Dec 18, 2012 5:48 PM
- RELATED ARTICLES
- > Raynor Country Students Raise Money For Sandy Hook Families Feb 5, 2013 2:39 PM
- > Shooting Enthusiasts Up In Arms Over Gun Control Jan 23, 2013 10:50 AM
- > Southampton Mayor Orders Police To Stop Using Shooting Range During School Hours Jan 1, 2013 4:31 PM
- > Remembrance Ceremonies Will Be Held Across The East End This Week Dec 23, 2012 8:15 AM
- > Southampton Town Officials Discuss Safety Preparations In Wake Of Sandy Hook Tragedy Dec 19, 2012 12:06 PM
more
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... more
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... more
It's good for the gun business.
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 fear will assure that we have more incidents like we saw in Connecticut.
Until we ban large capacity clips,close the gun show loophoi;le that allows people to buy guns without a background check and demand mental evaluations of prospective gun buyers we will continue to have shootings.
Why is it that we demand photo id's to vote but don't require people to have background checks and evaluations before buying a gun?
From what I've seen in these posts,all gun owners need to have mental evaluations.
The gun lobby isn't the only lobby that preys on fear, that is disingenuous.
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.....
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?
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.
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.
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 he could have been identified, treated, and the carnage would never have taken place.
People are gravitating towards the cheap, comprehensible, but ultimately futile solution, that is, gun control. It won't work. Professional care of disturbed children WILL but that isn't easy to comprehend and will cost a fortune so no one will pay for it. And the wheel will turn and everything will quiet down until another disturbed child/man erupts and we repeat the babbling.
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.
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.
Bishop wouldn't know a stand if someone threw lemonade in his face.
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.
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!
– Ronald Reagan
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 said: "This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. . . . Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. . . .
"While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.
"We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."
The right's mythological portrayal of their false Reagan is laughable.
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 some were so-called community guns stashed around neighborhood. Nearly all are to be destroyed."
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 was written to protect the people from an all-powerful centralized government while the following Constitutional Amendments established the executive, legislative and judicial branches and other laws of the land. But the BoR is still within the context of a government governing the People. The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press and to protest. The 2nd gives militia members the right to bear arms in order to protect the State - not the individual, not property, but the State. The founders just fought a war against England with a ragtag volunteer defense. They weren't establishing a National Guard or Army or organized military with the genesis of the federal government, so they specifically wrote "A well regulated militia - being necessary to the security of a free state." They were legislating exactly what Switzerland has now: a trained citizen militia. Switzerland doesn't have a national army. They have the citizens who by law must go through military training and own a gun, but are still private working citizens on guard and trained in case of attack. That's exactly what James Madison means in the 2nd Amendment. Had he meant for the populace to be afforded the freedom to own guns of any type to combat a tyrannical U.S. federal government, don't you think he'd have specifically written that? He never intended the 2nd Amendment for the People to overthrow the federal government. He wrote it to defend against England, Spain, or whatever outside nation had intentions to invade. In fact, during the War of 1812, we had state militias defending our shores and cities from the British. We still didn't have a standing national army then. And it's for that exact reason the 2nd Amendment was written.
Http://www.demandaplan.org
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.
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 that there is A LOT of emotion over this!
Nobody needs assult rifles either automatic or semi-automatic.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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 you had to get an "Annual Hunting Permit." Every firearm that changed hands professionally had to have a serial number and the maker's or dealers name stamped into the metal. "Proof of need" was made a condition for issuance of all licenses, not just the carry permit. Mandatory prison sentences were imposed on anyone who professionally sold or transferred a firearm or ammunition without a license. Truncheons and stabbing weapons were subject to the same licensing requirements as firearms, in terms of their manufacture and sale.
Getting back to Germany, ripe conditions for change were plentiful thanks to hyperinflated currency, massive frustration because of the Treaty of Versailles conditions, a complete belief in the betrayal of the people by the government, multiple unstable cabinets, corruption, and the icing on the cake was the Reichstag burning to the ground when Hitler was appointed Chancellor.
Considering we're talking about a country whose actions were responsible for the deaths of over 90 million people in less than thirty years, maybe it wasn't such a horrible idea, especially after over 37 million dead in WWI. If you actually think those firearm policies had any effect on German military action, or the inception of WWII, you must have been dipping into the same batch of crack as bigfresh. Methinks you've had an overdose of Charlton Heston's propaganda.
It ain't gun registration that produces gun confiscation and genocide, it’s people who do. Sane logic, right?
That's why the police are watching this site now.
Go ahead.Make some more irresponsible posts.
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.
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.
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 forsesee someone seemingly unconnected to an elementary school busting in and murdering children for an undetermined motive.
Could his parents have taken a more active role? Prevenative role? Absolutely, would it have changed anything? That's unkown.
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 for your guns (unlikely), good luck with surviving the resistance you put up, because you won't have the chance to live free, period.
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 of the "right to bear arms" is meant for properly trained and nominally seasoned citizens who have completed basic training. Again, what part of "militia" don't you zealots understand?
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 engagement?
To Nature's list add Silence and "Don't want to get involved" IMO.
A tragic situation indeed, all around.
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 spent the last few years screaming about teachers;cutting their pay and benefits,but now they want them to place their lives in jeopardy even more by wanting them to be willing to shoot it out with overly armed thugs wearing body armor.
No to guns in schools.
Yes to banning large capacity clips.
Yes to closing the gun show loophole.
Yes to restoring funding for mental health.
Make it stop.
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 or custom weapons. The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can’t lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn’t matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized.
Escalate!
What a tangled web we weave . . .
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!
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!
No Rational Answers
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 do have weapons. There are schools with metal detectors (which, in theory, is similar to having an armed guard). But aside from the huge taxpayer cost which of course would be met with resistance (especially in a place like LI) does it really make us "safer"? Or does it make us "complacent"?
If someone is determined to commit such a heinous act, an "armed guard" will in no way deter them and surely will be the first target. These acts are generally not random (though this one is somewhat of an exception). If we put an armed guard at every school - then why not every daycare facility, office building, hotel etc.? Is this the message America should be sending? Let's respond to a tragedy like this with providing more guns in public places? I just don't get it.
The arguement that we have armed guards protecting our money (something sought after by criminals) or sporting events (a place where tens of thousands of people are gathered) but not schools (where aside from a small number of incidents are remarkbly safe places with respect to gun violence) is bogus.
Let's start by addressing the #1 problem with all of these acts (hint - it's not guns). Each of these individuals had serious mental problems that went either unchecked or ignored. Start with mental health and you will start to create a solution.
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.
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!
Sad, sad, sad . . . . .
Does anyone else see a problem here?
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 much time on the computer, less face to face interaction due to texting instead of talking, isolation and yes, an apparent increase in mental illness.
What's the solution? IMHO an increase in availibity of mental health services, teachers being able to let the right people know when they're dealing with a messed up kid. There's no easy answer to this problem, the knee jerk reaction by the left to ban certain types of weapons is misguided and doesn't adress the issues at the heart of the problem.
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 Southampton on Dec 15, 12 7:27 PM
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 people aren't aware of. Not to say that things of this caliber occurred, but let's not be naive and think that awful things didn't happen in this country. 100 years ago african-americans were routinely killed for the most minor of infractions and it was celebrated in many parts of this nation.
I'd go with everything philathome suggests in his post, plus dramatically reducing the violence ...more shown in TV, films and digital games, plus denying all firearms to some people and denying some firearms to all people. (The "some people" denied all firearms might be psychotics and those convicted of violent felonies, for a start. The "some firearms" denied to all might be assault weapons -- an abused term, I know -- armor-piercing ammo, and big clips, for a start.)
To answer dnice's question above, I've had abundant firearms training in the military. Since resigning my commission, I haven't used a firearm, but I do understand why those who do use them value that right, and I respect it. Fact is, though -- you know it and I know it -- we don't have to disarm the hunters in order to disarm the psychopaths.
What are you expecting to happen that you feel that you need that kind of firepower?
I said that the day after the shootings;no one wanted to hear it,and I was even ridiculed for saying 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 conflict resolution, NOW NOW NOW
LOLLL I am seriously laughing my Azz off, You are freaking hilarious.
By They call me (316), southampton on Dec 16, 12 12:27 AM
Answer: Yes.
End of story.
Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 230 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country.
Which is to say that mass shootings are incredibly rare and don’t kill a lot of people when they do happen.
It is tempting to ask why accidental drowning is not 340 times more important a social issue than gun control. Or why poisoning isn’t 150 times as pressing a political issue. (If the number of people dying is truly what’s important, almost anything would be more pressing.) The problem is not hard to understand though, and rests in a psychological concept known as the “logical fallacy of misleading vividness”.
The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent – positively or negatively – that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence. This is why many people are afraid to fly. They can understand intellectually that crashes almost never happen, and that airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel, but the idea of being torn apart mid-air, or knowing that they’re about to die for a full two minutes in freefall, or being dragged under the ocean while stuck inside the cabin is so vivid and disturbing, that they actually experience intense fear about a process that is safer than their drive to the airport.
This is what happens to us collectively as a nation when mass shootings occur. Yes, it is terrible, for both the person who was so disturbed and all the people they harmed. It puts on graphic display the absolute worst aspects of our culture, which is painful to watch.
However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction."
In this context, assault weapons are basically a tit-for-tat arms build-up consistent with the governments' (plural) proliferation of armament (including ...more our police forces and their tactical operations squads). Notably, these powerful tools of destruction also mirror the arsenals that criminals often have.
Were martial law ever to be declared for any reason (good thing Sandy's aftermath did not start food riots in NYC, that could have quickly become a blood bath IMO), then the possession of sufficient firepower in one's home could be life-saving indeed.
You might say, "THAT will never happen here in the good ol' USA," but the point is that it COULD happen someday.
Never say never, and keep your ammo dry!
It begins, "You don't want to know . . . "
I recommend that everyone read dnice's 12:53 post.
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.
Guns are designed to kill things. Using one to kill something is proper use of its desired function. They work well in that regard.
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.
We do not need Automatic weapons.
If you don't know what "context" means, LOOK IT UP.
Fight fire with dynamite, I always say...
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.]
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 kick in the pants only hurts alot unless you figure out why you received it.
I don't believe anything, I just think about prudence and proper course of action. The more passionate your beliefs are, the less likely you are to EVER change them. BF most likely will never change.
Haha, just being a wiseass:)
If it were treated as such, maybe firearms would be treated with more respect, incite less fear, and murder less people.
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".
You seem to like historical quotes.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
"Question authority!"
"Causa timendi est nescire."
And:
"Bonitas non est pessimis esse meliorem."
Wasn't this part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment?
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 before someone even proposes it. Or, only pass the law you the user can disable the lock if someone else actually wanted to fire it. Might need that feature at the range, or if you are deceased and someone needs to take it from your still warm hands. But, then again the software required would probably start a movement to crack it. How about Tech War, instead of gun war for a change of subject? As it was wisely stated, "complex problems require complex sloutions", and sometimes complex solutions need their own solutions due to their problems. So to speak...
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 criminals from possessing and using firearms. Look at the recent tragedies, they all took place in gun free zones where nobody was armed. The cowards picked these places because they knew there would be little resistance. I absolutely respect your decision not to want own a firearm, please don't take away my right to do so.
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.
These roots run deep, and may once again save us from tyranny and oppression IMO.
Words for thought . . .
Thanks for the respectful debate.
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.
This is the worst civil tragedy in this country in my lifetime. This was domestic, ...more not foreign. There hasn't been such a horrible loss of small children in a school since the '58 Chicago fire. These were small children. Not teens, not college students, nor active military. This should be earth shattering to the nation, and trust me the Polemics shall rage. I'll put this right up there with the Birmingham Church bombing in the history books for callous ruthlessness, and absolute disregard for the sanctity of human life. This should be a catalyst for some serious positive change.
Put yourself on the couch here with the rest of us. Lean back on that "front row seat" Carlin spoke of. Read the news. Pick a random town around the nation for a couple days, or a couple weeks. Read their news. Look at the roots underlying as the investigation continues. I hear no mention of bulletproof glass in your posts, biometrics, or sane logical methods of latter's use in the home, or in the gun industry. These things really should be not only societal convention, but sane requirement on, or off the books. Maybe when you quit calling me a Marxist, or intentionally misspelling the names of persons, and parties in a derogatory manner, I'll try a little harder. Doesn't seem you like the tastes of potshots...
Have a good Holiday season.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and ...more a wish for a safe "Auld Lang Syne" to everyone.
We need gun control now!!!
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.
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.