Monday Brief
The Blood of Innocents
The Foundation
"May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths." --George Washington
Publisher's Note: The Blood of Innocents
Newtown memorialA week ago, I received a text message and photograph of the Columbine Memorial, a solemn place dedicated to the memory of 12 students and a teacher who were murdered by two sociopaths at Columbine High School in 1999. The text was from my son, who visited the memorial with several other AFA Cadets as an expression of homage, and to gain some sense of this terrible incident, which they were too young to remember.
My son was a six-year-old kindergartner at the time of Columbine.
Seeing that photograph evoked distinct memories from that April day, both the grief I felt for the victim's families, and the anger I felt toward those assailants who so casually took the lives of these young people, and wounded 23 others.
That was my backdrop for the terrible news on Friday that another murderous sociopath had entered an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 precious children and six adults, after he had murdered his own mother earlier that day. Those same feelings of grief and anger emerged again -- but this time somehow made worse not only because the numbers were greater than Columbine, but in the faces of those little children I saw my own children at that age.
Most parents I have spoken with this weekend felt the same degree of empathy for the parents and families of the Sandy Hook children -- particularly four members of our Patriot Team who have children the ages of those murdered in Newtown.
We have all prayed for those families, though none of us can really grasp the extent of their grief unless we have lost one of our own.
We have prayed also for the surviving children, who suffered great trauma -- and not only those children but also the emergency medical and law enforcement personnel who rushed to the scene of this massacre, only to find the damage had been done.
Having spent some years on call with a Critical Incident Stress Debriefing team working with first responders after mass casualty incidents, I can tell you the trauma those responders experience is often forgotten, but accounts for the high incidence of PTSD in their profession.
We continue to pray for all those who have experienced varying degrees of loss in this tragedy, and further, that they would be shielded in the coming days and weeks from the inevitable political machinations that attend such tragedies.
We also pray that these families will be shielded from the coming political crossfire between those on one extreme who believe all weapons should be banned, and those on the other who believe every teacher should be armed. We most assuredly want to live in a nation where neither of these extremes is necessary.
Disgraceful Political Theater
Obama has asserted erroneously, "The vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control, [but] it doesn't pass because there is this huge disconnect between what people think and what legislators think and are willing to act upon." His disdain for grassroots gun owners was summed up in his unguarded remarks to campaign donors in 2008, when he said that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Endeavoring to close that gap, every time there is tragic mass murder where the assailant used a gun, Democrats offer the disingenuous rationale that violence is a "gun problem" rather than a cultural problem. Of course it's easier to blame guns than culture, and that serves the Left's political agenda.
The tragic attack on young students, teachers and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown is a case in point.
Before the bodies of murdered children had been removed from Sandy Hook Elementary, Barack Obama was, shamefully, stacking up the coffins of innocent kids to use as a platform for his disarmament agenda, which he and his socialist cadres will conceal behind a thin façade of "concern for public safety."
Just one paragraph into his brief remarks about the murders in Newtown, Obama tearfully exclaimed, "We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. ... We're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."
New York Demo Rep. Jerrold Nadler was less discreet in his insistence that Obama use the deaths of these children to advance the Left's gun prohibition agenda: "I think we will be there if the president exploits it." Sen. Charles Schumer added, "I think we could be at a tipping point ... where we might get something done."
Within hours of the deaths, Sen. Dianne Feinstein promised, "I'm going to introduce in the Senate -- and the same bill will be introduced in the House -- a bill to get ... weapons of war off the streets." Of course, Feinstein, et al., know that the use of so-called "weapons of war" as murder instruments is exceedingly rare -- less than 2/10ths of one percent of all homicides in America occur on school grounds, and less than three percent of all homicides are committed with "assault weapons." So what is their real agenda?
At a vigil in Newtown two days after the attack, Obama again politicized the attack, framing his remarks around his gun-prohibition agenda. He asked rhetorically, "Can we say that we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose? If we're honest with ourselves, the answer is no. And we will have to change. What choice do we have? Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?"
The day after that speech, in my daily email from the White House came a link from Obama's "senior advisor," David Axelrod, with a video link to Obama's vigil remarks posted on his "Forward" campaign Web site (and we thought the election was over). Astoundingly, the video was framed inside a page seeking donations to Obama's campaign fund.
For the record, Connecticut already has a ban on "assault weapons," and the Newtown school was already a "gun-free zone," but that didn't prevent the murders of these precious children and six adults. In fact, the assailant violated more than 20 laws in the commission of this horrific crime. Also for the record, since the "assault rifle ban" of 1994 expired in 2004, gun ownership has increased and crime has decrease.
Any honest American should be deeply offended by politicians who are so calloused that they would use the deaths of innocents as political fodder for their agenda. Could Obama not exercise the most basic decency and allow time for genuine grief to pass before exploiting the blood of innocents? Obviously not, according to the first chapter in his political playbook: "Never let a crisis go to waste."
It is no small irony that the political party that has made killing children prior to birth a pillar of their platform expresses such indignation when a sociopath places so little value on life that he murders children. Of course, it's easier to kill children who are faceless -- and I am certain that in the eyes of the sociopathic killer in Newtown, his victims also had no faces.
Further, acknowledging that the majority of murders and other violent crimes in our country are the direct result of social and cultural degradation on urban welfare plantations would be, first and foremost, an indictment of the socialist welfare state advocated by Democrats. Thus, they call for more gun control -- on top of the 20,000 gun control laws now on the books.
Fact is, on average almost 50 people are murdered every day, two-thirds of them with guns. It is statistically notable that about one-third of murders are not committed with guns, and moreover, blacks and Latinos commit a grossly disproportionate number of all murders and the victims are predominantly blacks and Latinos.
For example, the very weekend that Obama and his race hustlers attempted to politicize the shooting of Trayvon Martin by "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman earlier this year, the Chicago Sun-Times (Obama's hometown paper) reported that in just 48 hours, 10 people were murdered and at least 40 others were seriously wounded. Most of the assailants and victims were black or Latino, but not a word from Obama about those murders.
Moreover, as of this date in 2012, 62 young people between the age of 6 and 18 have been murdered in Chicago this year, a city with the toughest gun restrictions in America. Not a word from Obama about any of those deaths because they reflect the aforementioned cultural problems created by Leftist social policies, not a "gun problem."
Even Karen Lewis, head of the Chicago Teachers Union, commented on the commercialization of the Newtown tragedy: "There might have been a time where 'politicizing' tragic events, especially mass shootings, was thought to be in poor taste. That has changed with the 24/7 news cycle that continues to focus far too much time and energy on the perpetrator of the massacre than that of our precious victims."
Lewis said Obama's education policies "kill and disenfranchise children." "We in Chicago have been the victims of their experiments on our children since the current secretary of Education [Arne Duncan] 'ran' the Chicago Public School system."
Notwithstanding the fact that violence is not a "gun problem," given Obama's disgraceful exploitation of the Newtown deaths, expect to see aggressive second term proposals endeavoring to implement bold encroachments on the Second Amendment.
Additionally, watch Obama's effort to spin the Newtown attack in order to rally two-thirds of the Senate for passage of the United Nations' Arms Trade Treaty regulating small arms. The ATT is a Trojan Horse. While it ostensibly exempts domestic gun sales and ownership in the U.S., with the stroke of a pen, it could implement severe gun restrictions and even confiscations -- an end run on the Second Amendment that would provide political cover for gun-grabbing Leftists in the Senate and House.
It is worth noting that the sale of firearms has skyrocketed since Obama's election -- for obvious reasons. If Obama is really concerned about the proliferation of firearms, perhaps he should resign his office.)
Benjamin Franklin proclaimed, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." In the case of those who would give up Essential Liberty for nothing more than the perception of a little temporary safety with more gun prohibitions, indeed they deserve neither Liberty nor safety and, ultimately, will lose both.
To that end, I share these words from a man whose name is synonymous with peace: "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." --Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
Observations on Violence and Media Misrepresentation
Just two weeks ago in an essay about responsible gun ownership, I wrote:
"Obama has asserted erroneously, 'The vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control, [but] it doesn't pass because there is this huge disconnect between what people think and what legislators think and are willing to act upon.' Endeavoring to close that gap, every time there is tragic mass murder where the assailant used a gun, Democrats offer the disingenuous rationale that violence is a "gun problem" rather than a cultural problem. Of course it's easier to blame guns than culture, and that serves the Left's political agenda.
"However, acknowledging that the majority of murders and other violent crimes in our country are the direct result of social and cultural degradation on urban welfare plantations would be, first and foremost, an indictment of the socialist welfare state advocated by Democrats. Thus, they call for more gun control -- on top of the 20,000 gun control laws now on the books.
"Fact is, on average almost 50 people are murdered every day, two-thirds of them with guns. It is statistically notable that about one-third of murders are not committed with guns, and moreover, blacks and Latinos commit a grossly disproportionate number of all murders and the victims are predominantly blacks and Latinos."
In fact, the very weekend that Obama and his race hustlers attempted to politicize the shooting of Trayvon Martin by "white Hispanic" George Zimmerman earlier this year, the Chicago Sun-Times (Obama's hometown paper) reported that in just 48 hours, 10 people were murdered and at least 40 others were seriously wounded. Most of the assailants and victims were black or Latino, but not a word from Obama about those murders.
As for the media misrepresentation of the Newtown attack, though virtually every news outlet is reporting that this was the "worst school attack in history," the most lethal attack on a school occurred in 1927, when a disgruntled Bath, Michigan, school-board member murdered 45 people, including 38 elementary students -- with a bomb.
Additionally, virtually every media reference to the assailant in Newtown refers to him as "the shooter." Well, like some sixty million Americans, I am a "shooter." The assailant who murdered 27 women and children in Newtown was a sociopathic murderer who used a gun. He murdered them, not the gun.
In the words of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD, "Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Finally, while we remain faithful in our prayers for all victims of violence, we remain vigilant in our preparedness to defend the innate right to Liberty "endowed by our Creator." In the words of Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Opinion in Brief
"Arguments over the merits of gun control are made all the more difficult to navigate by the Left's stubborn denial that we are already having a debate on the issue. Gun control propositions are by no means new, and nor is there a lack of a 'national conversation on the subject.' Instead, the national conversation is ongoing, and the Left is losing it badly. Gun control advocates may talk of national soul searching and dialogue, but in truth that already exists; what they mean is that they'd like to win for a change. ... There are at least two hundred million privately owned guns in America, and Connecticut regulates access to them more strictly than most. To believe that [Friday's] crime could have been prevented, you have to presume either that a man willing to go to such grievous lengths could have been deterred from doing so by stronger laws, or that those stronger laws could rid America of privately available guns completely -- thus making the killer's task an impossible one. I believe neither thing. To pass a law is not to achieve its aims, and one suspects that any attempt at gun control in America ... would be destined to be filed next to Prohibition and the War on Drugs in the annals of man's folly. American liberties, including the Second Amendment and the 40-plus state-level guarantees of the right to bear arms, pre-exist the federal government, and are defined and protected in the same document from which the state derives its authority and its structure. In a free republic, the people cannot be disarmed by the government, for they are its employers, and they did not give up their individual rights when they consented to its creation. There is no clause in our charters of liberty that allows for the people to be deprived of their freedom if and when a few individuals abuse theirs." --National Review's Charles C. W. Cooke
Essential Liberty
"In the wake of the Conn. shooting, the 2nd Amendment has become a focal point for anti-gun proponents once more. Their message is that it's time to re-evaluate the right to keep and bear arms, but the mistaken assumption is that the 2nd Amendment is easy to change. Like all amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment does not create a right. Rather, it recognizes a right with which we were 'endowed by [our] Creator.' ... Normally stressed in this amendment are the two obvious assertions: 1. We possess 'the right to keep and bear arms' and, 2. That right 'shall not be infringed.' But of crucial importance is the fact that this amendment is the only one which protects a right our Founders considered 'necessary to the security of a free state.' Obvious implications: No armed citizenry = no free state. This is why the Founders made this amendment so difficult to change or eliminate. ... The difficulty required to change this amendment ought to give us pause. For our Founders went out of their way to be sure the rights protected by the Bill of Rights could not be easily stripped of their amendments." --Breitbart's AWR Hawkins
Insight
"We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst." --British author C.S. Lewis (1898-1963)
Government
"Democrats in Washington declare that they will absolutely, positively allow no changes whatever in the nation's unsustainable entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare. But out in the states, politicians of both parties aren't averting their gaze from impending fiscal crises. They are working to change policies that put state governments on an unsustainable trajectory. The most obvious example was the passage of a right-to-work law last week in Michigan, the birthplace of the United Auto Workers union. ... Michigan's law is similar to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's law limiting public employee unions' bargaining powers and stopping the automatic flow of taxpayer money to union treasuries. Unions there protested, but Walker prevailed in a June 2012 recall election. The Michigan and Wisconsin laws were partisan Republican measures, opposed by all local Democrats. ... But in many states, reform is taking hold, led by Republicans in some cases but by Democrats, as well. The fiscal squeeze is felt more urgently in the states: They can't print money and can't count on Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve to buy 70 percent of their bonds. Some Democrats in Congress recognize that entitlement programs are on an unsustainable path. But they're not saying much in public. Meanwhile, Barack Obama seems to be heeding the advice of those who say entitlements must never, never be reformed." --columnist Michael Barone
Re: The Left
"So Democrat Rep. Jim Moran's son -- [the] same one James O'Keefe caught on camera strategizing about voter fraud -- plead guilty to assault against his girlfriend and only got probation for fracturing her skull. And Jim Moran's statement on the matter: 'They look forward to putting this embarrassing situation behind them.' Because when you smash a woman's head into a trashcan, it sure is embarrassing for both of you. We're not talking Ted Kennedy level embarrassing hijinks, but at least one of them definitely had a red face after that. And of course the left, so concerned about women are... completely avoiding talking about this whatsoever. Because they don't want to embarrass the parties any further by acting like it ever happened -- just like with Juanita Broaddrick. Liberals are real stand up people." --humorist Frank J. Fleming
The Gipper
"We still find pleasure in exchanging greetings and gifts, and we still delight in the warm and colorful images of the holiday. But we perceive ever more clearly, as did Scrooge, that the true beauty and wonder of the season lie in the Christmas spirit of giving of ourselves for others -- the message of the Prince of Peace whose birth we celebrate." --Ronald Reagan
Political Futures
"Republicans remain nostalgic for Ronald Reagan, perhaps the most optimistic president in Republican history. Even in his final 'letter to the American people,' announcing he had Alzheimer's disease, Reagan spoke of his great love for this country and his optimism for its future. That optimism was catchy. Reagan ignited faith in the American people that they, better than government, could improve their lives. ... Republican principles work, but they must be shown to work, not just talked about, if they are to be embraced by people who now reject them because Republicans don't 'show up' like Jack Kemp did. Too many Republicans are known for what they oppose, not for what they propose. For too many, the power of positive thinking has been turned into the weakness of negative thinking and opposition to the liberal agenda. Jack Kemp once told me, 'You don't beat a thesis with an antithesis; you beat it with a better thesis.' That must be the 'new' Republican theme if the party wants to secure future victories." --columnist Cal Thomas
Faith and Family
"[O]ne of the historic parties here in the United States [has] adopted the sins of Romans 1 as their platform. This is a new day in our country. Parties which used to differ on economics now differ dramatically on issues that invade the realm of God's law and morality. In an ideal situation, their platform would mean that the government passes out condoms so people can fornicate at will. For those who happen to get pregnant in the process, the platform advocates that you kill the baby at the will of the mother, up to and including the ninth month. At the same time it advocates homosexual marriage, which is an oxymoron, an utter impossibility, and a gross violation of the law of God. And then, to add to that, the murder of abortion and then a platform originally leaving God out. All of that's Romans 1. ... Leaving God out, advocating abortion, advocating homosexuality, advocating free sexual conduct and government-provided condoms so that everybody can do what they want -- that is literally creating a platform out of what God hates." --pastor John F. MacArthur
The Gift of Liberty
For last-minute shoppers, there is no better gift than the gift of Liberty. Help ensure that your loved ones will continue to enjoy the blessings of Liberty that our Creator has bestowed upon us. So that we may effectively battle the enemies of what you hold dear, make a secure online donation today to The Patriot Post's 2012 Year-End Campaign. If you prefer to support us by mail, please send your donation with our printable donor form.
We still must raise $105,415 by year's end!
The Last Word
"Ruining America has really paid off for Barry Soetoro so far. In addition to a second term, he's won a Nobel Peace Prize, a Grammy, an Emmy, Time's Person of the Year, Favorite President at the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Award, the 2009 Super Bowl MVP, I think he won American Idol one year, and he's received numerous other awards. Well-deserved all. Of course, in his grace and magnanimity, he allows his inferiors to win some awards as well. People also like to name stuff after Obama, as is his due. A bunch of schools across the country now bear his name. Recently a newly discovered species of darter fish was immortalized with the name Etheostoma Obama. There's a kind of lichen called Caloplaca obamae. When you think about it, everything is Obama and we're only just starting to catch up. The Boston Globe reports on the latest manifestation of mankind accepting our destiny: 'Yale scientists name Obamadon, a slender-jawed lizard, after the President. ... The ancient lizard species bearing President Obama's name was discovered when researchers from Yale and Harvard universities re-examined fossil collections all across the country, as part of an effort to understand what happened to lizards and snakes during the mass extinction that killed off the dinosaurs.' ... Do you find this odd, lowly mortal? It is not for you, serf, to question the ways of ... scientists. On the other hand ... this lizard was wiped out millions of years ago. So maybe these scientists are actually racists? Come to think of it, everything is racist unless we're specifically told otherwise. You know, I think I should await further instructions before I say anything more about this. Forget about the Obama lizard, everybody. Move along." --The Daily Caller's Jim Treacher
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
468 Comments
MoeLarryCurly in CA
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Funny how a rash of school violence happened during Bill Clinton's war with the NRA during his 8 years. These weren't mainstream events during the Bush 8 years. Now, lo & behold, another Democrat in the White House and the rash of school shootings are amongst us again.
Tom Alston in Elk Grove, CA
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM
100% of the school shootings that I have investigated have been caused by Psychiatry and their psychotropic drugs. Howver there is a connection betwwn the bank investigations of the libor scandal and possible testimony on CT and CO this year. The drugs are used to control the shooters. Ban psychs not guns
desert in arizona
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:22 PM
couldn't be mind control and sending out idiots to do their dirty work could it?
MoeLarryCurly in CA
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Somethin' smells doesn't it?
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Want it to stop? ARM THE TEACHERS!
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Here is the REAL tragedy, Free Public Education! BAN SCHOOL BUSSES
Problem Solved! NEXT!
"Between 2000 and 2009, 1,386 people nationwide died in school transportation-related crashes — an average of 139 fatalities per year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration."
http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20121210/new-york-city/citys-public-school-buses-were-involved-1700-accidents-last-year#ixzz2FKsvUt3n
Craigclev in MT
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 3:14 PM
There has to be a mind for someone else to control so you are very likely safe along with every other intellect that thinks this event was a conspiracy to take our guns.
Arming teachers and first graders would not be an answer as how to you keep the kids from getting ahold of them and still have them ready enough to be effective? I love to hunt and I was an Outfitter in Montana and I will say there is no reason to own a gun with greater than 5 rounds capacity. That would make a difference in these mass killing amd if we who love the sporting life do not get a grip on the complete kooks in our midst and realize assault weapons, 50mm rifles, and high capacity clips are at least as in need of regulation as a switchblade knife, we will see our legitimate rights to reasonable gun ownership curtailed.
John Q Citizen in Colorado
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM
Obviously sir you do not understand the intent of the 2nd amendment. The right to bear arms is to ensure that the government is unable to control the citizenry using armed aggression. The citizen is to be able to be armed in order to "throw of such government". The British tried to disarm the colonists, had they succeeded we would not be a nation.
Craigclev in MT
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 6:27 PM
Just so you know I do know here it is. "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." You can mythologize all you want but you note the right is tied to the need for a well regulated milita which is to protect the free state not defend against it. Also the arms you have the right to bear are not specific. Nuclear arms are not a constitutionally protected right.
Hamilton in IL
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 7:08 PM
Craigclev,
Anyone can quote the second amendment, brain boy. You can quote it, but I agree with others that maybe you don't understand it. In the old english of the time, "well regulated" would mean "well equipped" by today's vernacular, not 'well controlled' as you assert.
During the revolutionary war, one of Washington's biggest problems was a lack of arms. By that experience, the Founders knew the value of being well equipped, and therefore they wanted that condition for The People. Hence, the second amendment.
You are correct, that the "arms" aren't specified. Gee brain boy, have you ever thought that that was maybe by intent? Did you ever consider that with a lack of specificity, we would need to refer to our history for the true meaning? No, probably not. Liberals like you don't value the accuracy provided by the historical context. That's why you insist that the Constitution is undefined and open ended, that there's no right or wrong in it.
Do you think the Founders meant for the People to keep and bear single-shot flint-locks, forever, never mind technological progress with the passage of time? Less than a decade after the close of the war, who could they have had in mind as they envisioned an armed citizen? Could it have been the foot soldier who won their freedom, and the freedom of generations of progeny? Of course; who else? By that standard, and comparing our citizenry to our military, our citizenry is under-armed.
Craigclev in MT
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 8:18 PM
Thanks for the Brain-boy label. I am sure no one has call you that lately. Anyone who disagrees even slighty needs to be attacked and called names. Perhaps you are not very "well regulated". I have spent more time with a gun in my hands than most anyone outside of the military or police. Please reread the second amendment and show me where it gives you the right to own any and all military grade weapons to counter our own military.. It is morons like you that will cause reasonsible rational sportsmen like me to lose our rights
Hamilton in IL
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Craigclev,
The second amendment doesn't need to be explicit about the type of arms. I explained to you why that is. Maybe you could re-read what I wrote and try again. And please drop the "sportsmen" reference. OMG, you sound so naive. The right to keep and bear arms had nothing at all to do with maintaining rights to be sportsmen.
If the Founders didn't mean for the People to be able to counter our own military, then being under-armed next to the military wouldn't have made sense, and it also wouldn't have made sense for the Constitution to place limitations on the size of our military. Just because a country's military is "their" military, doesn't make the military a group of uncorruptable angels, always loyal to the People. World history has proven that.
Liberals will take a mile if given an inch. It's fools like you who are willing to give them that inch, and thus start us down the road to gun confiscation and serfdom. My calling you a brain-boy is the very least I can do considering the fact that it is your actions, and the similar actions of other compromising useful idiots, who will cave to the Liberals, and lose us our rights and our liberty. Go ahead and give up your guns but I take offense at your liberal attitude and voting actions that can obligate me to lose my gun rights.
Craigclev in MT
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM
Rereading your previous posts is tedious and unilluminating but this one is pretty humorous. First off, your right to bear arms is already highly conditioned. You do not have the legal right to have automatic arms, explosive shells and grenades or even, as I pointed out before, a switchblade knife. You call me naïve and yet you are the one proposing gun ownership to hold off our own government. I can think nothing more naïve than the dangerous misconception that somehow owning a particular type of gun will keep you safe from arrest. Do you think you're going to hold off the US government with light arms. So did the people in Waco and the freemen here in Montana. It did not work out so well for them how you think it will work out for you? I'd be willing to bet that you do not even own a gun.
The vast majority of gun owners in the United States are sportsmen and the most legitimate form of gun ownership is for sporting and recreational use. Of course also home protection and for those who are not "well regulated"personal carry. The second amendment does not give Americans gone ownership rights to hold off or counter the US government and military. That is crazy talk and was not part of anyone's intent, founding fathers or not. That line of illogic is a recent invention of people who are definitely not patriots! The founding fathers gave us numerous mechanisms for changing our government. Armed insurrection was not one of those mechanisms they countenanced or provided for in the Constitution.
Craigclev in MT
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM
I see that you have pulled out the most terrible word you know and called me a liberal or at least complicit with these terrible people. The whole reason I became involved in this conversation in the first place is that it is likely that there are some rational reasonable readers who like myself do not want to end up losing our relatively unfettered gun rights as sportsmen and recreationists because of kooks who think this horrible event was some type of a conspiracy for gun control, or It had to do with mind control or that the solution lies in more guns in schools. The most disconcerting thing is that there are a fair amount of people who cannot think for themselves and have been convinced that the second amendment is to protect us against our own government. You can believe that if you want even though it says the opposite, but that is truly naïve and completely incorrect. I do not want to lose my gun rights because the public turns against people who have both crackpot ideas of armed insurrection and assault weapons with which to carry it out at least for a short time.
Hamilton in IL
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Craigclev,
The arms restrictions you mentioned happened 143 corrupt years after ratification of the second amendment.
Waco is a good example of government corruption. Their job was to arrest those people on suspicion of child endangerment. Instead they massacred them. Are you also forgetting Ruby Ridge?
On that bet about me not owning guns, you would lose big time.
Regarding your “sportsmanship” purpose for guns: A 2005 Gallup poll showed “that most gun owners use their guns for each of these three purposes: crime protection (67%), target shooting (66%), and hunting (58%).”
You think that what I say to you is “crazy”, when it’s actually true, and as intended by the Founders. Either you’re not reading what I write, or you just don’t understand it. Maybe you can understand what others have written:
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." – Thomas Jefferson
"...It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control...The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them." - Samuel Adams
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." – Alexander Hamilton
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." – Thomas Jefferson
"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" – James Madison
Alice in Kansas City, MO
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Our forefathers would not have known about the assault weapons available today. Bearing Arms then and now are far different. Black Powder Rifles against assault weapons? We must protect our Second Ammendment Rights, at the same time we must think and be rational about the answers to the problems and evils that exist in the world we now live in.
ChuckL in Henderson
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 5:37 PM
Craig, You are aware that the caliber of a gun with 50 MM ammunition would be 1.969, aren't you? The cannon in an A-10 is only 35 mm. And with rapid reloading magazines and stripper clips the actual capacity of these magazines or clips is actually irrelevant.
You might also consider that as they are also "arms" knives may also not be regulated.
Craigclev in MT
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM
You are correct about 50 cal vs mm. The point remains the same and you better check with your local police department about your protected right to own an auto deploying knife.
Scott in Wichita
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 6:45 PM
Craigclev: why do you bring up .50 cal firearms? Can you tell me when one was used in a crime or mass shooting?
Also, are you classifying .50 cal muzzle loaders as "assault weapons"? Just an FYI...no such item as an "assault weapon". This is a term used by and loved on by the leftist media and the elitist prostitutes that work in DC.
Craigclev in MT
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 7:41 PM
I bring up 50 cal firearms as an example of a weapon that I do not want in the hands of the general public. Just like military style AR-15s and semi-autos/autos designed to hold more than 10 rounds. Those are widely known as assault weapons because they are not sporting guns And no I do not mean 50 cal muzzleloades or airguns. Just call me a leftist elitest prostitute ex-outfitter from Montana. Aussault weapons have 0 purpose except to kill people and if gun rights supporters can not draw that distinction we will all lose our rights to unfettered gun ownership. Bluster all you want but most people are appalled at this tragedy and if most people decide to take your gun you will lose them..
Scott in Wichita
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM
I'm glad you think the universe rotates around you and your sporting likes. However, there are many who enjoy long range bench rest shooting using .50 cal, .416, .408, and .338....are you wanting to ban those too? Afterall, they are evil looking and no one really needs them.
If most people decide to take my firearms I will lose them? Really, you really should be living in the EU somewhere. Your "let me live as a slave to the state" mentality is an insult to every freedom loving American. Mob rule mentality...leads to slavery.
Hamilton in IL
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 8:01 PM
Craigclev,
You love to hunt and think the second amendment is all about the "sporting life". Buddy, you're part of the problem. I don't hunt, and likely never will, because I don't like killing things. So I don't hunt but I understand the second amendment very well. Someone needs to invent a true "way back" machine so you can go back in time to our Founding and learn the truth about the second amendment.
And who is suggesting to arm first graders anyway? - wtf? -
You and many others are very arrogantly ignoring the human factor as THE ONLY CAUSE of gun carnage. It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools. And it's a corrupt or weak-minded person who blames guns for this violence.
Liberals are the ones with the blood on their hands. They are the ones who support our wrong-headed approach to mental illness in this country. Relying on a mentally ill person to take their meds without fail is like relying on a hyperactive child with a full bladder to hold his finger in the dike to prevent the town from flooding. These various psychotropic medications don't cure mental illness; they just mask the symptoms, and only if they are taken correctly and regularly. And it's against the law to force a psychotic to take his meds. The problem is that we main-stream our kooks and ignore their behavior. We ignore the obvious warning signs of these people when they're children. The Connecticut killer demonstrated warning signs for years. His mother covered for him; he reached 20 years old, and ... ... About four generations ago, back before Liberals and shrinks thought they could cure mental illness, an in-law relative of mine, with warning signs as he grew up, finally came after his sister with a knife. He was wrestled to the ground, taken away by the guys in the white coats, and never heard from again. This probably saved lives.
Liberals also have blood on their hands because they promote leniency for violent criminals. Our judicial system is a joke. How many times do we hear about violent crimes reported on the news, only to learn that the offender(s) have a long rap sheet, yet they're back out on the streets like wolves in the hen house? Roughly three decades ago, I heard an FBI statistic that said something to the effect that around 85% of new crimes are committed by repeat offenders. So what affect could we have on crime if we just threw those first-timers in the slammer for good?
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Hamilton, I concur with you on numerous subject. I concur with the usage of old English. this is food for thought, not my usual argument.
I am a hunter, I legally carry a sidearm as does my wife. I do not see why any civilian needs a military assault weapon.they are not game rifles. If I cannot drop a deer or a bear in 3 rounds, I need to hang it up. If I am forced to defend myself, if I can't stop someone with one round, then I need to stay home. I will keep my weapons yet there has to be some logical compromise. In a natin of over 270 million weapons, we are the most well armed yet the most violent nation on earth.
I read mind control, psychology. Fine, lets start there. How many movies, how many video games are extremely violent. We are desenatizing our youth to the point of disconnect with reality. start there. Start with quit defunding psychology and above all watch out for those who could be dangerous.
The problem isn't weapons, it's the type of weapons, the problem is we glorify violence. the problem is border towns such as mine where drug gangs has taking to drive by's and home invasion. We face multiple problems and we need multiple solutions.
Hamilton in IL
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:53 PM
R.K. Sprau,
The rights to the acquisition of game had nothing to do with the reasons for the second amendment.
Civilians need military assault weapons as a counter-balance to a potential corrupt military. Can any nation rely 100% on the perpetual allegiance of its military? No.
The Founders also included restrictions on the size of our military for the same reason.
I agree with you that the problem isn't the weapons, but I don't the type of weapons either. If the type of weapons were the problem, then our military would be racked with carnage, but they're not. Like I said to the big-game hunting braggart above, "It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools".
The problem is the combination of a wide array of American maladies, embedded into our culture, some of which you quite correctly cited.
Craigclev in MT
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Lets see, this crazy relative of yours had a knife and was wrestled to the ground with no injury. Now if he would of had access to a Bushmaster AR-15 with a couple of 30 round clips who would have wrestled him to the ground? To paraphrase, his not having nonstop access to 30 rounds of .223 ammo "probably saved lives"
Hamilton in IL
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:44 PM
Oh, you're so clever. But you're short-sighted. The eventual extension of your argument is complete disarmament. Cave men had that condition and the bigger ones ruled over the smaller ones, and there was no justice. Then the club and spear makers entered the mix, and once again, there was no justice.
Rush Limbaugh mentioned that the worst mass killing came about by use of an explosive, not a Bushmaster.
If we disarm ourselves, the armed "authorities" will rule over us. This is axiomatic now, just as it was axiomatic back during our Founders time as they examined world history as research for their government-creation endeavor. That is the reason for the second amendment.
Craigclev in MT
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 10:41 AM
As normal, Rush was wrong by several orders of magnitude. The worst mass killing did come about from an explosion or actually two in Japan. Does that mean by your logic that in order to counter the military we should all have the right to our own personal nuke? The second amendment is one sentence long and is simple to determine its meaning. The only thing difficult about it is whether or not it actually includes an individual right to bear arms outside of a militia. The current administration, as hated as it is by Rush and others, is the first to acknowledge the individual right to bear arms outside of the militia derived from the second amendment. Look it up I did and it's true.
Compared to the authorities we are already disarmed and there is no way for individual citizens to usurp the government's authority thankfully. I certainly do not want an armed group of my neighbors taking the law into their own hands. Whether or not we can own superficially converted automatic weapons or extended round clips will not change the balance of power between you and the police one iota so the slippery slope argument is fallacious. I enjoy blasting off a bunch of rounds at the range much as anyone but I am more than willing to change clips often and to not own the most bad ass looking gun out there if it will keep that same gun out of the hands of nuts like your in law. The amount of enjoyment I get from owning something is not equivalent to any one person's life.
Hamilton in IL
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Craigclev,
The second amendment is obviously an individual right since it refers to the People, as does other rights in the bill of rights, which Liberals haven't challenged. The composition of the army is covered in the body of the Constitution.
And you're wrong about the current administration. In recent memory, the Bush administration recognized the second amendment as an individual right. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, in May of 2001, acknowledged that official truth. Due to recent supreme court cases, most notably the District of Columbia vs. Heller case, and then the McDonald vs. Chicago case, the Obama administration has begrudgingly had to concede.
Obama has no intention of protecting your gun rights - in fact, quite the opposite. He has been relatively quiet about gun control because he knows a lot of his base are relatively poor folks, but gun owners. Also, gun ownership in black communities is high (for self-protection). Obama knows that blacks wouldn't take kindly to him being against their gun ownership.
The quotes I included for you (way above in the stack) should help you understand that the Founders considered the genesis of a corrupt government to be a distinct possibility. Their "militia" was the People, the citizen soldier, and that our regular military was meant exclusively for our protection.
R Daneel in Texas
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 9:06 PM
50mm? What is that? No military or civilian round I know of....
I think I smell moby on you.
Try this: "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
Craigclev in MT
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 10:38 PM
And I smell someone who quotes out of context. Sam Adams is great beer but the quote has nothing to do with guns. FYI a real patriot defends our country, its people and our government and does not foolishly (Waco anyone) set out to arm themselves against it.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 9:10 AM
So, Craig, where will you be turning your guns in then? Heck, we have a special muzzle-loader season here and .50 caliber is used regularly. That's all that is really necessary to give game a sporting chance. You may keep all of your muzzle-loaders and nothing else. Turn the rest in as they are not necessary.
Craigclev in MT
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM
That is the point of this G.U.D, I do not want to have to turn in my guns. None of them hold 10 rounds or more. If we gun rights supporters do not have the smarts to realize that Assault weapons and large capacity magazines are going to turn the public against us if we can not seperate legitimate sporting and target shooting arms from military grade weapons in what we choose to publicly defend, we will see more restrictions than needed. The 2nd amendment, as I have pointed out, does not say or do what many gun owners think it says or does as is obvious by the posts indicating it is there to protect the citizenry from government overreach. That is simply not true nor does any reading of "old English" make it so. We shooters are dependent on the public good will to continue the open gun ownership rights we now enjoy. I for one want to assure the public gun owners are responsible and do not want the nuts who used to have only knives (see Hamilton above) to get ahold of an AR-15 or 23 with a high capacity magazine. We all agree to some gun type restriction, automatic weapons, exploding shells, hand grenades are something we all agree we do not want the crazy neighbor who is screaming angry about whose trash can sits where to have. This slippery slope argument is nonproductive as we already have many arms we have no right to bear.
Ret RED HORSE in MO
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 2:03 AM
I think you might be making up some junk to move an agenda. Craigclev. First point is -- if you were an outfitter I would guess you might know the difference in an assault rifle and a semi auto rifle. There is other differences as well, Second point-- A 50 mm rifle aint held to your shoulder. You would have used the term "Magazine" in your delievery of bovine scat.
Craigclev in MT
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 9:29 AM
You caught me! I am really an ATF agent posting here to determine who needs their mind control beam adjusted so all the Patriots who would resist the coming socialist takeover have been turned into Obamatrons who will willingly turn in Grandpa's model "97". Better put on your tin foil hat! Just so you know we at the ATF consider any weapon that exists as or can be modified to be fully automatic as an assault weapon. Sportsman call them clips. You know, where the bullets go.haha.
R.K. sprau in L.C. N.M.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 7:51 PM
I don't care who you are but that's funny. What's sad is some people actually fall into this category.
Craigclev in MT
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Yes, it's true we have both Obamatrons and tinfoil mad hatter's. Our government is not the source of all good nor is it the source of all evil. But it is ours and it is made up of us and so it is incumbent on us to change from within what we don't like like the Founders intended. Not, in my opinion, to threaten personal armed insurrection based on disagreeing with a duly elected government.
Infidel in Missouri
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Gents -
Let's dispense with the childish name-calling shall we? This has become much more prevalent on this site as of late (not just with this post). I think the tragedy in CT provoked an invitation for adult conversation and debate. I have to question the maturity of those whose comments degenerate to those you might hear at a school yard. Just sayin...
I can't remember exactly where and, unfortunately, don't have the time right now to research it, but don't The Federalist Papers address (without any doubt) the true meaning behind the Second Amendment (being primarily about defending against a tyrannical governement)?
Craigclev in MT
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Please, as a voice of moderation, take the time to research this point and you will find that the "true meaning" of the 2nd amendment is to protect our nation against another tyrannical government. That is after all what it says. "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."
Infidel in Missouri
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 11:56 AM
I will absolutely do so. However, I note that you appear to be distinct about "another" tyrannical government? Do I assume you to say that OUR OWN government could not possibly become tyrannical?
Why then do you suppose that the oath taken by everyone in the military to "...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."? Do you believe that that this only applies to cases of insurrection and not tyranny from within?
Craigclev in MT
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 12:25 PM
When do you think the military should turn against our government and how would that work? The oath does not allow for treason as that is what that would be. This insistence on playing at arming against the US government is bat crap crazy. Do the police avoid arresting you because you own guns? No, they will kill you if you pull it out and tell them to go away. Our goverment is us, if you dont like it change it from within, arming against it is not patriotic and not very smart as goverments hold a monoply on coercion.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 3:51 PM
"... as goverments hold a monoply on coercion."
Precisely! And that is the reason that our founding patriots rebelled against what ... a tax levied on tea without being consulted? Well, I'll give you that it was just the straw that broke the camel's back, but our Founders recognized that a disarmed (or in their case, poorly armed) populous was easily subjected to tyranny. So, hooray for you! You do not have any weapons that hold more than 10 rounds or are semi-automatic. That makes me feel so good inside. I can sleep easily now. Thank you.
Hamilton in IL
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 6:41 PM
Craigclev,
You've got it completely backwards. Shame on you for spreading such disinformation.
The second amendment is one of the bill of rights. The bill of rights was crafted after the Constitution was finished, because some of the Founders became concerned that the Federal government would be too powerful. So the intent of the bill of rights was to state, for the record, that it is the People who have the rights, not government.
Our militia was the People, i.e. citizen soldiers. As citizen soldiers, it would have been obviously redundant to state that it was our right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves from another tyrannical government. The Constitution describes the raising of an army.
Infidel in Missouri
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Interesting. What, then, are your thoughts about Rule of Law and the Constitution? Do you believe that it is okay for President Obama to not have a budget during any year of his administration - even though he is bound by law to do so? Do you believe that it is okay for President Obama to request that he have sole authority to "own" the spending limit even though those powers are explicitly granted only to the Legislative Branch? Do you believe it is within the powers of ANY branch of government to ban the ability to keep and to bear arms? If so, then I would suggest that you do not support the Rule of Law.
This is the point at which I believe true Patriots need to begin to sit up and take notice. These examples may indeed be the small beginnings of tyranny. This, of course, is only my opinion and I am always willing to be open to changing my opinion (as I would hope we all are if the facts are the facts)...
florin in Waterbury, Connecticut
Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 8:53 AM
Dec. 19th. This is exactly what we here in Connecticut have been saying Craigclev...the Principal who lunged at the shooter to try to take him down was mowed down quickly with rapid fire shooting as were the little children whose small bodies were riddled with bullets meant to do as much damage and destruction as possible. Let people have their hand guns and hunting rifles there is no reason for these rapid fire military style weapons - none!!! Just ask the parents and families of the slain in Newtown.
Hamilton in IL
Thursday, December 20, 2012 at 11:27 PM
florin,
You're running on emotion and thinking short-sighted, like Craigclev.
History shows that governments cannot be 100% trusted. Government tyranny is a true potential in a macro sense, just as one man's desire to dominate over another man, or a woman, is tyranny in a micro sense. It's an ugly yet true aspect of humanity. Governments accomplish and maintain tyranny by unholy relationships with the military. Think, the Third Reich. The Founders conceived of the second amendment and an armed citizenry as their means to help prevent this. This is the reason for these weapons. You rail at the Newtown carnage, yet this type of murder is actually down across the country. You rail at the Newtown carnage, yet you don't see the perpetual carnage in inner cities, across the country, including in Connecticut, that occurs every year. Are those victims' lives worth any less? I say to you that if you rail at the Newtown carnage, you should have some perspective and realize that its scope will pale in comparison to what we would have in store for us if our government became tyrannical. You're like a lost hiker in the woods, bitching over a stubbed toe, while unwittingly, you're very close to taking a fatal step over the falls.
Paul in Grimesland, NC
Saturday, December 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Are you sure you were an "Outfitter"? I have never heard one refer to magazines as clips.
Time Traveler in Tennessee
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Funny you brought that up. My thoughts exactly. Hypnosis is the keyword.
gilbert doan in ardmore, pa
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Guess who all are going to do their best to exploit all this in an utterly irrelevant, illegitimate , and hopelessly irrational way!
Old Crank in AL
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:32 PM
Get ready for another round of wimpering Republicans pleading that their gun lust is only a little bit evil.
Let's take a new tack and proclaim, "Guns are Good!"
I could go for a Million Gun March on Washington, but that may still be a little premature.
So let's just speak Truth to Liberal Power.
We Demand:
Guns in every Classroom! Now! End the Slaughter! Now!
No more Gun Free Zones! No More Free and Undefended Killing Grounds!
Arm the Responsible! Protect the Innocent!
We Accuse the Subversives, Intent on Disarming America, of Murder!
We call every Unarmed Person Murdered in America, Blood on your Hands, you who seek to disarm responsible Citizens. We call every Person Murdered in America whose friends or neighbors could have saved them, had they been armed, more Blood on your Hands, you who pass endless legislation to disarm responsible Citizens.
You who who close your eyes to the simple and obvious solution, Hypocrites. Shame on you who posture and pose, and pretend to cry. Shame on you Barack Obama (as if you had an ounce of shame to begin with)! who seeks to advance an evil agenda over the bodies of angels. Every gun taken away or held back from the hands of responsible citizens enpowers another murderer and we must put an end to it!
Arm the upright! And put fear in the cowardly hearts of murderers everywhere! Now!
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:51 PM
Amen and amen!
Michael Willis in Edmonds, WA
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM
Perhaps there should be a locked glass-fronted case in every classroom with an AR-15 inside and the words "In Case of Armed Psychotic Break Glass".
Time Traveler in Tennessee
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM
The only reason the Japanese didn't attack us on our own soil (west coast) was because they knew there was a gun behind every tree (armed citizens). That's a fact. Look it up.
Jay in Colorado
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM
God help all the victims of this senseless tradgedy and may those that died RIP. Now it seems that it's the same nonsense anti-gun agenda the politicians are trotting out again. What about the mother who couldn't keep the firearms locked up? these are things that hwppen when you live in a nation whose media celebrate violence in movies and video games, and leftists who seem sincere but who are quite the opposite.
mark in massachusetts
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:04 PM
So let me get this straight.If the gun is the killer then the forceps and suction used to abort a fetus should be outlawed also? Of course not,the liberals would shout.Abortion is legal and it's pro-choice.Guns are legal also but the leftists want to keep law-abiding citizens from owning them.What happened in Connecticut is an abomination! The problem isn't the gun;the problem is unstable people being able to procur the gun.Background and psychological testing are whats needed.Not more gun laws or bans.Chicago,Obama's hometown,has some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation yet some of the highest murder rates in the U.S.A. So does Washington,D.C. If a crazy person is going to commit such an atrocity then all the laws in the world aren't going to stop them. Please lets all say a prayer for the victims!
Partiot34 in El Dorado, CA
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:05 PM
There is no laws that remove guns or restrict the rights of citizens that will stop this kind of mass murder. The guns used in this case were already illegal where used. Remove all the guns and the crazes will then resort to indescriminate killing by IED. The culture is what has to change.
Craigclev in MT
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM
The guns used were legal. An AR-15 style with a nonfolding stock and the handguns are legal there.
HorseTeethSam in Michigan
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 3:55 PM
Sure. They'll say, that's the point. Such weapons of child destruction should not be legal, period. Not the best argument, really.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 8:55 PM
Amen!
Jack Dantone in Virginia
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM
This may be a bit rambling but I hope you find it worth reading. The tragedy in Connecticut is heart wrenching. And anything I say cannot diminish that anguish. But while we rush to question our right to bear arms, our entertainment media's penchant for violence, our culture's penchant to be "accepting" , etc…….I'm reminded of the Muslim Brotherhoods advice to the Egyptian people…."Approve the constitution and your lives will be ordered…"
Americans are, above all, a free people. It is who we are. We pay the price for that freedom everyday. Our young people are sent off to war, we put tremendous resources towards national defense and we cope with great risk in our everyday activities that a free American will become violent and innocent people may die or be injured. That coping is no less the price of freedom that the lives we lose defending our right to be free. It is the price we pay for living in America and being free to be who and what we are.
The next days and weeks will see new debate on the 2nd Amendment. My position is that owning weapons is a freedom that Americans have. And I will counter anyone that questions that right with choosing what fundamental freedom they would like to forfeit. The solutions aren't easy. And, it is unlikely that we will ever completely eliminate the risks that come with living in a free society.
We were created with free will. God did not put a chip in each of us to prevent terrible behavior. We are, by His design, free. We pay a price every day for this precious gift. Sometimes, it doesn't seem worth it, but it is. Cheers
richard lindstrom in venice fla.
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM
Dear Mr.Dantone; A brilliant dissertation concerning the terrible debacle in Newtown,and every word you lay out for all of us Patriot subscribers, ring True to the last letter. As an old( 91 ) WW 2 Veteran of the so called, " Greatest Generation",whose members are dying off more every day, I Salute you sir,for your most prescient and directly to the point comments,realting to the ramifications emanating from the terrible shootings/killings in New Towm Ct. As a father,grand father and yes, a great grandfather of 4, my old heart goes out to each and every parent,administrator and the like, who were invloved in such a senseless massacre. I Salute you dear sir, and deeply appreciate every word you have written in attempting to make sense out of the tragedy.
God Bless you and all of those who lost their most precious loved ones.!!! .
Most Humbly.
ChuckL in Henderson
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 5:25 PM
Jack, I disagree with you in only one respect, but it is major one. It is that we put major resources towards National Defense. Our expenses on National Defense pale to insignificance in comparison to our expenses on federal welfare programs with both taken as a percentage of GDP. If we took the three major costs of welfare individually they would each make Defense expenditures seem insignificant.
Craigclev in MT
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 7:19 PM
In 2011, 20 percent of the budget, or $718 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. Another 20 percent of the budget, or $731 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,229 per month to 35.6 million retired workers in December 2011. Three health insurance programs - Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) - together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2011, So, Just as 50 mm does not equal 50 cal I hope you realize Defense spending equals health insurance (medicare medicaid) and is not insignificant in comparision. Actual welfare and all discretionary spending foodstamps etc is 13%.
Old Sarge in Hinesville, GA
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 6:51 AM
Why was there a report put out stating that the government spent over one trillion dollars on welfare programs last year? It also stated that with overhead costs that came out to appox. $60,000 per famiy. If that is true spending on all the other programs pale in comparison.
Jeff Quidam in Dunwoody, Georgia
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Guns have been a part of the American culture for over two centuries. Presumably, so has mental illness to some extent. So what is new in our society that could help explain the modern phenomenon of senseless acts of horrendous violence? In no particular order, here are some trends that are relatively new in our society:
Dangerous drugs, both illicit and prescribed Abandonment of morality-based institutions & teachings Broken families (due to divorce, addiction and other reasons) Spectacularly violent video games in the hands of very young people Increasing number of very violent movies Pornography (prevalent & easily available) Absentee parents (both at work) Pervasive violence & amorality on television and elsewhere
The most important changes cannot be legislated. They have to come from the ground up, from the people, from us. We are forced to examine ourselves, and we don't like to do that.
MoeLarryCurly in CA
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Also, we have to look at our technology. Social Media, texting, on-demand, has de-sensitized any human interaction.
Bob in Brunswick Georgia
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM
A very good writting.
Hamilton in IL
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Jeff Quidam,
HERE! HERE! (mucho mucho applause)
You're someone with the intellectual honesty to know that the problem is within ourselves.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 8:58 PM
I concur with you. Earlier I made a point about psychology. We need to help our vets. I'm not saying a vet did this yet someday someone who needs help will not receive it as in my generation and he or she may run a mock. Let's fix the system. It won'lt stop it but even a small dent in the problem is better than no dent at all.
Hamilton in IL
Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 12:00 AM
Yeah, that's sore subject for me. I bristle at the fact that the federal government taxes the sh*t out of us for everything, including help for our vets, yet we still have various and sundry privately-run groups trying to generate donations for our vets. Why can't the government do it right? Because they're too busy destroying the productivity in our economy so we all have less money, and creating an entitlement class with the money that should be going to our vets.
Debbi Moss in Vienna, Missouri
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM
I found little sign of grief in Obama's speech and knew before he opened his mouth this tragedy would be used to further his destructive political agenda. I too wondered why he and the media, like leaches, descended on Newtown and the tragedy, hungry for fodder for their news reports and political gains. I have to wonder why Obama uses tragedies like this to try to disarm Americans, but he never says anything about the tragedy of lives lost via gang war shootings which happen every day. He is indeed a living contradiction.
Bill in Oklahoma
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM
It would make more sense to have every teacher keep a weapon locked in their desk. If every law abiding citizen carried a gun I bet there'd be a lot less crime.
Timothy Rea in IN
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM
An armed society is a polite society.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM
An armed society is a polite society until it is time to be appropriately and completely impolite in an acutely dismissive manner ;-)
JAC in Texas
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 2:05 PM
If this whacko knew there were armed school staff members in the building, he never would have gone there.
Hamilton in IL
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM
Yeah, maybe he would have just killed his mother and then himself.
Yeah, maybe.
But I wouldn't count on it. He was a devilishly clever psychopath.
alex in Califirnia
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM
While this blaming and hand wringing is going on " TRAIN AND ARM THE TEACHERS.!!
JtC in TX
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Most teachers are liberal commies doing The Obamanation's bidding and would most likely refuse to carry a firearm.
Silsbaselgia in Boston
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM
It saddens me to think that a responsible citizen with a gun and basic training could have averted a massacre of innocents of these proportions. The satanic assassin knew very well that State Schools are "gun-free zones" and that he could act with impunity until the first Police Officer arrived on the scene. It is also time to revise the current easy policies of integrating the mentally unstable into the communities and schools, considering them just "different" and "diverse", instead of sociopathically dangerous and socially problematic for those who have the bad luck to share with them.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:57 PM
"...until the first Police Officer arrived on the scene"
When seconds matter, help is only minutes away.
Hamilton in IL
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 8:14 PM
He was a psychopath who was just rational enough to know that he didn't want to go down in any other way except for by his own bullet.
The problem is that the men in the white coats should have taken him away a long time ago. But we don't do that anymore. No, we mainstream them so they're out and among us like ticking time bombs.
BJ Cassady in Caldwell, Kansas
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM
I pray people leave this event alone and let the people heal. No politics, no self promotion, just leave these people alone.
fred in oregon
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM
goodluck with that b j cassidy. nice thought tho.
fred in oregon
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM
in my neck of the woods, oregon, wve had some of the same tragic events, a highschool shooting and the recent clackamus shopping mall shooting. its a real shame that the press does not do their job and report how/why these 2 shootings were ended. in both, they stopped because an armed citizen was there to intervene. in the highschool incident, when the shooting started a teenage boy went to his pickup parked in the school parking lot, got his 22 rifle and went back in the school and confronted the shooter. he STOPPED IT from continuing. in the clakamus mall shooting a citizen that was carrying lawfully concealed, took hi pistol out and pointed it at the shooter who then ranaway a short distance and killed himself. the only station to report the whole story was KGW in portland oregon. even the sheriff of clakamus county refused to speek on why the clakamus shooting ended. as a retired cop, this fact irritates me. cops know better, he should be recalled.
Elle in Los Angeles, CA
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Thanks for the info. We seem to be short on truth these days.
Lisa in MD
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:17 PM
Interesting, but if this did come out in the news, there goes their war on banning guns. Thanks for the info.
Aaron Edwards in Fallon, NV
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM
Fred is right! A "gun free zone" is a "killing" zone. In Israel, teachers and faculty are armed. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a school shooting in that country since the 1970's. Israel also alows thier citizens to be armed. There have been several instances of John Q. Public stopping a suicide bomber BEFORE he/she detonates. The point is that the way to stop these kind of rampages is to undo "gun free zones". We should never give up our freedoms because of the evil acts of a single madman, or 10, or 100. But, our elected officials will never admit this, esspecialy Obama and his socialist elite.
HorseTeethSam in Michigan
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Maybe one reason Obama hates Israel. Let's see - everyone is armed, and they profile their airline passengers. Sounds good to me.
exlogger in Alaska
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM
here is the video http://www.examiner.com/video/clackamas-mall-shooter-was-confronted-by-armed-citizen
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Thanks for the link! Very telling! The coward runs at the first sight of resistance and commits suicide.
Joyce Logan in Kanab, Utah
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM
I'm appalled at the death of anyone at the hands of someone else, but I truly believe that the media is complicit in these mass murders. We all know there are many unbalanced people among us and to continue to flood the airwaves with every minute detail over and over again, only serves to put such individuals into a state of internal frenzy. The only relief they get is to do something similar. Today some nutcase called in a bomb threat against the church where services for some of the children were being held. This kind of an act validates what I believe. What well balanced person needs to hear the horrific details over and over and over...
Doug Schexnayder, PhD (ret) in Vidalia, La
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM
Forks cause obesity!
Now its known the Mother took her strange medicated unfeeling autistic child to a shooting range! (Yes, there were marriage issues of course) Now call me off base but we have some more "Columbine Parenting" here IMHO... rich liberal AWFUL parents living in some fantasy world where they do not see the obvious and pander to their children...THAT MATTERS...I said THAT MATTERS!
Instead of teacher unions being greedy thugs...how about seminars for parents at PTAs etc to catch "potentially" high risk kids like this and take precautions?
Do you think that 300 million people only have 2-3 sickos like this guy?
Stop thinking guns at school by admins/coaches is somehow horrible… 1 loaded pistol could be locked in 3 places on the campus and at least the good would have a chance… but noooo, we have the dimdems ranting about gun control instead of child control/protection, go figure...(theconservativecrawfish)
Hamilton in IL
Monday, December 17, 2012 at 8:16 PM
Well said!