"Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20, fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut.[5][6] Before driving to the school, Lanza had shot and killed his mother Nancy at their Newtown home.[8][10][11] As first responders arrived, he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head. The incident is the second deadliest mass shooting by a single person in American history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It is the second deadliest mass murder at an American elementary school, after the 1927 Bath School bombings in Michigan.[12][13] The shootings prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, and a proposal for new legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition.[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/us-shooting-deaths-sandy-hook_n_2348466.html "The entire country has been on edge since the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting that left 27 people dead in Connecticut. Since then, there have been five other campus shootings including the one yesterday. Why is violence erupting in our children's schools and what really can be done to stop it? Read more: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/20656675/5-campus-shootings-since-sandy-hook#ixzz2Q4ag65du And here we sit watching our seemingly corrupt politicians try to block anything we can do to stop it. I was once Republican, we would be all for this back then....HeLL Reagan was way into it. Now it seems anything that "Hussein" wants is something to stop......even if kids (and many others) need to die.....I am ashamed. Are there any old school Republicans left?
I'm not completely against gun control, but I have a question. You are implying there is a hurry. All the incidents you've mentioned in your post, would you please point out to me which elements of gun control would have had much influence on stopping each one? You may be correct about it, but I'm not sure you are. -------I think I agree with banning assault weapons like bazookas and rockets and possibly automatic weapons and background checks, by the way.
The corrupt politicians are the one's attempting to set the course for total confiscation. Here are the important questions; Where is the legislation to disarm criminals? Where is the legislation to stop the mentally disturbed from obtaining weapons or becoming a bigger threat to the communities they live in? None of the idiocy being promoted by gun grabbers addresses the actual problem, they are just using this as an opportunity to disarm the law abiding public.
Well, one thing's for sure. An assault weapons ban wouldn't stop these shootings from occurring. Most shootings involve handguns, not rifles. Criminal background checks are already present in all states, and psychological background checks are present in 44 of the 50. Regulating gun shows is a possibility, but this still wouldn't cover private sales between individuals. A gun registry is also a possibility, but so far, this is handled as a state issue. Understandably, gun rights advocates get nervous whenever bans are discussed.
Iam about as old school as you can get, but not one drop of blood is attributed to my guns. So why should I give them up? How about parents start raising adults and not selfish, tantrum prone, doped up kids.
Thanks for proving my point through honest opinion. NO ONE AND NOTHING being even discussed seriously by politicians, the general public, or a single person with any sense, let alone proposed would take away 'yer guns...effect your kids one way or another (except perhaps keeping them alive), or in any way damages the wonderful 2nd amendment of our Constitution. The Republican mindset has dramatically changed over the last 20 yrs.....or perhaps it has blended with its opposition rather than compromise principles.....My Opinion only. "President Ronald Reagan will forever be remembered fondly by Second Amendment supporters, many of who are among the American conservatives who consider Reagan a poster child of modern conservatism. But words and actions of Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, left behind a mixed record on gun rights. His presidential administration did not bring about any new gun control laws of significance. However, in his post-presidency, Reagan cast his support to a pair of critical gun control measures in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban. Reagan: The Pro Gun Candidate Ronald Reagan entered the 1980 presidential campaign as a known supporter of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. While gun rights wouldn’t be a primary issue in presidential politics for another decade, the issue was being pushed to the forefront of the American political scene by those, as Reagan wrote in a 1975 issue of Guns & Ammo magazine, “who say that gun control is an idea whose time has come.” The Gun Control Act of 1968 was still a relatively fresh issue, and U.S. Attorney General Edward H. Levi had proposed outlawing guns in areas with high crime rates. In his Guns & Ammo column, Reagan left little doubt about his stance on the Second Amendment, writing: “In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea.” Reagan’s stance was that violent crime would never be eliminated, with or without gun control. Instead, he said, efforts to curb crime should target those who misuse guns, similarly to the way laws target those who use an automobile feloniously or recklessly. Saying the Second Amendment “leaves little, if any, leeway for the gun control advocate,” he added that “the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive.” Firearm Owners Protection Act The lone piece of significant legislation related to gun rights during the Reagan administration was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law by Reagan on May 19, 1986, the legislation amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by repealing parts of the original act that were deemed by studies to be unconstitutional. The National Rifle Association and other pro gun groups lobbied for passage of the legislation, and it was generally considered favorable for gun owners. Among other things, the act made it easier to transport long rifles across the United States, ended federal records-keeping on ammunition sales and prohibited the prosecution of someone passing through areas with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle, so long as the gun were properly stored. However, the act also contained a provision banning the ownership of any fully automatic firearms not registered by May 19, 1986. That provision was slipped into the legislation as an 11th hour amendment by Rep. William J. Hughes, a New Jersey Democrat. Reagan has been criticized by some gun owners for signing legislation containing the Hughes amendment." http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Rights-Ronald-Reagan.htm I fear my old party is dying.....but, I suicide is painless.
And just what will harrassing legitimate commerce do to prevent another Newtown? Armed teachers and armed guards would be quite effective.
I'm pretty sure that this would reduce/eliminate school shootings in America... http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...should-modeled-after-russias-gym-classes.html
As for the bold, I just wonder if the concerned (gun grabbers in particular) would be inclined to have an ID/stamp on Drivers License available from the local Dept of motor vehicle that said basically you are of sound mind and not a felon, to enter gun shows, and just by the fact you are in the place identified you as a responsible citizen would be enough of a precautionary measure. I doubt it since that isn't what all this nonsense is about. Or better yet ( since I like this idea much better), if you are mentally defective or unstable, or a felon, that your drivers license be a specific color as compared to the the rest of the law abiding public so that you could easily be identified, to keep you out of gun shows or purchasing a gun from a private citizen who may be concerned you are going to use the gun for malicious reasons. You know since it isn't the law abiding who should be crucified each and every time they decide to exercise one of their rights. It just seems like there are much better ways of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally disturbed and criminals than making the law abiding citizen jump through hoops that accomplish nothing when it comes to the claimed goals or concerns.
Try dropping the emotional kneejerk reaction you want and think logically. No ban would have changed a thing and I will remind you that there was a ban in effect when the shootings in CO took place. - - - Updated - - - Hmmmmm, and once again we agree.
In 1999, a cleaver wielding lunatic killed 4 people in LATVIA!!! In 2001, a knife wielding lunatic killed 8 people in JAPAN!!! In 2002, a knife wielding lunatic killed 5 people in CHINA!!! In 2004, a knife wielding lunatic killed 4 people in CHINA!!! In 2006, a knife wielding lunatic killed 12 people in CHINA!!! In 2009, a knife wielding lunatic killed 4 people in BELGIUM!!! In 2010, a machete wielding lunatic killed 8 people in CHINA!!! In 2010, a cleaver wielding lunatic killed 2 people in CHINA!!! In 2010, a cleaver wielding lunatic killed 9 people in CHINA!!! In 2010, a knife wielding lunatic killed 3 people in CHINA!!! In 2010, a knife wielding lunatic killed 4 people in the PHILIPINES!!!
Unfortunately the NRA isn't going to budge on a single one of those items. They want to keep the weak laws around straw man purchases and the gun show loophole. In short, the industry will do what it can to make it as easy as possible for any nut to get a gun using only a little ambition. And the tangle of existing laws serve them well. They can point to Chicago's gun control laws and its gun voilence. Never mind that Illinois has open borders. And the system of straw men who arm the Mexican drug cratels are good for business. Not only is it profitable, but the rats nest of middlemen insulate the industry from culpability.
Have bad news for you. Reagan is dead. Been dead. Long time now. Let it go, no matter what you "think" he may have thought about anything. Its moot. The 2A, as much as you may hate it. Is a building block of the birth documents of our nation. Without it, the rest will be nothing more than chaff blowing in the wind. All of our rights are important and none will go anywhere without a fight. Oh, and as far as no one wants to take them. Read quotes from Sen. Fienstien, Gov Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg, VP Biden and see just how much they are willing to take them.
I do not see banning anything as effective, it would compromise the 2nd, and there are far too many weapons in circulation to remove....let alone the Black Market. We will likely never stop bad guys from getting the gun by making them go away. We CAN however lower a probability in hopes it might help lessen the impact of those weapons, it seems rather ignorant to puruit perfection at the cost of progress.....in my opinion.. Taking advantage of a current possibility is not akin to "hurrying".....it is simply a wise thing to do.
You are right. The NRA knows its in a fight. And they are not going to back down for an instance. They have a growing membership of right minded people that will fight right along side them to keep our rights. And you want to bring up Mexican drug cartels? Who funded that BS, Obama and Holder. - - - Updated - - - You are right. The NRA knows its in a fight. And they are not going to back down for an instance. They have a growing membership of right minded people that will fight right along side them to keep our rights. And you want to bring up Mexican drug cartels? Who funded that BS, Obama and Holder.
Tom, please do not lie. The NRA only does what the will of the people who donate want. More so than elected officials. We want what is constitutional. We the people who donate do not want mentally ill running around with firearms, this is a old subject. As for the laws leaning towards the industry? Laws should not be passed that infringe on our rights. Start punishing the law breakers.
Okay... I'm beginning to get really upset too. Boy, there are really stupid people out there. As people mention, none of these regulations would have stopped Newtown -- it only hampers everyone's 2nd amendment rights. If there is a determined person willing to kill people, he will. However, finding the root of the issue is the answer not guns.
Enjoy being an unarmed future victim. Maybe you should think about moving to England. Otherwise I really couldnt care less about how upset you are. - - - Updated - - - Enjoy being an unarmed future victim. Maybe you should think about moving to England. Otherwise I really couldnt care less about how upset you are.
Then placing a stamp or identifying color on DL's and ID cards, obtained at the local motor vehicle that identifies the individual as a criminal or through a doctors data base as someone who has mental issues should be perfectly acceptable. Don't even have to do a back ground check that away just show your ID at the door or you don't come in to a gun show. Just like in a bar or a convenience store with alcohol and tobacco.
So if you are mentally unstable because you are suffering from psd, why would you go to a doctor in the first place if you know that your 2nd amendment rights would be taken away? Also, Adam stole firearms from his mom after killing her. How would background checks stopped him?????? Stupid legislation from stupid liberals/progressives.
Doctors data base? Think about that for just a second. How many ways can that be abused? And thankfully our medical records are private. Dont get caught up in the BS. Just think if you are prescribed a med, or fall ill. Next thing you know you got the cops at your door. Not in America. Not ever. - - - Updated - - - Doctors data base? Think about that for just a second. How many ways can that be abused? And thankfully our medical records are private. Dont get caught up in the BS. Just think if you are prescribed a med, or fall ill. Next thing you know you got the cops at your door. Not in America. Not ever.
How so. I flash an ID, it shows I am not a criminal or a mentally disturbed individual and I can still buy a gun without a bunch of government BS, or not. But I'm not being harassed just for being a law abiding citizen. Now the criminal or mentally disturbed, they will have the problem, just like a minor getting into a bar or buying tobacco or alcohol in a convenience store. The only person being inconvenienced is the criminal and the mentally disturbed who shouldn't have access to guns in the first place. They can still get them, and they can always find a way too, but we can eliminate the threat from gun shows and private party sales by introducing this into the system without harassing the law abiding. As a law abiding citizen I don't have to buy a gun if I choose not too, and I don't have to register every gun I own or purchase at a gun show or from a private citizen but the gun show and/or the private citizen can have peace of mind that they are not selling to a criminal or mentally disturbed nut job. If you can't see the advantages here, then you are not about gun control and all about pissing on the constitution.
