Elementary School shooting in Connecticut

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1355882572' post='1195446']
Classic confrontation between the extremes:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxoVis_6yNA[/media]
[/quote]

Ha, that's great! Love it!

[BengalBacker]

http://news.yahoo.com/mass-school-bombing-1927-puts-sandy-hook-context-185608674.html

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1355904487' post='1195471']
[url="http://news.yahoo.com/mass-school-bombing-1927-puts-sandy-hook-context-185608674.html"]http://news.yahoo.co...-185608674.html[/url]
[/quote]

That wouldnt be the bombings are rare but these mass gun shootings are becoming more and more common context would it?

[Go Skins]

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/"]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/[/url]

The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims' families worship.

“From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman told FoxNews.com. "Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”

A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza's anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.


Read more: [url="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/#ixzz2FVI1N0Bq"]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/#ixzz2FVI1N0Bq[/url]

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1355882572' post='1195446']
Classic confrontation between the extremes:
[/quote]

Homer - that's great.

Kenneth - you can call whatever you want to call. But people saying that the assault stuff with 30 and 60 round clips need to be banned aren't the extremes... they're the middle where you and I reside.

The extremes are the "you're not taking ANY of my guns - and I can have as many as I want of whatever I want". And, "we need to take ALL guns - people shouldn't be able to own / carry a gun, PERIOD." Those are the extremes and they're both out there.

I can see no reason a person needs to own a Bushwacker assault rifle that'll hold a 30 or 60 round clip. No reason at all. The arguments for these are bullshit - they'll not stand up to the military force capable if the government elected to use it.
But I can see an argument for a person owning a pistol (with a 6 or 9 round clip), shotgun, rifle... those are a personal protection device and / or hunting purposes. I can understand the desire to own those.

Again, I've never owned a gun and frankly don't have a desire to do so. In the proper circumstances I can understand a person's wanting to own a gun. But some of this stuff is just getting out of hand.

Oh - and I'm sorry... this may come off as insensitive and if it does, again, I apologize. But, if the mother really was in the process of giving conservatorship to the court and turning this kid over to a mental facility what in the good lord's name was she doing 1) owning these guns where he could get access to them... & 2) taking this kid within the last 6 months to the gun range and letting him shoot them and having him learn how to shoot them. Grossly, grossly irresponsible.

[Jamie_B]

Personally I think it a bit, well ok alot, extreme that folks are talking about arming teachers or that armed citizens would stop this stuff.

Cowboy justice is extreme.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1355925659' post='1195499']
Oh - and I'm sorry... this may come off as insensitive and if it does, again, I apologize. But, if the mother really was in the process of giving conservatorship to the court and turning this kid over to a mental facility what in the good lord's name was she doing 1) owning these guns where he could get access to them... & 2) taking this kid within the last 6 months to the gun range and letting him shoot them and having him learn how to shoot them. Grossly, grossly irresponsible.
[/quote]


Completely agree.

[MichaelWeston]

A thinker

[url="http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/"]http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/[/url]

[quote name='Go Skins' timestamp='1355923815' post='1195492']
[url="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/"]http://www.foxnews.c...madman-to-snap/[/url]

The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims' families worship.

“From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman told FoxNews.com. "Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.”

A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza's anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.


Read more: [url="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/fear-being-committed-may-have-caused-connecticut-madman-to-snap/#ixzz2FVI1N0Bq"]http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2FVI1N0Bq[/url]
[/quote]

This article is grossly irresponsible....from what I have heard? Are we doing reporting based off junior high gossip now?

[|kennethmw|]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1355925659' post='1195499']
Homer - that's great.

Kenneth - you can call whatever you want to call. But people saying that the assault stuff with 30 and 60 round clips need to be banned aren't the extremes... they're the middle where you and I reside.

The extremes are the "you're not taking ANY of my guns - and I can have as many as I want of whatever I want". And, "we need to take ALL guns - people shouldn't be able to own / carry a gun, PERIOD." Those are the extremes and they're both out there.

I can see no reason a person needs to own a Bushwacker assault rifle that'll hold a 30 or 60 round clip. No reason at all. The arguments for these are bullshit - they'll not stand up to the military force capable if the government elected to use it.
But I can see an argument for a person owning a pistol (with a 6 or 9 round clip), shotgun, rifle... those are a personal protection device and / or hunting purposes. I can understand the desire to own those.

Again, I've never owned a gun and frankly don't have a desire to do so. In the proper circumstances I can understand a person's wanting to own a gun. But some of this stuff is just getting out of hand.

Oh - and I'm sorry... this may come off as insensitive and if it does, again, I apologize. But, if the mother really was in the process of giving conservatorship to the court and turning this kid over to a mental facility what in the good lord's name was she doing 1) owning these guns where he could get access to them... & 2) taking this kid within the last 6 months to the gun range and letting him shoot them and having him learn how to shoot them. Grossly, grossly irresponsible.
[/quote]

I guess we'll just have to agree to AGREE? I haven't heard a lot of "take all the guns" in any of this, but I have heard a lot of "We just need to arm the teachers" and "we should have more guns in places without guns now" (thanks Rep Gohmert). I guess your fringe is real whackos, but I look at the people that are Elected Officials, and among those, It seems that conservatives hold all of the "Whack-a-doodle" awards.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1355930414' post='1195529']
Completely agree.
[/quote]

X2

[|kennethmw|]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/gun-control-chances-congress.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='MichaelWeston' timestamp='1355936789' post='1195563']
A thinker

[url="http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Active-shooters-in-schools-The-enemy-is-denial/"]http://www.policeone...nemy-is-denial/[/url]

[/quote]

I posted this in the gun debate thread, I got it from a friend of mine who thinks the NRA is too liberal. I dont see this as someone who is a "thinker" the idea of putting armed security or arming in schools or worse arming citizenry for cowboy justice is bad thought

[T-Dub]

Talk is of reinstating the old assault weapons ban. I read through it some when I realized that CT had basically the same law on the books - something I still have yet to see mentioned in any of the MSM coverage. It makes me feel like this is more about hand-wringing and the appearance of action rather than doing anything useful. Which defines our government pretty well, but I digress.

As to the "Assault Weapons" ban, I suggest anyone interested in the topic give it a look. It uses the term "cosmetic" in re: appearance several times. Pistol grips and folding stocks are not the issue. The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to support banning any rifle that accepts external clips. Take away the ease of swapping magazines entirely.

The flip side, however, is that then I start to consider the likelihood of a grandfather clause allowing pre-owned weapons - which is how the Lanzas were able to have one even though they are banned in their state. More troubling to me is the knowledge of the type of people who have been stockpiling these types of weapons. If extremist militia groups are going to be allowed to keep their arsenals, banning further sales makes me think maybe I should get one while I still can, and that hardly seems like an improvement. I don't want an assault rifle. If I'm on an island and the sketchy-looking people over there all have pointy sticks, I'll probably just avoid those sketchy people. If you tell me there aren't going to be any more sticks soon, suddenly I want my own pointy stick, too. All that accomplishes is grossly inflating the value of a stick. Basically I feel like either nobody should be allowed to have them, period, or everyone should. Deal with the nutjob militias and then talk to me about background checks, y'know?

[gatorclaws]

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1355944858' post='1195607']
Talk is of reinstating the old assault weapons ban. I read through it some when I realized that CT had basically the same law on the books - something I still have yet to see mentioned in any of the MSM coverage. It makes me feel like this is more about hand-wringing and the appearance of action rather than doing anything useful. Which defines our government pretty well, but I digress.

As to the "Assault Weapons" ban, I suggest anyone interested in the topic give it a look. It uses the term "cosmetic" in re: appearance several times. Pistol grips and folding stocks are not the issue. The more I think about it, the more I'm beginning to support banning any rifle that accepts external clips. Take away the ease of swapping magazines entirely.

The flip side, however, is that then I start to consider the likelihood of a grandfather clause allowing pre-owned weapons - which is how the Lanzas were able to have one even though they are banned in their state. More troubling to me is the knowledge of the type of people who have been stockpiling these types of weapons. If extremist militia groups are going to be allowed to keep their arsenals, banning further sales makes me think maybe I should get one while I still can, and that hardly seems like an improvement. I don't want an assault rifle. If I'm on an island and the sketchy-looking people over there all have pointy sticks, I'll probably just avoid those sketchy people. If you tell me there aren't going to be any more sticks soon, suddenly I want my own pointy stick, too. All that accomplishes is grossly inflating the value of a stick. Basically I feel like either nobody should be allowed to have them, period, or everyone should. Deal with the nutjob militias and then talk to me about background checks, y'know?
[/quote]

I'm with you on grandfathering in any weapons. What are good options to get around it though. Do you offer some sort of trade in program? That probably would be very expensive.

[T-Dub]

[quote name='gatorclaws' timestamp='1355950415' post='1195649']
I'm with you on grandfathering in any weapons. What are good options to get around it though. Do you offer some sort of trade in program? That probably would be very expensive.
[/quote]

Yeah that's the rub as far as I can tell. Even if there were a buy-back offer, a lot of people are going to refuse to hand them over. I would go one further and suggest that the same people who are stockpiling these things are likely to be the ones who are hoping someone from the government will come and try to take them by force.

No matter how the law is worded, it's going to be a banner year for the gun industry.

[|Bunghole|]

I am going to steal a couple posts from another board I frequent and just leave them here for thought:

[i][color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]This thread is, ironically, a good indicator of why we boorish retarded ill-informed gun owners get uneasy when you enlightened folks start proposing laws. Because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. [/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]Talking up the nonsensical assault weapons ban that banned scary looking features on guns that didn't affect their functionality, and which had no effect on crime committed with the sort of guns it purported to control, which are an almost immeasurely miniscule percentage of gun crime anyway?[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]"Arsenals that your average navy seal think was overkill"? Are we talking about number of guns, as if someone is going to wield 20 guns at a time, or type? The actual sort of weapons a seal would use are already ridiculously restricted to own and no private citizen has ever committed a crime with one. Why don't we throw out how these are "weapons of mass destruction" because they look scary.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]You idiots will support any gun control legislation thrown in front of you, no matter how nonsensical, no matter how little it's actually targeted at the problem. You idiots are what get us utterly nonsensical laws like the assault weapons ban, and you're completely unconcerned whether that law actually had any positive effect at all. You're not even interested in whether "assault weapons" are even a problem that needs to be solved - as you've been told over and over again that these things are both different from "normal" guns not by how they function or their capabilities but by what they look like, and you've been told they're involved in a miniscule percentage of gun crimes.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]In the 80s and early 90s, there was a craze about "cop killer bullets". Some legislators came up with a law that would ban any ammunition made that could penetrate a level 1 bulletproof vest. Sounds reasonable, right? "Common sense" gun legislation, why would people need guns powerful enough to penetrate bulletproof vests. [/background][/size][/font][/color]


[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]Well, congrats, because you just proposed a law to ban ALL RIFLE AMMUNITION from fucking civil war muskets to the .22 your grandpa let you shoot when you were a kid. Bulletproof vests are designed to stop pistol rounds, which have much less energy. And then when the NRA opposes what is a de facto ban on rifle ammunition, you come in screaming "THE NRA SUPPORTS COP KILLER BULLETS!"[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]Gun rights advocates get nervous when you guys start proposing "common sense" laws because you're all a bunch of fucking morons who have no idea what you're talking about, and your proposals are always fucking dumb shit, never address the purported problems they claim to want to solve, and do nothing but infringe on the people who never hurt anyone with their guns anyway.[/background][/size][/font][/color][/i]

And:

[i][color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]No matter what I say, this plays into your "all gun owners are extremely frightened with small penises" bullshit charicature. How is what I said actually fearful of anything? I'm just saying that you smarmy assholes all pat each other on the back on how enlightened and clever you are, calling all who oppose you brutish idiots, WHEN YOU ARE PROPOSING FUCKING STUPID THINGS.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]There isn't going to be any new major gun law passed anytime soon. You can't get the republicans to agree to country-saving laws that have no downside, you think you're going to pass something as contentious as major gun control legislaton?[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]But what you're doing is firing up their base, and alienating people like me, who's actually quite anti-republican and voted for obama twice, so good job on that. Convince yourself that all gun rights advocates are tiny penised, scared men who always vote republican, meanwhile you throw a fucking lifeline to the republican party by taking up the gun control banner. Morons.[/background][/size][/font][/color][/i]

And:

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]
Why do such a huge portion of Americans think someone wants to 'take their guns away'? [/background][/size][/font][/color]
[i][color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]Mainly because of the evident bad faith of those who support gun control. When the measures they support fail to reduce crime, they never agree that such laws should be repealed. Instead, they use it as a reason to push for even stricter laws.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]For example, suppose gun control proponents push for and obtain a municipal gun ban in City X. In a later debate about gun control, someone on my side points out that the gun ban had essentially no effect on crime in City X.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]Typically, the gun control proponent will respond that "OF COURSE it did not reduce crime. For gun control to work, it needs to be enacted on a much broader level."[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]Well fine, but if it's so obvious that gun control doesn't work at the municipal level, why did support the law in the first place? And why are you not pushing to repeal it now?[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]Why would anyone support a law which he knows perfectly well will not accomplish anything at all? Seems to me the only reasonable explanation is that the person has a hidden agenda. He wants the law as a stepping stone towards more and more restrictive laws. And given that gun control pretty much never works, it's pretty easy to see where this process will lead.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]In sum, at best gun control proponents do not want to take my guns away in the same sense that a morbidly obese person did not want to get fat. [/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]Here's a suggestion: If you are a gun control proponent, and you sincerely do not want to take away everyone's guns, then please demonstrate your good faith by lobbying for the immediate repeal of all gun laws which clearly did not result in a significant reduction in crime. Once those laws are repealed, we can talk about what laws might make sense.[/background][/size][/font][/color][/i]

And:


[i][color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]So, since disturbed teenage boys can't get mum's arsenal (because there would be none), they would just put a smile on their face and and go to the local pool hall and become snooker champs? Ummmm.....no, because disturbed teenage boys (without psychological intervention) will brew and simmer into disturbed adult men who eventually will think of some other way to carry out their acts of terrorism......guns or no guns. Knives or no knives. Molotovs or no molotovs. Chainsaws or no chainsaws. Poison or no poison. Bombs or no bombs. The "Nutters" will find a way (or die trying) unless psychological intervention gets there first, not a weapons ban.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]What if the murderer didn't have access to guns and instead learned to build bombs? He definitely had the brains for it. How many kids and teachers in adjacent rooms that were hiding would have survived a blast? [/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]So, go ahead and ban guns (I don't have any)......it would not have stopped this guy for long. Instead, had they (mom, father, authorities, social workers) acted on the potential murderer's queues before the act was carried out, then those kids would be alive today.......with or without guns being banned. It's our mental health system that needs more attention rather than another half-ass weapons ban.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]Think this through, man.[/background][/size][/font][/color][/i]


And:



[i][color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3]First, let's ditch all the dumbass laws we have that mandate prison time for a lot of stuff of a non-violent nature. Let's free up some court time and some prison cells. Next, let's look at all those laws we already have on the books about all the horrible things that are supposed to happen to people who commit crimes with a gun or to felons who are found in possession of a gun and just enforce the holy living shit out of them. Committing a crime with a gun automatically adds 5 years? Then you really, truly actually spend every day of those 5 years inside. Felon with a gun? Back to the stoney lonesome for a nice long stay. We have some pretty stringent laws in place, but what with plea bargaining and all they aren't enforced as they could be.[/size][/font][/color][/i][color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3]
[i]We also need to examine our whole way of handling mental health issues here in the US. Troubled people ought not to be locked away, necessarily, but letting them careen through life until something tragic happens isn't working out as splendidly as they thought it would back in the late 70's and early 80's[/i][i].[/i][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3]
And so forth and so on... [/size][/font][/color]

[|Lucid|]

The attitude of these posts are exactly what is wrong.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1355967593' post='1195718']
[i][color=#000000][font=Trebuchet MS', Arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(248, 248, 248)]You idiots will support any gun control legislation thrown in front of you, no matter how nonsensical, no matter how little it's actually targeted at the problem. You idiots are what get us utterly nonsensical laws like the assault weapons ban, and you're completely unconcerned whether that law actually had any positive effect at all. You're not even interested in whether "assault weapons" are even a problem that needs to be solved - as you've been told over and over again that these things are both different from "normal" guns not by how they function or their capabilities but by what they look like, and you've been told they're involved in a miniscule percentage of gun crimes.[/background][/size][/font][/color][/i]
[/quote]

Take out the name calling BS to get to an actual discussion and part of what this person says is legitimate.

There has to be some trust from both sides that "best interests" are trying to be accomplished. I know VERY LITTLE about guns when you get to assault style, etc. and those types of things so I'm not the ideal person to write legislation that would be meaningful. Legislators need to get with folks that actually know the industry in an attempt to write meaningful reform... whatever format it takes.

To address this person's last comment - I don't know if assault weapons are a problem or not... all I do know is that I can't think of a valid reason for a civilian to have a gun that holds 30+ bullets in a clip that can fire them off in less than than 5 seconds and can reload these 30+ bullet clips in a matter of seconds. I see no justification for having the capability of ownership of that type of gun. IMHO.

[Go Skins]

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive_n_2329508.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive_n_2329508.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular[/url]

[b]UPDATE:[/b] The New York Daily News reports that an unidentified friend claims [url="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/exclusive-mind-newtown-killer-article-1.1223612#ixzz2FWpfEUKo"]Adam was withdrawing from his mother -- and the world[/url] -- in the days leading up to the killings. The person, who claims to be close to Nancy Lanza, said that the mother took Adam to a psychiatrist, but wasn't planning on committing him to a facility. Neither report has been confirmed by named police sources.

Nancy Lanza reportedly volunteered with kindergartners at the school for several years. Flashman said that Adam "believed she cared more for the children than she did for him." On the day of the massacre, Nancy was Adam's first victim. Flashman told Fox News that Nancy was also good friends with the school's principal and psychologist, both of whom were killed during the incident.

Lanza had also reportedly cut off communication with his[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/peter-lanza-adam-lanza_n_2324979.html?utm_hp_ref=crime"] father, Peter, in 2010[/url].

[T-Dub]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1356010774' post='1195769']
To address this person's last comment - I don't know if assault weapons are a problem or not... all I do know is that I can't think of a valid reason for a civilian to have a gun that holds 30+ bullets in a clip that can fire them off in less than than 5 seconds and can reload these 30+ bullet clips in a matter of seconds. I see no justification for having the capability of ownership of that type of gun. IMHO.
[/quote]

I can't think of a valid reason, either. Unfortunately the options seem to be either taking them all away, with all the ugliness that is bound to go along with it, or empowering heavily-armed fringe elements who have been stockpiling them, not to mention creating another buying frenzy before a ban goes into effect.

I don't think it's a question of whether gun control laws are justified or needed, but rather how to implement and enforce them.

[oldschooler]

[quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1355979363' post='1195755']
The attitude of these posts are exactly what is wrong.
[/quote]


Amen. I don't see how anyone can see what happened last week,
and numerous times before and not say enough. Something needs to
be done. Instead I see a lot of people saying "Everything's fine. Nothing
to see here. Move along now." This is not a "normal" I am willing to accept.
Hell, there has been 2 mass shootings here in Wisconsin in the past 5 months.
There have been shootings at a Movie theatre, a Church and a school in the
last 5 months. Where is your line? How much more straw has to be heaped on
that Camel's back before it breaks? It break a long time ago for me.

I don't feel we have a Right to Bear Arms. I feel it is a Privilege to Bear Arms.
And not only a privilege, but one that comes with great responsibility.

[T-Dub]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1356016172' post='1195797']
Amen. I don't see how anyone can see what happened last week,
and numerous times before and not say enough. [b]Something needs to
be done. [/b]
[/quote]

I agree, but I don't believe in rushing to reinstate a law that was just proven to be tragically ineffective in Connecticut simply for the sake of "doing something". Legislation that won't be enforced because of loopholes big enough to drive a tank through won't prevent this from happening again. Isn't that the point? Or are we just trying to make ourselves feel better?

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='oldschooler' timestamp='1356016172' post='1195797']
I don't feel we have a Right to Bear Arms. I feel it is a Privilege to Bear Arms.
And not only a privilege, but one that comes with great responsibility.
[/quote]

Ummm... I'll disagree with you here as the constitution very clearly states the RIGHT to bear arms (insert Jamie's picture with dude wearing faux bear arms). Nothing at all about a privilege. But with that, I believe there needs to be some effective limits place on what arms can be owned... what we have presently isn't working.


[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1356019866' post='1195830']
I agree, but I don't believe in rushing to reinstate a law that was just proven to be tragically ineffective in Connecticut simply for the sake of "doing something". Legislation that won't be enforced because of loopholes big enough to drive a tank through won't prevent this from happening again. Isn't that the point? Or are we just trying to make ourselves feel better?
[/quote]

This. Just rushing out and throwing some crap on paper, as most politicians in favor of gun control will attempt to do, does nothing. It won't curb anything. Need some solid legislation (with experts from that field providing input) that has actual impact on the issue while still keeping folks rights.

[Jamie_B]

The 2nd Amendment was also written at a time in which we had no standing armies because the citizen was truely the citizen/solider. So the question in my mind anyway is what constitiutes a well regulated militia.

Henry Rollins discusses that here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBkqzQHXL58&feature=share

[MichaelWeston]

[url="http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/12/20/armed-teachers-and-the-danger-of-friendly-fire/"]http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/12/20/armed-teachers-and-the-danger-of-friendly-fire/[/url]