It's time!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most Americans would agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.

Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.

We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all; all but the aforementioned fringe.

We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).

The concern isn’t only for rights alone but due process, limited government, and the requirement that the government manifest a compelling interest to preempt or limit a right based on objective, documented evidence.

Compromise does not entail compelling citizens to forfeit their civil liberties to the detriment of the Nation as a whole.

That someone might commit a violent act with a gun is not a compelling reason to restrict citizens’ access to firearms, that a given firearm is perceived by the general public as ‘unnecessary’ or ‘dangerous’ is also not a compelling rationale.

Connecticut has some of the more restrictive gun laws and regulations in the Nation – there’s little else the State could do to prevent yesterday’s tragedy save that of an outright ban, which we all know would be un-Constitutional.

The fact that Connecticut’s gun laws failed is evidence that more laws are not the answer, that more restrictions or even a ban would not have kept the shooter away from a firearm.

As with everyone else, gun owners are entitled to due process with regard to limiting their rights, they can not be subject to a presumption of guilt and punitive measures simply because of a perceived danger. There is no evidence that owning a gun, collecting guns, or using guns for hunting or at the range in any way poses a danger to the general public.

The Second Amendment isn’t solely about ‘owning guns,’ it’s part of the consistent Constitutional theme of limited government, the right of the people to be free from government excess, and the preeminence of the rule of law.

However difficult, this issue must be addressed in the context of reason over emotion, facts over ignorance, and the desire to realize an actual, effective solution.

 

[Rshermr]

I propose that the states be allowed to establish some control over the types of weapons and ammunition sold within its borders; that the state have the power to restrict any firearm, magazine or ammunition type it feels represents a clear and present danger to its citizens or environment.

I propose political subdivisions within a state have the authority to restrict the possession, custody and control of firearms owned or possessed by state citizens outside their residence or place of business; visitors from out of state should be prohibited from having firearms in the possession or custody unless a temporary permit is obtained from the chief law enforcement officer of the county, city or special district.

I propose that the states be allowed to require anyone who resides in their state to be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody or control any firearm legal within the state and that said license be revocable for cause.

The state of Connecticut has those powers.
Fact: You have to be 21 years old to legally purchase and own a handgun in Connecticut.
Fact: Adam Lanza was 20 years old.

So far, all your proposals are met.

next........

Uh, did you ever hear of New York. Or New Jersey. Or any of a number of states around Connecticut? Nice to see you believe the problem is solved. Guess those 20 kids and 6 adults did not get shot with high capacity handguns and an assault rifle.

 

[Rshermr]

Most Americans would agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.

Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.

We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all; all but the aforementioned fringe.

We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).

The concern isn’t only for rights alone but due process, limited government, and the requirement that the government manifest a compelling interest to preempt or limit a right based on objective, documented evidence.

Compromise does not entail compelling citizens to forfeit their civil liberties to the detriment of the Nation as a whole.

That someone might commit a violent act with a gun is not a compelling reason to restrict citizens’ access to firearms, that a given firearm is perceived by the general public as ‘unnecessary’ or ‘dangerous’ is also not a compelling rationale.

Connecticut has some of the more restrictive gun laws and regulations in the Nation – there’s little else the State could do to prevent yesterday’s tragedy save that of an outright ban, which we all know would be un-Constitutional.

The fact that Connecticut’s gun laws failed is evidence that more laws are not the answer, that more restrictions or even a ban would not have kept the shooter away from a firearm.

As with everyone else, gun owners are entitled to due process with regard to limiting their rights, they can not be subject to a presumption of guilt and punitive measures simply because of a perceived danger. There is no evidence that owning a gun, collecting guns, or using guns for hunting or at the range in any way poses a danger to the general public.

The Second Amendment isn’t solely about ‘owning guns,’ it’s part of the consistent Constitutional theme of limited government, the right of the people to be free from government excess, and the preeminence of the rule of law.

However difficult, this issue must be addressed in the context of reason over emotion, facts over ignorance, and the desire to realize an actual, effective solution.

Yes. As I said, I own a number of guns and I hunt and I target shoot. And I think you are full of shit. Other countries have nothing like the gun deaths that we have. Not even close among the industrialized nations. And you would like to say nothing can be done. And, we need those high capacity magazines. And we need legal assault rifles with even larger magazines. And all of the other NRA dogma.
Yup, let the children die. Just talk about the second amendment and how wonderful our gun ownership laws are. But it does not pass the giggle test.

 

[alan1]

I propose that the states be allowed to establish some control over the types of weapons and ammunition sold within its borders; that the state have the power to restrict any firearm, magazine or ammunition type it feels represents a clear and present danger to its citizens or environment.

I propose political subdivisions within a state have the authority to restrict the possession, custody and control of firearms owned or possessed by state citizens outside their residence or place of business; visitors from out of state should be prohibited from having firearms in the possession or custody unless a temporary permit is obtained from the chief law enforcement officer of the county, city or special district.

I propose that the states be allowed to require anyone who resides in their state to be licensed to own, possess or have in their custody or control any firearm legal within the state and that said license be revocable for cause.

The state of Connecticut has those powers.
Fact: You have to be 21 years old to legally purchase and own a handgun in Connecticut.
Fact: Adam Lanza was 20 years old.

So far, all your proposals are met.

next........

Uh, did you ever hear of New York. Or New Jersey. Or any of a number of states around Connecticut? Nice to see you believe the problem is solved. Guess those 20 kids and 6 adults did not get shot with high capacity handguns and an assault rifle.

The OP proposed state control over gun laws. I merely pointed out that those controls already exist in Connecticut. They also exist in New York and New Jersey, with even stricter controls.
I didn't say the problem was solved, I said the OP's suggestion already existed. But, you go ahead and put words in my mouth if it makes you feel better.

 

[hazlnut]

Come and take my guns away, asswipe.

Be right over, pussy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Most Americans would agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.

Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.

We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all; all but the aforementioned fringe.

We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).

The authorities need to keep an eye on a guy like this ^^^^


The most dangerous among us are those who live alot of their life in a fantasy world.........these are the types that do unimaginable things like the Ct. massacre.


Naive assholes like this Disney-character mayor of New York.......these are the whack jobs that society needs to keep a close eye on. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/14/Bloomberg-politicizes-shooting


Every idealistic jackass in America is sitting around tryingto figure out some kind of social engineering that can be done to stop shit like this from happening. Thats the way these nuts think..........that there should be a solution to every problem we have. But anybody with a smidge of common sense knows there is only one logical method to significantly reduce mass murders in schools: put two cops in every school and arm them with deadly force weapons. That should start MOnday morning in every school. Does it stop the nut who wants to inflict that level of damage? Nope.....but it ensures that some lives are saved. And if ONE SINGLE life can be saved via protective measures such as this, its worth every penny. But not to the k00ks.........they think it more important to spend billions on something like solar energy companies and millions on jerkoffs who spend food stamp money on lobster and alcohol.


Put the hopelessly naive like Wry Catcher in the halls to collect hall passes from adults who walk into schools with camoflogue outfits carrying automatic weapons. They can kindly approch them and apoligetically ask them for their hall pass.

 

[skookerasbil]

Come and take my guns away, asswipe.

Be right over, pussy.

Careful Haz..........me thinks it is highly likely you are a panty waist limpwrister liable to get his eye shot out.

 

[Missourian]

What would have helped in this situation?

The weapons were purchased legally by and registered to a divorced female teacher who I assume was around 50 years old.

So what can you propose that would have averted this tragedy?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Prevention is not possible, mitigation is. That's the point of this thread.

We will never ban the possession of firearms to the civilian population - we can regulate the type of firearms (something we do already) legally available to the civilian population all we need is the will to do so.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Most Americans would agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.

Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.

We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all; all but the aforementioned fringe.

We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).

The authorities need to keep an eye on a guy like this ^^^^


The most dangerous among us are those who live alot of their life in a fantasy world.........these are the types that do unimaginable things like the Ct. massacre.


Naive assholes like this Disney-character mayor of New York.......these are the whack jobs that society needs to keep a close eye on. Bloomberg: Obama Must Take 'Immediate Action' Against Guns


Every idealistic jackass in America is sitting around tryingto figure out some kind of social engineering that can be done to stop shit like this from happening. Thats the way these nuts think..........that there should be a solution to every problem we have. But anybody with a smidge of common sense knows there is only one logical method to significantly reduce mass murders in schools: put two cops in every school and arm them with deadly force weapons. That should start MOnday morning in every school. Does it stop the nut who wants to inflict that level of damage? Nope.....but it ensures that some lives are saved. And if ONE SINGLE life can be saved via protective measures such as this, its worth every penny. But not to the k00ks.........they think it more important to spend billions on something like solar energy companies and millions on jerkoffs who spend food stamp money on lobster and alcohol.


Put the hopelessly naive like Wry Catcher in the halls to collect hall passes from adults who walk into schools with camoflogue outfits carrying automatic weapons. They can kindly approch them and apoligetically ask them for their hall pass.

You know or knew my background kook, but if this type of silly post entertains you go for it. You're as ridiculous today as you were in the old days.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most Americans would agree - except for the fringe - that some people in society must have the right to keep and bear arms infringed. Felons, those with serious mental illnesses; those who use and abuse drugs and alcohol, domestic violence offenders, etc.

Those who commit atrocious acts of violence, mass murder as we all saw yesterday, do not necessarily show up on LE Radar and thusly are not flagged in background checks.

We need to come up with pragmatic solutions to a recurring problem and cannot do so unless both sides come to the table; a goal of reaching a compromise able to limit the ability of a crazed shooter to inflict the amount of carnage which we saw yesterday would seem palatable to all; all but the aforementioned fringe.

We never hear ideas to prevent such tragic events as happened yesterday from one side of the debate. They generally post over and over about their rights but rarely acknowledge the rights of the victims of gun violence (that includes those who died, their families and friends, first responders, journalists, and the general public who watched yesterday's crime unfold on TV).

The concern isn’t only for rights alone but due process, limited government, and the requirement that the government manifest a compelling interest to preempt or limit a right based on objective, documented evidence.

Compromise does not entail compelling citizens to forfeit their civil liberties to the detriment of the Nation as a whole.

That someone might commit a violent act with a gun is not a compelling reason to restrict citizens’ access to firearms, that a given firearm is perceived by the general public as ‘unnecessary’ or ‘dangerous’ is also not a compelling rationale.

Connecticut has some of the more restrictive gun laws and regulations in the Nation – there’s little else the State could do to prevent yesterday’s tragedy save that of an outright ban, which we all know would be un-Constitutional.

The fact that Connecticut’s gun laws failed is evidence that more laws are not the answer, that more restrictions or even a ban would not have kept the shooter away from a firearm.

As with everyone else, gun owners are entitled to due process with regard to limiting their rights, they can not be subject to a presumption of guilt and punitive measures simply because of a perceived danger. There is no evidence that owning a gun, collecting guns, or using guns for hunting or at the range in any way poses a danger to the general public.

The Second Amendment isn’t solely about ‘owning guns,’ it’s part of the consistent Constitutional theme of limited government, the right of the people to be free from government excess, and the preeminence of the rule of law.

However difficult, this issue must be addressed in the context of reason over emotion, facts over ignorance, and the desire to realize an actual, effective solution.

Yes. As I said, I own a number of guns and I hunt and I target shoot. And I think you are full of shit. Other countries have nothing like the gun deaths that we have. Not even close among the industrialized nations. And you would like to say nothing can be done. And, we need those high capacity magazines. And we need legal assault rifles with even larger magazines. And all of the other NRA dogma.
Yup, let the children die. Just talk about the second amendment and how wonderful our gun ownership laws are. But it does not pass the giggle test.

The bolded are examples of the ignorance and emotion detrimental to finding an actual solution to the problem.

 

[Missourian]

Prevention is not possible, mitigation is. That's the point of this thread.

We will never ban the possession of firearms to the civilian population - we can regulate the type of firearms (something we do already) legally available to the civilian population all we need is the will to do so.

This guy left the scary black rifle in the car.

It was available, he brought it with him...30 round magazine and all...and he left it in the car.

So, what are you planning on banning?

 

[Missourian]

Listen, I'm at the table. If there is a way to stop these shootings WITHOUT punishing the 170,000,000 (that's 170 million) law abiding gun owners for the actions of this one.non gun owner...then let's hear it.

 

[Missourian]

Did you leave the table?

 

[Sherry]

Remember the lawlessness of the wild west back in the 1800's, and all of those kids getting shot up in one room schoolhouses...well, anyway.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did you leave the table?

Yep, I was at the other table wrapping some gifts while Mrs. Catcher was out shopping.

We can't stop a madman; that doesn't mean the proliferation of guns isn't a problem in our country. The types of firearms, the size of magazines, the ease of purchase, etc.

The first problem maybe the hardest to solve, the unwillingness of some to acknowledge guns are a problem.

 

[AmyNation]

I don't see how any new gun restrictions would have prevented what happened at that school.

 

[skookerasbil]

It is threads like this that hammer home the point of liberalism being a mental disorder.......nothing exposes the level of nut better than a lefty talking about gun laws. Its a significant connect the dots issue.........always has been. They still think guns grow legs and walk into schools and do this stuff. They think automatic weapons mean the gun shoots itself.


There are probably in the whereabouts or 300 million guns in this country ( a wild guess based upon the fact that there are now about 172 million gun owners ). Only the mental cases on the far left think you can actualy stop a certified k00k from obtaining one if they want to go out in a blaze of glory.


The only sound and rational behavior in this instance is to arm to the teeth two law enforcement officers in EVERY SCHOOL.........starting Monday morning. Still wont stop some level of killing, but you also wont have another Sandy Hook school incident every again unless it is a coordinated terrorist attack. A lone sick-ass neanderthal wouldnt get out of the first room and be shot dead on site.

 

[eflatminor]

Prevention is not possible, mitigation is. That's the point of this thread.

We will never ban the possession of firearms to the civilian population - we can regulate the type of firearms (something we do already) legally available to the civilian population all we need is the will to do so.

As you stated, we already regulate firearms...and crazy people still do crazy things. As we've seen in many other countries, even the outright ban of firearms does not stop them.

You have yet to offer a reasonable solution to prevention or mitigation. Allow me to offer one: Require armed officers on school campuses and/or require teachers to be trained and armed. That's about the best we can do.

The bullshit "gun control" regulations on law abiding citizens don't do crap to stop criminals from breaking laws.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Prevention is not possible, mitigation is. That's the point of this thread.

We will never ban the possession of firearms to the civilian population - we can regulate the type of firearms (something we do already) legally available to the civilian population all we need is the will to do so.

This guy left the scary black rifle in the car.

It was available, he brought it with him...30 round magazine and all...and he left it in the car.

So, what are you planning on banning?

I think all weapons should be banned though a citizen may own a single action revolver for self defense as long as s/he owns no speed loaders.*** What do you think about that?

I offered a thread suggesting we engage in a rational debate on gun control. The gun huggers response has been filled with hyperbole and slippery slope fear mongering. There is only concern for the Second Amendment, not for the victims of yesterday's shooting or any of the other victims of mass attacks on innocent and unarmed civilians by gunmen in the past decade.


*** BTW, I do not support a ban on all firearms, I do think our laws today are irrational. Expalin to me why a sportman or a homeowner needs high volume magazines, semi automatic hand and long guns?