"-- Friday's killings at the Connecticut elementary school, where police recovered a Glock and a Sig Sauer semiautomatic pistols, along with a .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle..."

"Not only are semiautomatic pistols capable of rapid fire, they utilize high-capacity magazines and can be quickly reloaded. The combination of these features makes semiautomatic pistols efficient killing machines," - 2011 report -- titled "The Glock Pistol: A Favorite of Mass Shooters"

Pistols use high-capacity magazines? Most Glock and Sig pistols hold 7-10 shells in their magazines. That doesn't qualify as "high-capacity". Pistols also lose much of their accuracy at distances over 100ft.

The news reports that I saw didn't mention any rifles, but you have seen later reports than I did.

I just saw the Twincities.com article on this shooting. The rifle was found in the back of a car. You conveniently left that part out, didn't you, since that gun was never used in the shooting!

Listen fella... listen VERY carefully...

I am someone who will use ANYTHING or ANYONE to advance the cause of gun control. Yes, I will use the massacre in Connecticut as an example as to why people like you should no longer control the debate about controlling and eliminating guns of all kinds. It is the narrow-minded, petty, ignorant thoughts of people like you whose threatening stance toward our political leaders has had too much influence over this debate. Frankly, you are incapable of understanding the magnitude of what has happened. Obviously, to mass murderers, handguns ARE a means of mass murder. The feeble voice like yours must be silenced. Yes...silenced. You have no right to continue to kill others because of your own narrow views.

You see, guns are not the issue. What is at stake is the kind of life we live. You have no right that trumps a life.

Do now what you do best...crawl back into your hole and stack the weapons high around you. Hold up inside your cave and protect yourself against the enemies you think are coming to get you. But, in the meantime...shut up.

guncontrolnow2012@gmail.com

So while we're removing the 2nd amendment to the constitution, should we remove the 1st amendment, too?

That will be the day when our Government tries to take the guns away from us Americans. I wouldn't want to be the ones trying to do it. The USA has a standing army of citizens that numbers least 25,000,000. Bigger than China, Russia and the entire middle east and most important of all: the US military itself. This country was based and conceived on the right to bare arms. Because one nut kills a bunch of people everybody says gun control is the answer. I say nut control is the answer!

Just curious, I wonder how many of those 25,000,000 gun owners (I'm sure it is more than this) in America would come out shooting when the MQ-9 Reaper as well as MQ-1 Predator were raining bombs down on them from 50,000 feet? Lets not forget the jets, ships, troops and all the powerful capabilities our military has.

It may sound good to say that 45% of the population could overtake the government (that's if ALL of them wanted to), but the odds are very against it. Our military is too large, too powerful, and too informed...it would never happen.

"Our military is too large, too powerful, and too informed"

Kinda scary, eh?

The way things are going, it could be 1861 all over again. Wonder who will be the first to attempt secession?

Well, they are all attempting (or at least some citizens from each state are), but no one is taking it very seriously, including the governors.

""Didn't we try that once before?" asked South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Indeed, yes, it was tried before, by South Carolina in December of 1860. Since that date, states opting for secession have a 100% failure rate in splitting from the Union, and that dismal record was amassed long before the United States had a fleet of aerial drone weapons that could be piloted by remote control.

Other governors, perhaps sensing the overall "non-starter-ness" of seceding from the United States, have also publicly declined to support these secession petitions. "I don’t think that’s a valid option for Tennessee," said Tennesee Gov. Bill Haslam. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley released a long statement through a spokeswoman in which he reiterated his belief in "one nation under God" and that "states can be great laboratories of change.""

It's funny that the party that insists that we have such a massive military, has made it virtually impossibly for the citizens " to defend themselves against a tyrannical government." (One interpretation).

Congress woman: Talk the talk but don't help Obama take our 2nd amendment rights away from us. Three wackos kill a bunch of people including kids...Three wackos and now the government wants to take our 2nd amendment rights away from us...how stupid is that?

Janeto, in your own words, please define an "assault weapon".

Janeto: An AK 47, AR 15, are most commonly called assault weapons. The AK 47 fires a 7.62 x39 bullet that is barely legal for deer hunting. It is a semi-automatic rifle which means the trigger has to be pulled for each shot fired. It has magazines that are capable of holding up to 30 rounds. In comparison to most deer rifles used in Minnesota it is under powered and sometimes called the baby 30/30 which in itself is also under powered in comparison to the larger rounds like a .308 or a 30.06. The 30.06 hunting rifle like a Remington have 10 shot magazines. And it doesn't take long to drop a magazine and pop another in. A true assault weapon like the AK 47 or AR 15 is fully automatic. Pull the trigger and hold it and you will empty the magazine in 4 to 5 seconds. You will not find them in this country unless the military has them or someone who has a certain type license granted by the ATF. What I am trying to get across here is that the AK or the AR are not nearly as powerful of a weapon as your hubby's 30.06...not even close. So what's the deal about these so called assult rifles?

The typical caliber for an AR-15 is .223, which is the rifle found in the car of the killer. An article I read about this shooting called that a "high-powered" rifle. A .223 AR-15 is so "high-powered" that it isn't even allowed for dear hunting, because it doesn't have a hope of actually killing the dear, but just wounding it and leaving it to suffer.

Why is it that most of the people who are against guns don't seem to know anything about that which they're so vehemently against? Isn't there a definition for a condition like that? If I'm not mistaken, it's called "ignorance".

Presuming that he lived at home (since he killed his father first), and that he used parent's firearms, the parents would be liable for not keeping the firearms locked up and away from their mentally-disturbed son.

The Japanese contemplated invading the west coast during WWII. The only reason they didn't do it is that their spies were telling them that American civilians were armed. The men in America had guns. They knew that an invading army stood no chance of defeating an armed citizenry. It's kind of like trying to destroy a pillow with your fist. They would have been mired in an insurgency for years, then they would have given up and headed home in disgrace. Sound familiar?

Mort,

"There are 89 guns for every 100 civilians, according to the 2011 Small Arms Survey. That amounts to roughly 270 million guns owned nationwide, far and away the highest gun ownership rate in the world. With less than 5 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. is home to anywhere between 35 and 50 percent of all civilian-owned guns on earth."

Please see my comments above about civilians overtaking our government. Never mind the massive military power we now have, the technology and intelligence is astounding. Do you really think we would be fighting a ground war against our own government? Well, one side would, the other side would be blasting from the sky. One drone will take out thousand of boots on the ground. One fighter jet.... Well, I think you get my meaning. How many of our spoiled, soft society would be fighting after a couple airial attacks by the government?

Mort, the confusion had to have been great. The information had to have been confusing depending on who saw what, and what information was told to whom. It is understandable that is has taken a few days to sort out all the details. It will take even longer until we know everything that happened and all the specifics.

There is no conspiracy here! This is about dead children and the courageous people who put themselves in front of the bullets to try and save them. Your suggestion of conspiracy is the only 'rat' in the room!

Of-course I knew what you meant. I am not naive in respect to the fact that there were many on the ground with emotions that were unimaginable. Mistakes are made, plain and simple. Different agencies, police, and media...all there, all with their own teams and information. Changing the make and model of the guns in an effort to push some gun legislation is not something that is realistic in this case.

You can call me naive, that's fine, but I can say you are looking for something that doesn't exist to try and promote an agenda that has nothing to do with realty.

I do not want to ban guns. Let me write it again, because I am sure I will get hit with comments about the second amendment....I don't want to ban guns. As we have seen with drugs, a ban on almost anything creates more problems than it fixes. And yeah, there is the second amendment. I do have to wonder though, if our forefathers ever imagined the kind of guns that we have now...

These mass shootings are usually done by a person meeting all five criteria above. This is what we need to focus on...ALL FIVE (guns included), and the recognition and treatment of those who might fit into a combination of those categories.

Susan, I am glad to see you haven't fixated on the gun part of this, and I agree there are other causes of these tragedies. But for your item #5, please give a recent example of a mass shooting where an automatic weapon (gun) was used.

CB, I wrote 'fully OR semi-automatic guns'

Do you think our forefathers thought that we should have the right to ANY and ALL of these guns and magazines? Could they even have imagined them? We have a right to bear arms....there is no right that is absolute.

"Do you think our forefathers thought that we should have the right to ANY and ALL of these guns and magazines? Could they even have imagined them? We have a right to bear arms....there is no right that is absolute."

Since it's clear the second amendment was written so we could defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, would it not stand to reason you would want the most powerful and effective tool to do that? Before muskets were invented, do you thing they envisioned anything but a longer sword?

Who do want to live next door to when the jackbooted thugs come knocking? I'd prefer to live next to the guy who has a large arsenal in his basement complete with 50 shot magazines and nice inventory of ammo.

I like what Nick said about the Japanese. Knowing the citizenry is armed to the teeth scares the bejeebers out of the statists. Do you really think the citizens would succumb and surrender to their own countrymen firing on them or would they become insurgent and defend their right to be free. I think the latter.

Markus, first, this is your interpretation of the second amendment. Second, please see above regarding a war with our government. It is not only a ridiculous concept, but one that is not winable. Sure they could come knocking on your door...my guess is that they would be blasting from the sky. It's a little difficult to bring a drone or fighter jet down with a magazine carrying even 1000 rounds.

And let's not forget, not everyone is going to participate or want to participate in such war.

"And let's not forget, not everyone is going to participate or want to participate in such war."

So if the government decides to institute martial law, and demand you surrender your guns, your food and your money, you would recommend passively standing by and behaving like the sheep they've trained you to be? Do you like going through the TSA gate-rape procedure at the airport as well?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

How would you "interpret" the above paragraph?

Ah, there it is, the grossly misleading and inaccurate sheep analogy... You can do much better.

Markus, do you honestly, sincerely think that there is any chance at all that guns will be banned? Please explain how that would happen.

If Markus thinks the TSA procedure is rape, he must consider the census a colonoscopy against his will. Paranoid much, Markus? Under what circumstances would the US government institute martial law and exactly what military units would be taking our guns, money and food?

"Markus, do you honestly, sincerely think that there is any chance at all that guns will be banned?"

No I don't, precisely for the reasons we've been discussing, but that won't stop them from trying.

Keith O wrote: "If Markus thinks the TSA procedure is rape, he must consider the census a colonoscopy against his will. Paranoid much, Markus? Under what circumstances would the US government institute martial law and exactly what military units would be taking our guns, money and food?"

Evidently you either enjoy being groped by men in blue uniforms or you're so scared of "terrorists" you will gladly give up your 4th amendment rights for a little security. Which is it?

I doubt the US government would institute martial law. Precisely for the reasons we've been discussing. I'm hardly paranoid, just prepared.

By the way, I declined to take the census. They kept sending people to my house, I kept turning them away, then finally in a nice, sort of passive aggressive way told me if I didn't comply there would be trouble. I finally capitulated and gave them the minimum information allowed. I kinda felt violated. Just like Blue Goon airport genital fondling makes me feel.

Markus, it probably doesn't help when you're sweaty and nervous as you prepare to board a plan. Personally, I ask for a female TSA agent to do the groping. And if a pat-down catches a guy who was going to get on my plane with C4 in his crotch, I don't mind a momentary violation of my personal space, and you shouldn't either.

6. They all drove cars to the scene of their crimes. The cars are just as much at fault. 3 times as many people died in car accidents as were murdered with guns in 2011. Do we blame the car or the driver; are the car accident the gas company’s fault for supplying gas? Years ago this country closed most mental hospitals and it may be time to reopen them.

Jim, I asked you this before...how many people driving those cars INTENTIONALLY set out to kill someone? That would be the statistic to compare to homicides with guns. You need to compare apples to apples, don't you think?

Yes, we absolutely need to talk about mental health and guns, that's the point, not 'banning' guns.

Susan- okay- if they aren't intentionally setting out to hurt someone by driving their car- should we blame the alcohol for the drunk driver killing someone- or better yet, should we blame the bartender for serving the alcohol? Should alcohol be banned? People kill people when they are drunk.... There are limitations and regulations on liquor, that still doesn't prevent all crimes from happening... Same concept, different situation.

Blondie, you are missing two points. 1.Intent - do those drunks intend to use their car to kill people? I haven't looked at the numbers for that particular statistic, but I bet it's less than 1,000 vs. nearly 10,000 who take a gun and INTEND to do harm or kill human beings. 2. Are cars designed specifically to hurt and kill people? I understand that many say guns are 'designed' for target practice or defending yourself, but follow that line of thinking...what are you practicing for? To hurt or kill someone. Drunk drivers do not use a car to intentionally harm or kill people, the same cannot be said about those who use guns on others.

If a sober person can cognitively say that a drunk driver has the ability and the means to kill someone when they drink and drive, then yes- If they choose to drink and drive, they are accepting the responsibility that they could potentially kill someone or themselves. So that is driving with the intent that something extremely devastating could happen. A car is a 1k pound weapon.-- If you don't like that analogy, how about cigarettes or fast food? Cancer and heart disease are the leading causes of death in our country. Clearly peoples diet is causing more harm than ANY firearm. Should we regulate what types of food that one can consume? Or should we outlaw smoking in general? I am not a smoker- I think its disgusting, but who am I to say that someone else that wants to ruin their body, can't. If you start over regulating things, there is going to be a "butterfly effect" so to speak. If you over regulate guns, where does government control stop? I'm sorry but as a former officer, I would think its safe to say that we don't want to deal with minuscule and petty crimes. We have enough to deal with pertaining to citizens safety as it is.

Regarding your drunk driving analogy I will first say that correlation does not imply causation. Intent is defined as "usually clearly formulated or planned". People (the vast majority) do not plan to kill people while driving drunk. It may be a stupid thing to do, and we certainly know what CAN happen, but it is not the intent.

Interesting that it is okay to tell people that driving down the road while drunk is illegal because we certainly know that it can kill people, but it's not okay to tell people that they must be trained in firearm use in order to buy one. You may consider the statistic small with 700 people dying each year from unintentional gun shots, but add to it the thousands more that are accidentally shot and survive and the number is not so small.

Just to make sure we are clear....training is not a permit either.

Susan, Have you ever heard of a drive by shooting? I’m not for banning car’s I am just making a point, but the big issue in most if not all of the recent mass killings is mental health. The shooters were or are nuts and we no longer having a place to keep the insane; the main reason is it would not be nice. It is quite simple some people are just plain craze and need to be locked up until their cured or forever.

Jim, in a drive-by, the gun is still used as the murder weapon, not the car.

Look, I understand your point and have heard it and more many, many times.

"Guns don't kill people, people do"....yep, but there is no reason that it should be so damn easy for these people to do so.

"If you are going to regulate guns, you might as well do it to cars, bad food, etc." News flash: You must take training and a test to get a license to drive a car. Food and prescription drugs, and many other products are regulated...they are regulated for the purpose of human safety...why on earth shouldn't guns (probably one of the most dangerous products of all) be?

Susan, Gun are regulated. There are over 17,000 gun laws. One of the big issues is that government chooses not to enforce the laws; there are plenty of laws and regulation but little or no enforcement. In fact in the fast and furious scandal the government encouraged the crime and did absolutely nothing about it. The attorney general was held in contempt for refusing to answer congress.
You could not go tomorrow and buy a handgun or assault rifle unless you have a permit to acquire issued by the police in your town or by the sheriff in your county. The law enforcement agency is required to run a back ground check. If the department issues the permit without doing the back ground check it is nothing but sloth on their part. When you go to buy your gun there will be a federal back ground check done.
Another issue is that the ACLU has made it nearly impossible to get someone committed to a mental hospital. The ACLU would rather standup for some nut case then protect the people of this great country. But then the mental hospitals have been closed and as cruel as it may seem some need to reopen. I am willing to bet that most of the homeless people in downtown MPLS desperately need help with mental health issues.
You have heard of the so called gun show loophole but do you know what it is.

There were plans drawn up for an Axis invasion of the US. You can find them here:

all-that-is-interesting.com/the-axis-plan-to-invade-america-in-1942

This took some searching on my part as I didn't get this information from the internet originally, but the History Channel had a show about it a while back.

I found information to back up my comment. The invasion plans are available on the internet, and I originally got the information from a History Channel show. I'd post a link to the Axis invasion plans, but I can't.

Susan, it doesn't matter what I do to the link; add spaces, take off the http, etc. I've tried everything, and it still knows what I'm trying to do and it won't let me do it. I can't post anything remotely resembling a link.

Can you tell me what the site is, or some google words that will bring me to the site, and I can post a link? Maybe quote the first couple lines in the link and I can google that?

all that is interesting dot com the axis plan to invade america in 1942

This is the closest thing I could find to what the History Channel was talking about.

Is this it, Nick?

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/the-axis-plan-to-invade-america-in-1942

I couldn't post it either. I am going to test another:

http://weather.minnesota.cbslocal.com/US/MN/Minneapolis/KMSP.html

I don't know what's going on....I think I read that Markus had a problem too...

My editor is on vacation. Any other editors out there know why some links are being rejected?

9-b) The baby sitter for Adam (when he was 10) said mom was insistent he never be left alone for a second – even in the bathroom. But yet mom never secured the weapons?

9-c) How come in such a “small town” we have not heard about Adam Lanza’s primary care physician? Psychiatrist? Psychologist?

10) Would real parents of real children aged 6-7 really be satisfied with pictures of their children? Wouldn’t they demand to see their children one last time firsthand?

10-a) Not even one parent, just one, wanted to see their child?

11) According to the official story, 28 people died only 1 was wounded. The dead included 20 small, squirmy children — difficult targets even for professionals. How could Adam Lanza achieve such amazingly deadly accuracy, in such a short length of recorded time?

12) When Ryan Lanza was falsely identified as the shooter, who deleted his Facebook profile? How did it reappear when he was in custody?

(article) Ryan, 24, who was originally thought to have been the shooter, was being questioned by police after he was arrested at his home in Hoboken, New Jersey.

He was on a bus on his way home from work when he was being named as the gunman and posted on Facebook that it wasn’t him.

Ryan Lanza had been extremely cooperative and was not under arrest or in custody by Saturday morning, but investigators were still searching his computers and phone records. He told law enforcement he had not been in touch with his brother since about 2010.

13) Why did the police say on Friday that they were going to leave the bodies in the school until Sunday, then Saturday morning announce that they had spirited the bodies away in the middle of the night? Perhaps to ensure that the transport, if any, would go unrecorded on photos or video?

14.) With a bazillion media there, staked out anyway, how did they pull off the body transport without even a single highpower telephoto lens photo? You know some media would have staked out the morgue too?

15) Did the school have one or more security cameras CCTV? You would think with a “buzz-in” entry system they would have at least one camera on the door, no?

16 ) Why is Adam Lanza reported to be a loner when a teenager said (oxymoronically), “[Lanza and his friends] always gathered alone in a corner in school”?

‘Everyone just assumed he was a smart kid and that’s why he didn’t like talking to people all the time,’ Peter Lalli, 20, who graduated with Lanza in 2010, told the New York Daily News. ‘He hung out with the smart crowd.’

17) Why did police assign an individual state trooper to every grieving family? Has this ever been done before? Media concern?

18) Why are Ryan Lanza and his roommates still in custody, and why are the police pretending that it’s for their own benefit?

19) Is it a coincidence that Nancy Lanza’s brother is Kingston Police Officer James Champion, who lives next door to the former Lanza home?

20) What “exactly” did Nancy Lanza do for a living? Retired or not, how come not a single current or former co-worker is in the media talking about her?

21) Why would Nancy Lanza own a Bullet Proof vest? The media is framing her numerous gun collection as her being a possible ”prepper”, where’s the evidence of that?

22) Dad is a VP of GE Global Financial? And a witness in the LIBOR financial scandal? That deserves a looksee.

23) When was the last time you saw an M.E. give a presser in a labcoat?

yomammy wrote: "so i shouldnt be able to own more than the guns interpreted in the original constitution."

Who said that you "shouldnt be able to own more than the guns interpreted in the original constitution"? Must have been those voices in your head again.

And how do you propose we do that, Mort?

Nick, I agree that we need to focus on the victims and that the media gives too much attention to the murderer. However using his name is an accurate description and harmless in this forum. You mentioned this on the other thread, and I chose not to reply, but everyone is entitled to write what they want (abiding by Patch's user agreement), and using his name here certainly does not give him any dignity. Unless you can shut down the media, his name is out there and will be used and repeated.

This isn't my idea. There are some in the media with a sense of decency that are trying to do what they can to eliminate his name from stories. I just thought I would pass on the idea here.

I agree with you and have heard this several times before, I just think that in this forum, it's not going to matter.

I didn't realize that some in the media were avoiding his name. Is that radio, because I haven't seen a tv broadcast yet that hasn't named him and repeatedly shown that picture?

Nick, you're starting to sound like that one German guy who didn't like the Jews.

Really?

I was wondering when you were going to pop up again with your stupid comments that don't make a lick of sense.

So instead of saying, "Nick's Hyperbole Store Bans Guns on These Premises," your sign would say, "Guns Welcome on These Premises"? And that deters the wackos how?

"So instead of saying, "Nick's Hyperbole Store Bans Guns on These Premises," your sign would say, "Guns Welcome on These Premises"? And that deters the wackos how?"

Would you attempt to rob a bank if there was a reasonable chance the guy behind you was packing?

Keith, mass shootings always occur where guns are banned, so the gun-free zone signs deter the wackos how?

The fact is most gun homocides occur where guns are allowed: in people's homes. Mass shootings make up only a small fraction of the country's overall gun crime. Between 2007 and 2011, the U.S. experienced an average of 13,700 homicides, with guns responsible for 67% of the killing, according to the FBI's crime reports.

And, if you still want to talk about mass shootings, they were occuring long before gun-free zones were established. There was an average of 20 shootings per year between 1980 and 2010 in which four or more people were killed with an average annual death toll of about 100.

"Long before gun free zones were established"? You mean before concealed carry was more common? When the whole country was a gun free zone?

I'd say it's more accurate to say that the mass shootings occurred before concealed carry was established.

The fact is, you have more gun violence in areas where guns are more restricted, and less gun violence where legal arms bearing is more prevalent. If gun control did anything to reduce crime, New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago would be safe places. In reality quite the opposite is true.

Keith, it's a little difficult to understand where you're going with your comments, but you're seemingly implying that guns are the problem and making them illegal for law abiding citizens to carry, particularly in "gun free zones", will somehow contribute to less gun violence.

If that is indeed the case, then your logic would tell us that disarming law enforcement officers would accomplish the same thing.

Nick and Markus, you can keep making it up as you go, but your arguments for concealed carry and its impact on crime are deeply flawed. First, you assume that everyone who is eligible to legally own a firearm is law-abiding and at low risk
for committing a violent crime. That's not at all the case. Concealed carry laws have led to an increase in crime in substantially more cities and states than they have decreased crime.

As just one example shows, a recent review of concealed carry permit holders in
North Carolina showed that over a five-year period more than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of crimes (excluding traffic violations), including more than 200 felonies and 10 murders or manslaughters. An additional 900 had been convicted of a drunk driving offense, an offense commonly associated with substance abuse.

So the next time some drunk thinks you cut him off in traffic, consider whether you want him coming at you with a tire iron or a Glock.

Read this and get educated: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf

Kieth,

By virtue of the fact that I have at least half a brain, I don't need some elitists to tell me a well armed citizenry will dramatically reduce crime. The concept is rational and accepted by those who value their liberty. But if you really need proof, here you go:

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

Regardless of what anyone postulates on either position on gun control, it's impossible to legislate away bad behavior. Prohibition of alcohol and drugs have not stopped the use of them, only created a huge, profitable and dangerous black market for them. Overly restrictive blood alcohol content limits do not prevent people from driving drunk. The fact that it's illegal to rob banks doesn't stop some people from doing it. And as we've seen recently, a gun ban at a school didn't prevent a lunatic from bringing one in.

Wrong again, Markus. Your batting average goes down with every post. Maybe you don't need to hear it from "elitists," but you do need to hear it from people who know more than you.

The October 2012 Johns Hopkins report discredits the research published in the book you link to, saying, "A large body of research has been conducted to investigate the effect of right-to-carry laws on violence. Research showing crime-reducing effects of right-to-carry laws, including Lott’s, has been carefully reviewed by a National Council of Research panel of experts, and others, and has been found to have serious flaws. The most consistent finding across studies which correct for these flaws is that RTC laws are associated with an increase in aggravated assaults."

The report goes on to say that, using various statistical methods, aggravated assaults have increased from one to nine percent as a result of RTC laws. Of course, why should you believe anything from a respected academic and health center with a national reputation for high-quality, policy-relevant research? It's all part of a guv'mint conspiracy to take our guns, money and food, right?

"Wrong again, Markus"

I prefer to get my information from those that don't have an axe to grind. However, having said that, it wouldn't matter to me if the report you cited was actually spot on (which is doubtful).

Life is risky and dangerous sometimes. I'll take my chances with the possibility that some guy who's not supposed to have a gun will get his hands on one in order to preserve my right to own one.

You, on the other hand, evidently, would rather have us sit passively by hoping the cops, who are woefully inadequate at stopping crime (but excellent at hassling normally law abiding citizens), rescue you from whatever situation you find yourself in.

If you polled the parents of those dead children, how many of them do you suppose would wish there had been someone there to stop the madness?

Markus, I have friends and relatives that are police officers, and they're very familiar with blowhards like you who are always complaining about the ineffectiveness and perceived harassment of the police. Of course, you think it's your right to have police and fire protection and the immediate response of emergency services. You want all the rights of citizenship with none of the responsibilities.

It doesn't matter what the parents of the dead children wished had happened. Wishes aren't reality. If the principal had access to a gun locked in a safe in the school office, how many kids and teachers would have died before she could access the gun and get her wits about her to confront the gunman?

How many guns were readily available at Fort Hood that couldn't stop the nutjob who killed 12 and wounded 31? Keep dreaming about the ability of more guns being able to stop gun violence.

Actually, the two interviews (I understand that is only ten percent) I watched, the parents spoke of more gun control, NOT about guns in schools.

"Of course, you think it's your right to have police and fire protection and the immediate response of emergency services"

How exactly do the police protect me?

The police patrol the streets typically looking to harass normally law abiding citizens for not obeying traffic laws to the letter. For example, rolling stop violators, turn signal violators, window tint violators, the two beer with dinner violator, and the DREADED seat belt violator that puts us all in danger. How is that protection?

It's interesting you refer to police and fire protection as being synonymous. The duty of the police should be to respond to crime. That's what the fire department does; they respond to fires. They aren't out on patrol looking for kids playing with matches or smoking cigarettes. However, the police industry has conveniently renamed itself "law enforcement". Their main concern is enforcing law (which the legislature continues to add to year after year), not protecting the citizens.

Look at the Stillwater cop cars. As I recall, in the past, it used to be lettered on the car, "To Protect and Serve". There's some fancy graphics on those cars now compliments of the taxpayers, but nothing about protecting and serving because that is not their primary mission. Municipalities have found their police departments to be nice little revenue generating operations.

continued....

.... continued.

Again, your logic suggesting that those in a position to stop a crime from happening should be disarmed would also suggest the police should be disarmed as well.

That makes no sense.

Markus, there's a hell of a lot of difference between a police officer who has the training, experience and judgment to use a gun and someone who thinks their permit and their gun magically confers those abilities on them.

As for your attitude toward our local police, why don't you make out the equivalent of a living will and, instead of a "do not resuscitate" order, you can have a "do not respond" order? Then the next time a neighbor sees someone trying to get into your house or garage or business when you're not around or someone sideswipes your car on the street or someone is urinating in your bushes, you can just live with the consequences.

"As for your attitude toward our local police, why don't you make out the equivalent of a living will and, instead of a "do not resuscitate" order, you can have a "do not respond" order?"

Keith, you make a lot of assumptions and evidently don't read my posts fully. If you want to claim the moral high ground, maybe you should lose the hostility. It might help your credibility.

As far as my attitude toward the local police, here's what I said: "The duty of the police should be to respond to crime."

Is there no branch of government that should be open to criticism?

So, if gun control leads to less crime, less gun deaths, and less guns, one would assume that logic would carry over to other areas, such as drugs and alcohol.

Those on the Left are always the first to say that "drug control" doesn't work. The common position is to say we should legalize drugs and then tax and regulate them. Well, guns are already taxes and regulated. Isn't that what you guys on the Left want?

It is obvious that "drug control" is not working. Many criminal organizations are exclusively funded by the illegal drug trade. Do you want there to be an equally profitable illegal gun trade? Drugs are easier for high school kids to get than beer. If there are enough gun bans, guns will follow the same illicit path.

If drug control doesn't work, why would increased gun control?

I wonder if these guys are friends or relatives of Keith O?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250218/Angel-Ashley-Dobbs-suing-Texas-troopers-shocking-BODY-CAVITY-search-caught-tape.html

it's nice to see them serving and protecting.

I'll bet the sight of a police officer makes those two girls feel much safer.

Or this brave cop who shot an unarmed woodcarver.

http://www.king5.com/news/cities/seattle/Feds-wont-prosecute-Seattle-cop-who-shot-woodcarver-137305998.html

We're obviously much safer since officer Burke dispatched such a wanton criminal.

Unfortunately these are not isolated incidents of "law enforcement". There a literally hundreds in recent history recorded on the internet.

Nick, I don't think the issue is banning guns or the right to own most types, no matter how much some of the NRA loyalists and others who support no limits on guns whatsoever. I don't think your illegal drugs comparison is valid for this reason. A better analogy would be pharmacies limiting the amount of sudafed the meth heads can purchase as a result of that particular epidemic. Perhaps you also think this is a bad thing. Much like those who suggest anyone who thinks the wealthy should pay tax rates more in line with the middle class are often labeled socialists, I don't think some limits on the type of guns people can stockpile or walk around with violates the second amendment or make them anti-guns.

Randy, during the drunk driving debate, Smokin' Joe and I came to a sort of agreement on not having any drunk driving laws, but instead punishing the act of killing or injuring people that results from any type of incapacitated or distracted driving to the degree that they would be punished had they shot someone with a gun.

What if gun laws were the same? Simply having a gun isn't harmful, just like driving if you've had five beers and are fully competent and functional. If I drive around with my .45 on the seat, I'm not harming anyone, but I would be guilty of a crime. Maybe the law should be that if you go through the proper training, you can carry any type of gun you want, however you want, wherever you want, but if you shoot someone who isn't threatening your life, you're done.

In other words, punish the crime, not the tool.

Nick, here is where I will go to the extreme. I would like the law changed so that anyone owning a gun (unless it is stolen) should be held criminally liable if that gun is used to harm someone else. They should be charged as if they pulled the trigger themselves. I don't mean two years probation, like that tool of a father just got because he left his gun accessible to his children this summer. One child shot the other child...thankfully in this situation, the child lived but I think the man should be charged as if he were standing there and pulled the trigger himself. Obviously two years probation is not a deterrent for leaving your guns unlocked, as we now just had a similar situation in Minnesota, but this time the child died.

I can appreciate some of the sentiments here, but I don't think you can implement the same penalties for accidents (even if the result of carelessness) as intentional acts of destruction.

Randy, here I must disagree. I know there are always exceptions to the rule (and extreme situations), but take the incident that I referenced; the father left an unlocked, loaded gun in the bedroom. There were several children home. A couple of the kids found the gun and one kid shot another kid in the head. If this father had locked his gun up, as the law demands, the child would not have been shot. If you are going to own a deadly weapon, and there are several children in the house, you should not only abide by the law, but take extra precautions so that the children can not get to a LOADED gun and shoot each other.

"Investigators believe that one of Jacob's siblings discovered the weapon in an unlocked cabinet. The child apparently thought the weapon was not loaded, and began playing with it. As the child played with the handgun, it went off, and a bullet hit Jacob in his head."

The only way to start getting people to abide by the law (vs. thinking they know better) is to make the punishment severe.

I agree there are going to be accidents, and I agree there's going to be negligence. Many accidents can be prevented by proper safety training, to the degree that we are trained to drive a car. I would like to see any restrictions on types of guns dropped, except maybe full autos, which are ridiculous for civilian use anyhow.

The problem here is that guns are not the problem, people are the problem. Everyone seems to recognize that when it comes to cars (car accidents, hit & runs, etc), but not with guns. The solution to the problem is to fix the people, not ban "assault rifles".

Accidents can be greatly decreased with training requirements. If you want to carry a gun, great! But you should have to be well trained and should have to qualify and renew your permit through testing, just like driving.

Negligent accidents are not murder, but negligence is not being treated seriously enough and 2 years probation for that incident is ridiculous. 2 years prison time would have been more sufficient. By the way, I could tell you exactly where my guns are and then leave you alone for weeks, and you wouldn't get to them. I keep my knives and nonlethal weapons at the ready, but the guns are locked up safe.

Susan said ,Nick, here is where I will go to the extreme. I would like the law changed so that anyone owning a gun (unless it is stolen) should be held criminally liable if that gun is used to harm someone else. They should be charged as if they pulled the trigger themselves. I don't mean two years probation.
Would this go for people that did not lock their cars and left the keys where the kids could find them as well.

Nick, this may be how you want it to read, but it doesn't read that way. You are projecting your own ideology into the words.

Even if it were as you want, "a well regulated" can not be disputed. Our individual citizens are not well regulated in regards to a militia. Our government has a well regulated militia, not our people.

Susan, if my interpretation is not correct, then why would they mention the militia before stating the fact that the people have the right to bear arms?

The only way the two parts of the Amendment can be reconciled with one another is if the militia is the reason for the right to bear arms. The formation of national defense is already covered in Articles 1 and 2, and has no business being in the Bill of Rights.

I can't think of another way of reading the 2nd Amendment that makes any sense.

Nick, you seemed to have skipped the part about "well regulated"...

I see below that you feel the same way I do about training. Yes, there is some training for conceal and carry, but reading some of the comments by the everyone-should-carry-a-gun crowd, I think they would disagree. There is absolutely no disputing what 'well regulated' means.

"reg·u·late [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.
1.to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2.to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3.to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4.to put in good order: to regulate the digestion."

"1.a : to govern or direct according to rule
b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning <regulate the industries of a country>
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>"

"1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement:"

Susan, the meaning of the term "well-regulated" is often misunderstood. As used in 1776, and translated into 2012 US english, it means "well-practiced". Hunting and CCW enthusiasts frequently go to a range with their guns and are "well-practiced". In fact, many CCW permit holders spend more time shooting at the range than the average police officer.

Hi, CB, I wondered if you were still here...

I will look that up, thanks. So, would you be opposed to EVERY gun owner being "required" to take gun training (the range etc) every year?

"There are three ways of interpreting the Constitution: “original intent,” “original meaning,” and a “living Constitution.”

According to the “living Constitution” method, we should try to embrace the underlying values expressed in the Second Amendment, and then apply these to the current realities. This seems a nearly impossible task. Arms today include rapid-fire assault rifles, not just single-shot muskets with powder and a ramming rod, and the militia is no more. The National Guard, the militia’s technical successor, does not represent “the body of the people” or play such a central role in protecting “the security of a free state.”

That said, a “living Constitution” approach can bridge the partisan divide. Whether or not the Second Amendment addressed the issue of private ownership, Founding Era citizens would not argue with the right to own a gun. But all states had game laws and controlled the use of guns. In cities, fire wardens regulated gunpowder storage for fear of explosions. People in “actual rebellion” could be disarmed. Private rights were always balanced by public safety. In bringing the laws of those by-gone days forward, we can embrace the fundamental wisdom of the Founders on this score. We can have our guns and regulate them, too."

CB, I did look it up and you are right, but still, we don't have a well trained militia of the people. The second amendment is clear in this regard...the militia must be well trained. Which would mean a requirement of training...

The "Living Constitution" interpretation never existed until Woodrow Wilson invented it to forward his liberal agenda. Apparently, his agenda was not compatible with the "original intent" of the founders of this country, so he needed to do away with that kind of interpretation.

If the Constitution is "living", why is always living its way Left, towards less liberty and more government? Why does it never live to the Right?

Nick, as I pointed out to Carbon Bigfuut, it doesn't matter. The second amendment, as written, without interpretation (except well regulated = well trained), seems to demand that gun owners are well trained.

Blonde8508 wrote: "But don't advocate for the rest of us to not be able to own a firearm."

Where have I done that?

It would be nice if people took time to read the comments before scolding the other commenters (or telling us what to do, or not do)...I even took time to read your rambling conspiracy theory questions in regards to a second shooter....thanks, but I will wait (for at least a week) for the official investigation results vs riling everyone up about what 'might' have happened.

In regards to what 'think the forefathers' would have done, is nothing more than speculation. We can only take the words written and apply them accordingly. We do not have a well regulated (citizen) militia.

Susan- Never once did I address YOU personally. Get over yourself. I was making a generalized comment. I have read the entire conversation. And if you took time to read the ENTIRE post that I wrote. I said in my very first line- that those "conspiracy theories" as you want to claim- were SENT TO ME BY AN ACQUAINTANCE. It just gives you something to think about, especially when most of your "theories" are coming from media and publicity. It means that MEDIA is not a CREDIBLE resource for YOUR arguments.

Blondie8508 wrote: "This is the 2nd Amendment to our Bill of Rights. In RE: to what some people have stated about "our founding father's not being able to foresee our Arms being what they are today"

Who else, other than me, spoke of this before you posted your comment? Who is "some people have stated about..."?

And I did take the time to read it all, it doesn't matter where it came from, you posted it...which is of-course your right....it's just a little telling, is all.

Blondie: I agree with you and would like to add: Our fore-fathers were pretty darn smart in not limiting guns to a certain type. The citizens of this country should be able to arm themselves with weapons that are as good as any invading army would have...even be it our own.

Mort, can you please tell me where I can purchase a surface to air missile launcher? How about a fighter jet? A drone?

Do you seriously believe that your AR-15 is going to protect you from these types of weapons that other nations (or even our own government) would use? Don't be foolish.

Actually, there is some training required to receive a permit-to-carry.

What I would like to see is the training requirements increased, rather than the banning of particular guns. We all go through a lot of driver's ed training before driving a car. The training requirement to carry a gun should be at least as much, and should include both safety and tactics. You could have all the safety training in the world, but if you don't have any tactical training, it's not going to help you when it counts.

That would bring down the number of accidental deaths significantly, in my opinion. And the tactical training would let criminals know that armed civilians are not to be trifled with.

That seems likely, Nick. How much training do you suppose the second officer (the still alive one) in Cold Spring had when he peed all over himself and fled the scene while allowing an assailant to flee and make it virtually impossible to identify who it was in the first place. I'm sure an additional class requirement will allow all those permit-to-carry folks to handle themselves under duress.

I don't think that anyone is 'DEMANDING' that everyone 'OWN or WALK AROUND' with a gun. I think that people should understand that our world is extremely imperfect and that you should BE PREPARED for anything that can arise. Do I think that people need to be educated when it comes to firearms? YES. Do I think that its a smart idea that people have at least one weapon that they can quickly and efficiently use for protection? YES. If someone comes into your home with a gun, do you think a knife or any other "weapon" is going to be effective? Probably not. Even if FIREARMS (meaning any firearms, being 'a semi automatic assault weapon' or not) are BANNED, criminals DO NOT follow the law- so they will still be able to acquire the gun if they so choose. So why wouldn't you want something that is necessary to protect yourself?
A FREE NATION should be able to choose whether or not they want to protect themselves. It should be up to the individual. Not up to government. I have had my house broken into by someone with a weapon, while I was home. Did I have a gun- NO. I sure wished I did at that point. Luckily for me, someone else saw it happening and called the police before anything could happen. Its safe to say that now, I own a gun as well as other solid weapons that I can use if anything ever happens again. No- Its not called being scared. Its called being prepared for anything. If it doesn't happen, GREAT!! If it does, well then you have a means to save yours or someones life.

Blondie, I think what you might be missing is that most people don't want to ban guns in this country, yet over half want to see those who choose to defend themselves and their neighbors, do so with the skill and practice required to be able take control of the situation. I don't want your guns, I just want to make sure you know the laws, and how to properly use them in a high stress situations, so things like shooting one's own grandchild thinking they were an intruder, or a four year old shooting and killing his two year-old sibling with an unlocked gun, don't happen. Of-course no one thinks this will happen at THEIR house, but I'm certain that those gun owners didn't think so either.

Susan- Pretty sure I am in law enforcement- SO YES, I do know how to use my firearms in high stress situations. I grew up in a household that hunts. I have known how to use a firearm for as long as I can remember. I went through firearm and hunters safety at the age of 12. So yes, I know how to use my gun. It is REQUIRED by LAW, that anyone that chooses to own and operate a firearm, take these classes. (Anyone born after 1982.) And I think that you are oblivious if you don't think that there are a pretty large amount of people that WANT to ban guns. And OUR GOVERNMENT is PUSHING for it!! Yes, there is a large quantity that doesn't want guns banned, but at the same time- there are people advocating and DEMANDING per se, that we aren't allowed to have them. People TRULY believe that only government officials should have guns.

Please post supporting information regarding: "there are a pretty large amount of people that WANT to ban guns. And OUR GOVERNMENT is PUSHING for it!!"

I am glad that you are well trained in the use of your firearms, I just want to make sure everyone else is also.

"It is REQUIRED by LAW, that anyone that chooses to own and operate a firearm, take these classes." Yes, for hunting and conceal and carry. If I want to buy a handgun for personal use, to keep at my house, what training do I need?

Also- when it comes to negligent shootings, the FIRST thing one needs to know about their firearm, IS KNOW WHAT YOUR TARGET IS. Normal people do not just get up and start shooting at something. I will do some research to find out, statistically, how many times there are shootings such as what happened with the guy shooting his granddaughter. But at the same time, there are curfew laws for a reason- and she should have been in the house. JUST MY OPINION. And just because there are a select FEW irresponsible gun owners that leave their firearms in reach of young children- does not mean that the rest of us are that way. All of our firearms (mine and my husbands) are locked in cabinets, unloaded. My handgun is on me at all times or completely hidden and out of reach of my children when its not on me. So just because FREAK ACCIDENTS happen, does not mean that it happens to every gun owner. I do believe kids need to be educated when it comes to firearms also. But people don't feel like they need to educate or teach their children anything either, anymore- but that's an entirely different subject. It comes down to people being responsible- parents need to teach their children, and actually be involved. I do believe that parenting has a lot to do with these mass shootings too.

Buying guns depends on each states law. In MN, the only guns you can purchase without a permit- is a hunting rifle or a shotgun. So yes, you would need to take classes and apply for a permit to own any others. In WI, there is a 48 hour waiting period on handguns, as well.

You do not need classes to purchase a gun. You need classes for a hunting license and conceal and carry permit, but not to own a gun to keep in your home....and many don't know the laws regarding how you are to keep that gun safely. You don't need training, in this situation, regarding the stressful situation of an intruder. If you are really in law enforcement (curious that you say law enforcement, but not police officer), you know how dangerous this situation is.

You are correct in saying that I am not a POLICE OFFICER. I am a homicide detective. I do investigations, if you must know. So yes, I started off as a police officer- which is also called LAW ENFORCEMENT. You are a real treat, that's for sure. Anyways... yes please humor me and do some research. If you LIVE IN THE STATE of MN or WI, which I assume you do- YOU CAN NOT JUST GO OUT AND PURCHASE A HANDGUN WITHOUT A PERMIT. Sorry about it.

Blondie8508 wrote: "You are correct in saying that I am not a POLICE OFFICER. I am a homicide detective. I do investigations, if you must know. So yes, I started off as a police officer- which is also called LAW ENFORCEMENT. You are a real treat, that's for sure. Anyways... yes please humor me and do some research. If you LIVE IN THE STATE of MN or WI, which I assume you do- YOU CAN NOT JUST GO OUT AND PURCHASE A HANDGUN WITHOUT A PERMIT. Sorry about it."

Speaking of treats, you sure do seem to get rattled easily.. I said it was curious...thats all. I would give you the same advice someone recently gave me, "get over yourself".

Again, (since caps seem to be your way of getting a point across), I CLEARLY SAID YOU DO NOT NEED CLASSES TO OWN A GUN TO KEEP IN YOUR HOUSE! Of-course you need a permit, THAT IS NOT CLASSES.

Okay- how do you expect to get a permit? You have to take a class to earn that privilege if you were born in 1982 or after. You seem to always have something to say- you don't listen or read correctly per se. Like I said in previous posts- do some research before you type. And as far as getting over myself- I am very humble. I do not enjoy being accused of lying by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Saying that my statement is 'curious' is just as assumptive and verbose as saying that I'm lying about being involved in law enforcement at all. Just because you are using select words, doesn't mean the thought behind it is innocent.

Curious means curious, please see above for the definition of intent for a better understanding. How in the heck can you be so humble if you presume to know my intentions when using one word AND what I do or do not do before posting?

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/Pages/firearms-permit-to-purchase-transfer.aspx

born in the 60's, I would have to fill out some paperwork and let the police do a background check...how is that training?

The rest of your comment is again filled with (humble) accusations about me that are incorrect. I do a lot of research before posting, and many here know that. Being as this seems to have become a pissing contest for you, I will bow out of this ridiculously unproductive debate and get to work. Have a great day and please understand that my INTENT is not to give up or say you are right, it is only to say that this is going absolutely nowhere. Please, at least do what you are demanding of me...

Okay if you read my comment- it specified years born that are required by law to take a class. If you do more research- preferably on the fbi's website- you will see that MOST of the mass shootings are by a male between the ages of 17 and 24. That is why they are prone to STEALING guns from a parent or other source to commit their crimes. You will also see statistics that the numbers of cases of homicides that occur by guns significantly drop at the age of 25. So chances are that someone in their late 40s or early to mid 50s that goes to buy a gun, won't be doing it to go on a mass killing spree. I am almost 30- so the people that are committing these crimes are from my generation. So yes, I would know the gun laws pertaining to the relevant situations. This 20 year old was ineligible to buy these types of guns, so he took or STOLE them from his mother. Its not like he went out and was able to purchase the firearms that were listed in the reports.

Blondie, I happen to think you are completely full of sh$*! But if you have any interest in proving me wrong, please show any evidence that a "large amount" of people want to ban all guns. I don't think believe this is the case. I would also hope that any alleged homicide detective would not be such an over dramatic blowout, it must not help your cause in court.

On this one we can agree, Randy. After thinking about it more, I am calling BS. Although it is not impossible, becoming a homicide detective at "almost 30", and claiming "so the people that are committing these crimes are from my generation. So yes, I would know the gun laws pertaining to the relevant situations", yet seemingly not understanding my comments in regards to a permit to own a gun to have in your home, seems very suspect. My guess is she is some kind of assistant in an office where the real law enforcement officers work.

Then we probably don't disagree that much if that's all you want.

Nope, as is the case in most instances, I fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

How many people use bull dozers to intentionally mow down human beings? And how many people can said bull dozer kill in ten seconds, say if someone drove it into a school?

If you truly believe this, you don't have a clear understanding of how the Constitution is applied in this country.

Mort, is there some limit to the number of comments one can make? It is my understanding that Patch encourages and even wants it's users to make comments. You see, this is how they get more clicks to bring up their numbers for advertising.

How much time do you feel is appropriate to spend online each day? Each week?

Since you have apparently found some humor in our debate I would assume that it was entertaining..when did that become a bad thing? Why don't we stick to the subject instead of going after each other - because that IS exactly what will happen. I try to be very courteous to other commenters, right up until they come after me, then it is fair game...

cont...

I am proud of our leaders in Washington that realize that the country is diverse, not made up of extremes, and that putting safety first is indeed one of the jobs of our government. Go ahead extremes, do your worst...the rational American people are not buying it anymore.

"They can and do listen to what the majority of the people in this country want - check the latest polls"

Where in the constitution is the "Governing by Polls" clause?

How about governing according to that "damned piece of paper"?

I had some hope for you, but it's apparent that you're content being one of the Monarch's subjects.

Markus, I still believe in many of the things you do and NEVER, EVER said that polls should dictate policy. What should dictate policy is the vote, and you know I believe in that. What polls do show us (as long as they are unbiased polls) is a small picture into what Americans are thinking at the time. Those Americans then go to the polls and vote for those they believe best hold theirs values...some values changed last month and the polls are only reflecting that. 70% if NRA members want universal checks...this IS NOT promoting a Monarch of any kind and you have gone round the bend if you think that tyranny and/or a monarch are my goals. Common sense and safety that abide by the Constitution (which BTW says that that militia must be well trained) is my goal. We can not survive as a society or civilization with an "every man for himself" mentality.

"What should dictate policy is the vote, and you know I believe in that."

Yes, I know you believe in that. Majority rule/democracy. The thing the founders feared the most.

23 executive orders! Simply bypass the Constitution. Bypass the pesky congress. They never "get anything done" anyway. If the president can't get what he wants, he simply degrees it. It conjures up images of Yul Brynner saying, "So let it be written, so let it be done.

If 70% of NRA members want universal checks, it only means that 70% of those people have no real understanding of what it means to be truly free. Maybe that percentage is representative of those willing to be Obama's subservient subjects and that's why there seems to be little opposition to him handing down his degrees while using children as props.

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/HitlerChildrenDM_708x800.jpg

How much freedom are you willing to give up to be "safe"?

Markus wrote: "Yes, I know you believe in that. Majority rule/democracy." WRONG!

I believe that we, in a Constitutional Republic, vote for those who we think best represent our values, and those elected officials decide policy. I adamantly oppose the majority vote, which is, in part, why I opposed the constitutional amendments in November. Did you support them? Wouldn't that be opposing what our founders wanted? The majority being able to decide/vote on the minority? Anyone who voted yes on either of the amendments has "no real understanding" or appreciation of a what our founders wanted. It was wrong to put those items to a vote of the people and I am proud at how Minnesota voters responded.

"How much freedom are you willing to give up to be "safe"?" This is nothing more than a cliche. If we TRULY lived in a society where everyone was able to do whatever they wanted in the name of freedom, we would live in absolute chaos! Our elected officials decide, debate, and vote on what are appropriate laws, rules, and regulations. If you don't like what they decide, you vote for someone else at the next election, you run for office yourself, or you move.

I must do more reading before commenting on the Executive Orders but I will say one thing, our Congress is so dysfunctional right now that I really don't have too many objections to side stepping them at this point....but of-course that's not constitutional, so as I said, I must do more reading.

Clarification: I oppose the majority vote on policy. I do think we should have let the majority of the vote decide who gets elected.

"our Congress is so dysfunctional right now that I really don't have too many objections to side stepping them at this point"

You should object with every fiber of your being! If you really believe in a republican form of government, which you say you do, the actions of the current president (and former presidents as well) should make your blood boil.

Regarding your "well regulated militia" qualifier for the second amendment, you're way off base.

How can it be that every other amendment in the Bill of Rights pertains explicitly to the rights of individuals, but you read the second amendment to somehow apply only to a "well regulated" organization? That simply doesn't pass the logic test and it's clear that was not the intended meaning.

'"How much freedom are you willing to give up to be "safe"?" This is nothing more than a cliche.'

You suggest that disarming law abiding people will keep you safer. If the police had the ability to search anyone at random, wouldn't that potentially keep us safer? How about if we didn't have to fiddle around with a trial for a heinous criminal. We could just shoot them. That would keep us safer wouldn't it? So let's get rid of the fourth amendment and the sixth amendment as well. We would all be much safer then. Because isn't safety our ultimate goal?

I don't think you really understand what freedom entails. It entails responsibility and risk. Absolute safety is an unachievable pursuit.

Markus wrote: "You should object with every fiber of your being!" Oh, for crying out loud, Markus, it was a joke, and I clarified that with the next sentence that you chose to either ignore for your purposes of correcting and scolding me, or you just didn't want to consider it.

You wrote: "Regarding your "well regulated militia" qualifier for the second amendment, you're way off base." No, I'm not. The gun advocates love to quote the second half of the amendment but often want to ignore the first part. The amendment clearly says that the militia must be well regulated. In 1791, the term "well regulated" meant "well trained". You want to own any and all the guns you want, and I want to make sure you are well trained in the laws, the use of each of the weapons, and the consequences of mistakes and sloppiness. You CAN NOT demand one line of an amendment be recognized and ignore the other, it simply does not pass the smell test.

You wrote: "You suggest that disarming law abiding people will keep you safer." Now you are just making crap up! I've never suggested that we disarm people, make guns illegal, etc. What I want are some common sense items apply to the purchase of guns – training, universal background checks, etc.

I understand freedom. I also understand anarchy. Do you? Instead of claiming that everyone who disagrees with you 'just doesn't understand', maybe you should take a look at your own position.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? The "well regulated Militia" is not a qualifier. To read it as a qualifier you would have had to have flunked English class.

In order for it to mean what you want it to mean it would have to read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Or how about this? "Only a well regulated militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms, the right of the unregulated people will be infringed."

You didn't address the clear intent of the Bill of Rights that explicitly pertains to "the people". An accurate paraphrase of the 2nd amendment could read "Since we need a well regulated militia, the people should be well armed in the case they are called into action, so the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

Even if you could make the argument more laws would keep us safer (which you can't), forcing people who have not broken any laws to be subject to a background check, which is tantamount to a search, is also a clear violation of the fourth amendment.

On another note, we need more in Law Enforcement to be like this guy.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/01/16/pine-county-sheriff-vows-to-ignore-new-gun-restrictions/

Jim, do you support the entire second amendment, or just the last line that says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I believe in the entire 2nd amendment and believe it was written to stop tyrannical leaders from doing what they want. Like bypassing the legal system and mandating law. Obama is a low life to be kind. Why did he do nothing about gun control for his first four year in office if it was soooooo important to him? Because he knows he could not have been reelected if he tried. So he waited for an opportunity, whipped up a few tears and now dictates what he wants, and if you don’t follow his lead you are evil.
If Obama keeps up what he is doing we will need a well regulated militia to protect our other freedoms.
And if Blondie8508 is truly with law enforcement that is just another reason to be well armed.

Well now, after that last line, how could I argue with you? :-)

As I said, I certainly need to read more about the executive order (and all that it entails) this weekend.

I will however, pose a question to you. Obama was certainly not guaranteed a second term. If he wanted so badly to take away our guns (or even regulate them) why did he wait until a second term, when a second term was not guaranteed? If it was his true motivation or his hidden agenda, it would be a bit silly to wait for a time when he might not be president, don't you think?

I fear you are falling for the NRA's fear mongering, but I trust that you do more reading than their (and Fox's) websites...?

Because he had zero chance of a second term if he went for our guns in a first term. It was more important to get a second term. Or maybe guns were not an issue before Election Day. If you believe that I have misjudged your IQ by quite a bit.

I choose to believe that THIS event prompted him to act as no one before has had the guts to....if that diminishes my IQ in your view, I'm okay with that.

Conspiracy theories are not my thing. I choose to judge, react, and decide based on evidence and facts. Anything beyond that is for the fringe elements on the internet....but that's just my opinion.

Wrong, and please don't twist my words. If this particular event didn't hit you hard or harder than the rest, you don't have a heart.

I will go back to what I said earlier. Obama know he could not win a second term if he went against the gun lobby. So he waited for the time to be right and whipped up a tear. He is not a stupid person and plays his cards well. We will have to wait to see who has trump.

Sure, just as GWB used ground zero as a backdrop (for a tear) so he could squash our right to privacy...I'm sure he was just waiting for it to happen. Or are you one of those who think it was staged so the president could promote his true and secret agenda?

Again, I will say...give me a break!

"Tell me, in your opinion, why did our founders even bother with the words well regulated militia?"

Reread my post. I explained it pretty clearly.

I recognize the sovereignty of the individual and subscribe to the non-aggression principle. That does not equal anarchy in the sense you think it does, as democratic majority rule (which is what we really have now) doesn't equal civilized society. In fact quite the opposite. History has borne out the fact that democracies always end and are replaced by a totalitarian government.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/democracys-road-to-tyranny/#axzz2IG3nrhet

You wrote: "You didn't address the clear intent of the Bill of Rights that explicitly pertains to "the people". An accurate paraphrase of the 2nd amendment could read "Since we need a well regulated militia, the people should be well armed in the case they are called into action, so the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

Okay, I think we are missing each other's point. I understand that you are saying that in order to maintain that well regulated militia, we need to allow everyone uninfringed access to guns. Does this mean that they should be free? What about people that can't afford to buy a gun?

Your assertion is that the founders were saying that people should be allowed guns to maintain the well regulated militia.

I am saying that the founders wanted a well regulated (trained) militia by the people.

Either way, it's clear that their goal was a well reglulated militia. How can we do that when no one is held to any standard for training?

Thanks for the links. I will dig into this deeper this weekend and please feel free to list more you think I may find helpful. I really do appreciate your input and position and pushing your buttons occasionally is my way of better understanding where you are coming from, why, and the ideology behind it.

I think our big difference is that I recognize that not everyone has good and honest intentions and many are selfish, inconsiderate, and even nefarious. We need laws and regulations, as they do work to deter some bad behavior. Even more importantly, we need to punish those who do violate the laws much more severely. We need to make the punishment more of a deterrent as obviously people just don't care anymore whether they get caught breaking laws (and/or regulations). The problem with these shootings is that most are on suicide missions...what is worse punishment than that? All we can do is try to stop them before they do it. Of-course the question is how.

One other thing and then I promise to stop rambling; I really do understand your most important point which is that our freedoms are being chipped away slowly but surely. I am only trying to find a balance between legitimate laws that are indeed needed and those laws and regulations that are ridiculous and creating more problems than they are fixing. I also understand most issues regarding gun control (and what 'shall not be infringed' means), but I feel that when we can recognize and act to stop an individual that meets those five criteria that I have listed before, stopping these events WILL be possible.

Yes, we do need to try to stop it from happening...and I know this is our other big difference, IMHO.

Well, how would someone who wants a gun, but can't afford to pay for it, get one? Isn't cost an infrigement, if one doesn't have the money?

You're fine with some idiot teenager drinking a twelve pack of beer and driving down your street at 80 mph on a Saturday afternoon putting everyone outside at risk, but you would put me in jail for sleeping with my neighbor's husband? (I haven't and wouldn't!) Are you fine with someone buying the house next to yours and blasting their music outdoors all night long? How about trying to drive to work with no speed limit? Businesses polluting and knowingly poisoning (not enough to kill) people?

Laws are made to deter behavior and protect citizens. If we have a free-for-all in society, where everyone is able to do whatever they want, with their only fear being someone's retaliation, what happens to those who are unable or don't want to fight back? They stay locked in their homes hoping those who are reckless and evil leave them alone. This IS NOT freedom!

I could list pages of examples like the drunk teenager, where laws deter behavior and help protect society, but I'm sure you see what I am saying. Yes, I agree that many laws are redundant and ridiculous, but we do need laws. I don't want to live in the wild west, especially factoring in all of today's technology.

I'm not sure that I've read anything from Joyce about gun control, but this new line of thinking may bring her out, if this thread is on her home page.

This summarizes the absurdity of more gun legislation.

http://karendecoster.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/weapon-guide.jpg

"You're fine with some idiot teenager drinking a twelve pack of beer and driving down your street at 80 mph on a Saturday afternoon putting everyone outside at risk, but you would put me in jail for sleeping with my neighbor's husband?"

That's a stretch to say I'm fine with reckless behavior. The effects of adultery can be measured in millions of destroyed families. The resulting collateral damage is countless times worse than anything most "drunk" (.08) drivers do. So who should go to jail?

I've always found it interesting that a person can cheat on their spouse, violate the marriage contract, completely destroy a person/family emotionally and financially and never spend 1 minute in jail while some guy has two beers with dinner and spends the night in jail and the next five years paying for it! It seems a little backwards.

If any driver hurts or kills someone and they're found to be grossly negligent regardless of whether they've been drinking or not, their punishment should fit the crime.

Obviously we need some laws, but most laws currently on the books could be condensed into a few basic laws protecting our life, our liberty and our property.

"Businesses polluting and knowingly poisoning (not enough to kill) people?" The city puts a known poison in our water supply and people drink it every day. Ever heard of aspartame? The FDA is totally OK with poisoning the population with that. Our government is probably the worst offender and it's perfectly legal.

What's funny here is that I don't think that I can disagree with any of your statements in this last comment.

Again, our difference is that you think (a lot) less laws will solve the problem and I think that common sense laws will solve the problem.

Drunk driving laws do stop most people from driving drunk, but yes, the current limit is asinine. I don't think you can argue that without drunk driving laws, we would have a lot more drunk drivers on the road.

One question: are you advocating that the government punish what it deems to be destructive sexual behavior? I don't disagree with your assessment of the results, but I can't believe YOU would suggest such a thing.

I'm going to change my conclusion just a bit.

From what I have read, I think that you might be saying that we CAN'T fix the problems as bad people will be bad people, and making more laws only makes more problems.

How close am I?

I think I've always understood it, it's just that I'm still trying to find that balance.

It seems that the big question is whether or not laws deter enough bad behavior to be beneficial to society.

Also whether the government should intervene with laws that help protect the innocent citizens' freedom and rights from those who do not respect those rights and freedoms.

Two interesting points and great topics for (more) debate. I think I will check in with our old thread and see if I can get any of the others back in this. I also may start digging for information on the internet regarding both items. I would think it would be very difficult to measure whether laws deter behavior and/or actually protect the innocent as there is no way to measure something that doesn't happen.