[supershorty628]

You forgot poisonous gas, airplanes, cars and, oh, by the way molotov cocktails. Let, see, I just read where a person doused some people with a flammable liquid and threw a lighter on them. Again, I must ad, it's not the guns or more gun laws that have to be addressed, it's the mental attitude of these sickos and crazies. But until then, I don't want you or our government telling me that I don't have the right to protect myself and family from them. If you wish to be vurnerable to that, then that's your choice. I won't force my views on you and I promise not to protect you with my firearm should you ever be threatened when the police or military are a long ways away.

I'm starting to give up on reasoning with people like you, because let's face it, you only hear what you want to hear as opposed to what people are actually saying.

[dklime]

I'm starting to give up on reasoning with people like you, because let's face it, you only hear what you want to hear as opposed to what people are actually saying.

Well, sorry, apparently I don't understand what you are saying. So, sorry if did but what do I understand is that it doesn't matter what type of gun is used for whatever. What matters is that the 2nd Amendment is there for a reason and just as it says, "...shall not be infringed...". It doesn't say only if warfare changes or the type of firearms change. We continue to live in the greatest country in the world despite our shortcomings and unforeseen tragedies. Therefore, who are we to change what our forefathers so rightly invisioned?

[fooler]

I have lived one enough to have watched and on cases experienced errors made by local, state and US governments. Logical if you think about it, since humans are imperfect and humans are in the government. Am I always looking over my shoulder or expecting the US government to go rogue at any second NO. But I do stay in informed, vote and learn as much as possible about any candidate. Because this is required of me as a citizen.

The FF's gave us the 10 amendments beginning with the right of free speech and the ability to define that right with the freedom of arms. No they didn't know about our current weapons, however they also didn't know about communication streams such as the Internet. They did not limit free speech to face2face and written, all that was available then. Otherwise telephone, movie, TV, and Internet could be blocked. They wrote the amendments in such a way as to identify the important thing, free speech, right to own arms, right to a speedy trial, right of search and seizure and so on. They knew the world would change with new technologies but basic rights that many other countries had restricted would be unrestricted here.

Finally I find this debate over guns to be diverting us from the true issue. 26 people are dead because one individual chose to kill. 20 families will do as my family has done for over 40 years which is to remember a dead child, cancer for us. 26 families will never enjoy the holidays in the same way. 26 families will be faced with pain, guilt, possible divorce and sadly some with early death.
This was not caused by a gun, it was caused by an individual who woke up with a purpose which was to kill.

As to more gun control, there are plenty of laws on the books both state and national. In most cases the existing laws need to be enforced.
I am for requiring legal gun owners to take refresher safety classes, spend time at the range to be comfortable with your weapon and for gun owners to maintain guns safely at home. His mother did not and paid for it with her life.

I still cannot comprehend how anyone could do that to munchkins.

[sunny59]

Go Fish, not to be creepy, but I think I love you.

me too!

[sunny59]

Let's make guns illegal and get them off the street. Since that works so well with heroin and cocaine. Just sayin. :-)

A gun is an inanimate object. A gun doesn't aim itself and pull its own trigger, and a gun doesn't get affected by mental issues or an emotional state. People will still kill people, with or without guns.

At least if certain classes of guns were illegal (I do not think all guns should be, I fully appreciate the need for a gun in certain situations) they could be confiscated and used to give stiffer sentences to criminals found with them.

[sunny59]

In California we cannot buy high-capacity magazines. In California we can't buy guns at gun shows and take them home. In California we can't buy a gun off the Internet and have it delivered to our house.

I don't know what the gun laws are in other states, but in California (much to the dismay of many people I know) we have to go through a lengthy process - take a handgun safety test, go through a background check, wait a week before taking possession. We have to have a background check and a wait period before each gun we purchase - regardless of the fact that we may have already gone through this process for previous guns purchased. If we buy a gun not from a gun shop but online, we have to have it sent to a certified gun broker and again go through the background check and wait period before taking possession.

Just FYI for anyone who is wondering how "normal" people buy guns. I'm not sure how criminals do it - some may be stolen (as in the current case), some are purchased on the black market.

Oh, and when purchasing a gun we also sign an affidavit saying what kind of lockdown system we will have for our gun - either a safe (California-approved) or gun locks for each individual gun.

The gun owners I know take their responsibility for safety very seriously.

So there is a good point. CA has fairly strict gun laws. Are they too strict? Could the CA model be used elsewhere? It is easy to get a gun here. The state models are all so different it's really hard to debate whether or not things should be tightened up. In some cases they already are....

[LarkspurCO]

Here Larkspur you seem to have forgotten your post about the US turning on it's citizens and the need to stockpile weapons to defend yourself against the government. This was your post that I was responding to.

And the Colorado wildfires were somehow related to ... what?

The example I laid out was of someone storing food and water for their family in the event of a natural disaster, as a way to illustrate how firearms could be necessary to protect their life-saving stockpile of food and water. Nowhere did I mention stockpiling weapons.

The examples of government misdeeds are provided as food for thought and evidence of how power can and does corrupt, thus supporting the founding fathers' motives for writing the 2nd Amendment.

But you do not want to bother reading or thinking about what I wrote. You simply want to cast stones, however ill-conceived they are.

[loshad]

Well, sorry, apparently I don't understand what you are saying. So, sorry if did but what do I understand is that it doesn't matter what type of gun is used for whatever. What matters is that the 2nd Amendment is there for a reason and just as it says, "...shall not be infringed...". It doesn't say only if warfare changes or the type of firearms change. We continue to live in the greatest country in the world despite our shortcomings and unforeseen tragedies. Therefore, who are we to change what our forefathers so rightly invisioned?

Out of idle curiosity, what makes you think that the 2nd, of all the amendments, shouldn't be subject to restrictions (especially since it contains within it phrasing which could be used to restrict it, specifically the notation that militias ought to be "well-regulated")? We have restrictions on speech and the practice of religion, search and seizure, etc, etc.

[Blugal]

We continue to live in the greatest country in the world [snip]

...according to whom?

The example I laid out was of someone storing food and water for their family in the event of a natural disaster, as a way to illustrate how firearms could be necessary to protect their life-saving stockpile of food and water.

I found this "illustration" frankly horrifying.

[mvp]

What matters is that the 2nd Amendment is there for a reason and just as it says, "...shall not be infringed...". It doesn't say only if warfare changes or the type of firearms change. We continue to live in the greatest country in the world despite our shortcomings and unforeseen tragedies. Therefore, who are we to change what our forefathers so rightly invisioned?

Meh. You give a handful of enthusiastic, relatively well-off white guys in the 18th century too much credit. I don't see how they could have, for example, imagined how war ought to go when Mutually Assured Destruction-- two countries could sit around and debate how many times each could blow up the planet and just who could do that faster. What in the 18th century would have been the equivalent that they considered and addressed?

Nor could they imagine women voting... and even the benefits of having women vote once we got to where were are now with women slightly outnumbering men in undergrad and graduate-level degree programs.

That the US is great, unforeseen tragedies notwithstanding, does not mean that the Founding Fathers were clairvoyant.

[hosspuller]

I'm sorry you are so afraid that you offer our children for your security, hosspuller.

I'll agree. You are sorry.

You miss the point. Being armed signals a mind set.

[Sithly]

I found this "illustration" frankly horrifying.

Yes, that would be a horrifying situation in which to find yourself. People tend to think it won't happen to them, but it happened less than a decade ago in this country.

I find it sad that people who plan ahead for emergencies are mocked and vilified these days. That used to be just plain common sense.

[lilitiger2]

The Second Amendment does have restrictions.

[jr]

You need to understand the context of the 2nd amendment. Militias refer to citizens self organizing, using their own firearms if economically feasible for that person, to meet a threat. You bring your own gun to the conflict. The 2nd amendment does indeed protect individual gun ownership.

[Blugal]

Yes, that would be a horrifying situation in which to find yourself. People tend to think it won't happen to them, but it happened less than a decade ago in this country.

I find it sad that people who plan ahead for emergencies are mocked and vilified these days. That used to be just plain common sense.

That's not what I meant at all. I found it horrifying that people have the pre-meditated mindset that they will be using their guns on each other if there is a national emergency such that food and water is scarce.

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." -Abraham Maslow

[Natalie]

I just read this piece--a really interesting rumination on the true meanings of "freedom" and what an "armed society" would really look like.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...ed-society/?hp

I know there are a number of you on here who will refuse to read it because it's published in the NYTimes. To you, I saw, shame that you're too closed-minded to challenge your own assumptions.

For everyone else--I thought it was interesting "food for thought", so to speak.

[supershorty628]

Very interesting piece. The comments are worth a read as well. Thanks for posting, Natalie!

[carolprudm]

I do agree with this... I have been thinking a lot today of my uncle, who was a schizophrenic and was highly allergic to the meds used to treat it. So, he was unmedicated, and at times, violent. He lived in a fantasy world. If it were not for my grandma, my mom, and her sisters literally being on top of him 24/7, ensuring he was in a safe place (often a locked psych ward), etc. he well could have been a major problem. The psych ward was an ugly place oftentimes, and he had many issues there with other patients who were also highly disturbed, but he was not a risk to society at large. My grandma was a tiny woman, my uncle 6'3 and close to 300lbs. As much as it broke her heart sometimes to call the cops or have him admitted, she knew she had to do it not only for herself but for the community as a whole.

I wish mental illness was not so taboo, that services were easier to obtain, that people who needed help, got it.

The daughter of my non alcoholic BIL was killed by her son who was mentally ill....don't know the diagnoses.

I think there are two things that might help. First. You want a well armed militia....fine, MANDATORY public service for all as Switzerland does.
Second, make the manufacture and sale of ammunition very tightly controlled regulated and taxed. Ammo to be available not at Bass ProShop or over the internet, you have to pick it up at your local police office who will ask to see photo ID and permit and will keep national computerized records.

[fooler]

That's not what I meant at all. I found it horrifying that people have the pre-meditated mindset that they will be using their guns on each other if there is a national emergency such that food and water is scarce.

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." -Abraham Maslow

DH and I were in MS a week after Katrina assisting the Salvation Army as they fed locals living in housing projects. Our presence kept the Tough guys away from the food carts so the kids, elderly, shut-ins and regular families could be fed. There was enough food so the Tough guys were fed last. Without someone to maintain structure many did without food and water because a few chose to intimidate all and to waste badly needed food. FYI no weapons were brandished or shown, thank goodness. Just our adult presence plus the military cadets wearing they fatigues was enough to make the Tough guys to not try anything.
Everyone was treated with respect, they were living in their own he** of no power no water, most buildings damaged in part or completely, no idea of when grocery stores would be restocked, etc. Until you have seen or experienced that sort of devastation you don't understand just how desperate people can become.

[ccoronios]

A friend sent me a couple links over the weekend. One was to a 1 1/2 hour video which I did not watch. Another was to a much shorter Youtube, which I did. The topic for both was psychotropic drugs - and what their REAL known results are. Which of course are not acknowledged by pharmaceuticals nor the doctors who prescribe them at the drop of a hat.

Think about it. Ever wonder why we didn't have kids shooting up schools back in the 50s, 60s? LOTS more families with guns handy - lots more kids who grew up knowing how to handle a gun. There have been any number of societal changes, but one overriding one is the number of drugs prescribed to children and young adults with 'problems'.

NO ONE - unless active combat military - needs assault weapons. Nor does anyone need extended clips. As soon as Congress manages to get its head out of its nether-regions and resolves the 'fiscal cliff', it needs to 'grow some...' and pass some LIMITS to gun ownership. And states need to make use of existing databases and do everything in their power to ensure that those who receive permits are indeed stable and crime-free.

Carol