprints permanently tatooed on your back. I tend to be passionate about things, and sometimes a good ...more
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 22, 12 3:44 PM
"Fight fire with dynamite"? Wouldn't you call that escalation?

Haha, just being a wiseass:)
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 11:43 PM
2 members liked this comment
The ability to "bear arms" should be a privilege, not a "right".

If it were treated as such, maybe firearms would be treated with more respect, incite less fear, and murder less people.
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 22, 12 2:56 PM
Well thank goodness we can't just arbitrarily change constitutional amendments. That would be a heck of a precedent huh?
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 3:02 PM
What would you consider more dangerous?

A gun, or a car?

Both have the potential to be lethal, yet we license people to drive but not to own a gun.

Then again, you didn't need a license for a horse, or it's accompaniment the "buggy".
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 22, 12 3:04 PM
Mr Z, I would absolutely in in favor of more stringent licensing requirements for firearms ownership. In fact, that my be a very good start. I will have to think about your question. I would think both are dangerous in the wrong hands, but not sure which is more dangerous. I have been in car accidents but never had any accidents with my firearms.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 3:09 PM
Except Mr. Z, as dnice points out, the RIGHT to bear arms is just that, a right. And the process for new amendments to the US Constitution is available to all.

You seem to like historical quotes.

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

"Question authority!"
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 3:39 PM
"Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes."

"Causa timendi est nescire."

And:

"Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem."
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 22, 12 3:47 PM
Precisely, so if the guards ("custodes") are an abusive government, who will guard them ("custodiet"), other than a well-armed militia?

Wasn't this part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment?
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 4:07 PM
Yes, but who was the "government" whom "We" were tired of being afraid of? How many honest, sworn soldiers would actually participate in a military coup in this day and age? I would hope not many. I won't say we should ban guns, but we need to watch who gets to fire one alot more carefully.
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 22, 12 4:35 PM
Ah, but the devil is in those details!
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 22, 12 4:59 PM
How about better locks, instead of more guns? They make biometric storage options. Maybe bulletproof glass should be required by law for our schools, instead of more guns.

Or, maybe a "Do Not Carry" designation in cases of mental illness? Would that be too much when it comes to "invasion of privacy? Maybe some requirements for biometric locks on firearm access in the home would help.

How far do we go with that tech? We should probably outlaw biometrics on the guns themselves, ...more
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 22, 12 5:40 PM
pbr I read your post and understand your point. If society breaks down people will die. I will be one of them because of my passive nature. What kind of world is worth living in if you need an automatic weapon just to get through the day? Understand my point please. One reload could equal one life. One reload gives me the opportunity to run or tackle you. Slower rate of fire allows a few to escape. That's it. How many AR15 owners are worried about tyranny and the need for militia? How many just ...more
By double standard (1266), Remsenburg on Dec 22, 12 6:44 PM
3 members liked this comment
Survival is a basic human instinct. I don't believe you that you would just give up; you haven't given up in this discussion, wink wink. I like having an AR for one reason, I may need it. I hope I never do but you know the saying "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

I think that instead of a slower rate of fire I would prefer someone armed to shoot back and stop the threat. Remember this, a ban will only affect law abiding citizens. It will not prevent ...more
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 22, 12 11:41 PM
1 member liked this comment
Thanks double standard. You ask, "How many AR15 owners are worried about tyranny and the need for militia?"

I am guessing that you would be shocked to know an accurate answer to this question. Revolution and armed self-defense are in our blood IMO. And, once again, dnice is on the money here with sound logical reasoning, the foundation of any solution to tragedies such as Newtown CT.
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 6:03 AM
I recommend dnice's post above from Dec. 22 12:53 PM. Click on the blue "more" and read one of the most cogent brief overviews of the conundrum we face about guns and violence. We are truly myopic and times like this, due in part to the fallacy of "misleading vividness."
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 5:38 AM
Folks, it is helpful IMO to recognize that armed self-defense and revolution are in our blood, born of England's oppressive government in the 1500 and 1600's. Perhaps this "resort to arms" is no longer necessary, but it is genetically encoded in many of us with ancestral roots in the soil of any oppressive regime, especially England.
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 5:45 AM
With a mature and long-term sense of history, one must recognize that criticism of the "pro-gun" side of this discussion, in fact, fails to acknowledge the very STRENGTH which got us here: armed self-defense and revolution.

These roots run deep, and may once again save us from tyranny and oppression IMO.

Words for thought . . .
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 5:55 AM
I wouldn't be an advocate of "taking your guns away." I know responsible gun owners and respect their rights. They are my rights too. It's the lethality aspect that I have issue with, but I've beaten that point to death and we disagree. So many ingredients making up a mass murderer, with guns only being one. It's not a simple issue to remedy. We need to work on it though.
Thanks for the respectful debate.
By double standard (1266), Remsenburg on Dec 23, 12 7:59 AM
BTW - I have 2 young children. To say my point of view isn't based in part on emotion would be a lie. The Sandy Hook event rocked me to the core.
By double standard (1266), Remsenburg on Dec 23, 12 8:05 AM
The Sandy Hook tragedy is one of the worst things to occur in my lifetime, all those innocent kids killed by a truly EVIL individual. We all certainly agree with that part of this issue.
ZZZ, you come across as nothing but a condescending, pompous little man, I truly pity you. It can't be easy to go through life with the delusions you suffer from, I'll pray for your recovery.
By bigfresh (1191), north sea on Dec 23, 12 8:28 AM
1 member liked this comment
Well, maybe only in print. You drive by post, hardly ever debate, and rarely post anything truly informative, just little blurbs styled like propaganda. Isaac Asimov had some delusions, Ray Bradbury too, and so did Gene Roddenberry. And because of the third, a picture of a better world for all concerned, even if we can't really have warp drive. Yeah, I must be an idiot for wanting something like that.

This is the worst civil tragedy in this country in my lifetime. This was domestic, ...more
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 23, 12 11:30 AM
Peace on Earth.

Have a good Holiday season.
By PBR (4364), Southampton on Dec 23, 12 11:38 AM
A Merry Christmas to you and yours Mr. Z, let's hope the new year will bring peace and prosperity to all.
By bigfresh (1191), north sea on Dec 23, 12 1:09 PM
Hey, when it comes down to it we're all Americans. Science nuts, gun nuts, shoe nuts, car nuts, whatever. "We" have our thoughts, passions, beliefs, difficulties, strengths, and shortcomings. But no matter what we're all stuck on this mudball together, and when push comes to shove you see those differences melt when faced with tragedy, or disaster. "We" have proven that time, and time again. Heck, even the Red Baron toasted Snoopy on Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and ...more
By Mr. Z (6149), North Sea on Dec 23, 12 2:24 PM
1 member liked this comment
How can we even fix a gun problem when we can't even stop grown adults to stop drinking driving and killing people. Look at society and its lack of morals and ethics and how we teach our children nonsense.
By chief1 (1289), southampton on Dec 23, 12 6:57 PM
2 members liked this comment
Two fire fighters outside Rochester were shot and killed yesterday after being ambushed by a murderer exercising his second amendment rights.
We need gun control now!!!
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 25, 12 9:08 AM
Just wanted to point out that the murderer relinquished his second amendment right when he went to prison for murdering his mother. He was unable to own a gun under existing laws. Further proof that incidents like these take more than one-stop-solutions.
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 25, 12 9:58 AM
Once again you let emotion overwhelm you and you get the facts incorrect. This guy was a criminal with no second amendment rights.
By dnice (1326), Hampton Bays on Dec 26, 12 12:09 AM
Do you think the families of the firefighters would use the word "incident' to describe what happened?
To many guns....they are easy to obtain.....crazy people use them to kill others.
The United States needs gun control and I hope that the NRA leads the way for real responsible gun control.
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 25, 12 10:40 AM
Do you think the families of the firefighters would use the word "incident' to describe what happened?
To many guns....they are easy to obtain.....crazy people use them to kill others.
The United States needs gun control and I hope that the NRA leads the way for real responsible gun control.
By SHNative (538), Southampton on Dec 25, 12 10:40 AM
incident was an incidental use of the word - of course it's a tragedy. I'm actually agreeing with you but you don't want to see it. My point is that it wasn't about a 2nd amendment right because he didn't have one. So obviously we need gun control, but that's not the only problem. This is a case where perhaps the justice system needs further evaluation - someone who was sick enough to murder their 90 year old mother (or grandmother, I can't recall) of course is capable of something like this ...more
By Nature (2577), Hampton Bays on Dec 25, 12 9:04 PM
According to the news Adam Lanza also had a Henry repeating rifle and a pump shotgun. He could have committed the same carnage with the shotgun. So do we ban pump shotguns? Would the governer give up his shotgun? The fact that one type of firearm arm is used in a horrible crime shouldnt be singled out. As far as I am concerned Nancy Lanza, the mother, killed all those people by failing miserably as a parent and allowing her developmentaly disabled son access to firearms. I belive that Adam was probably ...more
By North Sea Citizen (327), North Sea on Dec 31, 12 7:20 AM
1 member liked this comment
• The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress ...more
By Johnny Nova (83), Northampton on Jan 19, 13 1:05 PM
©2014, 27east.com / The Press News Group - Ph: 631-283-4100 - mailbag@27east.com