School shooting in CT

[mipafox 438]

...and PA is a blue state.

 

 

OK, Texas is a red state with shitty gun laws and low carry rates.  You got me there.

 

This wasn't about PA or Florida, it was about the misconception that Texas has strong firearm heritage and commensurate laws.  It just happens that Florida and Pennsylvania have the most CCW permits.

[mipafox 438]

I have many friends living in TX, and they are very pro self defense...Walk in and buy a pistol with just a call for background varification (no 6 months to get a permit)...All the pistols you want (no 1 per/month)...Many self defense shootings - at least in Homes - not prosicuted at all...Pass the test you get a CCW.

 

OK, I'll play.

 

America (including PA) walk in and buy a pistol "with just a call for background varification {sic}(no 6 months to get a permit)...All the pistols you want (no 1 per/month"

 

But no test to pass to get a CCW.

[PDM 91]

The NRA needs to be constructive. Gun control advocates want a dialogue? Let's have one. What additional law, conceivably, could have made a difference in this horrible tragedy? Answer: mental illness and guns don't mix. Virginia Tech, Aurora, the Giffords shooting, the recent mall shooting in Oregon, this most recent school shooting, even Columbine to some degree -- all involved outright mental illness or extreme sociopathic behavior. In at least some of these cases the shooter obtained the guns from a family member. It should be a FELONY for anyone to possess firearms when there is someone undergoing treatment for mental illness or with clear signs of mental illness living in the home. In this regard, the burden needs to be on the gun owner. If there is any doubt on this issue, don't own guns. This is the only type of law that can be tailored to the problems we've been seeing. Whatever one thinks about gun rights, an assault weapons ban will do absolutely nothing to make anyone safer.

 

The NRA should, however, be willing to engage in a disucssion of magazine capacity. 10 rounds is simply the wrong number -- there are far too many magazines of various sorts out there up to 20 rounds, and a myriad of firearms come with mags between 10 and 20 rounds. A ban of 30 rounds or above would not realistically impede on anyone's ability to defend themselves.

 

Tied to any of these discussions should be a discussion of nationwide carry rights, including in current may issue states. The evidence is overwhelming that carry permit holdsers are overall more law abiding than the general population. Plus we now have a ct of appeals decision (by an anti-gun judge) holding that the 2A applies outside the home. The NRA, and we need to stop being reactive and absolutists and engage in discussion that will lead to laws that at least have a chance at mitigating the likelihood of these types of tragedies, while also preserving and expanding our rights in important areas (ie CCW).

[ruger9 0]

Fasten your seatbelts. The first salvo has been fired. I know clicking on a Huffington Post link will make you feel dirty. Sorry about that. :-)

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_2311477.html

 

And some people here acted like I was crazy...

[Combat Auto 174]

The NRA needs to be constructive. Gun control advocates want a dialogue? Let's have one. What additional law, conceivably, could have made a difference in this horrible tragedy? Answer: mental illness and guns don't mix. Virginia Tech, Aurora, the Giffords shooting, the recent mall shooting in Oregon, this most recent school shooting, even Columbine to some degree -- all involved outright mental illness or extreme sociopathic behavior. In at least some of these cases the shooter obtained the guns from a family member. It should be a FELONY for anyone to possess firearms when there is someone undergoing treatment for mental illness or with clear signs of mental illness living in the home. In this regard, the burden needs to be on the gun owner. If there is any doubt on this issue, don't own guns. This is the only type of law that can be tailored to the problems we've been seeing. Whatever one thinks about gun rights, an assault weapons ban will do absolutely nothing to make anyone safer.

 

The NRA should, however, be willing to engage in a disucssion of magazine capacity. 10 rounds is simply the wrong number -- there are far too many magazines of various sorts out there up to 20 rounds, and a myriad of firearms come with mags between 10 and 20 rounds. A ban of 30 rounds or above would not realistically impede on anyone's ability to defend themselves.

 

Tied to any of these discussions should be a discussion of nationwide carry rights, including in current may issue states. The evidence is overwhelming that carry permit holdsers are overall more law abiding than the general population. Plus we now have a ct of appeals decision (by an anti-gun judge) holding that the 2A applies outside the home. The NRA, and we need to stop being reactive and absolutists and engage in discussion that will lead to laws that at least have a chance at mitigating the likelihood of these types of tragedies, while also preserving and expanding our rights in important areas (ie CCW).

Well said, I been pushing a similiar view...NRA digging their heels is not going to work this time - this is the BIG-one...NRA needs to be proactive and help propose solutions.

[mipafox 438]

;

Well said, I been pushing a similiar view...NRA digging their heels is not going to work this time - this is the BIG-one...NRA needs to be proactive and help propose solutions.

 

NRA never dug its heals in.  Most of the federal gun control laws in this country since the beginning of time were proposed by the NRA.  Including the NFA and the GCA.

[Steve_G 51]

The NRA needs to be constructive. Gun control advocates want a dialogue? Let's have one. What additional law, conceivably, could have made a difference in this horrible tragedy? Answer: mental illness and guns don't mix. Virginia Tech, Aurora, the Giffords shooting, the recent mall shooting in Oregon, this most recent school shooting, even Columbine to some degree -- all involved outright mental illness or extreme sociopathic behavior. In at least some of these cases the shooter obtained the guns from a family member. It should be a FELONY for anyone to possess firearms when there is someone undergoing treatment for mental illness or with clear signs of mental illness living in the home. In this regard, the burden needs to be on the gun owner. If there is any doubt on this issue, don't own guns. This is the only type of law that can be tailored to the problems we've been seeing. Whatever one thinks about gun rights, an assault weapons ban will do absolutely nothing to make anyone safer.

 

The NRA should, however, be willing to engage in a disucssion of magazine capacity. 10 rounds is simply the wrong number -- there are far too many magazines of various sorts out there up to 20 rounds, and a myriad of firearms come with mags between 10 and 20 rounds. A ban of 30 rounds or above would not realistically impede on anyone's ability to defend themselves.

 

Tied to any of these discussions should be a discussion of nationwide carry rights, including in current may issue states. The evidence is overwhelming that carry permit holdsers are overall more law abiding than the general population. Plus we now have a ct of appeals decision (by an anti-gun judge) holding that the 2A applies outside the home. The NRA, and we need to stop being reactive and absolutists and engage in discussion that will lead to laws that at least have a chance at mitigating the likelihood of these types of tragedies, while also preserving and expanding our rights in important areas (ie CCW).

 

Really? Someone's child has a mental disorder so, they lose their rights? I don't think so.

[ruger9 0]

;

 

NRA never dug its heals in. Most of the federal gun control laws in this country since the beginning of time were proposed by the NRA. Including the NFA and the GCA.

 

+1. ALWAYS preferred the GOA.

[ruger9 0]

Really? Someone's child has a mental disorder so, they lose their rights? I don't think so.

 

Yeah can't do that- would surely be struck down as unconstituional. Can't restrict or take away one person's rights based on what ANOTHER person MIGHT do. That's not liberty.

[Qel Hoth 33]

The NRA needs to be constructive. Gun control advocates want a dialogue? Let's have one. What additional law, conceivably, could have made a difference in this horrible tragedy? Answer: mental illness and guns don't mix. Virginia Tech, Aurora, the Giffords shooting, the recent mall shooting in Oregon, this most recent school shooting, even Columbine to some degree -- all involved outright mental illness or extreme sociopathic behavior. In at least some of these cases the shooter obtained the guns from a family member. It should be a FELONY for anyone to possess firearms when there is someone undergoing treatment for mental illness or with clear signs of mental illness living in the home. In this regard, the burden needs to be on the gun owner. If there is any doubt on this issue, don't own guns. This is the only type of law that can be tailored to the problems we've been seeing. Whatever one thinks about gun rights, an assault weapons ban will do absolutely nothing to make anyone safer.

 

So I lose my rights to own a firearm if a family member has a mental illness and I happen to live with them? No, not acceptable.

 

The NRA should, however, be willing to engage in a disucssion of magazine capacity. 10 rounds is simply the wrong number -- there are far too many magazines of various sorts out there up to 20 rounds, and a myriad of firearms come with mags between 10 and 20 rounds. A ban of 30 rounds or above would not realistically impede on anyone's ability to defend themselves.

 

Not acceptable. The next time there is a shooting with 20 round mags the antis will want 10 round mags, then 5 round...

 

No surprise, eh? This is the big one like many have been saying....The fact that it was 3-6 year olds makes a big difference (did with me)...NRA, needs to be proactive about proposing solutions, as I've said...Marshals as another fellow proposed,

 

Armed personnel in a school is a good thing. Ideally "gun free zones" would be eliminated and CCW would be allowed everywhere. Restricting employment of "marshals" to ex LEO/Military is inappropriate.

 

video game censorship

 

Not going to happen, SCOTUS has already ruled on it, and the government has no right restricting "obscene" speech. Protection of speech that deviates from the norm is the intent of the First Amendment.

 

morality education (cause it ain't happening at home apparently)

 

So we can have the government teaching that homosexuality/racial equality/insert "moral" dilemma here is right/wrong? No thanks.

 

 

responsibility

 

Good idea here. Public schooling today lacks any kind of personal responsibility for one's actions.

 

 

 

On another note, can we please leave religion out of it? One does not necessarily have to be raised in a religious or faithful household in order to be a normal, law abiding person. Also, religions of all types have had more than their share of atrocities committed in their name, and in come cases with their blessing.

[areacode201 4]

Because this is still NJ and some gun owners are NOT pro 2A and would actually support an AWB. I'm sure there are members here that are not as pro 2A as they seem. This isn't Texas or Arizona or Alaska, it's still NJ- The land of liberals.

 

This. I know plenty of hunters who are all for their hunting rifles and shotguns but freak out over "high powered assault rifles." Their words not mine.

[BossyMossy 0]

I must say, i feel like this is the big one. I think the Obama Administration is going to be able to pass whatever gun legislation that they feel fit to pass. It's very hard to argue FOR guns when there are poor childrens' lives ended in the mix. The liberals can really use this one and i think there will be an AWB 2. Unfortunately, i also think that this will not be about the "features games". They may just push through a ban on semi-autos AKA ban of modern firearms.

[ruger9 0]

This. I know plenty of hunters who are all for their hunting rifles and shotguns but freak out over "high powered assault rifles." Their words not mine.

 

I'd love to hear how my .223 is "more high-powered" than their .308. Idiots.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again- it ALL comes down to WILLFUL IGNORANCE. ...of firearms, of the mental state of your kids/behavioral problems your ids may have, of your full responsibility as a gun owner, of thinking the govt will never "take your guns away", the list goes on & on...

 

Willful ignorance will be the death of liberty.

[ruger9 0]

Sorry that statement is just flipping funny considering the debate is shifting to the worry of an outright ban on firearms.

 

Crazed lunatic shoots up school kills many people...so my rights are to 'possibly' be infringed upon over his actions.....?

 

 

Yes, that could be the eventual plan... it's certainly happened before, the ban of fully-automatic weapons... an entire country is practically prohibited from owning them based on the actions of a few.

[Qel Hoth 33]

I must say, i feel like this is the big one. I think the Obama Administration is going to be able to pass whatever gun legislation that they feel fit to pass. It's very hard to argue FOR guns when there are poor childrens' lives ended in the mix. The liberals can really use this one and i think there will be an AWB 2. Unfortunately, i also think that this will not be about the "features games". They may just push through a ban on semi-autos AKA ban of modern firearms.

 

In light of Heller, with the current composition of SCOTUS, I'm not sure sure that a ban on semi autos, or even an AWB would pass constitutional muster. Heller says that people have a right to own weapons in common use for lawful purposes.

[Vlad G 345]

Wow you guys sound like you already gave up. No wonder they think they can exploit this, lots of you are already trying to figure out which way roll over.

 

Maybe we deserved to be treated like slaves, if we wonder how we can please the masters.

[MarkWVU02 47]

Speculation.....there are many factors in play here.... However the negativity and outright down trodden attitude that IMO is exacerbating The feeling of helplessness that some in this thread have and are trying to project onto others.

 

In lieu of acting defeatd prior to a euphamistic battle even being fought, i think is defeatist and has no place in this situation.

 

Be strong in your beliefs and convictions and press the fight for your rights as a law abiding citizen of a free nation with a represtative government

 

Well said Nick, we can't just sit back...we need to be proactive.

[ruger9 0]

I don't know who you are referencing as to "acting defeated", I'm merely preparing for the inevitable fight. Ignoring the inevitable fight is neither advisable or intelligent.

[areacode201 4]

On 12/16/2012 at 9:16 PM, Qel Hoth said:

In light of Heller, with the current composition of SCOTUS, I'm not sure sure that a ban on semi autos, or even an AWB would pass constitutional muster. Heller says that people have a right to own weapons in common use for lawful purposes.

 

77

On 12/16/2012 at 9:29 PM, MarkWVU02 said:

 

[MarkWVU02 47]

Some interesting pro 2A petitions on the White house site...

 

Arm teachers and principals

 

Insure the 2nd Amendment can't be infringed upon

 

Not 2A but at the heart of the problem

 

investigate the relationship between school shootings and psychiatric drugs

 

I'll try to post more as I find them

[le_boudin 2]

Good reads - "I am Adam Lanza's Mother"

 

http://slog.thestran...m-lanzas-mother

[ruger9 0]

Nick,

 

Not sure I'm getting your point? I think most of us here agree with you?

[JimmyAGR 54]

You are looking at this all wrong.

 

Because we live in NJ we are just used to sitting back and taking the abuse government wants to dish. The anti-gun forces will get marches and press coverage and senators and scream and yell and cry. The general attitude in this thread has been one of half confessed guilt and depression. You and I are not guilty of this, just because we are gun owners. We feel for those kids as much as anyone else, but we should not sit back and accept the blame for the evil actions of a mentally disturbed person.

 

Yes there is a massive fight coming. Yes our government will try to remove your rights because it cheaper then dealing with the mental health issues. You have a choice, you can sit back and take it and compromise or you can draw a line in sand and yell at the top of your lungs that this is not our fault and this a line we will not allowed to be crossed.

 

Imagine if the members of these forum, all of them, went and camped our senators and representatives offices for one single day and said "No, you shall not infringe". Imagine if 5% of the gun owners in this country, 5 million people, drove to DC and said "No, gun control is not the answer". Sounds crazy, impossible, etc? Why? Because we can't take on day out of lives to stand for what we believe in? Then we get what we deserve.

 

You have a choice people, gun ownership is at all time high, if you don't defend it now, it will be a true loss. The anti-gunners are looking at this as an exploitable opportunity, don't let them.

 

+1

[ruger9 0]

Amen, Nick.

[Gunrunner26 0]

Been reading these threads for a while now and there are valid points everywhere. Sitting back is not the answer. You have to believe that politicians are basically lazy and will look for the simplest solution, which is to simply ban the sale of Aw's. Not sure about ownership once the ban takes effect. Any smart people out there know if the Obama can just pass a law without congressional approval banning AW's and their ownership? NRA should engage in dialogue like yesterday with those who will be making decisions. Obama and the Dems have the advantage. Obama is now backed into a corner, you have to believe something will be coming down the road and it doesn't look good. The media will pound on this for weeks and weeks and sway public opinion. How do you defeat the killing of kids, constant photos of crying parents, and big money anti-gunners like Bloomberg and make the general public believe that guns are not evil? Any thoughts? I am willing to fight, but where to start???

[johnp 45]

Everyone keeps saying stop being so negative yadda yadda.

 

So Let Us Cut To The Chase.

 

What is the plan? What do we do?

[ruger9 0]

Everyone keeps saying stop being so negative yadda yadda.

 

So Let Us Cut To The Chase.

 

What is the plan? What do we do?

 

The usual- contact our representatives (which will be wholly ineffectual, as usual), try to talk some sense into the people around us using facts and statistics (which might work, somewhat), and if the law (whatever it may be) passes- DO NOT COMPLY.

 

That's when the SHTF scenario we are fearing comes to be.

 

I had a guy on a forum say "ah- it won't matter what you gunners want, once they pass marshall law and confiscate your guns, your opinions will be irrelevant." THAT is what we are up against. People who WANT door to door gun confiscation, just like in Nazi Germany. Of course you can't mention that, because then you are a "kook".

 

God forbid any of this stuff comes true- not sure I want to witness that world.

[RS1200XL 4]

Frankly I think the dialogue about this situation is high time to happen and let's stop walking on eggshells about it..... These murderers , these derived homicidal maniacs will NOT speak for me..... I will not be ASHAMED To be a firearms enthusiast .... I will not be afraid to say what I believe.... I will not hide in the shadows and hope that it all goes away.... Be proactive people....put yourself out there and show them that we are One solid voice....

 

+1

 

I no longer hide the fact that I am a law abiding gun owner. I try to be as positive about the subject of ownership as possible and I believe more need to do the same.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I may catch some shit for this... but really.. this is simple.....

 

It is totally reasonable to verify that the purchaser of a gun is not a criminal... or has some obvious mental health history...

it is totally reasonable to assume that not every face to face sale is done correctly.. to a legal person...

 

make ALL gun sales go through an FFL to verify it is not a disqualified person...

repeal ALL other gun laws..

 

thats the only reasonable trade.... allowing me access to the guns I want.. but verifying I am legally allowed to own a gun.. is not a violation of my rights..

 

this change would have NO impact on this particular situation... but all in all it would address the common screaming in the streets that "just anyone can buy a gun"

[M1152 713]

I’m sorry to see this happen again. I think the best proposed solution I could be on-board with was a few pages back where one of the NJGF Mods posted an Israeli school class with an armed teacher. I don’t see anything wrong with that if it real protection that is it is what we are looking provide, anything other than that will just come up short. In the meantime the Dems are at it again. According to Feinstein she already has a bill in the queue. Feinstein--->: There Will Be A Bill