Discussion About Gun Rights

As we all know a madman walked into a school this week and killed children and adults before turning his gun on himself.  My heart goes out to the families and friends of the victims of this tragedy.  Obviously this kind of act makes no sense, but today I’d like to talk about the political after effects of this shooting.

Or rather I’d like to hear your ideas about it.  I’ve seen a shift in people’s thinking about gun control and I have a feeling that we’re going to see a lot stricter laws come into effect soon.

Do you think it’s time we made it harder to get guns?  Do more detailed background checks?  Take away the assault rifles?  Take away all firearms altogether?

I’ve talked with a few friends and they have all relayed stories about going to gun stores and seeing people four deep at the counter and assault weapons flying off the shelves even after the prices went up 40% in a matter of hours.

President Obama is now in his second term of office.  During his first term he usually shied away from gun issues because he wanted to be re-elected, but now that no longer matters to him and I think the political winds will blow towards stricter gun laws.

So what’s your take?  Everybody has ideas about this and I’d like to hear them.

Ideas?  Comments?  Stories you’ve heard?

Sound off below!

-Jarhead Survivor

107 comments… add one
  • j.r. guerra in s. tx. December 21, 2012, 8:25 am

    I doubt very much that gun laws will prevent criminals from obtaining them – the only people who obey laws are the law abiding, which by definition a criminal is not. The Black Market will continue to roll – if you have the money honey we have the time.

    Brady Bill was supposed to stop the insane from obtaining a gun. Then once passed, it was instantly declared impossible because private medical records should not be accessed for scrutiny.

    I think our Administration will pass or just executive order a couple of new restrictive gun laws within a month. I predict crimes will continue to occur – you can’t legislate crazy, I don’t care who your hairdresser is.

  • Rae December 21, 2012, 9:12 am

    We actually moved purchasing another 9mm up in our timeline and are picking it up on Saturday. It’s $30 more then what we paid for the exact same gun less then 2 months ago. I hate to jump on board with people going nuts, but after I was in my local Walmart yesterday and all .22 lr ammo was gone, I called my brother and had him pick up a couple of bricks at a store in his town that still had some left. It’s that fine line between making too big a deal of it, but man, I sure would be mighty upset with myself if things changed and we couldn’t get what we needed. The man working the gun section at our local Walmart came right out and told me that it’s been crazy and ever since last fall he has stocked up on several thousand rounds for all his guns. Even reluctant hubs thinks it a good idea to get more ammo. I am definitely for restrictions on people with mental health issues not having guns, but I am curious what it would look like. What happens with the woman who gets diagnosed with postpartum depression? If it’s in her file does that wreck her chances of getting a gun forever? What about the tons of people who take medication for depression and are doing well? Would the govt. deny them on the basis of the fact that they could stop their meds and have issues? It’s not a simple solution. And banning guns isn’t the answer. If there were no guns in the US at all, we would still be having this conversation about people killing kids or others using knives or home-made molotov cocktails. They will always find a weapon to do their evil. What do they expect us to do in society? Outlaw anything with a right angle or sharp side on the chance that it may just be used for a weapon? Perhaps we should all just wrap ourselves in batting or insert everyone into plastic bubbles. That way nothing negative can reach anyone ever.

    On the other hand, I do think the loophole that allows people to buy guns at a gun show without a background check should be closed. Personally, I think it’s ridiculous and if I had criminal tendencies, you bet I would dress up all nice and get my rear end to one of those. I know some people don’t even like the background checks, but I would rather know that we are at least doing something to prevent people with criminal behavior from acquiring a gun. I know that it doesn’t change the fact that most criminals will go and just steal what they want, but society does need some rules to function. And the background check does make it harder for them. They can’t actually just go and buy when in a whole 30 minutes like it took me to get mine.

    Anyway, there’s my two cents.

    • JP in MT December 21, 2012, 10:33 am


      The “loop hole” that you talk about, isn’t a loop hole. All Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealers are still required to do a background check. Anywhere they do business. The ones that don’t are private persons selling their personal property. Individuals CANNOT call in a NICS check, for several reasons, but they are prohibited. They would have to change federal law and invoke the Commerce Clause, with the Supreme Court has already told them they have abused with Obama Care and told them no.

  • twelvetoe December 21, 2012, 9:20 am

    I would stand behind almost any legislation that would provide a tangible and immediate reduction in gun violence. The trouble is that there are no quick fixes. On one hand if you banned all gun sales tomorrow you are left with the fact that there are enough weapons in this country to arm every single man woman and child. Those aren’t going to go away and therefore criminals and crazy people will still gain access to firearms and with that access there will be deaths. On the other hand if you lock up all the criminals and crazy people, you will, in addition to locking up people that are of no danger to themselves or others, miss a significant enough proportion that the deaths due to firearms will continue. Regardless of the path we take it will take decades to see results. Don’t interpret this as an excuse to do nothing. Clearly something needs to change but what I’m afraid of is that what really needs to change is our perception. My suspicion is that is beyond the reach of humans at this time.

    • JP in MT December 21, 2012, 10:39 am


      If “gun control” and firearms restrictions worked so well, then why are places with the most restrictive “gun control” laws have the worst gun violence. Look at Chicago, New York City, and California (specifically LA). They are only regulating the law abiding citizens, criminals by definition, don’t follow the rules.

      There is a question on the NICS form that asks about your mental health. Yet there is no system for having those diagnosed with serious issues being reported to the NICS system. So if you say NO, the retailer doesn’t know.

      Granted the shooting in CT would not have been prevented by this as the mother bought the weapons and had no reason why she shouldn’t have been allowed to own them.

      • twelvetoe December 21, 2012, 11:06 am

        I agree with you. CT. has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. This tragedy occurred because the mother, who legally obtained the firearms, neglected to keep them in a manner that denied access to them by all but herself. A mistake that she paid for with her own life. Unfortunately for the rest of the murdered people, the effects of her mistake did not remain confined to herself. The only legislation that would have prevented this tragedy would have been to ban all guns and have them seized by the government. That is not something I think should be on the table at all but it is where I fear we are headed.

      • Michael December 21, 2012, 10:05 pm

        “There is a question on the NICS form that asks about your mental health. Yet there is no system for having those diagnosed with serious issues being reported to the NICS system. ”

        Actually, there is. Your doctor can put you on that list as can the local police. If you’ve been involuntarily institutionalized you’re supposed to be on the list. The laws vary from place to place and are poorly followed. But, these are all things that can and should be fixed.

      • Sarah December 21, 2012, 10:51 pm

        An important distinction to consider regarding places with more restrictive gun laws – Did they have high levels of gun violence and thus created laws to try to reduce this problem, or did they always have restrictive laws and gun violence increased afterwards? I’m guessing it would be the first option.

        • D'ja'c December 22, 2012, 2:25 pm


  • Charles,,,, December 21, 2012, 9:53 am

    #1 There are medications for depression/anxiety etc., that has side affect listed as homocidal tendancy, suicidal tendency, yet these are being dispensed full strength and lef t to the individual as to whether this medication is taken or not, experimental drugs are being used on the individuals and yall know, the medical field experiments with drugs for blood pressure, dose and type until the find out WHAT works for you, put that on the table for discussion, the ethic’s of our liberal doctors.
    #2. The weapons were stolen not purchased, they were taken without permission from the owner.
    #3. Our nations school boards have known of this madness for 20 years or more but have failed to spend the dollars to safeguard classrooms with safe rooms, entry proof classroom doors, teacher training and other non- threatening methods and measures for such madness.
    #4. The list of other killers far exceeds gunz, automobiles, knives, drugs, alcohol, electricity, even sex (get caught with someone elses lover and see if they don’t try to beat your brains out).
    #5. Gunz, Nope, nada, the target of gun’s is not driving this agenda, the agenda is never let a crisis go to waste if we can get what we want, anyone have the number of deaths caused by the weapons our AG put into the hands of drug cartels?? If this is the case the everyone in government needs to step down and turn themselves in.
    Just one man’s opinion.

    • ND December 21, 2012, 1:56 pm

      Make that 2 men’s opinion. The point #2 is at the heart of this. The piece of crap that prompted all this tried to gain the guns legally and was denied. So he resorted to what would work. He STOLE them. As far as I’m aware there is legislation against theft. At least on a civilian level. Politically unfortunately not.

  • sput December 21, 2012, 9:53 am

    Gun show loophole — just private sales.
    What they want is for every sale to leave a paper trail, de facto registration. Registration leads to confiscation.
    Mental illness — if you believe in GOD, or revere the Constitution, you are a crazy bigot and can’t be trusted.
    Ban semi-autos and hi-cap mags — do you think most people will turn them in? Without re-embursement? The government spending more money that it doesn’t have? You are a special kind of stupid.
    Stocking up on ammo? That is on the list. Tax it. Limit the amount you are allowed to have. Who needs 100 rounds of deadly ammo.
    I can go on and on. If they get even 10% of the hysterical gun banners list, we’re screwed.

  • sput December 21, 2012, 9:57 am

    Next big run at the stores, 5″ PVC or ABS pipe and fittings.

    • G December 21, 2012, 4:23 pm

      If it’s time to bury them, it’s time to dig them up.

  • Schacht December 21, 2012, 10:09 am

    I hear about the gun show loophole from a lot of people. But the few time I actually purchased a gun there it was from a FFL dealer that still called the check in. As for the private to private sales that happened… yeah it may be a problem. But you have that outside of the gun shows too.

    Should more be done? A valid question. But will doctors willing release records for patients that are being treated for mental conditions? Probably not. Having worked part time in a gun store, and doing hundreds of call-ins, the largest portion to be delayed for further review are military or ex-military. Some say it is because the Feds can check those medical records. True or not? Don’t know, but wouldn’t surprise me.

    Do I personally think more regulations and restrictions are needed? No, but I do believe if the right information was made available to those selling then we might be able to do a better job as a society to keep them out of the wrong hands. Stressing might.

  • Dave December 21, 2012, 10:12 am

    I myself am preparing to duck the mighty US pendulum. This country seems to have a bad habit of over reacting to issues of all sorts while denying or “kicking the can down the road” when they could be taking preventative action. This country seems to have lost its civility and younger generations have been desensitized by video games and movies glorifying negativity. Laws have basically become suggestions. How do you explain to a child that pot is against the law as far as the government is concerned, yet they collect taxes from Colorado industries in the field? The people in the state of Ma voted a law in despite the governor’s objection and veto. His response was I’ll tell the police officers not to enforce it. Heaven forbid you believe in traditional marriage…according to the mayor of Boston, this is grounds to boycott a food chain. Face it, we need leaders that can lead, not just talk and deflect responsibility. Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense for a reason.
    Integrity needs to be dug back up and strived to be achieved.
    There are always going to few a few bad folks around and if they don’t have a gun they’ll use something else, Tim McViegh proved this already. In my mind we as a society have two paths to choose (Sound familiar?)
    Restore civility, Integrity, and respect for others and remove the word entitlement from our language, or finish the disintegration of our country. After following the last election, I have little Hope…. I don’t expect things to Change…. and onward is a frightening thought. Sadly this country is run by headlines and reaction, and a boatload of ignorance…Not by our elected officials. Hug your kids… just my 2 pennies worth..

  • JP in MT December 21, 2012, 10:49 am

    The Dems are now looking at “gun control” because of these shootings. It’s been their “third rail” of politics for the last several years. Seems like if the election is close, the “gun control” person looses. Right now they feel they can show their true colors. 2014 will be the test if they get anything voted on in the session.

    With it being the Christmas season, social pressures are up. Add into it the Mayan thing, the “fiscal cliff”, the “sequester”, and the very real feelings of recession, I feel that there is more pressure on people than in a normal year. Put all that additional pressure on people who feel left out and are already dealing with personality issues; I’m not surprised that there are people who want to “demonstrate” that they still have some power in their lives by attacking those least capable of definding themselves. That why they go to “no gun zones” looking for potential vicitims.

  • Waterboy December 21, 2012, 11:01 am

    Hey Jarhead. Once again, thanks for the great blog. I live in CA, go ahead everybody laugh and take your best shot…it’s already really difficult to buy a gun here. Just some examples: 10 rd. limit on pistol and semi-auto rifle mags, DOJ background check, handgun safety class, 10 waiting period, one gun per 30 day purchase limit…you get the idea. Just yesterday the governor’s office announced that it will begin on tougher new regulations immediately. That being said, I have been patient over the years and managed to obtain every firearm I have sought and stayed within their lines while doing so. It is difficult, but it can still be done. I would not wait a single minute before starting if I were a person seeking their first firearm, though.

  • CombatrockRock December 21, 2012, 11:12 am

    Unfortunately, I believe that our government will pass new gun laws of some sort. What they will be, who knows. Either way, passing a law is never the answer to detering a criminal. Last time I checked, a criminal is still a criminal. A criminal will break one or one hundred laws. The only people that get affected by laws are the law abiding citizens. I say this coming from a law enforcement background. If our government really wanted to take gun violence out of the US, they would have to completely destroy ALL guns in the entire World. And this still wouldn’t completely stop it. ZIP guns have been around longer than I have and I’m sure they will continue to stay around.
    Passing new laws will never prevent crime. They only prevention of crime is to be proactive in preventing it. We can not rely on our government to protect us. We as citizens have to protect ourselves and others. When an attacker has a firearm, the only way to resolve the issue is to use a firearm unless you have a set of skills better than most.

  • lee December 21, 2012, 12:07 pm

    i wouldnt ban the sale of any type of gun.

    i would be in favor on a waiting period to buy any gun while a background check is done, but no gun law is going to stop things like newton or the denver movie theatre; thats a cultural decline problem.

    also, you confiscation people need to relax. there are over 100 million guns in the US, the govt doesnt have the ability to confiscate that.

  • ThatguyinCA December 21, 2012, 12:20 pm

    All guns should be registered and owners licensed to own. Concealed carry should be legal. If caught without a gun registered to you, it’s jail time PERIOD! Only reason to have an unregistered gun is for nefarious reasons. Owners should also be licensed with an annual license fee (to pay for compliance enforcement). All gun transfers should be through a registered agent and background check done with a background check re-run every 3 years. With the gunsafe technology available (fast opening fingerprint technology), every gun not under your direct supervision (on your person or within sight) should be locked up in a safe (not a glass cabinet). Columbine, Oregon mall shooting and Sandy Hook all done with guns taken (stolen) from family or friends. You should be subject to no more than one spot check per year within reasonable hours (a minor freedom loss but if your a law abiding citizen what’s the problem) to ensure that there are no unsupervised guns in the house. If you are found out of compliance it’s a $500 fine for first offense and open to up to 4 spot checks per year for 2 years. 2nd offense if a $2,500 fine. 3rd offense if $5K fine. 4th offense is loss of license for 5 years, forfeiture of guns and $10K fine, 5th offense loss of license for life (no guns). Dispute of fines will be done by arbitration in front of a 5 person panel with two everyday citizens, one veteran, one local judge, one local law enforcement officer all picked randomly from files of legal gun owners (no people with an agenda but rather gun owners policing themselves).
    Guns are not the problem, people are. Just 1 irresponsible gun owner per 1,000 is one too many and I’m pretty sure the actual statistics are like 1 in 250. After a few years of the above those precautions/steps almost become moot as the irresponbles will pretty much have been weeded out.
    Honestly, there is no right answer to these questions. People who want to kill, will kill, even without guns. The Aurora shooter would have killed a bunch of people even without a gun (he made firebombs to booby trap his apartment, remember) and even with the strictest gun control laws he still would have gotten a gun, legally (no criminal record and was smart and knowledgable enough to beat whatever psychiatric testing me may come up with). We can’t ban them all (nor would I want that). I want people to be able to own whatever gun they want. But I also want to know: What do you do with it? Who has access to it? etc. Essentially, does your possession of this gun present a public safety risk? For a majority of gun owners the answer is a resounding no. It’s the minority where the answer is yes that we have to weed out. And this is the best way I can see to do it.

    We need to protect ourselves from idiots like the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter and guys like this . . .

    Enjoy your guns, love your guns but safeguard them.

    Let the slamming of ThatguyinCA commence. . . . .

    • Steve December 21, 2012, 2:47 pm

      Go f yourself and your spot checks.

      (a minor freedom loss but if your a law abiding citizen what’s the problem

      The problem is its a slippery slope. Once you start allowin in home spot checks for one thing it will turn into checks for something else. By the way its already illegal to leave a firearm where a minor can access it.

      Perhaps you should look up the 4th amandment. I’ll give you a head start it bands all warrentless searches.

      So because Im using my second amendment right I am no longer protected under the 4th amendment?

      You bettter sharpen your pencile on this one.

      Perhaps we need to look at the failures of the mental health system in this counrty? Its VERY difficult to find help for anyone requiring serious care. I have first hand experience in these matters. So were left with people poorly treated at best runnning around being a danger to them selves and to othere.

      In addition we need to get rid of this nonsence that schools are gun free zones. thats why these crazy people shoot these places up. Because they know they wont encounter any resistance. We need armed security professionals in all schools. Im not talking TSA like agents. I mean local police departments. We need to encourage our local municipalities to assigne officers to our schools. Its a sad state of affairs, but thats whats going to keep our childern safe. Not gun bands, restrictions, or as recomended by the comment above warrentless searches of our private homes. Seriously people where are we communist china???? Good grief…..

      • Anonymous December 21, 2012, 4:04 pm

        Yup, a special kind of STUPID
        Registration is the first step to confiscation, see NAZI Germany.
        See also Steve’s first line

      • ThatguyinCA December 21, 2012, 4:32 pm

        Thank you paranoid guy.

        Yes it’s a slippery slope but so is everything. Failures of the mental health system? I will completely agree with that. My roommate is a social worker and works mainly with Autistic/Asperger’s affected individuals and families. I have volunteered regularly with their organization (Becoming Independent) and I agree that the mental health system is broken down and a complete failure but that wouldn’t have stopped Columbine, Oregon mall shooting or Aurora as none of them had any diagnosable mental health issues (and if the Aurora guy did, he certainly could have fooled them).

        “By the way, it’s already illegal to leave a firearm where a minor can access it.”

        wow that’s great. How do you enforce it? And I would prefer it to be illegal to leave a firearm where anyone but the legal owner can access it. But even then, how do you enforce it?

        So what would they find in your house that makes you so afraid of a spot check? (spoken like a true fascist, I know)

        But hey, any possible solutions you may have to the gun violence issue, I’m all ears. Something other than arm everyone please. Not that I have an issue with that, I’m actually OK with that but it’s tired and won’t gain enough traction to become a uniform national law (I’m for state’s rights but in the case of guns and drugs it should be a federal level because it’s too easy to transfer from state to state).

        I’m just sick of other peoples guns ending up in the wrong person’s hands and crap like Sandy Hook happens.

        So please, tell me, how do we stop it?

        • Steve December 21, 2012, 5:48 pm

          CA guy,
          Should guns be secure yes, absolutely. How do we secure them? Well if we can’t stop people from breaking into our homes with local state and federal law enforcement pluss locks on doors, home security and neibors it’s not easy.

          Perhaps with a reform of our penal system. Use a gun in a crime manditory 25 years. That gun shows up stolen make it 50. None of this congical visit, cable TV BS either. See sherif Joe in AZ. There’s a guy who knows what jail should be like. That’s a pretty dam good start. And don’t give me this crap about the tax payer foots the bill on everyone in jail crap. No reasons why jails can’t be self sufficient for the most part. Grow there own food etc. No electricity when it dark you go to bed you get my drift.

          I see nothing wrong with requiring someone to own a gun safe prior to being approved for a purchase permitt. However I think you will find most fire arm owners already do own them.

          Enforce the laws we already have with MEANINGFUL penalties and allot of this crap will change. Will that keep someone hell bent on hurting people from doing so, probable not. But it will stop allot of the small time stuff.

          For situations like what happened in CT I’m sorry but I see no other answer that to have armed security in schools. For some places, perhaps having some teachers/administrators carry might be a good answer too. Might not work for everyone. Personally of feel a little better knowing there were armed adults in my Childs school.

          Finally people who do sick shit like this do it for the attention. Now everyone knows the name of the guy in CT. That shit has to stop!!! Not one word about the identity of a person who commits mass murder should ever be spoken. No you will not be famous, no one will ever know your name.

          We need to use the death penalty as a country ad none of this 25 years on death row stuff either.

          One thing we can agree on is not arming everyone. However I think it’s your god given right To defend yourself and your loved ones. Every state should issue CCW permits. Yes you should have to have mental health screenings, back round checks and I believe proficiency tests with your weapon. Don’t need people carrying weapons that would end up becoming more of a danger to the rest o us.

          Those steps though not perfect would certainly help the situation greatly. Allowing warrentless shake downs of lawful Americans in there homes is not an answer.

          Our current president seems to like to spend money we don’t have. The fed gov should financially encourage state and local municipalities to grow the local PD and put professional law enforcement personal in all schools period.

          • Spectre December 21, 2012, 11:49 pm

            I can say, despite watching msm a lot(news), I don’t know the killer’s name, yet I can name half the victims for you.

        • Jason December 21, 2012, 10:14 pm

          CaGuy, there is no easy answer however, I commend you for throwing out that thought because that is how it works in think tank sessions – put everything on the table without emotion & like a puzzle, start assembling & tossing out some things that don’t fit … but not too far because those pieces may become useful later.

          The spot checks, aside from the government in your personal business all of the time, would be a complete cluster f**k & a half.

          The issue is not guns. People who are going to commit these crimes will resort to buying guns underground like they do in other countries, making bombs, arson or ….

          There is a very interesting documentary on Netflix called “Murder By Proxy: How America Went Postal”. It shows how “normal” people cracked from excessive pressure starting with the Postal Service. These people who did the crime would have NEVER been suspected of mass murder. BTW, Netflix offers 1 month free streaming with no future commitments – might be worth a look …..

          I believe much of our problems stem from the 24/7/365 uncensored machine called the Internet. Much of it there is NO accountability for individuals spouting whatever – it is nearly a free-for-all. I am not for censorship but it may come to that when the research proves out.

          When I was a teenager, Charlie Manson was considered a horrible mass murder but the real funny thing is – he did not commit any of the murders. His “family” offed a half dozen people in the most horrific crime ever. Today, that crime would almost be run of the mill.

          The stress levels we all endure because of the instant communication vehicles that are at our fingertips, literally, is beyond the capacity of most people can handle. The lives of many exist in Cyberspace only & that is dangerous. People get so wrapped up in their own minds & build characters of self-impotrance when they can play hit & run with comments, blogs or what-have-you.

          You get people who are so far out in left field that they have left the ballpark, the parking lot & the city. The character “John Brown” is a classic example of what I would consider a fairly severe delusional disorder because rationale is nearly void. When trying to bring him back on point or center, the net gets cast even wider & expressed anger is often coupled with the disorder because of the protection for the irrational belief. Don’t believe me, read it for yourself – it is pretty clear.

          There are literally tens of thousands like him that outright express with zero accountability because this vehicle has no safeguards whatsoever. I truly believe if the Internet was shutdown for a complete year or two, we would see a totally different America, certainly one with far fewer stressed people, although it would make the zero talent Kim Kardashian just another face in the crowd.

          I’m sure I’ll get a few ripe comments but so what – it’s to be expected when you put yourself out there.

          • Steve December 22, 2012, 12:47 pm

            You have a point. The Manson murders prob wouldn’t do much more than raise an eye brow. That shows the sad state of affairs.

            Internet can be information overload. Certainly agree with you there. But isn’t it your responsibility to turn it off? Unplug, relax, unwind. Im not sure Internet censorship is the answer. Sure any crazy with a key board and a connection can get his voice out there.
            But consider the source when one reads that. I believe the main stream media has completely failed the American people. Our politicians get free pass after free pass from the mainstream media types.

            I here what your saying, but I don’t think Internet censorship is the answer. Does it not infringe on free speech? I think it does. Yes you can’t yell fire in a crowded building and call if free speech. However typing opinions online is a far cry from the crowed theater.

            I don’t need nanny censoring my Internet. But that’s me. Maybe I’m wrong on this one…..

          • Jason December 22, 2012, 1:48 pm

            Maybe you can turn it off at will but will bet you use it more today than you did 3 years ago. The greater point is the accessibility by anyone & everyone regardless of age. Kids have smart phones at 10 years old & the Internet access is at their fingertips. Facebook was once a connection tool to friends but now? It is out of control.

            When I was a kid there were 7 channels on TV & the FCC closed it down from midnight to 7 a.m. Most all programs were geared for adults or family entertainment & Saturday morning was cartoons.

            There was no Internet & cell phones obviously & the general stress levels were far less. In 1970 I waited in line for gas for 30-45 minutes to get 10 gallons – every other day – and I did not see one single fight or argument. People could cope with that pressure. Today??? It would be mayhem & carnage with posted militia at every corner.

            There were no handheld devices, kids played outside & actually played all sports & were basically thin. Today we have kids with spare tires around their waists but are very proficient with & get plenty exercise with their thumbs.

            Fast forward 40+ years ….

            It is rare to find someone without a phone stuck to their head or texting or surfing the net while walking or driving in public. The worst part is, it is so pervasive & so widely accepted we barely notice it anymore. Point being, it has become an extension of us & our existence.

            That being said, we have opened ourselves to the masses of input & every commercial entity is vying to capture their 15 minutes of fame and or getting our dollar.

            Granted it is the individual’s responsibility to turn the Internet off but, it isn’t that easy because we have been groomed to go there for most everything.

            Lastly, I do not think the founding idea behind Freedom of Speech was NOT to say whatever you want, whenever you want. There is a line of appropriateness that needs to be maintained & that line has gotten so blurred we can barely see it.

          • Jarhead Survivor December 22, 2012, 5:20 pm

            Jason – I agree with your statement about free speech. Just look at that church of crazy folk that protest as soldier’s funerals. I understand they were even going to picket the funerals of the little ones killed at Sandy Hook. Free speech or not, that’s a good way to get your ass kicked.

          • Steve December 22, 2012, 9:50 pm

            There were rumors of west borough baptists showing up at a local funeral in town here. We lost a local boy in Afganistian. Maybe it was BS but there were ALLOT of people waiting for them to show up. I have it on good confidence the local PD was going to turn a blind eye for a bit. It was either BS or they saw the welcome wagon and changed there minds.

            I still don’t see how internet censorship would stop events like in CT. Armed security in schools period.

            Side note business travel had me on RT 95 in CT. Right through Newtown and Sandy Hook. There are flags shrines, banors hanging from overpasses. Brought tears to my eyes. Felt worse seeing that than ground zero. Cried for a good long time. Choked up now…..

            That said we need to stop this cycle of shooting school kids now. I’m sorry but “assault weapons” bands will not do it people. Please we need some real results. Dam people we have security at bars and sporting events but we leave our children vonerable? Really???

          • ThatguyinCA December 28, 2012, 12:29 pm

            agreed. Free speech. You can say what you want. Free speech does not mean you are free from the repurcussions of what you say.

            I would love to see that church get it’s ass kicked. Better yet, why can’t some crazy lunatic bent on killing people do us a favor and blow them away before blowing their own pathetic brains out.

          • Brad December 28, 2012, 7:11 pm

            Because you were in favor of taking that “lunatic’s” gun away, it may/will not happen. Maybe “some” of the lunatics are not crazy. Maybe they are standing up for what is right. The first person to gun down a “lefty” govt. official that bans guns will be labeled crazy. The other 1,000,000 that follow will be labeled “patriots”. We will see……..

          • Brad December 28, 2012, 7:12 pm

            P.S. I do NOT agree with West Borough….they be crazy.

          • Cliffystones December 22, 2012, 8:43 pm


            I’m reminded of a Science Fiction I read as a child. I don’t remember the title. But sunspots knocked out all TV and radio on Earth and lasted for many years. People suddenly had too much time on their hands. They proceeded to clean up neighborhoods, care for one another, solve stuff like poverty, crime, etc. It was an interesting concept, the opposite of a SHTF scenario. Too bad so many aspects of our instant gratification technology have had the effect of opening a Pandora’s Box.

          • T.R. December 22, 2012, 8:58 pm

            Jason must have been in the city with 7 channels , we were in gooberville with only 4 lol .

          • ThatguyinCA December 28, 2012, 11:35 am

            See! Now this is what we need. An actual diaologue. I agree with most of the critique given. However, I completely agree with Jason. Throw out ideas. Keep the dialogue going. Over the holidays there was that NY Firefighter attack. A convicted paroled (should never have been) murderer WITH A BUSHMASTER!!!!! Looking forward to reading how he got that in his hands. To reiterate, I am all for the 2nd ammendment and CCW but we need to weed out the bad apples (the killers AND the people who give them access to firepower).

        • Cliffystones January 4, 2013, 12:25 pm

          That guy in CA said;

          “By the way, it’s already illegal to leave a firearm where a minor can access it.”

          “wow that’s great. How do you enforce it? ”

          Your response refutes your own argument, and in fact all arguments that we “need more laws”. There are already thousands of laws. Nut-jobs and devil worshipers don’t abide by them. The only thing these laws do is make me, as an otherwise law abiding concealed carry permit holder, a criminal if I bring my weapon into places like that movie theater up north of me in Aurora. The “gun free zone law” didn’t do a thing to stop the faux Dark Night from going in and reducing human beings to corpses. But it did make law abiding citizens to choose between protecting themselves and becoming criminals in the process, or taking their chances. Too bad not one CCP holder choose the former option, the body count would have undoubtedly been much lower.

          All of those government minions that you would have enforcing these new laws and “spot checks” you propose wouldn’t give one dooddly-squat about protecting gun owners rights. Their mission would devolve into becoming control freaks, whose sole mission in life would be to micromanage gun owners, dragging them into court or jail every time they sneezed. Show me one example of a government bureaucracy that works differently.

          • ThatguyinCA January 6, 2013, 2:48 pm

            Sorry but my response does not refute my own argument. Someone had responded saying we don’t need spot checks, it’s already illegal to leave a firearm . . . And I responded to him asking how is that law enforced? It’s not because there is no spot checks. I completely agree with you regarding the concealed carry, however unless that law becomes federal it won’t be the answer. We need federal laws that apply to all. 1.) background checks for EVERY gun transfer, 2.) gun owners must be licensed and must go through classes (and I don’t mean some slacker weekend class). There are WAY to many dumbasses out there with guns. I’ve had fully loaded guns pointed at me “in fun and games” (sometimes not intentionally, they just “didn’t know” it was loaded). I’ve had one guy “banned” from the range I go to with my buddy and several of his friends are no longer allowed to shoot with us.
            Hey, I’ll be the first to say that spot checks aren’t the best answer but it’s better answer than you’ve come up with so far, “arm everyone!” Because you can’t arm everyone because there are plenty of people out there who shouldn’t have or have access to guns.

          • Cliffystones January 6, 2013, 7:46 pm

            I read another article this morning. Here’s a paragraph from it;

            A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

            “……stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools” Seriously? Consider the following scenario;

            “Like dude, I was thinking about hitting the local grade school Monday and like, knocking off a few dozen brats. But now they’re going to fine me $10,000 if I carry my rifle too close. Bummer dude, I could have pulled it off!”

            Does the above fantasy scenario make you furious? Well it makes perfect sense to way too many Liberals! Reminds me of “Dora the Explorer stopping “Swiper” by chanting “Swiper, no swipee!”.

            I agree with gun safety training 100%. My dad was a WWII Marine which is where I was taught gun safety. Both of my kids attended a 2-day course taught by one of the members of the range I go to. My girl, at 9 years old, would be watching TV with me and say “Daddy, he has his finger on the trigger!” This tells me that Hollywood Employees should be required to have the same training, and incorporate it into their plot lines (at least for the good guys). My dad stopped deer hunting because of fools who didn’t practice gun safety (that was the 1960s). We need Hollywood and the MSM to stop with the demonization of guns and start showing gun violence realistically.

            As far as uniform laws, let the Feds set the guidelines. But let the laws be administered by the States, or better yet the Counties. I do not want any Federal database of all gun owners. Only fools would believe that this information would never, ever be used against them.

  • Cliffystones December 21, 2012, 12:25 pm

    The only law that needs to be passed is the one that eliminates “gun free zones”. In every one of these recent shootings, an armed citizen could have made a difference. But those of us who take the time and effort to carry arms responsibly are vilified and arrested if we carry in these places.

    And as for the term “assault rifle” who came up with it anyway? I’m sure it was some Liberal turd who had never held a real gun in their life. My Ar-15 and my 2 SKS are my “defense rifles” and I prefer that term. Maybe you can set a precedent on your blog and use my term instead of the former?

  • Steve December 21, 2012, 2:18 pm

    The media and our polititians make me sick. There using this horriable event to push there political agenda. An agenda that will do nothing to keep our kids safe. There going to restrict guns, ammo tax the crap out of all the above. I seriously doubt there going to come door to door to take guns. There not that stupid. However im willing to bet theres going to be a ammo band. A max ammount allowed to be owned. And you bet your ass there gonna tax the crap out of the little bit of ammo they allow you to own. Give it 10 years or so of massive ammo restrictions and it will be the next best thing to a full scale gun consfication.

  • GreenEyedJinn December 21, 2012, 2:30 pm

    Why is the Amendment process completely absent from any discussion on this? We’re talking about changing the 2nd Ammendment, which is just as important as the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. etc. etc. –All of ’em…
    …well except the 18th. That was another “enlightened” attempt to ban something in America. We should all take a clear lesson from Prohibition. The unintended consequences were incredible and the damage done to America was terrible.
    Nevertheless, if the President et al want to change the Right to Bear Arms, then we have an established and proven process to do it. Any argument for “gun control” needs to reference that. Ask anybody this thoughtful question: “if you think we should outlaw certain types of guns, which types of speech or religion should we outlaw, too?”

  • Steve S December 21, 2012, 2:39 pm

    Exactly right, Cliffystones.

    I’m amazed the folks posting here that want MORE restrictions on guns, as well as tougher penalties for non-compliance. When are people going to WAKE UP for crying out loud?

    As was mentioned, the next step after registration is confistation.

    It’s none of the government’s business what type of weapon I own, who I might choose to purchase one from, who I might choose to sell one to, how many I own, how much ammunition I purchase or possess, what size are the magazines I choose to own or use. (I know there are already laws in place that control many of these activities, but just because a law exists doesn’t make it right)

    A free man makes his own decisions. A slave is told what to do and when to do it. We each can make out own choice. As for me, I choose to be free.

  • T.R. December 21, 2012, 2:54 pm

    The communist governor of NY should go live in Russia or China , just to see complete gun controle in action ………and the resulting liberty gained from that action .

  • Rae December 21, 2012, 3:02 pm

    Why is that people are so upset at the mother? I haven’t read a lot on her, but it sounds like she bought those guns legally, and it’s completely her right to do so. She may have had a mentally unstable son, and I don’t know what she did to lock them up, but I personally think she could have had a mondo safe and if he wanted to get them it wouldn’t have stopped him, or he could have gone elsewhere. I don’t think that if you have someone mentally unstable that negates the right to protect yourself and your family. You do have a much larger job of keeping the guns safe from them, but that doesn’t take away your right. I don’t think people should be coming down so hard on her. Unless I missed some article that says she kept them lying around and locked up. And there is a chance I have.
    I have a dull machete from Belize on display at my house above one of our doors. Does that make me a terrible mother because my kids could theoretically get to it?

    • ThatguyinCA December 21, 2012, 5:50 pm

      Rae, why shouldn’t we be upset at the mother. He obtained the guns while she slept so he obviously had access. No talk of breaking into a safe to get them or anything. Hard not to assign some blame her way. Hmm, let’s see, my kid is an alienated loner with a psychiatric disability, I think I’ll teach him how to be proficient with a gun. No way she isn’t at least partially culpable. She completely empowered this individual to do what he did.

      • Anonymous December 21, 2012, 7:39 pm

        Seems to go down the path that people aren’t responsible for their own actions. I read Rawles’ book Patriots and in it you learn how to make molotov cocktails, along with many other things, so if I decide to blow someone up will we partially blame him? Or perhaps anyone who has given similar instructions on the internet should also be held accountable? Slippery slope if you ask me. The US seems to be filled with people who are unwilling to take responsibility for the things that they do.

        • Jason December 24, 2012, 1:01 pm


          “The US seems to be filled with people who are unwilling to take responsibility for the things that they do.”

          Truer words were never spoken – that is how we have evolved in the past 3 decades.

        • ThatguyinCA December 28, 2012, 11:45 am

          Hey Anon,

          Come on man. REALLY?! Comparing making a molotov cocktail from a book you read to giving a psychologically deficient individual lessons, practice and access to guns? Are you for real?

      • T.R. December 21, 2012, 8:39 pm

        take him on a hunting trip…………2 go out ………1 comes back .

  • Rae December 21, 2012, 3:06 pm

    I mean to type lying around and not locked up. Sorry about that.

  • Anonymous December 21, 2012, 4:10 pm

    If the Aurora Movie shooting would have happened one day after a stolen, fraudulent, election, IT would have been the event to make the creeps crawl out from under their rocks.
    Notice the libs kept quiet about it. The press (libs) kept quiet. Can’t allow BHO not get elected.
    This is just the first of the crap that will be shoved down our throats.
    Kiss your liberties goodbye.

  • Jon Lorisen December 21, 2012, 5:06 pm

    Hopefully people can look for common ground and review practical strategies for reducing gun violence. I have always thought safety training and good storage techniques are a good place to start.

    As a Canadian, we have had our own contentious debates about the roles of firearms in our society. Some very significant changes to gun ownership were made due to a mass shooting here many years ago though they were not enacted until years later and parts of them were recently overturned. We then had another mass shooting, done with legally registered firearms, that created even more debate/confusion/discussion.

    The debates over the issue became very ugly and were often used as a political tool to advance other agendas rather than to determine what are the safest and most practical things to do.

    As an outsider, I do have a hard time understanding US gun laws, there appears to be a lot of inconsistency between the many (many!) jurisdictions, looks like a nightmare to determine legality. I am also constantly surprised at some of the guns I can purchase here (non-restricted) that appear to be banned in the US or require the tax stamp?

    Take care all, best wishes for the holidays, I hope you are all safe, warm, and happy.

  • Lumberjok December 21, 2012, 5:48 pm

    A common thread running thru the recent mass shootings is that the shooters were taking powerful psychotropic meds. Google SSRI homicides, suicides or just plain SSRI violence. Gun ban or no gun ban….until Prozac et al are banned….expect more of the same.

    • Michael December 21, 2012, 9:41 pm

      The shooters were on those drugs because they were mentally ill. They were not mentally ill because they were on those drugs.

      Psychotropic drugs, can have bad side effects, are over proscribed, and the people on them frequently aren’t monitored closely enough. But banning psychotropic drugs just leaves sick people sick.

  • ThatguyinCA December 21, 2012, 5:52 pm

    And on a side note. Hope everyone has a safe and happy holiday and you all get that perfect gift under the tree (in my case I’m hoping for a Springfield M1-A SOCOM).

  • Jason December 21, 2012, 6:48 pm


    Now that’s a LOGO!!

    • Jarhead Survivor December 21, 2012, 7:37 pm

      You like that? I’ve been waiting for someone to comment on it.

      • Michael December 21, 2012, 9:10 pm

        The Logo’s pretty awesome.

      • Jason December 21, 2012, 9:20 pm

        Yes I do like it – it is simple yet, says a lot.

  • irishdutchuncle December 21, 2012, 9:12 pm

    as Chairman Mao instructed us: all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

    taking away power from us is what gun-control is, and has always been about. IF, we the people are to be the power, we the people must keep our guns.
    there’s a fancy french word that communists used to use: bourgeois. the “bourgeoisie” are hated by any right thinking person. comes the revolution they are to be exterminated. they are not worth any efforts to reform them. (bourgeois means “middle class”)

    hold on to your guns.

    • Steve December 22, 2012, 12:50 pm

      Irishdutchuncle your absolutely right!!!

  • Michael December 21, 2012, 9:33 pm

    Four things.

    1. We need to do a better job on mental health. We need to get help to all that need it and we need to do a better job making sure those who are ill can not legally buy guns and ammo. The shooters at Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Aurora were all too mentally ill to function in general society and they were able to legally buy guns and ammo. That needs to stop.

    2. There are legal controls and there are social controls. We drove down the rate of drunk driving and smoking and drove up the rate of seatbelt use mostly though the use of social controls. We need to do the same with gun safety. We need to make it so that people no longer store guns unlocked. We have way too many little kids getting killed by mom & dad’s nightstand .38. The shooting in CT wouldn’t have happened if those guns had been stored locked up where a mentally ill kid couldn’t get his hands on them.

    3. There’s a big difference between a single shot .22 and a Glock. Why treat them the same? I’m all for just about anyone being able to pickup a single shot rifle to do some plinking or to go hunting with. But, as the potential lethality of a firearm goes up so should the amount of checking we do on purchaser.

    4. Most “crime guns” are bought though straw gun buys though a very small % of gun stores. This is already illegal and no one want’s these guns or that handful of stores in their community. We need to work to shut these stores down.

    • ThatguyinCA December 28, 2012, 11:47 am


  • me December 22, 2012, 10:56 am

    It seems we are being fed alot of lies and bullshit i guess the UN got there way. It all sounds like a good way to get a country attacked.

  • T.R. December 22, 2012, 11:48 am

    Hey ! I like the new header graphic !!!!!!!

  • GARY December 23, 2012, 1:23 am

    the best way to stop this insanity with firearms is to severely punish those who do these things when we catch themperhaps you might have a couple that still try but most would stop and also use the laws that are already on the books instead of demanding new ones a few years ago New York state lost several cops in the line of duty and the first thing that happened was the gun grabbers wanted the honest gun owners to surrender the firearms they bought legally but when people dug a little deeper it was found that most of these killers could have been locked away for multiple lifetimes and the D.As office instead plead the cases down and one of those cases was a sure fire win for the state this is why these people do this and never worry about paying the price,because our own government actively works against us and yes there are other reasons too but check into the prosecuters focus on each case and you will find that they ussually just want to clear the desk

  • John Brown December 23, 2012, 6:32 am

    I do not think we should have any gun controls what so ever and I am for felons being able to own them too. Also, I am for the death penalty, if you lie in wait for a victim and use a gun to kill or injury or kill someone in a hold up. Express ticket to a noose.

    Own a WMD and use it, then we find a creative and slow way to kill you. Such as stone you to death with 1 pound lead shot bags thrown by the victims’ families.

    A felon, while in jail developed the M-1 carbine? How many lives did he save for the USA?

    Have the gun crimes gotten worse or better since 1968? Worse.

    Laws and restrictions have solved little.

    • Jason December 23, 2012, 11:22 am

      Interesting ….. logic?

      Be that as it may & using that same model, I guess you could solve the illegal drug problem (marijuana, cocaine, meth etc) by legalizing all of it. After all, the current laws have done little to curb the growth of its use which, has increased since 1968.

      About the charming comment below …. being sexually repressed creates some strange manifestations or thoughts.

  • John Brown December 23, 2012, 6:38 am

    > we would see a totally different America, certainly one with far fewer stressed people

    There you go again with your illogical statements. When people can’t get their porno they will get really stressed out having to deal with spouses like you :-D

  • ORRN on LI December 23, 2012, 9:01 am

    Where has the decency gone? My car speedometer goes up to 120 MPH, but I don’t feel the need to drive 90 MPH down main street!
    What is the need for high capacity clips and ‘defense weapons’? I truly believe we need to keep our right to own guns, but are weapons enthusiasts creating their own problems? After a day of playing the life like war and weapons games do you say to yourself “I gotta get me one of them!!” This is not a sarcastic question, but I really need an honest answer to this, how many of these responders to this sound off own and play war/weapons games???

    • Cliffystones January 4, 2013, 12:38 pm

      A gun owners “need” is his or her business. There is no “need” for you, Diane Feinstein or anybody else to question whether I want a 10, 30 or 300 round mag. But since you asked;

      I ‘need” mine to keep the jackboots at bay should the need arrive. To keep a horde of gangsters from thinking twice about messing with me and my family in a SHTF scenario. To make damn sure that me and mine have the best fighting chance against any type of aggression Obama may choose to inflict on the American People. To prevent my family from ending up like so many Jewish and Catholic families in WWII Nazi Germany did. Are you getting the idea now?

  • Adam December 23, 2012, 9:21 am

    A couple of things. There is no “gun show loophole.” Any firearm sold by a licensed dealer has to be sold by an FFL, who is required by law to run the purchaser through NICS. The “loophole” is private person sales. Even though private persons are not allowed to call NICS, they are still responsible for not selling a firearm to an unauthorized individual. Any cross state transfer still has to go through an FFL. The simple way to close that “loophole” is to have every firearm transfer go through an FFL.

    As a police officer, I can tell you that no amount of gun laws will ever stop a criminal from getting his hands on a weapon. People who have been convicted of a felony are not allowed to possess any firearm (or ammunition). People who have ever been convicted of domestic violence are not allowed to possess a firearm ever again (which I actually disagree with).

    Bob Costas was wrong when he quoted that article about the Chiefs player who killed his girlfriend. If he didn’t have a gun, he’d have just used another weapon – probably a knife.

    The ultimate issue is one about our society. Violence is common place and instead of having a fist fight and being done with it, now they come back with weapons because they got “disrespected.” Until we as a society deal with the actions and reactions to disrespect, nothing will change. On top of that, our mental health system is a mess. Per federal law, you have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent by a judge, not just involuntarily committed for a couple of days. That is the way it really should be. A doctor should be able to get an emergency order for a few days and the judge can then make a final determination. We are medicating kids for no reason. Just diagnose them with ADD or ADHD so we can drug them up and keep them calm. No one cares about the side effects of those drugs.

    This is about us as a society and this has nothing to do with guns other than they are the tool used. Until our society changes with regard to mental health care and with regard to disrespect and violence in general, nothing will change and no gun control/ban will ever work. And contrary to popular opinion, most real cops (street cops, not administrators) are very pro-2A.

  • sirlancelot December 23, 2012, 11:14 pm

    home inspections ?
    really ?
    smoking some good shit in California these days !

    how about car keys ? lock them up too ! don’t want junior going on a joyride killing someone ( more people die from cars than guns ), but mr. liberal needs his subaru to get to the market. gotta get some organic tofu .

    stop eating that stuff, man ! it’s rotting your brain :-)

    • ThatguyinCA December 28, 2012, 11:52 am

      Thanks sirlancelot.

      As for the smoking . . . in my younger days yeah, and yes CA has some great shit.

      But I’d be happy to hear any potential solutions you have to keeping guns out the hands of people like Lanza.

      • Cliffystones January 4, 2013, 12:46 pm

        The fact is, there is no “solution”. Just like there’s no “cure” for cancer. There are treatments for cancer. There is also a treatment for situations like Sandy Hook. That treatment is called “swift armed response”.

        When someone comes up with a potion to render all weapons and objects incapable of being used for violence against other humans, and when another potion is developed eliminating all negative thoughts and emotions in humans, Then and only then will we have a “solution”. I’m not holding my breath.

        • ThatguyinCA January 6, 2013, 2:50 pm

          At least we can agree there. I’m not holding my breath either.

  • sirlancelot December 23, 2012, 11:15 pm

    where’s the new logo ?

  • Brad December 24, 2012, 10:15 am

    OK……I’ve read all of this post so far. My time to chime in. 1) Stay away from my guns All of them. All of them can be used to defend myself and family. The Govt. has high capacity mags., so therefor I need them as well to protect myself from him. 2) A couple of you on here don’t understand what your duties are as a citizen. You are idiots who have never been around firearms and a scared of them. Have you ever driven a nail? Are you scared of hammers?? I could kill you with that “assault” weapon if I chose to. It’s the assault, not the weapon. Wake up. 3) As far children go. If you own a gun/guns show them to your kids. Teach them about them. Don’t hide them hoping they will never find them. If they do, they will be curious and may hurt themselves. Curiosity killed the cat. What if you son is at “Joey’s” house and Joey wants to show your son his dad’s guns? First of all, Joey’s dad didn’t do his job and, second if you have taught your son right, he will say “no” or will at least know how to handle the weapon in order to stop a bad situation. Shoot a pumpkin/squirrel in front of your child. Show him it does harm and will kill. Teach him to respect it. I have several loaded weapons around my house. My children know where they are. They know not to mess with them. They know they are not toys. 4) A locked up gun, secured away “safely” will do you no good in the middle of the night. 5) A semi-automatic weapon with a 30 rnd. mag will kill an intruder that is in your house. Be careful of where your rounds are going. 6) Buy yourself one of those above mentioned weapons, practice with it, and NEVER surrender it to any person or authority.

    • Brad December 24, 2012, 10:22 am

      Or, if you choose, buy the hammer. Just don’t take my gun.

    • ThatguyinCA December 28, 2012, 12:21 pm

      great knee jerk reaction. “a locked up gun secured away safely will do you no good in the middle of the night.” Where in my suggestion did I say you couldn’t sleep with your guns?
      To much fear by a lot people in these posts. Fear of government, fear of neighbors, the police, etc.
      Stay away from your guns? Where did I say you couldn’t have them? Oh wait, you are right, I said if you are not responsible with them, you should lose your right and I stand by that.
      Some of what you say is dead on, but others points just fearful re-spewing of propaganda.
      Agree with teaching your kid. So your kid is at Joey’s house. Joey’s dad didn’t do his job right and Joey took the gun and shot your kid before your “smart and trained” kid had an opportunity to use his smarts. (which is a much more likley scenario than your kid being able to talk sense into Joey and have him put the gun away). What then? Sure you’re devastated, mad and yeah you sue or whatever, but none of it brings your kid back. But it was that man’s right to keep that gun in a spot where his kid could access it when not under his direct supervision.

      • Brad December 28, 2012, 6:57 pm

        Ok…two points… If Joey’s dad had done his job, then he would have not showed it to my kid. My kids have friends over all the time, and my “hidden” guns are never even brought up. They know they are off limits, they are not toys. 2nd: The “BUSHMASTER!!!!” as you typed it did not kill those kids (if in fact they were killed, but that’s another story) the guy pulling the trigger did. Our media reports on NONE of the crimes diverted by lawful (as his mother was, and he up to this point) citizens. They only tell of the bad things that happened that involved a gun. Give every person in this country a gun. EVERYONE. The ones that attempt to do bad will think twice knowing that everyone else has the ability to stop him. An armed society is a polite society (T. Jefferson). Even if they “Crazies” have guns, they won’t get far.

        • Brad December 28, 2012, 7:02 pm

          BTW the “fearful re-spewing of propaganda” is in fact the truth. It’s not out of fear that these things are “spewed”, but out of fact. Look at most all of the other countries that have been dis-armed by their govts. They have been disarmed, abused, then killed by their own leadership. This is the MAIN reason that all should be armed. It is your duty as a citizen of this country. It is your duty to keep your “leaders” in check.

          • ThatguyinCA December 31, 2012, 11:32 am

            All that said. Good for you for doing your job with your kids.

        • ThatguyinCA December 31, 2012, 11:29 am

          I have nothing against a bushmaster, I was shocked that a bushmaster ended up in the hands of a convicted murderer! If you had read the post you would have also known I wasn’t referring to Lanza in that post.

          Ok Brad. Joey’s dad didn’t do his job. How does saying that fix the problem.

          Any gun owner that allows access to their guns to others without the gun owners knowledge is irresponsible. And your kids knowing not to touch your guns doesn’t count as them not having access.

          • Brad December 31, 2012, 5:20 pm

            Maybe I want them to have access if they are attacked when I’m not home.

          • ThatguyinCA January 2, 2013, 11:02 am

            best answer I’ve heard yet Brad. I actually cannot argue that. Who knows, maybe that was Nancy Lanza’s feelings too. Not saying your kids will do the same but it comes down to the question asked previously. How do we get those idiots to do their job? (not congress, the people who give access to guns to people who should never have access).

          • Brad January 2, 2013, 5:30 pm

            Classes…..make EVERYONE take a class. (No enrollment fee, no signatures, no fingerprints). New, old, young or “schooled”. Show your are a well behaved, responsible owner. Then again the enrollment means you are on a list.

          • ThatguyinCA January 3, 2013, 11:33 am

            That’s a good start Brad. I don’t understand the fear of being on a list or gun owners being registered. Can someone who is NOT paranoid please explain the reluctance to me?

          • Brad January 3, 2013, 5:15 pm

            If you are on a list…then you are in “demand”. Once you are on a list, then if gun-control gets pushed further, then your a marked man.

          • ThatguyinCA January 4, 2013, 10:58 am

            I see what you are saying but that’s being a little paranoid. I support 2nd ammendment but the first line of it is the one everyone ignores. “A well regulated militia.” I don’t see much being well regulated regarding gun ownership.

      • Cliffystones January 4, 2013, 12:53 pm

        It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. And seeing some of the latest news involving Bloomberg, Feinstein, etc., the evidence is mounting in that direction.

        • ThatguyinCA January 6, 2013, 3:00 pm

          But they’ll never get them all. They might tighten but they won’t get them all.
          Fienstein already lost my vote a two elections ago.

          I really feel had the NRA been more supportive of background checks on all transfers and safety classes for all there wouldn’t be as big a backlash against guns as there is now. Heston did us no favors with his “from my cold dead hands” speech in CO right after Columbine.
          The gun lobby has only themselves to blame for whatever comes.

  • smokechecktim December 24, 2012, 11:24 am

    guns have only two enemies….rust and politicians

  • Spectre December 24, 2012, 8:53 pm

    Now the firefighter shooting, they say the fire was deliberate, it was a trap… The politics is going to pick up big time.

  • Jeff Gochenour December 25, 2012, 12:51 pm

    Execute justice without mercy upon predators of humans. Justice is, and needs no law. The injustice of punishing or criminalizing action for all because of what a predator may do requires both force and law. Men specialize in injustice when they are impotent in justice. Men have one or the other. Their union is injustice in spite of the dreamers imagination.

  • monk December 31, 2012, 1:45 am

    Gun control is not supposed to prevent crime but to make it easier to solve through registration. Required training also prevents accidents caused by firearms. Background checks may also help.

    Gun control doesn’t infringe on the right to bear arms because the right exists by default. Laws may abridge that right, which is why, for example, captured criminals are not allowed to bear arms.

    The second amendment is not about the right to bear arms because, as stated earlier, that right is a given and thus does not need to be allowed by the government through a constitution or laws. Rather, the second amendment is about the need to form a well-regulated militia, using the right to bear arms as justification. If it is read in light of the militia acts, then it actually calls for military training for all able-bodied male citizens, something that was once mandatory.

    Thus, the second amendment, if made mandatory, actually forces almost all male adult citizens to acquire assault weapons and to be training to use them in militias regulated by the government.

  • Extremesgs January 1, 2013, 10:43 pm

    Its a multi-layer problem that needs a multi-layer approach. I think we’re all in agreement that its a joke to think that banning guns or mag capacity will somehow prevent similar events from happening in the future. But what, then?

    Mental health. Yup, we need a little work there. People “want” yet don’t want to “give up.” Patriot act… the public wants the gov to prevent terrorist attacks, but they don’t want to give up their privacy in doing so. Quite the conundrum…
    People want to somehow have other peoples’ mental health status known in order to prevent people with certain “issues” from having guns. Ok, where’s the line? And, Mr. anti-gun citizen who is requesting this…. could you please divulge your medical history? What’s that…? “no fucking way.” yea, I thought so.
    Its a two way street.

    One thing that’s frying my ass… gun control folks- including Obama- have said, and are still saying, that they don’t want to “take” the guns (or do away with the 2nd Am.), they just don’t think we need more than 10 rounds… huh? explain this one to me… 10 rounds equals safety… 11 rounds equals massacre?

    Nice to see that Senator F- D(ouche) CA admitting she DOES want to disarm us… as she sits with her bodyguard protection. As does Bloomberg…

    I’m in LE… so what? They’ll say that we can use them at work, but aren’t allowed to have them otuside of work becuase we’re joe nobody?

    They really haven’t thought this one through… they’re liberal democrats: they want more control over us. the way to start that is by taking away a means for us to defend ourselves…. to that I say, good luck.

    • Extremesgs January 1, 2013, 10:47 pm

      damn did i get off track….

      some other things for a multi-layered approach:

      we need to start re-thinking protecting the public… we have shooting galleries everywhere! schools, malls, airports, etc etc… some mass transit agencies (NY) have caught on and did somethign about it (with regard to terrorism, but the result carries over), but what about the rest? not schools? hundreds of targets and no one thought to do anything about it? I won’t say its “the” solution, as the NRA would suggest, but PART of one? Hell yes.

  • sput January 3, 2013, 8:20 am

    Brad took the classes, got the diploma and certificates — they’re call my Honorable Discharge and my DD214

    • Brad January 4, 2013, 7:28 pm

      Good enough for me. Here’s your AR and 3 10 round mags. Be safe. Don’t point it at anything you don’t want to destroy. See THATGUYINCA. It’s just that easy.

      • Brad January 4, 2013, 7:30 pm

        I meant 10 30 rounds mags. Gotta make sure you have enough.

    • ThatguyinCA January 6, 2013, 3:06 pm

      That’s good enough for me. I’ve never seen an active or veteran at any range i’ve been to NOT check a gun handed to him that he just watched someone check before handing to him. I’ve also never seen them point a loaded weapon at anyone because it was funny.

  • John Brown January 7, 2013, 12:08 am

    > let the Feds set the guidelines

    That is totally against the 2nd amendment, the Federal government is not suppose to infringe in any way on the right to bear arms, which includes cannons and so called WMD. It is a state issue only.

    Same as it pertains to the 1st amendment and religion. A state could have a state religion and if you did not like it, you could move to another state. It was included so people such as the Quakers of PA would not be forced into worshipping the same as the Protestants and paying a tithe into something that they did not believe in.

    The Bill of Rights was a containment on the Federal government, not the state government. The Federal government should not be in the business, which is what they turned the regulation nation into, of any firearm laws or regulations.

    It was suppose to be a power triangle with the Federal government at the top with very little and the common citizen/local land owner on the bottom with the most. Now it is reversed because people have believed the lie that the Federal government had the power to override the 10th amendment.

    Same as so called voting rights, even for women, it is not a right, but, a state granted privilege, and the Federal government has no “right” to be involved or to regulate it.

    The people that founded this country and the so called founding fathers, were well aware of the tendency of government to grow, for people to sin beyond comprehension, and for people to sin even when they knew it was wrong because they would not be strong enough to say NO. Especially faced with almost unlimited power .

    The Bill of Rights were meant as a limit on what the Federal government could do to you, not the state government. If you wanted to live in a corrupt godless state that banned concealed carry or firearms all together, you could. If you wanted to live in a state that allowed you to buy cannons and mortars without regulation, you could, and people did.

    The so called Supreme Court, without grace and God, should not be telling states how to regulate firearms, but, this is the twisted system we are stuck with now, unless Ronald Reagan’s wish for the 21st century comes true.

    The country started to go wrong after the 10th amendment, seriously wrong after the 1900s, and should have stuck to worrying just about the borders, silver and gold based coinage, and free interstate commerce.

    Now we are white slaves in a black state paying a breathing tax.

    • Cliffystones January 7, 2013, 3:52 pm


      I’m in total agreement with you. My original statement, ” let the Feds set the guidelines” was poorly conceived. Re-reading it, I felt the need to state what I really meant.

      It was my idea that representatives from the 50 states (better than the Feds) get together and discuss their firearms laws. Preferably people with knowledge and experience in firearms safety and training. These people could “recommend guidelines” for minimum standards regarding things like concealed carry permits, safe storage of firearms around children, etc.

      Right now there are 50 different sets of rules. Most are common sense, like not going to the local bar to get pie-faced with your Glock strapped to your shoulder. But where and when it’s legal to carry can get fuzzy. And BTW, I do not want any national reciprocity law. Let the states work that out to. Too bad Nevada doesn’t have reciprocity, I’m going to the Shot Show next week. We probably have Harry Reid to thank for that.

  • eric pyle April 19, 2015, 2:07 pm

    Why are prescription drugs locked up and tracked and require a doctors approval before you can buy them, but personal responsibility is good enough for owning guns. I have no problem with folks owning guns, I just want the same freedom to drugs that I get with guns.


Leave a Comment