[Masthead] Overcast ~ 73°F  
High: 85°F ~ Low: 63°F
Thursday, July 24, 2014

Gun Control

Posted Sunday, December 23, 2012, at 7:40 PM

With the recent shootings that have been happening gun control is once again a hot topic of media outlets and politicians. Many will argue that banning assault rifles will reduce or eliminate the problems of these mass killings, but will it?

According to several articles I found one of the first recorded school shootings in the United States happened on July 26, 1764, in Greencastle, Pennsylvania. The school master and 10 children were killed. Obviously there were no assault rifles involved but had there been would more people have died? Possibly, but a human life is precious regardless if 10 are lost or 20 isn't it? The greater the number does make it more tragic but to me it seems that those that support tougher gun laws and bans on assault rifles try to paint a picture that yes there still will be killings if these additional laws and bans are in effect but not as many. This may be true but will the number of incidents in which mass killings decrease because of these laws, doubtful. For example, say there are 20 mass shootings a year were assault rifles are used and on average 20 people are killed at each one. Now assume these new laws and bans are in place and eliminate the people committing these shootings from having assault rifles and therefore the same 20 shootings only killed 10 people at each one on average. Did the ban work? In a sense, yes, because less people died but the same number of shootings occurred and people still died at the hands of someone, thus you still have a problem with people, not guns, committing mass shootings.

Many people die every day by the hands of another. They are killed by many different objects and even the bare hands of the assailant but the media and those that want tougher gun laws exploit the more gruesome, tragic killings to try to promote their cause.

The FBI reports that in 2011 there were a total of 12,664 murders in the U.S. of which 8,583 were committed with a firearm and out of those firearms the one that was used the most was a handgun, 6,220. So why not be screaming to ban handguns? Because, those that want more gun laws know that would be a tougher fight because more people own handguns. The assault rifles are a starting point!

Think about this analogy, using the same logic to ban assault rifles. Thousands of people die every year in automobile crashes, many of which are caused by speeding. Our country has speed limit laws defining a safe speed for a particular road, yet auto manufactures make vehicles that can reach speeds of 100+mph. Would a ban on these type of vehicles eliminate or at least reduce the number of deaths from automobile crashes? Why not pass laws requiring the auto manufactures from making vehicles that go over the highest speed limit in our country? Yes we could still have automobile crashes and people would die from them but none would be from speeding correct? The only way to eliminate all deaths caused from automobile crashes would be to eliminate the automobile.

The same logic could be applied to many things, the point is how much government intrusion are we as American people willing to allow? The government controls more and more aspects of our lives each year as new laws are passed. Many, unless you are following them as closely as a senator, you have no idea about. The government feels they know what is best for us. Do any of you honestly trust our government? Look at the screwed up mess our country is in and both parties are to blame yet they continue to play us against each other while they continue to get richer, they continue to live how they want, they are protected by armed security, they have great benefits and healthcare and we just continue letting them control what, when and how we live our lives!

It seems our country is becoming more and more divided. There are those that welcome the idea of the government having more control and there are those that oppose it deeply. Unfortunately, in my opinion there are less people that oppose it, or are they just silent? Thomas Jefferson once said "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

I dont think Georgia,Tennessee,Mississippi and 7 other southern states that are listed in the top 20 states with gun related deaths are Democratic states.Start listening to real news stations.

-- Posted by lets be real on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 11:11 AM

The latest stats the FBI has is for the year 2011

This list shows the weapons used in all of the homicides for that year

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...

This list shows the number of homicides by state

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...

-- Posted by Rodney Simmons on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 10:21 AM

I believe 7 were murdered by guns in Repub states and 8,993 in Demo states. With Demo New Yuk city, 400 and Demo Chicogunk with 500. The feds must take over those two Demo murder capitals of the world, and search every Democrat in the cities. And take away their illegal guns. The 8,993 Demo murderers should be hanged, or forced to watch endless reruns of MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NPR and other Marxist slobbering netwonks.

-- Posted by Grits on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 10:01 AM

Lots of people are paranoid and watching to much Faux news.Having a gun for protection is one thing but owning one that shoots 100 rounds is another.More guns isnt the answer.Columbine had an armed guard.An armed guard at Sandy hook would have been useless against some one able to shoot that many people in a few seconds,and some shot 11 times.And to BRONK,the republicans are doing a good job of discrediting themselves.The majority of americans want gun control,but repubs dont care about what the majority wants.Now they dont even want the one with the most votes to win the presidental election.I have not heard about all these people killed with hammers.I believe there was 9000 killed in America last year by guns.

-- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:08 PM

Our family doesn't believe that the ban on so-called assault rifle's would work because the ban didn't work the first time. However, the mass school shootings has us concerned about our children's protection, which is also on everyone's mind. Because the government doesn't have the budget to provide all schools with needed security, my husband came up with a plan that would provide all schools with needed security. If each parent would contribute $1 per week or $25 per year to school for security, a school of 700 could provide an off-duty officer for the school. Schools that house 3000 students would have funding for 4 officers,while they may need 2 officers, the additional officers could be moved to schools that don't meet the budget such as, preschools and schools with less than 700 students. This could be achieved without government intervention from the county, city or state.

We have one child who attends a bedford county school with a full time police officer, but some schools lack this benefit. With the current 40 day protection provided to all bedford county schools, many of our residents are provided with relief.

Just our thoughts!!!

-- Posted by lori1215 on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 8:17 PM

To anyone that might be misled by the liberally biased media (or anyone else) into believing that an assault weapons ban will stop or curtail these types of mass shootings, please let me remind you all that there were 13 mass shootings (including Columbine) during the last assault weapons ban lasting from 1994 through 2004. Statistically speaking, the ban had no effect whatsoever.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 4:17 PM

According to the FBI more people were killed with hammers in 2012 than with any type of rifle.

-- Posted by kings11 on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 12:09 PM

Give me my liberty gun, or give me a defenseless death.

-- Posted by Grits on Sun, Jan 13, 2013, at 10:25 AM

An assault weapon is a military selective fire weapon and not the ar15 that simply looks like a military weapon and operates quite differently. An AR15 is not automatic like a machine gun. It is a semi auto that only fires one round with one pull of the trigger.

Also, get educated folks, a magazine holds ammunition that fits into an AR15, it is not a "CLIP", again a clip is something totally different. Learn before you stick your foot in your mouth. Never use the terms the media uses as they are so often incorrect. The media has an anti gun agenda as they are usually liberals, they like gay marriage, big government, abortion, as well as a number of other left wing liberal issues, just as Obama and Biden like these same issues and agenda. The media likes Obama and Biden, that is why they carved Romney up so often and made the happy scene with Obama. Biden has always hated firearms because the Conservatives are pro gun and the liberals hate that which Conservative like. Like a dog and cat, or oil and water. These liberals use this as a way to disarm the Conservative side and cancel out the GOP agenda of Freedom of Religion, anti abortion, anti gay marriage.

The voters voted Obama into and back into office, so now he cannot be re-elected and he has found a way to help keep the Liberals in office which is by discrediting the GOP in any manor possible.

-- Posted by Bronk on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 7:20 PM

You all do not seem to get the point. It is not about need! It is not about hunting! It is about the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The US Supreme Court said that the 2nd Amend. does apply to individual citizens. It is about what is mandated by the Constitution. Need has nothing to do with it. Just as you do not need a car, an airplane, ETC.

I can never understand anyone that has an interest in giving away the Rights set down in the Constitution. The Right of free speech is the First Amendment, yet you have no one here saying the CNN should limit the air time of horrible stories like Sandy Hook because it brings forward copy cat killers which was perhaps the case of Sandy Hook itself. Just as the two firemen were killed as a result of copy cat incident.

We are a very intelligent nation and we should find a way to stop these horrible killings that does not deprive us of "ANY" of our Constitutional Rights that were paid for in blood themselves.

Besides, the first Assault Weapon Ban passed in 1994 was not in the least effective and saved no lives statistically speaking.

-- Posted by Bronk on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 7:05 PM

"It" "They" are not "assault weapons". The word is 'firearm'. "Assault weapon" only comes into play if someone uses the "firearm" in that manner; with "that" intention. If the government takes away our 2nd amendment rights, they will take away our only means of self-protection in the world we live in today. Think about it... a knife, a hammer or for that matter 'a rubber plunger' can be used as an assault weapon. I want to keep my 2nd amendment rights...

-- Posted by decorate1956 on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 12:48 PM

@lazarus...why yes, but then I would be a criminal! lol

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Tue, Jan 1, 2013, at 10:12 PM

Tim, are you the only person in america unaware that the first thing you are supposed to do with your AR-15 when you purchase it, is make the rather minor modification so that it can function as intended; as a fully automatic weapon?

-- Posted by lazarus on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 7:40 PM

Once and for all, the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It DOES NOT have a select auto switch. It can ONLY fire one round each time you pull the trigger. This gun has not and will not ever be issued to our combat troops for the above listed reasons alone. The letters AR do not stand for assault rifle. Those two letters simply represent Armalite, the company that manufactures this rifle. Again it is NOT a military issue weapon. It is simply a civilian version of the assault rifle that the military does use, the M-16 which is fully automatic, and is standard issue to every soldier in our armed forces. If we allow our government to ban this simple single shot rifle, what's next? Our second ammendment rights were not intended to preserve the right to hunt. It's main purpose was to allow for personal protection, even if need be from a tyranical government.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 4:30 PM

Lazarus, no need to call names just because others don't agree with your views, that could be considered hate speech, or worse, terrorism:0

I copied and posted the FAQs from the act Obama signed last year, it is up for consideration again this year. It wasn't just him, this is being driven by the GOP he just went along(and we thought they couldn't work together);; Think he will change his mind this time?

Read the FAQs.

The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is once again being considered by Congress for the fiscal year (FY) 2013. Last year's bill, for the fiscal year 2012, contained provisions related to the detention of terrorism suspects.

Here's an FAQ on how the current version of the NDAA violates the rule of law.

Under the detention provisions in the defense authorization bill, who can be detained indefinitely by the military without charge or trial?

The FY 2012 NDAA permits the military to indefinitely detain without charge or trial individuals determined to be members or substantial supporters of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. The law does not define "associated forces" or what it means to provide substantial support.

Are American citizens or other individuals apprehended within the United States subject to indefinite military detention under the FY 2012 NDAA?

American citizens can be detained under the FY2012 NDAA because the bill codifies into federal statute existing authorities, which allow the military to detain U.S. citizens

As far as a the citizens inflicting more than a flea bite on the U.S. military;

I think you underestimate our citizenry. Don't forget, more than half of the U.S Army are soldier citizens with the National Guard and Army Reserve. I know, I am one. We not only can, but will, be on the side of the U.S. citizens. Our oath was to "Uphold the Constitution of the U.S. against all enemies foreign and domestic". The greatest threat to the constitution I have ever seen now sits in Washington D.c.

Memyself is right, We need to pay attention and quit being apathetic.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 2:17 PM

I believe that there are indeed some who wish to disarm the population at large, and given the tepid reaction within this blog, they will certainly succeed. The disarmament is not being sought because the small arms which we are currently allowed would be a challenge to the military, but because we are not even worthy of an expensive and expansive military solution. Our complacency has rendered us easily manageable by a small, moderately trained, lightly armed force, and without our small arms, even more so. A further co-opting of our local law enforcement agencies-or a small federal policing agency-would render us completely susceptible to absolute tyranny, not just the political and economic tyranny that we already face.

The issues are not assault rifles or high capacity magazines. The objective appears to be two-fold. The elimination of private sales would allow for the effective tracking of all firearms, which would provide a very reliable database of where every gun is (and by extension-exactly where to find it and/or how to approach the owner). Every gun could then feasibly be confiscated within 30 days by existing law enforcement, if they were ever given the order. Moreover, the number of guns in existence could be slowly reduced by making their acquisition more and more difficult over time.

The second objective is far more nefarious and foreboding. It is to begin to link the mental health industry with the policing agencies. That may, at first glance, seem like a good idea, but upon closer examination, it could be a nightmare. What the previous DSM did to our children, the upcoming version will likely be extending to us all. Not to mention the unprecedented degree of federal control of the mental health field, given the changes in healthcare finance. But hey, who is going to need guns or liberty when ninety percent of us will eventually be on psychotropics anyway.

Don't be gulled by the bureaucrats into believing that this tragedy is the motivation for policy change. Were half a million dead Middle Eastern children sufficient for policy change in this generation? How about untold thousands of dead African children in the previous generation. What of the uncountable millions of dead South-East Asian children in the generation before that? The policy makers do not care about the unfortunate realities of a handful of children. Moreover, they understand that we cannot be protected from every tragedy that we may encounter. Neither we, nor our children, are guaranteed any day. To demand such protections from government is to sacrifice what our government can provide (liberty) in exchange for what it can never provide (absolute security).

We will never be safe from people who intent to cause harm. Our best defense is to try to create fewer and fewer people who are so alienated and hopeless, that they come to believe that their best option is a killing spree.

We live in rapidly changing times. Everywhere we look, there is a foot in the door, with the precipice of a very slippery slope just beyond that. My deluded paranoia notwithstanding, I suggest we pay attention; this may be important.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 8:18 AM

Ummm, livefor, all those things *are* being done now.The one thing that hasn't happened is the suspension of habeus corpus. You are really far too gullible.

As far as my firearms being the "lynchpin" protecting any of my rights, I am not yet addled enough to indulge in fantasies that a rabble of fruitcakes (even armed with bushmasters and carrying "mancards") could inflict anything greater than a flea-bite on the US military.

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 9:30 PM

Lazarus; Looks like you understand everything but your question.

It could be that the arms you have (or may have) are the lynch pin that keeps all those other things you mentioned from being done to you. That is what the 2nd amendment is for.

Of course, if as you stated, your intention is; "to shoot up an elemenatry school" presumably to kill innocent people, you may be relegated to using a large truck on cruise control or a plurality of other deadly devices instead.

Or, since Obama has suspended Habeus Corpus for citizens, the ATF could read your post, consider you a threat, and apply the laws that already exist to you, holding you indefinitely without trial.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 6:54 PM

Let me see if I understand this. I can be wiretapped without a warrant. I can be renditioned to a foreign country without charges, imprisoned and tortured. The government can "condemn" my property and force me to sell it to a private business for development, at any price they choose. The police can stop me for no reason, confiscate any cash I might have on me, declare that they suspect I obtained it illegally, not charge me with anything, and keep it. A private company can take a picture of my car from a mounted camera and fine me for a "traffic violation" with no proof at all, split the fine with the government, and I have no recourse. The government can force me to allow people to come onto my property armed, whether I like it or not. I can be forced to submit urine or hair samples without cause, just to be employed. I have to be willing to submit to groping and strip searches to travel by airplane...

But, if I cannot purchase the right weapon to shoot up an elementary school, my "rights" and "freedoms" are in danger of being eroded?

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 2:26 PM

RV, you say no one wants to ban all guns. You must have missed feinstein interview after the 94 ban and various quotes from Obama, Schumer, etc.

-- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 7:32 PM

RV-You say making something illegal makes it harder to get. OK, I can agree with that,.. somewhat. It makes it harder to get LEGALLY, meaning you can't buy it off the shelf at your local Wal-mart. But, that does not mean these people won't be able to obtain them. There are several drugs that are illegal, but can still be easily obtained. In fact, making items harder to get drives the value of the item up, which leads to more lucrative opportunities for the criminals. Just look at the criminal activities and murders surrounding the drug trade.

So, as you should be able to see, any regulation designed to make things harder to obtain MUST be enforced to be effective. How does that differ from the laws we already have?

The real problem will not be easily or quickly solved. It didn't get this way overnight and it is not going to be fixed overnight especially, by taking away the rights of the law abiding citizens. What it will do, is make many more people illegal overnight. Giving up rights, one by one, means that eventually you will have no rights. Then, when the enforcer comes, he can jail virtually anyone he wants. The Obama administration has passed the suspension of Habeus Corpus for citizens, so you might not even get a trial.

The change we really need is in the individuals. A whole nation of law enforcers adhering to limited, just, and righteous, laws. A return to strong moral and family values. Humble ourselves and pray, as an individual, and as a nation. Stop letting Hollywood, the media, video games, the government, and whosoever will, set the direction for our childrens moral compass.

People want to reject God and his teachings. Then, act like they don't know what to do when the world goes to hell in a handbasket. The further we get from his word the worse it will get.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 6:42 PM

bradycampaign.org has a ranking system for the strongest gun laws by state. Each state has a score listed with the highest possible score being 100 based on criteria such as gun dealer regulations, limit bulk purchases,back ground checks, etc. You can check each state here-http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/. Connecticut,the state that the recent shootings in Sandy Hook occurred in, is ranked 5th.

-- Posted by Rodney Simmons on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 5:55 PM

Increasing gun control will not solve any of these problems. It a person alreadly has a weapon ILLEGALLY they don't care about breaking any laws concerning use of that weapon no matter where they are at. The prevailing thought seems to be increased controls or banning of guns will stop CRIMINALS from shooting said weapons. Criminals could care less if they are breaking the law which is what anyone involved in any of these mass shootings is: a criminal.

That said, I do not own any type of weapon since I would probably be Barney Fife and shoot myself in the foot. If people own guns legally they need to follow some basic rules. The first being gun safety and use. If you have chilren around, keep said weapon away from them. Accidents happen especialy when kids get curious. Lastly, if you own a weapon for safety, all the above aside, you MUST be willing to shoot to KILL. I'm not sure if I am willing to put myself in that situation.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 5:36 PM

Nobody wants to ban all guns. Not President Obama, or anyone else. But we have to make assault weapons and high capacity clips illegal, thus making it much harder for mentally unstable people to obtain. I also think that there should be stricter regulations when purchasing weapons. Right now weapons are sold at gun shows and on the open market as easy as buying a used television. I am a gun owner, and have no problem registering my guns, going thru a strict waiting period, or taking some sort of evaluation process. If we just sit back and keep things the way they are, we can just expect these random shootings of innocent people to be a common occurrence. And I don't think turning our schools and shopping malls into something that resembles a maximum security prison is the answer.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 3:36 PM

RV No one has said there should be NO regulations. That is absurd! There are already plenty of regulations none of which are working. There was also an assault weapons ban during Columbine!

Perhaps you think guns should be outlawed all together? That hasn't worked for drugs, it didn't work for prohibition and it want work for guns.

The problem is not with the objects (guns, drugs, alcohol, etc.) the problem is with the people who use them for evil purposes.

What regulation(s) do you suggest that will work to fix the problem?

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 2:00 PM

Three police officers were shot this morning inside a New Jersey police station. There were two armed guards inside the school when the Columbine massacre happened. And Virgina Tech had its own police force. But for some reason you think that MORE guns, and no regulations on the most deadly military style assault weapons is still the answer? Amazing.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 12:20 PM

The AR-15 was not even used in the Sandu Hook shooting. It was handguns only! But yet, they want to ban the assualt rifles. Sounds to me like this is agenda driven. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/5...

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 10:54 AM

If the availability of guns is the problem, where are the mass shootings at police departments, shooting ranges and gun stores?

The problem is gun free zones. These shooters are pathetic losers who want to be noticed. Infamy is better than oblivion to them, so attacking large groups of unarmed people is a proven method to get notoriety.

-- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 8:28 AM

No I said MAYBE I am a bad shot but bottom line is I don't have to explain why I need or even want one because my gun has never harmed a soul.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 8:21 AM

As long as military style assault weapons are legal and readily available to every average joe, we will continue to see mass shootings and the carnage that these weapons leave behind. The arguements that I have heard that support keeping these weapons available to average citizens seems crazy to me. Dianatn says she needs one because she's such a bad shot that she needs 50 rounds to hit her target. Well Diana, maybe you should spend some time at the shooting range and practice up a bit.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 7:46 AM

Switzerland has ALL the citizens armed and trained. Look at thses statistics vs the U.S. http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Swit.... Clearly it is not the guns that are causing the U.S numbers to be higher. This data shows the opposite to be true.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 5:20 AM

How many of the mass shooting have occurred in "gun free zones"? Guess the bad guy missed the signs.

Even if we accept the logically flawed argument of banning guns, how do we enforce it? The only way to be sure no one has guns is for random police searches to check. Ready to give up your 4th amendment rights too?

The simple fact is that areas in the U.S. with restrictive gun laws have higher crime rates. The anti gun folks say that's because the bad guys import them from other areas, but they fail to explain why those other areas have lower crime rates.

For those who say there is no need for "assault weapons" (a made up term to elicit an emotional response instead of a logical one), consider the Korean store owners during the L.A. riots who took to the rooftops with them to protect their businesses when the cops wouldn't come in.

To the argument that the founders couldn't have envisioned the technology, so the 2A doesn't apply, consider that the congress issued letters of Marque and Reprisal to private owners of warships and cannons. Not much "sporting use" for those, huh?

Also, during the civil war, guys came out of the hills with their Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles which were far more advanced than the muskets carried by the federal troops, yet there was no call to ban them.

The technology has changed, but the principle remains.

Should we also apply that faulty leftist logic to freedom of the press? Surely the founders couldn't have envisioned, bloggers, the internet, or live satellite news reports from across the globe. So should it be limited to manual typeset presses made before 1800?

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 11:01 PM

I think there is a lot of paranoid people living in Tenn.America has ten times more people killed by guns than any other country.People are not being killed in mass amounts by someone going wrong way on a 2 lane stretch every day,but they are with guns.Any one who thinks assault rifles should not be banned would think different if what happened in Conn happened to them. Do you think those families want assault rifles banned?Now the NRA wants guns in schools,that is insane.

-- Posted by lets be real on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 10:35 PM

Regulation Has worked so well on the war against drugs.. hasn't it?

There isn't one illegal drug you can name that you can not buy on the streets.

Ban Guns and all you are doing is making innocent people go unprotected and criminals richer by selling them on the street.

And maybe nobody needs an assault rifle but then again who are you to tell me what I need or don't need. Maybe just maybe I am such a bad shot it takes me 50 rounds to hit the target.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 8:09 PM

RV let me clarify further. It is not the object(s) i.e. guns, hand grenades, etc. that are the problem. The problem is the people using them for evil purposes. Regulations are needed to protect the innocent because evil exists. Regulations are absolutely useless without adherence to them. Those with evil intent do not adhere to regulations! Therefore, there must be enforcement to FORCE adherence. Guns are already illegal on school property. What about enforcing that law? Doesn't that make more sense than passing new gun control laws that will only affect those who adhere to the law? If then, we agree that enforcement is necessary, the law should be very focused on the prevention of the evil acts and not upon infringing on the rights of the law abiding citizen. If our government is doing a poor job of enforcing the laws we already have, then why would anyone think that passing more laws will be more effective?

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 10:25 AM

ROCKET: FYI some people do own those things without incident. Some even own canons capable of firing projectiles for miles. Yes, we should be ABLE to own these things. You said ALL! SO,NO,I don't believe ALL people should be able to. SOME people are mentally unstable, terrorists, aliens, etc. I am not saying there should be no regulation. I am saying, sufficient regulation is already in place and that elimination and/or seizure of guns will not solve this problem.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 6:35 AM

Liveforlight, if that's what you believe, than I guess we should all be able to own hand grenades and rocket launchers, right? How about tanks?

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 2:45 AM

When and if assault weapons are banned, only our government and criminals will have them. I'm not comfortable with that. I honestly don't see how anyone could be.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 9:24 PM

The second amendment was written so that the people could protect themselves from anyone, including and especially, the government. So, should the government, from which the people are to protect themselves, be the ones to tell the people what they need for protection?

I agree most people don't NEED an AK-47 and the vast majority don't have them. However, there is an old saying that is true. "Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."

The solution to preventing evil acts will not be found by taking away the rights of the individuals on which the evil is being perpetrated. It is more likely to lead to the proliferation of evil as the government gains more control. It has been governments that have been behind the greatest slaughters in our history and that usually after disarming the citizens. I think it is foolhardy to think it can't/won't happen again.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 8:37 PM

When the 2nd ammendment was enacted there were no AK-47s, only muskets. I'm not sure, but if I had to choose death by a AK-47 or a musket shot to the head, I would pick the AK-47. That's probably why the founders included "shall not be infringed". Just in case King George decided to try again, and the settlers could only fight back with sling shots, because the liberals like mayor Bloomberg had outlawed muskets. Hmnnn, sling shots good muskets bad.

-- Posted by Grits on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 7:32 PM

When the second ammendment was written,it meant guns for protection,not the assault weapons of today.You dont need a AK-47 for protection,only to kill in mass quanity.

-- Posted by lets be real on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 7:06 PM

In regards to WWJD, while this is always a worthwhile question to prayerfully ask, we can not be absolutely sure what anyone else would do. Especially someone of noble character such as Jesus. Personally, I have said many times what I would do in this or that situation only to prove myself wrong when it actually occured. He COULD stop the shooter, or restore the lives of those who were slain. So, given the endless possibilities at his disposal, my best answer would be only speculation based on my knowledge of him. I can tell you what he did and instructed his disciples to do.

Lu 22:36 And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.

The events following these instruction make it clear that Jesus did not use the swords to defend himself. He knew his destiny was to be taken and crucified. When one of his disciples took the sword and cut the ear off one of his captors, Jesus restored the ear.

This again is speculation, but I think he told his disciples to buy swords so that THEY could defend themselves. They did not have the same destiny as he did at this time. Peters use of the sword and Jesus subsequent restoration of the ear were all that were needed to procure the freedom of his disciples.

The Bible is also clear that EVIL people will be destroyed by various weapons that the Lord will use in end times.

So the question concerning gun control is; Are guns evil? My answer is that no object is evil unless it is used for an evil purpose. Guns were made for the purpose of killing. So, is killing evil? Murder, whether for revenge, theft, hatred, jealousy, etc. is evil and violates Gods commands. But, not all killing is murder. Some is for procurring food and some is for self defense. Neither of these things are prohibited by scripture.

The reality of our world is that guns exists, and evil exists. It is not the gun that is the problem, it is the evil. What we need is evil control and that, Jesus would, can, has, and will do.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 12:33 PM

justus, the reason we don't hear "WWJD" anymore, is because Jesus found out 400 persons were murdered by guns in Chicago by October. We found out what Jesus would do, when he grabbed Mary, St. Pete and the kids, and moved to New Zealand. Jesus could have hid in the basement of the school where Obama sends his kids. The school has 11 armed guards. It is also where MarxSNBC David Gregory(gun grabber freakazoid) yabbers and blabbers left wigit whomperpoop. The anchors at the network have to wear waist high rubber leggings to wade through the floor muck at the putrid possipuppel Democrat crapper studiosity.

-- Posted by Grits on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 9:16 AM

A ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips would save lives. It's that simple. The "slippery slope" argument is ridiculous and paranoid. A ban on basic guns used for home protection and hunting will never happen. But nobody needs a AR-15 or AK-47 for either. Tim Lokey- I have a question for you. You seem to believe that banning assault weapons and high capacity clips, making them less readily available to average people, won't have an effect on the number of lives taken in random shootings, because some people will find a way to get them illegally. What if we said the same thing about drinking and driving. Why not just let people drink and drive? I mean, some people are going to do it anyway. Do you think more people would die in alcohol related auto accidents if we didn't have that law in place?

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 9:04 AM

Wow, you make a lot of assumptions about people jstus and seem to do a lot of judging yourself. Maybe you should practice what you preach. I also love how you try to turn this into a politically divisive issue which is sad and pathetic and your comment is filled with so much hateful rhetoric.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 6:24 AM

Wow , you guys are a hoot, so much fear mongering, what wonderful puppets bowing down to the will of the GOP and NRA...... Better watch out the big bad wolf is knocking at your door better go buy more of WMD's , after all isn't that WJWD ? Call yourselves Christians, yet read these post where in any of them is there any hint of how Jesus would ask you to behave? The only way the folks speaking here will get on their knees is to do the soldier crawl with a huge gun in their hands. I know of so many people who were on the fence as far as giving their hearts to Our Lord who turned away, their reason given was that they do not want to belong to something that is bringing so much hate into this world. They complain about the GOP claims to be the Moral majority , the Christians and then they talk about the hypocrisy of their actions toward their fellow man in relation to the word of GOd and how they are so different from each other. We need to remember those 4 simple letters when we speak and act WWJD ? Have you noticed how seldom you hear that any more?

-- Posted by jstus on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 9:38 PM

The shooter in Conneticut violated several of their very strict gun laws before he ever arrived at the school. Proving once again that no amount of gun laws will stop a deranged criminal from obtaining these weapons or committing a violent act. Even if all you were allowed to own were bolt action rifles, the anti-gun zealots would describe them as sniper rifles. Once we start down this path, we are headed towards becoming a society of victims.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 9:12 PM

I'm not particularly fond of assault weapons. I don't own any. However, if these are successfully banned, then only the government and the criminals will have them. I honestly don't see how anyone could be comfortable with that.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 9:04 PM

People are stepping up to confront the tragedy of small children and innocent adults being gunned down...it's not about hand guns used for protection we need those to shot the idiots that are robbing our stores and pharmacies and breaking into our homes...and it's not about our shotguns that we need to hunt so we can tend that neanderthal intellectual hunger we have for searching out food and holding to tradition...

But It is about automatic weapons of war on our streets and guns that have many auto load clips in the hands of our mentally-ill and the crime ridden streets of the big city that are murdering each other over territory or drugs or hate...

It is time....

It's no longer in this day or time about a right to use and own a gun properly to protect our citizens and families that we will always have the right to do...But...It is time to stop the innocent killing of children when in any way or form we can and,by any means possible stop that madness. The only way to achieve a goal like that is to lessen the availability of such weapons in the wrong hands and to create laws or promote the idea by words or media, to step up and demand our leaders to act are the only options and know-how we seem to have....so enough is enough stop letting any platforming, pride or politics get in the way of what needs to be done...I do agree that it is a shame it had to come to this and that some reasoning humans have to spoil the love of holding and owning a powerful thing such as a gun for those that just have to have that power over others....but the children that were shot multiple times in all their innocence did not have or will ever have a say...but we do!

I like the majority of those that get it,will immediately start to act and respond to stop by anyways possible the further slaughter of innocent lives, especially our children they are our future and, like us, a product of our environment, so I will also stand for what things and norms they are exposed to from any and all unnecessary violence, curbing their wisdom and infiltrating their brains from TV,culture,video gaming,music and talk that may place them in a mindset of such gun violence while in a stage of self discovery as a teen or young adult.

May God intervene in the treacherous, violent, mass murders of our children's lives and mental health!

-- Posted by chefgrape on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 6:18 PM

After reading this "commentary," it strikes me that ya'lls fears are misdirected.You have little to fear from any government "grabbing your guns." But if they start locking up the mentally ill...

-- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 6:18 PM

Agree Tim: "shall not be infringed" is very clear and is ignored by the gun grabbers. Hitler confiscated guns and when he started killing, no one out of the party could defend themseleves. Stalin did it, Mao did it, and now the Christian hating NY scum that slithered out of Russia to the US, want to do it.

-- Posted by Grits on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 5:38 PM

Please research the Dick Act of 1902 (Efficency of Militia Bill #H.R. 11654)It's unrepealable and expressly forbids government to ban private ownership of guns.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 1:37 AM

The worst mass murder of children in our country occured in Carrollton, KY on May 14, 1988. At approximately 11:00 PM, 34 year old Larry Mahoney was driving the wrong way down a two lane stretch of highway when he collided head on with a church bus returning from an outing. The crash was horrific, 23 children and 4 adults were literally burned alive. Mr. Mahoney's BAC at the time of the crash was .24% or one and a half times the then legal limit of .10%. The government did the right thing, they did not call for the banning of school buses, Toyota trucks or alcohol. They punished the criminal, Mr. Mahoney.

There is not one single gun law imaginable that will prevent criminals from obtaining them, nor prevent the next school shooting. Most he forgotten, but the Columbine school shooting occured AFTER the last assault weapons ban.

-- Posted by Tim Lokey on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 1:23 AM

Ben Franklin once said, Gentlemen we must all hang together ,or assuredly we shall all hang separately. Too many times Americans have sit back and let a few groups of people dictate what we can do in this country. I think that grown people can make a rational choices.I would have never thought you could not smoke in public,have to give up an cooking oil to keep you from getting to much trans fat,I could go on forever. People we have to stand up to the ban on assault weapons.First will be assault weapons then your handguns down to your hunting rifle.We have a right given by the founding fathers of this country to arm ourself.Take away our guns,take away our freedom. Would you rather have a gun in the hands of your enemy and you have none,or have a gun in your hand to defend yourself? Don't stand by and watch,take action.Join the NRA today and let them stand up for law abiding citizens like ourself.Do nothing and you will have nothing.

-- Posted by kings11 on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 2:07 PM

Blaming the gun for killing is like blaming a fork for making you fat!!!

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 8:51 AM

The right to "keep and bear arms" may have originally been intended to allow for an armed civilian population that could be formed into a militia upon short notice.

While that does not seem necessary now, there are many who distrust government to "do the right thing" and therefore feel the need to be ready in case government oversteps their bounds. Thus the feeling that they need firearms on steroids.

While a staunch supporter of being able to keep and bear arms, I do not think the general public needs assault rifles. That said, I also wonder how to draw the line. Many semi-automatic weapons can be turned into automatic so do we go back to bolt action? I think not.

I also agree that the weapon is NOT the real problem. While this mother paid the ultimate price, what was she thinking when she bought an assault rifle to share some quality time with her distressed son?

What has our society done that makes it so hard for parents to say no, I am not going to assist you in learning how to shoot when I know you are not mentally stable.

NO, I know you are unstable so I am not going to help you learn how to make methamphetamine or bombs.

Yes, I love you but.......No, am I NOT going to look the other way and in fact I know it is out of my abilities so I am going to get him/her help or bring them to the attention of those who can.

-- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 8:10 AM

You should never blame the weapon, since it is nothing but an inanimate object and needs a person to operate it. So it is not the guns fault. However, there is no need for a citizen to have a military style weapon. You cannot hunt for food with it. It is designed to kill numerous objects (whether it is animal or human) at one time. Will banning them stop psychotic people from killing each other? No. They will only choose a different weapon or get the same. It is just like the problem with drugs. They are illegal, but yet people still grow them, manufacture them, sell them, and use them. So banning them without any real consequences has not done any good. Turn the prison from hotels to actual punishment houses, then maybe there would be a change.

Instead of the government focusing on an inanimate object, they need to focus on the mental health care and the parenting in this county. There are more young people who are simply just turned out into the world without any sort of parenting, respect, or common sense knowledge. Parents should be forced to be more responsible for their children. In the Sandy Hook case, if the young man would have received treatment for his mental illness instead of just pulled out of public school and left at home, then maybe everything would have been different. Mental illness is more dangerous than any weapon that you can imagine. I have dealt with a family member who has a very serious mental illness and have seen the destruction it can do. But, until people realize that it doesn't matter what weapon was used, that it is the person who chose that option and path, America is doomed to repeat the past.

-- Posted by -Beth- on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 4:43 AM

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 450 without ever firing a shot or using an assault rifle. He detonated a truck bomb and injured more people in an instance than any assault rifle could. If someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way to do it no matter if you ban guns or not. If people start killing each other by using knives or cars and any other object in mass numbers, are we going to ban those too? If you start banning one type of gun then it starts a chain reaction that will eventually have all guns banned. It is easier for us to "blame" guns for these horrible acts because we as a society don't want to take responsibility for the fact that many times we are the ones who create these killers through bullying and/or ridiculing anyone who looks or acts differently. What happened in Sandy Hook was sad but banning assault rifles really does not solve the real problem at hand and only starts a chain reaction that eventually will lead to more rights being stripped away.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 1:59 AM

I have a gun in my home.But I dont need one that shoots 30 rounds to protect myself or hunt. Last week a man in China stabbed 20 kids,none died.These guns serve one purpose and that is to kill humans and in mass numbers in a split second.Compare the number of people killed in America each year to all other countries.When you can shoot 26 people several times each in a second something has to change.Ban assault rifles.This was a wake up call.

-- Posted by lets be real on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 10:19 PM

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. A God fearing citizen does not shoot to kill, they shoot to stay alive. The US senators screaming for gun control within 30 minutes after the Sandy Hook shootings were from states with the strictist gun control laws.

-- Posted by Grits on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 8:30 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Rodney Simmons is a life long resident of Bedford County. He grew up in the Halls Mill area and graduated from Community High School. Rodney's career has primarily been in the construction industry and he holds a degree in Construction Management. Some of his hobbies include fishing, reading and writing. He presently lives in Shelbyville with his wife and two teenage children.
Hot topics
Parking on the Square
(5 ~ 5:16 PM, Nov 1)

No White House Tours for You!
(39 ~ 5:02 AM, Apr 7)

Gun Control
(60 ~ 11:11 AM, Jan 28)

Black Friday
(6 ~ 12:39 PM, Nov 20)

A Wheel Tax - For or Against?
(100 ~ 4:56 PM, Oct 2)