Lets see here no, antidepressant use is 400% higher than 20 years ago and almost all of these mass murderers have been on them. Homicides are 40% less than they were 20 years ago and we have almost twice as many guns now as then in private hands. Its obviously the guns that are the problem.

Perscription drugs have recently passed auto accidents as the number one killer. I think we have bigger problems on our hands.
People will get what they want either from abroad, on the black market, or with a little bit of enginuity. For example, Oklahoma city bombing.

Criminals don't pay attention to laws!

There is no reason, no reason at all, that any one needs to own weapons that have been designed and optomized to kill multiple humans quickly. Assault weapons have no practical advantage for defense except that they allow an unskilled and untrained individual multiple shots to try and hit something.

I feel the Goverment is going about this in the wrong way, he wants to git rid of all of our wrights, but guns are not the problem it is people, take for instance, mental illness like bi-polar how many of you someone who has it and when they are on thier meds they are fine but after a while a lot of them think I am fine and they quit taking the meds. what happens then SOME of them become very violent and are capable of doing lets say strange things, Guns are not the problem they are not capeable of doing anything without someone to pull the trigger.
How many people are killed by cars each year by a accident or a drunk driver are we going to outlaw cars to stop death that way, what about perscription drugs how mwny die from over dose. What we need is a way to control someone that needs mental health and yes I mean drunks also. I do not know how this needs to be done but I do know we are going about this the wrong way, we have this idot in New York City that has armed guards around him screaming that we need to get rid of guns what a HIPPOCRIT with millions of dollars he wants to throw away.

That IS a good reason. To make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets, If you miss…you won't get killed with your own gun. He would have to beat you to death with it, because it will be empty.

BTW they're not "assault weapons," they're automatic, or semi-automatic weapons, so let's use the right terminology. If the CT shooter had used a different weapon, would be calling for a ban a different kind of gun, or still on "assault weapons?" It's a slippery slope in my opinion, because you rally can kill a person with any sort of gun.

I think it's interesting to note that most shootings occur in "gun free zones." Just yesterday a man tried to open fire in a movie theater and was stopped by an armed off-duty policeman. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

The CT shooter attempted to buy a gun before the killings, but was denied because of Connecticut's tough gun laws. Bad guys find a way to get guns, and usually not through legal means.

Honestly, sounds like we need to learn a thing or two from the Israelis regarding their gun laws. Read this article this morning and it is excellent. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/should-americans-learn-from-israeli-gun-laws/

Columbine happened during the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban. Mass killings (4+) are on the decline. Cities and states that remove restrictions on firearms are seeing a decrease (or no impact) in crime. All the while, gun sales are steadily increasing. The facts do not support an attack on the Constitution.

Less guns = less shooting. This is not complicated, but people are not smart.

Mr. Weinman has no dog in this hunt and is only for 'Murricans.
Bwa-Ha-Ha!
I've got some land in Florida you might be interested in ('course, it's a little moist for 10 months out of the year).
How disingenuous to think he is altruistic!

Well, first off, there wasn't an assault rifle involved in the Connecticut murders unless you count being in the guys back seat as qualifying. He used regular semi-automatic hand guns to kill everyone. He very well could have done the same damage with just about any gun made.

But that's besides the point, if someone is messed up enough to kill people with a gun, they'd be messed up enough to find another way to do it. Even if guns are the root cause of our problems, there's no way that we could ever reduce their present quantity significantly. If that isn't enough for people to chew on, it's becoming more and more possible to make your own guns via 3D printers. Now, how are you going to regulate people who are printing out their guns? In the end, there's just not much that people can do to stop a crazy person from doing what they want to do. We just have to accept that. We also have to work to help those who are needing help. Maybe if this world had less jerks, there'd be less people trying to kill people.

Oh and yeah, the 2nd amendment WAS intended to allow us to own guns for the sole purpose of killing people. Those people being our government. It was a way of equalizing our power with the government. It a fact that has unfortunately been swept under the rug.

Am I the ony one who notices that no one is paying attention to the others points? Both sides need to understand that we immediately get off on the wrong foot when we begin with incorrect terminology. Whatever your anti-gun argument, lets discuss the same objects! These are not assault weapons but why does that matter? Can we accept that and move on. Also accept that people who do not shoot have some ideas about what guns can and cannot do that are incorrect. That should be obvious so we should accept and move on. For example: what is it SPECIFICALLY you want to ban about the gun? This matters if you want to write the law, does it not? A large magazine? Explain why that is so important. Semi-auto? again, explain. Shooters realize from experience that these things are not as critical as non-shooters assume. Look at the video of Jerry Miculek breaking a world speed record with a revolver (double action, but still ca 1900 technology) and tell me what you think. We need to all speak the same language for something this important. I am a lifelong shooter but I would be open to some restrictions if they had the slightest chance of working. They don't. What will we all say when this ban passes but the next event occurs, and the next and the next? Is anyone going to say "Thank God for that law- it would have been worse without it"? Is anyone saying "thank God he didn't have a bomb" now? Let's have honest discourse, and shame our politicians.

It is frightening to me how much our attitude towards guns has shifted in America. At one time in our history our government auctioned off its surpluss military weapons, like the M1 Garand, to the public and there were no school shootings. Maybe we should discuss the real issues here, like a shameful unemploymdnt rate, the breakdown of the family and the fact that millions of our children are taking one or more psychotropic drugs. Guns are not the problem.

The basic premise of firearms is the lawful protection of ourselves from those whom would do us harm! In 1974 Isreal suffered a terrorist school shooting because their schools were unprotected. Isreals Premier, Golda Mier, said, "Never, Again!" All members of the school were trained and armed. Since that time they have never suffered a school shooting.

To those whom argue only the government should have guns, or should only have semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons, I would point out China killed 60 million plus because only the government had guns. Hitler killed millions, because only the government had guns. Stalin and Lenin killed millions, because only the government had guns. Pol Pot killed millions, because only the government had guns. Murders on an excessive scale are occurring as we speak in Africa and Asia, Mexico, and South America because only the government has guns.

You don't need to arm all the teachers, just a few, & removing the sign that says target free zone (in otherwords NO GUNS ALLOWED) would go a long way towards solving some of these problems.

If gun control worked, Chicago, East St. Louis, Trenton, New Jersy, and other bastions of "No Guns" allowed would be the safest cites in America. Instead, they have higher rates of murder than Iraq.

I could go on and on, but those whom harbor prejudice against lawful gun owners have never had an open mind. My comments are for those whom can still think!

I find it disturbing to read all the comments from folks who think we must have a good reason to justify having something... anything. There are good reasons, but the point is almost irrelevant. In a FREE society, the government doesn't ask its people why they need something and then decide if the reason is good enough. The very concept of liberty is clearly lost on many people.

So few people are talking about the mental health issues and poor parenting that contributed to this event... you almost wonder if they really care. Especially given that the factual evidence doesn't support the idea that a new gun ban will have a positive impact on crime.

You sound confused and angry. Angry and aggressive, for certain- it's a debate tactic that will silence many without forcing you to make a good case.

Those who propose change should justify their reasons with fact. I'm waiting to hear just how a gun ban will curb such crimes. It hasn't in the past. Our previous gun ban did not stop school shootings or curb mass murders. When it was repealed, crime did not go up. When the gun ban in DC was ruled unconstitutional it was removed... and again crime did not go up as a result. In fact, DC had high rates of gun crime when their unconstitutional law was in place.

The Constitution exists for a reason and doesn't need people to come up with new facts to support it. If you want to change the constitution then you need an Amendment, and you need to justify that to the people. Sitting around screaming, "guns are bad! guns are scary!" may make you feel better, but doesn't justify anything. Attacking people with a different opinion also fails to make your case.

There are hundreds of millions of gun owners NOT committing crimes, and your proposal robs them of their rights and property. And hey, have a dialog about it. But justify your proposal with facts, because YOU are the one proposing massive change.

Meanwhile, I don't see that you've offered much in the way of critical thinking or suggestions about mental illness or bad parenting; both of which are more to blame for this incident than the inanimate object.

re: "If you want to change the constitution then you need an Amendment"

No one is asking to change the Constitution. We are asking for reasonable limits on weapons of mass destruction. We have bans on grenades, machine guns, "IED"s and other weapons of this nature and guns with high rates of fire and high capacity clips are no different.

re: "guns are bad! guns are scary!"

Frankly, its not the guns that scare me. It's the many idiotic wingnuts out there that own them, many of whom often contribute to the Patch with threats of armed revolt against their neighbors.

We can't reasonably control the wingnuts, but we can control their access to "WMDs".

These guns should be banned.

Exisitng owners can keep their WMD's. They will just need to take them to their shooting range of choice where they would be kept under lock and key, only to be unlocked when the owner is present. The weapons would be legal inside the confines of the shooting range, illegal outside of the range and subject to confiscation.

The ammo for their WMD's would be subject to a special tax. This tax would help fund increases in mental health services, servcies which have been gutted by conservative congresses over the past few decades. Additionally, the mental health servcies would be concentrated on specific geographical areas with known high concentrations of rightwing gun zealots.

Perhaps we could use the "Guns and Ammo" subscription mailing lists as the starting point for these mental health services.

Well, Larry. I think your proposal is absurd. But that's just my opinion. I'll tell you this, though... it WILL be met with a Constitutional challenge.

[[Additionally, the mental health servcies would be concentrated on specific geographical areas with known high concentrations of rightwing gun zealots. ]]

You disdain for law-abiding gun owners is noted, and meets the definition of bigotry. ...just as your misuse of the term WMD shows your desire to stoke and promote fear and emotional responses.

Out of curiosity? Did you grow up in America as a citizen?

You think my proposal is absurd? What is truly absurd is that damn near anyone can buy high capacity/high velocity weapons along with ammunition that is specifically designed for maximum kill effect. That is what is absurd.

I don't have disdain for "law abiding" gun owners. I have well-founded concerns that simple minded and easily manipulated "patriots" will take "the law" into their own hands and use their weapons against their own neighbors - as they have repeatedly threatened to do (as those of you who follow the "Patch" comments can bear witness).

High velocity/High capacity guns most certainly are "WMDs" as evidenced by 20 dead 1st graders in Conneticut.

Yea, I am a lifelong gun-toting, constitution loving, freedom fighting citizen of the US of A.

[[Additionally, the mental health servcies would be concentrated on specific geographical areas with known high concentrations of rightwing gun zealots. ]]

Care to explain this statement in a way that shows you aren't bigoted against gun owners? 100 Million gun owners doing the right thing, and you suggest we need to increase mental health services for them, simply because they own guns.

[[Yea, I am a lifelong gun-toting, constitution loving, freedom fighting citizen of the US of A.]]

In this case, you certainly are not fighting for freedom.

@Tom: [[fighting for freedom?" I snorted my coffee on the keyboard... ]]
Do you read? I was responding to Larry who said he was a gun-toting freedom-fighting citizen. Not my words, his. SNort away, snuffy.

@Caffeinated: NRA? I'm sorry... your point is...?!? Because I never mentioned the NRA. You did. Your insults are hollow. ...which I can't help but notice every time you post. You just argue... you don't bring your own facts, you just insult people who don't agree with you. So.. make up whatever NRA statement you want...

Larry, I assume from your comment that Hitler, Lenin,Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others have not killed millions of people in the last century? And, mass killing is not going on in Mexico and other foreign nations in Africa and Asia against civilians whom have been disarmed by their government? I guess CNN, MSNBC, and all the history books lied to us! You have no clue, and apparently have never stood in harms way to keep anyone safe! I have! Your own sense of self importance is revealed in your lack of knowledge and your imbecilic knee jerk answer to my comments by stating I am using grossly and misleading NRA arguments. I am using facts and arguments from history to support my opinions. You, however, seem intent on repeating history's mistakes.

And Caffeinated, No I do not think the government is out to get me, but I do think it is spinning out of control, along with the rest of the world. And yes, the Second Amendment, as well as my semi-automatic rifle, all my years of training, and my experience will help to protect my country (and Kirkwood) if, God forbid, the world goes to hell in a hand basket.

Oh no, here we go with the Nazis and Commies yet again. sigh.

I am well aware of history, thank you, and I also know how easy it is to manipulate the masses by hyperbole, ideology and emotional appeals about threats to our way of life.

History is filled with countless examples of man perpetuating evil against others in the name of ideology.

Here's the god awful truth. "The Govt" didn't kill those millions of people...

It was people that did the killing. Farmers, factory workers and teachers operated the killing machines. Regular everyday Joes pulled the triggers, lit the fires and dropped the deadly chemicals.

These were not evil people. They were fathers, brothers and sons just like all of us.

Hitler didn't pull a single trigger, nor did Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin or Stalin.

It was people that did the dirty deeds, not "The Govt".

How is it that these millions of regular people were so easily convinced to conduct such brutal and evil acts against their fellow man?

Perhaps it was by believing claims that their most deeply held ideals were being threatened by some enemy that doesn't share those ideals?

Like claims that "LIBERTY" and "FREEEDOM” are under attack? Perhaps you have heard some of these claims yourself?

Our greatest threat, IMO, is easily manipulated gun-toting “Patriots” that reside within our own borders. A check of history will support the validity of my concern.

Which is why these guns need controls.

[[I bring up the NRA because you're clearly spouting the party line, comrade.]]

Hysterical. Now you've just gone silly. I have no idea what the "party line" is because I've only been sharing my perspective. And trying to bring the NRA into this makes you sound even more ignorant because the NRA hasn't released an official statement and will not until Friday. Calling me "comrade" is very telling.... it is the communist governments that are most eager to disarm their citizens... your perspective is far more in line with communism than mine. That entire statement was just off the wall and completely out of touch.

Have you ever bothered to read the 2nd Amendment? LoL.... To even suggest that it pertains to only some arms is the height of ignorance. If you read it, and still don't get it (which seems likely), get yourself a copy of the Federalist Papers and read what the authors intended, in their own words.... not the revisionist history of those with no respect for the Constitution.

@caffeinated:

1) Your gun ownership chart shows percent of households with firearms. It does not show overall gun ownership. So it is not valid in the context of your own argument.

2) Your second chart COMPLETELY debunks your assumption that a gun ban will reduce crime... which is what I've been asking you to support. The AWB ended in 2004, and crime continued to go down after.

Furthermore, according to your charts, crime was declining before the AWB was passed.

Sadly for you, your evidence proves my point and reinforces the fact that a gun ban will not result in less crime. Which is exactly what I've been saying.

I should thank you....so very much... for these charts. (although I had seen them already) Got any more evidence to support your position?

"1) Your gun ownership chart shows percent of households with firearms. It does not show overall gun ownership. So it is not valid in the context of your own argument."

Are you kidding me? Are you actually serious? Of course it shows "overall gun ownership." Gallup itself defines this as surveyed gun ownership. Argue with them, Dave. It sampled, over forty years, gun ownership and represents "overall gun ownership" over that time.

"2) Your second chart COMPLETELY debunks your assumption that a gun ban will reduce crime... which is what I've been asking you to support. The AWB ended in 2004, and crime continued to go down after."

The second graph shows violent crime reporting over the same period, and shows it going down. You stated there was a correlation between gun sales and crime. You didn't bother to back that up with data, and gun sales aren't an indicator of gun ownership over time (because it spikes and declines). There is a correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, as shown in the two graphs.

Are you seriously this daft, or just being obtuse?

Caf is a troll who doesn't think enough of his own opinions or conduct to sign his own name. He ignores any points made and changes the subject. You make a good faith effort to address his points and you are wasting your time. Every time he can't debate he will change the subject and act as if you didn't say what you said OR say you said something you clearly did not, even though it remains printed above.
My advice is stop responding to him like I did.

Why have a battle of wits with an unarmed person?

Hey all, did you know the supreme court ruled that if a gun has no current military use it is NOT protected by the 2nd amendment. In US v Miller they ruled that military weapons are protected by the 2nd amendment while most hunting arms are not.
No matter to me, the bill of rights gives us nothing, it exists to limit government.
My right to defend my family comes from a higher power than government and I don't need anyone's permission the use the best tools available. I will probably never need an assault rifle. If I ever do though, I will need it VERY badly. When technology offers something better, I'll own that too.

People kill people. Period. When was the last time that they taught the sanctity of life in school? That's the issue. Not guns.

They only make it a wholesale operation in places where guns are completely banned. Places where you or I MIGHT have one, evil won't even go.

Try trusting your fellow citizens to see to their own safety and we'll all be safer. I trust YOU. I trust people I don't even know to do what they think is best in these situations. A little more faith in our fellow man would go a long way to making this a safer society.

Larry, you stated the following...
"Our greatest threat, IMO, is easily manipulated gun-toting “Patriots” that reside within our own borders. A check of history will support the validity of my concern.
Which is why these guns need controls"
I disagree, in the event of any kind castatrophy, thousands of Urban gun toting thugs
will spread out over the countryside when the interstates are ribbons of motionless steel & rubber.
That's when you'll pray for someone like Dave or I to save you.

"in the event of any kind castatrophy, thousands of Urban gun toting thugs
will spread out over the countryside when the interstates are ribbons of motionless steel & rubber. "

So, this is an arms race between the good "rural folks" versus the "urban thugs".
Well, that certainly explains a lot. Thanks Al

That pretty much sums it up Larry glad you understand about reality.

See if you comprehend this too:
The core purpose of the 2nd Amendment -
to maintain the balance of power that exists between the government and the governed,

Al,
"the Govt" has a $700 billion dollar annual defense budget, not including police forces and intelligence services. It also has drones, AC130 Gunships, Apache Helicopters and "Cluster bombs". If you think your little "AR-15" gives you a "balance of power", I'm not sure if you are looking at it very clearly.

Not too good at comprehending theory are ya Lar

yea, I think I am.
It sounds to me that you are planning to turn your weapons against our men and women in uniform, many of which are the sons of daughters of our neighbors here in West County.

My view is that you are a traitor against those people. I will be fighting on the side of America.

I just can't get on the same page as these people who just want to BAN things. When you ban one thing, it opens up the doors to others. The government loves to see what they can get away with and how far they can push. Why let them think they can? This country was founded on the ideal that the people should be the ones in power. We forget this. Furthermore, many of you arguing for control don't have guns, don't want them, have never been forced to protect yourself with one. I don't smoke, so I don't personally give a $hit if they over-tax cigarettes, but I know it isn't fair. My AR-15 is NOT an "assault" weapon. It is a semi-automatic rifle and if you don't actually know how to use it, you won't do much damage. If you've never used one, they are very easy to jam. Some d-bag most likely can't just pick one up and massacre people. Why do I have it. BECAUSE I CAN. Because I like to go to the country and target shoot. Yes, I like to blow off a few rounds and relieve my stress. Like people who drink themselves retarded, except less dangerous :). Furthermore, if someone breaks into my house and I'm pointing it at them, they are going to drop a deuce and run. Then all I have to clean up is the poop this guy dropped out of his pants instead of my family's blood. I don't want to nor do I hope I ever have to kill someone with it. But I do know if an armed criminal comes after me, I don't want to be holding a butterknife.

It's really easy to lump gun owners into the "crazy, violent redneck" category because that makes it neat and tidy- "Only psychopaths need to shoot that many bullets!" However, you forget about those of us who are educated, well-trained, and practice perfect safety. My guns are in a 400 lb combination-locked safe. No one can access them except my husband and I. Am I the only one who thinks that it was irresponsible of the mother (God rest her soul) to properly contain her firearms, especially knowing that her son was mentally ill? There is no way he should have had access at all.

I forward the words of a friend:
It took ten minutes for police to arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Had the maniac possesed two six shot revolvers, he could have killed 12 innocent, defenseless souls in less than two minutes, reload in less than two minutes, and killed 12 more innocent, defenseless souls in less than two minutes. They were all sitting ducks. That’s a total of 24 souls dead in 8 minutes. The police wouldn’t be able to do jack. Plus, calling this “gun violence” is like discussing drunk driving and calling it car violence. It’s ridiculous. Those brave teachers used their bare hands and feet to confront the maniac, had any of those courageous staff members had a firearm, the maniac would have a lesser chance of harming anyone else, and the school would have a greater chance of surviving. Why should police officers have the exclusive right to defend themselves with firearms to confront this maniac, but teachers in the care of 20+ children are left with only their bare hands and feet to confront this same maniac? It makes no sense whatsoever, and liberals who would defend such insane logic are sick. No doubt, had we had armed teachers, with certification and training of course, these maniacs would have run like the cowards they are. To even suggest we should punish guns, and not reform school security after this tragedy, blows my mind. Common sense has obviously escaped the liberal’s mind.

I forward these, too:
The second Amendment does not grant us the people any Rights. The second Amendment, and the whole Bill of Rights for that matter, only addresses and declares certain Rights belonging to the people, but does not create any for them.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, the most influential legal commentator in early America, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, said, concerning the second Amendment,

“The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time ofanding armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them…”

“…And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.”

Not only does the Bill of Rights protect an armed citizenry, but demands that they be properly trained in the use of arms. This was done even thirty years back when many high schools in the US still had target shooting competitions and rifle teams.

During WW2, Maryland’s Governor called upon its citizenry to be prepared in the case of an invasion:

http://marylandshallissue.org/get-informed/historical-information/preparing-maryland-invasion-ww2/

“The sincere hope of every person in Maryland is that our State may never experience invasion or attack. That we should consider such a thing as possible is in itself a terrible shock to the American state of mind. Nevertheless, with so much of the world overrun by the enemies of Democracy, and with the invasion of Java and New Guinea as well as other points in the Australian Archipelago fresh in our minds, we would be foolish, indeed, not to be prepared, as completely as possible, for any such happening, even here in Maryland…

With the prospect that the regular Army units will be engaged in more important operations elsewhere, and with our State Guard and Military Police assigned to particular functions, it is felt absolutely necessary to have an additional protective force—: as a home guard—for the protection of our various communities…

The Maryland Minute Men, armed with weapons with which they are thoroughly familiar from long use, operating in a community in which they are accustomed to every road and trail and stream, and aroused to fighting pitch by the knowledge that they are serving to protect their own homes, their family and all that they hold dear in life, will prove a staunch defense against any enemy activity…”

Please, read the whole speech: http://marylandshallissue.org/get-informed/historical-information/preparing-maryland-invasion-ww2/

Larry,
I appreciate your point of view, I just disagree. I am a simple man whom believes in God, accepts personal responsibility for my actions and thinks others should, too! I think the ability to keep my family and country safe with the best tools available is the right thing to do. I give thanks I was born in a country that still recognizes my God given right to liberty and freedom to do so (for however much longer that lasts)! I wish I could have your optimism that giving up my right(s) would lead to a safer world, but I know better than that.

DPB,
You think guns are liberty and freedom. I don't. I think guns take freedoms. Like the freedom that 20 1st graders had to live full lives.

You think if a teacher in the school had had a gun, that the killer wouldn't had been as "successful" in his effots.

I think that if he did not have access to a gun in the first place that we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

Guns = Freedoms? Like the freedoms that are enjoyed in Somalia? Tribal Afghanistan or Pakistan?

Is that what you want? Are those the freedoms you are hoping for? Freedoms that enable the massacre of 7 year olds?

2nd amendment guy eh? Think you are a "patriot"?

When you talk about Second Amendment solutions, you’re talking about taking up arms against the United States of America, you’re talking about taking up arms against your neighbors, the children of your neighbors, and 20 dead kids in Newtown. That is is exactly what 2nd amendment "Freedoms" looks like.

I repeat what I have posted many times. No one wants your God Damn hand guns, deer rifles, varmint rifles or shot guns, .

Just reasonable restrictions on weapons of mass destruction that have no place in a civil society. Like HIgh velocity/high capacity weapons.

@Larry Lazar: How can you on one hand say "I think if he (Adam Lonza) did not have access to a gun in the first place that we wouldn't be having this discussion right now" & then state "No one wants your G-d (nice language by the way...please tone it down, we get it you're upset) hand guns, deer rifles, varmint rifles or shot guns."? Do we get to keep our guns or not according to what you've just said? By the way, the CT perp could have massacred just as many children with a deer rifle as he did with what he had at his disposal. He also could have done that much damage with a knife or sword, just slower. We wouldn't be having this discussion about gun control if that had transpired. We'd be focusing on the individual who committed the crime & why he or she did it. Incrementalism (gradually turning the heat up on a frog placed in lukewarm water) has always been the chosen method of the left & it's in full display with this latest gun disarming effort.

Never said there wasn't a difference...I just stated a fact. He could have done the exact same amount of damage with a deer rifle, just slower. A deer rifle can kill a deer & it most certainly can do lethal damage to human tissue, just at a slower pace.

This piece is from the Gifford Assination attempt last Jan, but it very much applies to the "2nd Amendment" argument used today:

"Seriously, when you talk about “taking back America,” when you talk about “taking our guns to Washington,” when you talk about “taking them out,” when you talk about “the blood of Patriots” and civil war what exactly are you talking about? When Chuck Norris talks about a “second Revolution” what exactly is he saying? When Sharron Angle talks about “Second Amendment remedies” what does she mean? When Joe Miller talks about the Second Amendment and then hires a security company made up of radical militiamen who talk of taking up arms against the US Government, hell, who have taken up arms against the government, what exactly does he mean? When Glenn Beck stands on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and talks about Second Amendment rights, when he invites the NRA onto his show to explain why Americans, each and every one, need access to fully automatic assault weapons and 30-round magazines, what are they getting at?

I’ll tell you what they mean.

They mean a women, a US Congresswomen, the wife of a US serviceman and astronaut, shot point blank through the head and lying in a puddle of her own blood.

Because that, my friends, is exactly what a “Second Amendment solution” looks like.
But that’s not all. Not by a long shot."

http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/01/sunday-morning-come-to-jesus-moment-on.html

@Larry Lazar: "Gun owners have failed in these responsibilities. They can not be trusted with high capacity/high velocity weapons." That's your opinion, not a fact. The vast majority of gun owners have demonstrated consistently over the years they can & should be trusted with virtually any type of weapon. There will always be the exception & that's what the left counts on in their attacks on gun ownership. I'm 61 years of age & have never belonged to the NRA or purchased a handgun for protection. Both of those facts (not that I'm 61!) are about to change & I'm also giving serious consideration to taking a concealed carry class. All because of what's transpired here recently. While my experience with this is purely anecdotal, it appears there are a considerable number of people who are thinking the same way. A recent visit to the gun store where I plan to purchase my gun led to a discussion with the owner on whether there's been an "uptick" in sales. He said it's been overwhelming & based on the volume of customers in the store when I was there, I believe that's true. Guns are here to stay...like it or not. Gun control will continue to be a volatile topic. By the way, I'll avoid using pejorative words to slam your position on this issue if you will. Taliban?

@Dennis,
re: "That's your opinion, not a fact"
Do you really want me to post links to all school massacres and inadvertent deaths due to availability of unsecured guns? See the original title to this article for one piece of evidence.

"Guns are here to stay...like it or not. Gun control will continue to be a volatile topic"
I repeat, no one wants your hunting/sporting guns or reasonable weapons of self-defense.
The fact that you can not own machine guns and shoulder fired grenade launchers is already gun control - and those controls have been extremely effective. It's now time to expand those bans to high capacity/high veloicity weapons and "man-killing" ammunition which have no reasonable sporting or defense purpose.

re: "Taliban" They have the freedoms that you are seeking and it is a perfect example that directly relates to the topic. There is nothing perforative about it.

Always remember, Obama IS the reason for the 2nd Amendment

well, I thought this conversation was dead in December and now Al brings it back to life with "Always remember, Obama IS the reason for the 2nd Amendment"

I can't wait to read his explanation for this one.

Listen & Learn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e_aGCsybmE

Here's some more knowledge for ya....

Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon:
The're too stupid to win, so they just walk around
knock over the pieces and poop all over the board.