Letters to the Editor

Letter: Change needed

December 24, 2012


To the editor:

We need gun control and vigilance of parents, priests, teachers and coaches, and no bullying in schools or on the Internet. No guns should be allowed on any campus, grade school through college, regardless of the NRA and no guns in movie theaters, churches or stores either.

Control drive-by shootings and bomb threats. If guns are sold, background checks should be made. We have a responsibility for keeping guns locked up so children and mentally unstable people cannot kill themselves or others. Bishops should report priests with abusive behavior and NOT pass them on to other parishes. Children should not be sexually abused. Parents have this responsibility too, of keeping their children from being sexually abused. 

Stiffer penalties should be in place for people who violate gun rules like background checks and parents who keep unlocked gun cabinets so children can come to school and show off these guns. It’s illegal to serve drinks to underage people and not wear a seat belt, yet we lack gun or weapon laws. We have childproof caps on medicine as well.

The NRA and Lanza estate should pay for the funerals of the victims of Sandy Hook. They owe it to them for the carnage they created. All the flags are at half-staff because we are in mourning with them.  Our prayers are with them and for them and their families.  


Abdu Omar 5 years, 5 months ago

Do you really think that the NRA caused the :"carnage in Sandyhook"? If so, how so. Yes they are for the second amendment of the US Constutution, aren't you? Why you should be writing about instead of the NRA is the fact that that the gunmen was allowed to get weapons from his mother while he was mentally ill. This is the problem. Not the NRA. His mother should never have guns in the house while this mentally ill man was living with her. This is the tragedy and if she didn't have the gun he used, those victims may be alive today. He was the problem not the NRA.

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

"yet we lack gun or weapon laws"

Geez Mary, what great source gave you that information? Some sites claim upwards of 20,000 laws nationwide regulating firearms but that high number can be traced back to a politician in 1965 who researched it as well as you did. Realistically there are several thousand gun laws on the books, most with two major flaws. First, the majority of them qualify as feel good legislation, in that they were passed as the result of some event so the public would think "At least we did something". Second, because the feel good legislation would never keep guns from the hands of criminals, they are enforced randomly or not at all.

Therein lies the problem with your ideas. You will only create more difficulty for those 85 million of us who DO obey the laws, who DO lock up our weapons, who DO see the tragedy that unfolds when guns are in the hands of the mentally ill or criminals. The NRA is the biggest promoter of gun safety in the US. They didn't hurt those victims in Connecticut. 85 million gun owners had nothing to do with that tragedy.

This has the entire country stirred into a frenzy and I'm sure more feel good legislation will be the result. Keep this in mind. Brownells, the largest gun distributor in the world, has sold out of extended magazines for the type of sporting rifle used in this mass murder. A 3.5 year supply sold out in three days. All the feel good laws in the world won't bring those back, they're out in the hands of civilians, purchased legally, along with all the firearms and other related gear that goes with them. Most will be stored away, but if even one gets used in a criminal manner there will be you or others like you flapping your arms in the air screaming for more legislation.

voevoda 5 years, 5 months ago

Replace the 20,000 ineffective local, state, and national laws with one comprehensive law that can be enforced. Then enforce it.

KSWingman 5 years, 5 months ago

I agree wholeheartedly. If only there was one comprehensive... wait. What's this? There is ALREADY a pre-eminent legal principle regarding firearm ownership? It's an Amendment to the document which created and gives structure to our Federal government?

It looks like the first part of your wish came true 200 years ago, voevoda. Now all we have to do is remind our servants in Washington of their Constitutional obligation to us.

"Shall not be infringed" sounds pretty clear to me.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 5 months ago

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

jaywalker 5 years, 5 months ago

Really bad letter. Appreciate some of the sentiment, really bad just the same. "Control drive by's and bomb threats"??? How? By employing Carnak?

dontbesilly 5 years, 5 months ago

Neither will the belligerent refusal on the part of the NRA and most of the commenters to even have a civil dialog solve this serious problem. I still haven't been able to get an answer to my question: Why do you need to have an automatic gun with multiple cartridges? (Don't belittle the vocabulary - that just points out extreme immaturity). What do you plan to do with those guns? Other than hunting, for that matter, what do you plan to do with any of them?

KSWingman 5 years, 5 months ago

The reason you haven't gotten an answer is because your question is poorly worded, makes false assumptions, and is divorced from reality. Check your premises, check your facts, correct your errors, and try again.

optimist 5 years, 5 months ago

While automatic firearms remain legal even today they are heavily taxed and regulated to the point that most can't afford them. That is tantamount to a ban. The firearms you refer to, that were used in the latest rash of shootings, are auto loading firearms. This distinction is important in describing these firearms and you should take the time to educate yourself rather than demonstrate ignorance in a public venue. An auto loader simply reloads the firearm and most firearms sold today are auto loaders, including revolvers technically. While high capacity magazines do hold more rounds the speed in which someone can reload a firearm with smaller capacity magazines will greatly effect their ability to fire more rounds and with little inconvenience. The criminal mind will always find ways to circumvent laws put in place to prevent their evil deeds. Gun laws only affect those that already follow the law and serve only to reduce their ability to match the firepower of those who mean to do evil. Consider the plight of the North Hollywood police department in 1997 that were forced to resort to firearms donated by a local business owner for them to defend themselves from two psychos that had illegally modified and possessed full automatic, actual assault weapons they used in the commission of a bank robbery. I’m betting those police officers were glad that those firearms were made available to them. If gun banners had their way those police officers would have had little choice but to run or die.

skinny 5 years, 5 months ago

I think the writer has forgotten there were gun free zones in all these shootings and it was against the law to have any guns in those schools! Now l want to ask the writer this, how did those laws work for you or the parents of those children killed???? They didn't!! Get a clue!! Time to rethink our strategies!! Coming up with more new gun laws aren’t going to work!

Phil Minkin 5 years, 5 months ago

And how did having armed guards at Columbine and Virginia Tech help, or at the military base in Texas prevent that shooting. Arguments can be made on both sides, but the common denominator is assault weapons with large capacity magazines.

Brock Masters 5 years, 5 months ago

So the Fort Hood shooter used an assault weapon with large capacity magazines?

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 5 months ago

Nidal Hasan used an FN Five-seven... It's a high dollar bad mamma jamma. Comes standard with a 20 round mag. You can also buy 30 round magazines. 5.7x28mm rounds were developed for NATO as a replacement to the 9x19mm parabellum. The cartridge was meant to have greater range, accuracy, and terminal performance. It was also designed to penetrate certain types of body armor.

All weaponry is meant for an assault.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 5 months ago

"Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact. The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak."


dontbesilly 5 years, 5 months ago

Your statement that there were gun free zones plus laws against having guns very clearly points to the fact that the guns got in there anyway. Making a mature combined attempt to revise gun related issues is certainly preferable to adding more guns to the equation. Something has to give. Restricting automatic weapons on one hand to balance what Sandy Hook has already given seems a reasonable place to start.

KSWingman 5 years, 5 months ago

Automatic weapons are restricted, and automatic weapons were not used at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Liberty275 5 years, 5 months ago

America, the land of 50 laws for every criminal act and people screeching for 51. That next law is always the one that will solve the problem.

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 5 years, 5 months ago

There are over 20,000 gun laws, many are never enforced. We have enough laws. We need much better mental health treatment. It is obvious closing state hospitals and turning these people out on the street did not work. Gun free school zones do not work, except to let criminals know they will face no armed response there. In Israel, a people and country I have the greatest respect for, next to their no gun sign at schools is a sign saying school officials are armed and will protect the children. We could let school officials voluntarily take the necessary training to be armed, concealed of course, or we could have a school resource officer in every school. A school resource officer is a trained peace officer whose salary is paid by the school district.

Brock Masters 5 years, 5 months ago

Would anyone suggest that Israel is wrong to have armed military and police in public areas? Of course not since the threat of killings are very real.

Well we may not like it but we are under attack from both domestic and foreign sources. So, why bury our heads in the sand and pretend we are safe or could be safe if we just passed one more law?

We need to take immediate steps to protect ourselves and look for long term solutions that just doesn't address the symptom but gets at the root of the problem - why do we live in such a violent society.

308_incendiary 5 years, 5 months ago

I agree with Mary Anne. She sets a perfect example. I might add to her informative ideas. People should not manufacture IEDs around children.

FlintlockRifle 5 years, 5 months ago

Mary Ann, you watch way to much TV NEWS MEDIA REPORTING, do you own research, and read the real facts, please

voevoda 5 years, 5 months ago

It is quite possible to permit responsible gun ownership while greatly reducing the chance for firearms to fall into the hands of irresponsible, mentally unstable, or criminal people. Israel does this. Canada does this. Switzerland does this.

We can start by requiring that persons who own firearms be licensed to do so. They should need to prove that they can use firearms in a safe and responsible manner before they are allowed to have them in the first place. Guns also must carry licenses, and owners would be licensed to possess specific types of firearms. Only licensed gun owners would be permitted to buy ammunition, and only for the weapons they actually own. There would be stiff penalties for infractions, including confiscation of all weapons and loss of the privilege of owning weapons, in addition to fines and mandatory mental-health examinations. Passing guns or ammunition to unlicensed persons would be a felony. Storing guns unsafely or carrying them in an unsafe manner would be a misdemeanor, with the penalty of loss of weapons and permanent loss of eligibility for a gun license.

To compensate society for the misuse of weapons, levy a tax on all guns and ammunition to pay for 1) regular-duty police officers in schools, malls, houses of worship, etc. (as the NRA has proposed); 2) mental health care for anyone who exhibits violent or anti-social propensities (as the NRA has proposed); 3) stricter controls on the distribution of violent videos and games (as the NRA has proposed); 4) the cost of first-responders who deal with armed perpetrators; 5) the cost of wrongful death and wrongful injury lawsuit on behalf of victims of gun violence; 6) the cost of tracking illegal guns and irresponsible gun owners and confiscating their weapons.

For similar reasons, require all gun owners to carry insurance against any damage committed with the weapons they own. Naturally, insurance rates would vary with the level of responsibility of the owner, type of weapons, care with which they are kept, family status, place of residence. If gun owners can't get insurance, then they can't legally own weapons.

These sorts of regulations would separate the responsible gun owners from the irresponsible ones. They wouldn't immediately end the rampant gun violence in this country, but they would gradually have an effect.

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

"These sorts of regulations would separate the responsible gun owners from the irresponsible ones."

No. It would separate the wealthy from the poor, making only wealthy people and criminals into gun owners. The people who are most vulnerable would be left defenseless.

Your suggestion is elitist.

voevoda 5 years, 5 months ago

Have you become an advocate of "socialism," RoeDapple? Where does it say that everyone is entitled to earn enough money to afford everything they want?

And who says that gun taxes and gun insurance would need to be so expensive that only the "wealthy" could afford them? People who have limited need for weapons and ammunition, good gun training, safe storage practices, and an excellent record of responsibility would not pay very much. As any Republican would tell you, competition will keep the price down.

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

You can keep your labels to yourself voevoda. I am neither a far right Republican nor am I an extremist Liberal. "Earning what they want" has nothing to do with your suggestion of infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. How low are you willing to sell insurance for to a segment of society who may be hungry two weeks out of the month? Someone who can't come up with the $300 to fix the furnace? Many of the poor own firearms that were inherited, or purchased when times were good. Your suggestion could leave them unable to defend themselves.

voevoda 5 years, 5 months ago

If people are so poor that they can't afford food or heat for their homes, it would be foolish of them to buy firearms and ammunition instead. As for defense, they can rely upon the police, which is what most citizens do.

But if you really think that a gun is a necessity of life, then you can buy them as a gift for the needy and pay their insurance.

KSWingman 5 years, 5 months ago

The police do not defend people from violence or crime.

Law enforcement officers have no constitutional or statutory duty to protect individuals (see Warren v. District of Columbia, 1981) . The purpose of law enforcement is to enforce laws.

Brock Masters 5 years, 5 months ago

voe Keep that in mind when people want to make people pay for the right to vote.

voevoda 5 years, 5 months ago

With ID laws, people already do have to pay for the right to vote. Unless you already have a birth certificate and a credit card, you can't get a birth certificate except in person.

Brock Masters 5 years, 5 months ago

But you can get the birth certificate for free in Kansas. But then I guess, my question is that you're okay with making people pay to vote?

voevoda 5 years, 5 months ago

You can get a free birth certificate only if you were born in Kansas and live in Kansas. Many people no longer reside in the state where they were born.

Of course, the licensing of gun ownership could be free of charge, just like voter registration.

jafs 5 years, 5 months ago

Not sure that's true.

The courts have found that a variety of regulations on gun ownership don't "infringe" the right.

jafs 5 years, 5 months ago

Not sure that's true.

Licensing is just a kind of regulation, I think.

jafs 5 years, 5 months ago

Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

If background checks are required, and you buy a gun without one, you're breaking the law, right? How is that different (in any meaningful way) from requiring a license?

jafs 5 years, 5 months ago

So, what's the huge difference?

I looked up both the words and they both refer to requirements and constraints on certain activities.

If one can require that one meets the qualifications for voting in order to vote, one can do the same with buying a gun.

Not to all, as has been pointed out numerous times.

I really don't understand your issue here - if we require licenses for guns based on the criteria of who's allowed to own them, what's the problem exactly?

jafs 5 years, 5 months ago

I believe that those with mental health issues are also not allowed to buy weapons legally.

The fact is that a literalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment would hold that all citizens, law abiding or not, sane or not, etc. have the right to own weapons, and conceal them as well.

Once the door's been opened such that some citizens can lose the right, need licensing for concealed carry, etc. it's just a question of where one draws that line and how.

For example, seems to me that the requirements for concealed carry are reasonable, and could be extended to all gun purchases - show proficiency, demonstrate knowledge of the relevant laws, etc.

Our rights are not absolute, and are subject to a variety of other concerns.

jafs 5 years, 5 months ago

Actually, that sounds reasonable, if they can demonstrate their competence and knowledge of the laws now (CC holders should probably have to be re-tested periodically on both as well - people forget things and get sloppy, and laws change).

And, of course, don't have mental health issues that would prohibit them.

It's always odd when people attribute motives to me that aren't accurate - my concern is to reduce the senseless tragedies that we experience as a nation.

Unlike many on here, I don't think there's a simple answer - I think it's multifaceted, and I would look into all of those facets - violence in movies/games/etc., mentally ill folks who need help and don't get it, personal responsibility (like the mom who leaves guns around), loopholes in gun laws, possible licensing, etc.

voevoda 5 years, 5 months ago

Actually, jafs, I'm just agreeing with Justice Antonin Scalia, as he wrote in the Heller Supreme Court decision, that regulation accords with the Second Amendment:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

We require that voters be registered in order to be able to exercise that right, and now, increasingly, that they bear the burden of producing the requisite evidence that they are eligible to vote. If it can be done with the right to vote, it can certainly be done with the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has already ruled that this is the case.

clubber1 5 years, 5 months ago

"There would be stiff penalties for infractions, including confiscation of all weapons and loss of the privilege of owning weapons"

Sorry to inform you that owning weapons is not a privilege, it is a right...the 2nd Amendment.

deec 5 years, 5 months ago

The "ghost of posters past" has returned!

Gun control is a complicated issue.

Brock Masters 5 years, 5 months ago

People are quick to suggest higher taxes on guns, fees, background checks and other restrictions on gun owners, but how they would squeal if such things were suggested on the rights they hold dear.

We saw how they screamed that the poor were being disenfrancised because they had to show ID to vote and it was free. Gun owners must show ID obtained at their expense and submit to a background check again at their expense just to own a gun. Further background checks, fees and training are required for a concealed carry permit.

What kind of outcry would there be if Right Wing Religous Conservatives suggest a fee be paid for an abortion? Even if that fee was paid by insurance companies they would scream but imagine the hand wringing and cries of infringing upon their right to get an abortion if it was a fee that insurance didn't cover.

Or how about everyone getting an abortion had to undergo psychological testing just to make sure they were of sound mind? Oh yes, they would scream bloody murder, but it is okay to suggest outrageous regulations, taxes and fees that would make it difficult for some and nearly impossible for others to exercise their second amendment rights.

People, keep in mind that power is fleeting. Careful what you sow today for you may reap it tomorrow.

Liberty275 5 years, 5 months ago

Fred mertz, genius.

Here's a compromise. Tax weapons and abortions at the same rate. The tax must be paid with cash by the patron at time of service.

Liberty275 5 years, 5 months ago

You came up with the idea, and it's very insightful.

KSManimal 5 years, 5 months ago

Well said. Gun-haters, be careful what you wish for. If you impose taxes for the purpose of suppressing gun rights today....... Someone else will impose taxes to suppress voting rights tomorrow. Or union rights. Or political speech rights. Or....(insert rights of your choosing).

Katara 5 years, 5 months ago

In some states women are required to undergo counseling before they obtain an abortion. In some states, women are required to have an unnecessary medical procedure (transvaginal ultrasound) before having an abortion. In many states there is a waiting period before one can have an abortion. In Kansas, one must purchase a separate insurance policy to have coverage for an abortion. In some states, doctors are required to provide inaccurate medical information (abortions cause breast cancer) before a woman can have an abortion.

What was your point again?

Because IIRC, women were just told to shut up and deal with it because their right to an abortion was not taken away completely.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 5 months ago

How about a system kind of like what banks have? A button or remote switch that can alert law enforcement their assistance is requested STAT quietly. This could be worn on a belt, the wrist or as a necklace by staff members who are suddenly confronted with a matter.

Sure some calls may turn out not to be all that serious but would promote the "better safe than sorry" approach.

This remote STAT/ALERT set up would be far more efficient than calling 911. Sometimes 911 entails a lot of chit chat when in fact getting the assistance as a STAT ALERT would make more sense.

This STAT ALERT could also be notifying the school principals,superintendent and any law enforcement person who might be on site.

Law Enforcement as a security officer likely would be best because "security officers" may not necessarily have law enforcement capability nor training in dealing with an intense situation. This on site law enforcement person could be advising any law enforcement responding to a STAT/ALERT as to the exact location and to what extent has the situation become.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

The notion that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to rise up against the government is completely wrong. Its real purpose was the exact opposite.

NRA Suggests a Police State by Robert Parry



"With memories of the 1786-87 Shays’ Rebellion still fresh, Madison and Washington led the way in devising a system that allowed for the expression of popular will through the House of Representatives, elected every two years, yet with safeguards against hasty changes by having the Senate, elected (then by state legislatures) to six-year terms.

Contrary to the Right’s current false narrative, the Framers were not inviting armed resistance to the government by adding the Second Amendment. After all, the Framers mostly were the government. In the Constitution, they also defined armed rebellion – “levying war against” the United States – as treason, and they included a federal guarantee to protect the states “against domestic Violence.”

The Second Amendment with its right to bear arms was added to the Constitution with the preamble that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” indicating that its chief purpose was to enable the government to form militias to maintain “security,” not to invite violence and insecurity.

Simultaneous with the ratification of the Bill of Rights , i.e. the first ten amendments in 1791, was an anti-tax uprising in western Pennsylvania known as the Whiskey Rebellion. So, with the Second Amendment on the books, the Second Congress enacted the Militia Acts of 1792, which mandated all military-age white males to procure a musket and other equipment so they could participate in militias.

State militias were organized or strengthened, and President Washington personally led a combined force of state militias numbering around 13,000 men to suppress the Whiskey rebels in 1794. In other words, the first use of the new militia powers was to put down a popular revolt, not invite one."

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago


"It is clearly seen in the words of the Founders of our nation, cases before the Supreme Court, and even from Blackstone’s Commentaries on the law that the right to bear arms belongs to the people individually, not collectively. If anyone can provide any quotes from the courts or the Founders that show this to be a collective right instead of individual, please share them."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

" the Second Congress enacted the Militia Acts of 1792, which mandated all military-age white males to procure a musket and other equipment so they could participate in militias."

This was nearly simultaneous to the 2nd Amendment, passed by the very same people who approved the Bill of Rights. There was no standing army at the time, and no funds for one, so it was made an individual responsibility to purchase the weapons necessary for participation in a militia. In addition to the putting down the rebellions referenced above, one major fear at the time was slave revolts, especially by the very many slave-holding founding fathers.

You guys sure cling tightly to your cherished mythical fables.

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. – George Mason

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms. – Richard Henry Lee"

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

But in the eyes of the founders, the militia did not exist for the purpose of overthrowing the government-- to the contrary, it existed (in a well-regulated form) to protect the government.

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

"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"

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” – William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution,” 1829

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

So, you're saying that there can be no limits to any sort of weaponry? Criminals and crazy people are welcome to have nuclear weapons, perhaps?

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

I am merely providing quotes. You are the one trying to enhance the meaning.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

We live in 2012, soon to be 2013-- quoting a random opinion from someone in 1829 must mean that you find some relevance for it in what is a much different world. Or do you have no point to make at all?

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

With your history of trying to corrupt the meaning of posts you don't agree with I find it a waste of time to make my point with you.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

What does that even mean? If you have a valid point, I don't see how anything I could say would "corrupt" it.

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

And once again . . . "trying" to corrupt it. Have a nice Christmas.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

So, anyone who doesn't fall into lock step with your opinions is "trying to corrupt" your infallible edicts. Interesting.

KSManimal 5 years, 5 months ago

When I started reading this LTE, it was so bad....so full of errors, knee-jerk emotional reactions, and outright lies (of ignorance or purposeful....either way, lies); that I was certain I would get to the last sentences and find it to be a parody - poking fun at the ignorance and logical inconsistencies that plague the gun-control crowd....I expected something kinda like that Reber guy writes a lot....

But then I got to the end, and realized it WASN'T parody at all. Wow. Who needs to poke fun at the gun control crowd when they do it just fine all by themselves.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

So, if we have 11 armed guards at every school in the country, we'd only need a couple of million guards to keep all the kids really safe, right?

And why stop at schools-- we'd need them at every shopping mall, swimming pool and soccer game.

Now we're talking at least 10 million new jobs.

Cool-- the unemployment situation is solved. And all of those guards will be super well-trained and competent, and none of them will ever mistake some poor schmuck acting weird for a "bad guy" and shoot him dead for no good reason along with a couple of kids caught in the cross fire. None of them will ever snap and go on his own shooting spree.

Yep, getting guns, guns, guns, everywhere, all the time, will make things all better.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 5 months ago

And the best part of all is there will be no more mass murder. Problem solved, thank you very much.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

I bet you have a great design for a perpetual motion machine, too.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 5 months ago

Are you dense in the noggin or what? Perpetual motion violates several laws of thermodynamics. Impossible!

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

If privately owned firearms were banned then the president would no longer require armed secret service escorts. Right?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

There is almost no one calling for a complete ban on the ownership of firearms.

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

You missed the "If". And yes. Some do want a complete ban. They simply chisel away at it one class of firearm at a time.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

Yea, the ban on owning my own nuclear weapons really chafes my butt.

RoeDapple 5 years, 5 months ago

"So, you're saying that there can be no limits to any sort of weaponry? Criminals and crazy people are welcome to have nuclear weapons, perhaps?"

Criminals and crazy people already control the world's nuclear weapons.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

All the more reason we all need our own personal nuclear stockpile, don't you think?

dontbesilly 5 years, 5 months ago

I would just add that reading the comments, the ones I did read, is like listening to the answers given to many questions in the campaigns for election just over. There seem to be many people who must keep their focus on their own agenda for fear that any kind of discussion would distract them. Questions aren't answered. What I wonder is how many people who will be running for re-election the soonest will stand up for what they really believe is right even in the glare of the bully NRA. The constitution covers all Americans, not just gun owners and not just gun owners who decide the meaning of the second amendment to allow the gun behavior they desire.

Tom Huyser 5 years, 5 months ago

An Executive order banning a right? Thats called a dictatorship, which is why the 2nd amendment IS important

BlackVelvet 5 years, 5 months ago

An interesting observation about the "anti gun crowd." Ted Kennedy was all for a total ban on handguns....except the handguns that HE owned.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

I have no idea of the accuracy of your assertion, but was Teddy Kennedy really a "crowd?"

KSWingman 5 years, 5 months ago

You have seen a picture of "Vast and Furious" Kennedy, haven't you?

BlackVelvet 5 years, 5 months ago

I have heard from Secret Service assigne to protect mr. Teddy......so I have it on good authority....

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

Are you saying that it was illegal for him to possess a hand gun? Given that it was legal for everyone else to carry a handgun, including lots of crackpots who would have gladly taken him down, why are you saying he should have unilaterally disarmed, rather than calling for disarming everyone, including himself?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

Does the 2nd Amendment mean that the Koch Bros. should be able to have their own private air force, navy and army, armed with whatever weaponry they choose?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

That'd be great. They could be Kansas's version of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. I'm sure there are some fundy christian billionaires out there who'd step up and be the US version of the Taliban.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 5 months ago

I think the letter writer is representative of a large number of Americans and it is not fair to ignore the fears of so many citizens. We are going to have to do something more than what the NRA is proposing and we cannot continue to allow our country to become polarized by a government that cannot agree on anything because they cannot understand that compromise is part of being an adult.

I consider the NRA a necessary evil because we might not have gun rights at all if not for the NRA so to try to demonize the NRA is just going to push moderate gun owners toward the NRA side of the issue.

The best article I have read so far on the issue is by Cory Booker. His positions represent a step toward a compromise and we are going to have to accept that there are too many people in this country who are freaked out by guns to ignore the issue.

Here is the link.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 5 months ago

We're all products of the biochemical/electrical activity taking place inside our brains. Most of us are lucky enough to have "normal" such activity, and we live our lives without committing significant criminal acts. We consider ourselves responsible members of society for being able to do so.

Too bad we couldn't recognize that Adam Lanza was incapable of the same before he committed such a horrendous crime, and either removed him from the general population, and/or got him the help he needed.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 5 months ago

More guns and tons of security officers at each school is nonsense.

How will that prevent anything?

Best get assault weapons off the street,out of retail markets and go after the black markets. Make them illegal to own. Crush them up and recycle the material.

optimist 5 years, 5 months ago

How can we possibly have a rational discussion about the issue of violence in our society with people like this? The most rambling lunacy I have ever read. We are all dumber for having taken the time to read it. I'll never get that time back.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.