Nine bystanders were shot by police in NYC earlier this year, sounds like great idea. Besides who is going to pay for all of this armed security the NRA?

If the US Government hired an armed guard for every classroom, where do you think these people will come from...the same place we got all of those TSA agents. The people who grope you in airports will be the one that will be standing around with a firearm in a classroom.

Hear, hear. Volunteers would *probably* do it. Simply set the training standards realistically, and require quarterly exercises (which is more than many police get).

This is why I canceled my NRA membership. They are beholden to gun and ammo manufactures. These people must have been holed up on conference calls with gun makers to come up with this nonsense.

Federal school marshals.... Led by dhs and dept of Ed.

Sadly, like the Eddie the Eagle gun safety program, because this suggestion came from the NRA, there are those who close their eyes and ears and shout back, NO! Rather than do something that might actually work and make a difference, some would rather let their prejudices and political agendas interfere with logic and common sense.

I'm surprised he didn't bring up the armed guard who was on duty that terrible day at Columbine to explain to us knee jerk liberals how the presence of an armed guard made all the difference in THAT outcome. His name was Neil Gardner, a sheriff's deputy in Jefferson County, Colo.

Perhaps effective mental health screening would prevent SOME unbalanced folks from having weapons.

I love the fact that he never read a newspaper or watched TV for 4 days:
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," the NRA's Wayne LaPierre said.
Nope - this and most times spree killers kill themselves.

I think Wayne LaPierre needs an effective mental health screening for suggesting this! What an idiotic suggestion! I'm sure if we have armed security (volunteer or not) the next thing you know is some kid will do something (drop a book on the floor and make a loud noise, etc.) and some trigger-happy security person will spin around and start shooting. Or kids will be kids and come up with some stupid prank, thinking it will be funny to spook the security guard, and the next thing you know one of them will be fatally shot. If this is the best you can do, NRA, then you are a bunch of idiots.

I think having security on site in each school is a good idea, except it should be decided by parents and paid for by local government. The Feds is the last place we should depend on or as someone else has said we will get TSA quality.

Surely there is one admin position in each school that could be eliminated to pay for the protection of our children. Or better yet, can enough Washington Dept of Ed bureaucrats and send the money to the local governments with no strings.

No constitutional rights are absolute. Even free speech is restricted when speech poses a potential danger to human life (e.g., you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire). How many babies have to die before NRA leadership decides that human life is more important than gun industry profits? It’s time for good people to take a stand. Reasonable restrictions need to be placed on automatic and semiautomatic weapons and background-check loopholes. And the NRA leadership, be damned!

A ban on "assault" rifles would not have stopped this nut. The guns belonged to his mother. If you are really concerned with school safety then you would agree that schools need more security. Our perverse/violent popular culture that glorifies and desensitizes people to violence is a much bigger problem.

Dear Miss. RME Krnl, I am familiar with the National Firearms Act of 1934. Are you familiar with the case of Haynes v. United States which effectively gutted the National Firearms Act of 1934. But this really isn't important, because regardless of the legislative history here, today anyone can walk into a gun show and buy an automatic weapon without any background check. Don't you believe that would be relevant to any effective effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or people suffering from mental disorders? Does that matter to you? Let's try to discuss the facts without getting personal. I can use derision with the best of them, but that would not contribute to finding a solution to the problem.

The only purpose of an assault rifle is to kill large numbers of human beings in a short period of time. That is why they are carried by soldiers and not duck hunters. May the faces of 20 dead kindergartners continue to haunt those who argued differently.

OK, lets keep guns out of reach of crazies and children. How about psychological evaluations every five years for gun owners and once a year safety spot checks for those who have children, or live with a mentally unstable person?

Imagine their surpise when Australians learn they are living in a totalitarian regime...

In microcosm, the petty tribulations exchanged between many of the posters on both sides of the issue in this thread illustrate the problem that Congress is having in creating and passing sound law that advances the nation. Rather than work together, it is so much easier to snipe, call out the technical errors of others, and gloat while engaged is these fruitless, self-serving charades. Exactly what is accomplished here by call other people "ignorant?" Do you see this as beneficial or a way of actually changing a person's perspective on an issue? Perhaps the real solution here is the simple application of civility. It's certainly not a panacea, but I have to think that if we all worked on our manners, on-line and elsewhere, the propensity for violence might by at least a bit assuaged.

Your assertion was that "Only totalitarian regimes force citizens to register firearms."

Is Australia totalitarian or not? And for that matter is Canada, Germany, and France?

So I take it since you won't answer the question you do not believe Australia, Germany, Canada, and France are not totalitarian?

To Mr. Don Joy- 1) While the assault rifles made by US manufacturers are semi-automatic, and rather difficult to reconstruct into automatic, lots of assault rifles produced outside of the US can be modified to fully automatic with the pull of a pin.
2) Banning High Capacity magazines would do wonders because that means the shooter would have to reload...(how in any way does this infringe on your rights?)

Banning AR-15 assault type rifles and large large-capacity magazines isn't going to threaten the right of a well regulated Militia to carry muskets as the Second Amendment clearly states. The Tea Bagger's arguments against this ban is hogwash, just like all the other rants they went off on during the last presidential election.

The right to "bear arms" is an enumerated right, not a natural right. There is no significant evidence the founders viewed the right to bear arms as a "natural" right. To suggest that the founders would enumerate a right in the constitution to preserve the peoples "right" to overthrow it is ridiculous. In the case of the 2nd amendment it was included to preserve the existence of a militia which was the first line of defense at a time when there was no standing army. Hence the words "well regulated" qualify the "right." In no other western democracy, in Japan or in Israel is there even an enumerated right to bear arms. The only country that specifically preserves the right for the reason you suggest has this in its constitution: ""When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution."...that country of course...is Cuba.

30+yrs in the military and a fairfax county public school teacher for about 4 years and a life member of the NRA, I'd like to register my views on Mr. LaPierre's proposal. It is hands down the dumbest, most callous, costly and least effective suggestion in response to the New Town Conn incident. The NRA has left most of its members behind and disgusts former president George HW Bush to the point that he turned in his life membership. They are at the point of being labeled a terrorist organization when they call for arms to be used as a means of protection from the Federal Government. Last I looked, we still hold free elections and no, I do not carry a weapon to vote despite a CCL. If it ever comes to that, we will find ourselves re-fighting the war between the states from over 150 years ago. And my question to the NRA's proposal would be, "Why not stop the bad guy from getting access to a gun in the first place?" Oh, I must have forgotten that since 1985, the NRA stands for "No Reason Allowed".

DGeorge: Another Jefferson quote with no evidence of its origin....or that he ever said it...

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/those-who-hammer-their-guns-plowsquotation

The children in Israel were targets of fanatics. That is, until teachers with proper training armed themselves. No chlidren have been killed since.
And blaming guns in this is like blaming a fork and a spoon for making Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell fat. Think about that.

Allow me to sum up much of the conversation here:

Your opinion is different, so I will attack your character because of that difference while also feeding my righteous indignation.

The United States needs reasonable gun laws like Israel has. It possible to allow citizens to protect themselves with fire arms without putting our children and other innocents at risk.

"In Israel, to obtain a license people must be 21 years or older and have been a resident of Israel for at least three years. They must take firearms training courses and pass an exam at a licensed range. In addition, they must pass a background check conducted by the Public Security Ministry. However, perhaps the most important requirement of all is that fact that all those seeking a license must undergo a mental and physical health exam. This might be the key to preventing firearms from falling into the hands of the wrong people. People like Adam Lanza.

If Israelis meet all the above requirements they are permitted to purchase a firearm and are issued a one-time supply of 50 bullets by the government. But this isn’t the end of the story. Every three years they must re-take their license exam. A new law set to go into affect in January makes things even more stringent by requiring Israeli gun owners to prove that their homes are safe places to store firearms.

The two components of Israel’s gun regulations that seem to be the most logical for the United States to consider implementing are as follows:

1. A mental health exam
2. Some means by which an individual can prove that their firearms can be safely kept in their home

You have no idea what you are talking about...obviously. However you interpret the Declaration of Independence and at what point a government has become despotic, the founders did not include the 2nd amendment to preserve the right to violently overthrow what they had just created. They included it it to insure the new country maintained its traditional mode of self defense up to that point...the militia system. And as I have pointed out, Cuba is the only country that has a constitutional provision that lines up with YOUR view of what the 2nd Amendment was meant to protect....not what it actually protects, but what YOU believe it does.

Your sixth grade level understanding of the Constitution aside...the comparison with Cuba...as you are apparently incapable of grasping context... was meant not to compare our constitution with theirs, but to show yet again how closely your view aligns with that clause in the Cuban document...and that no other constitution in the free world includes the explicit right bear arms for the explicit purpose of overthrowing the state.

The best argument for requiring a mental health exam prior to issuing a gun license is that obsessive compulsive posters to on-line forums with inflated egos who are unable to accept opinions contrary to their own is that they would NOT be be able to legally obtain a firearm.

Jim Daniels
10:16 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
DGeorge: Another Jefferson quote with no evidence of its origin....or that he ever said it...

Interesting Jim. You can't prove he ever said that, so that means he didn't say it? Hmmm. Lets see what he did say that we can document.

continued;
The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. ME 9:341

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to his nephew Peter Carr, August 19, 1785.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

So, Jim, I think Jefferson makes himself quite clear. The quote you dismiss, I submit is more to Jeffersons thinking than not.

Now, Jim, what do you think of armed Air Marshals? Bad idea? Horrible guns aboard passenger airplanes? Think our children deserve at least the protection we provide for
our travelers.

Now, what country has the some of the strictest gun laws on the planet? What country holds the worlds record for the number of children killed by firearm by a mass murderer. The answer, if you didn't know, is Noway, at 77 children dead. By the way even the police don't carry firearms so they were delayed getting to the scene of this crime because they had difficulty getting their gun out of storage.

By the way, Norway does hold that record only if you don't count socialist countries like China, Pol Pots Cambodia, Castros Cuba, Stalins USSR ( A darling of the intellectual Left ), the list goes on and on. How do you think the armed population of Afghanistan would have faired during the Russian invasion if they were denied the ownership of firearms.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gregory-mocks-lapierre-proposing-armed-guards-sends-kids-high-security-school_691057.html

Ok...

"The United States is the result of alien invasion." - Thomas Jefferson

No evidence he ever said it, but you can't prove he didn't so the burden is now on you to determine its truth. Why not just admit you took a quote that there is no evidence or basis for being attributable to him and move on.?

As to the other quotes. I'm going to assume you did not make the same mistake and researched their validity before repeating them here. Not one of them goes to the topic being discussed.

As usual, rather than stick to the topic, "guns right" advocates assume since some advocate regulation of firearms that they are advocating doing away with all firearms. Of course that is not true so I am going to restrict myself to what is being discussed.

None of these quotes indicates Jefferson believed unfettered ownership of firearms was a natural right.

No one is trying to abrogate the right to self defense. Quote 4 and 5 speak directly to that. Quote 4 in fact makes very clear that the personal use of firearms is a right restricted to defense of ones own property, and can be regulated, as even the most liberal interpretations of the 2nd amendment as a self defense right have also made clear.. Quote 2 is quite obvious and irrelevant. And quote 3 is irrelevant. Whether he enjoyed shooting is a non-sequitor.

continued...

The 2nd amendment in the context of the constitution can (and has been) interpreted in a number of different ways.
1. For those that believe in a strictly plain-text reading of the document, the 2nd amendment does not include an explicit right to “keep and bear” arms as self defense, as the opening clause clearly refers to a “well regulated militia.” No right to keep and bear arms for self defense is included.
2. For those that believe in a plain text reading of the constitution, but assert natural rights that do not need to be enumerated, the right to bear arms for self defense does not need to be included as it is well understood to be a basic human right. In that interpretation the 2nd Amendment refers strictly to a militia. The problem here is that many of the same people who make this assertion also deny a constitutional right to privacy (see Justice Scalia). A contradiction. A basic human right however is restricted in that it cannot interfere with the rights of others. Even the most ardent defenders of the right to bear arms on the court have asserted laws that restrict open carrying of firearms, types of firearms owned, requirements for background checks and licensing are completely constitutional in the context of a natural right of self defense.

continued...
3. For those that believe the constitution must be interpreted using other documentation, by looking at the context in which it was written, and by using common sense to interpret what the founders meant you could come down on either side, as the court did in the Heller case overturning DC’s law banning handguns. They insinuated a personal right to self defense into the 2nd amendment by looking at how other amendments were written and by making assumptions of the intent of the founders. But again, the restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others is also in force. do not hamper the right to self defense are constitutional, explicitly mentioning those above.
4. Those that believe the constitution can be interpreted but see no natural law basis for a right to keep and bear arms as a right of self defense.
So, even the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment on the court, those that believe the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right based on self defense, also believe restrictions on that right to keep from infringing on the rights of others is constitutional.
Therefor the debate going on here is not about the constitutionality of regulating firearms, it is a political debate about what regulations to apply and in what context. Only the most out of touch would deny that regulation of firearms is necessary at some level. The debate is over where to draw that line.
btw: thx for the civility

Wow Jim, and what did the supreme court have to say about guns in DC or Chicago?

Did you actually read the Jeffersonian quotes I presented? Did you read this one?

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

By the way Jim, open carry is permitted in all states.

Get Real, ruining you joy? Ruining your joy? Thats rich!

Jim, what is there in " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " that you do not understand?

GetReal, ruining your joy? Ruining your joy? That is one of the funniest things I have heard on this forum.

The Constitution is intended to operate as a restriction and limitation on GOVERNMEN, not on the natural rights of individuals. In every line of the document, it expressly forbids and prohibits government from overstepping its coercive nature.

I believe in a well regulated militia Jim. I believe that is the Natl Guard. That in no way dismisses the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You pick and choose to what you will respond. Lets straighten this out. We are talking about defending our children in school with an armed presence. You disagree with that premise. You haven't expressed how you feel about Air Marshals. Is that a good idea and if it is why would you deny that same protection to our children? It is obvious that our children are in immediate danger yet you have no alternative plan. Gun bans would take years to put into place, and as in the case of Norway , solve nothing.

Did you look up open carry in the US? If so what did you find?

You find fault with my Jefferson quote as if that is a big deal, its not. Do you find fault with the truth in the quote, if so, how so.

In reply to an above question. "But, just to see how you feel about the Supreme Court and its supremacy, what is your opinion of the Courts assertion that abortion is a constitutional right?"

I am pro-Choice Jim. Although it makes me squirm a bit to see abortion used as a means of birth control.

Jim, look up Knob Creek annual festival

Anyone that thinks "gun-free zones" are anything but an open invitation to predators needs a long and strident lecture.

The government needs permission from the CITIZEN to place any kind of restrictions on our right to bear arms, not the other way around.

Doesn't LaPierre's comment for added security around schools amount to his suggestion that our overly taxed citizenry carry the further burden of yet another expense? I will never give up my firearms and I will lawfully use them as required, but I will not tolerate a political lobby that seeks to place a burden upon me in order to protect the needs of a business sector. Facts are facts; the NRA receives approximately 3/4 of its funding from the firearm industry. The NRA is beholden to the industry first as a simple matter of survival. Its interest in my right to own a firearm is more properly defined as my ability to purchase a firearm. Now, it wants me to pay for added school protection. No thanks.

In response:

Did you feel the same way about the Air Marshal program? No.

Who do you think pays for that? Appropriated funds collected through taxation.

How about Homeland Security, who pays for that? Same as above.

Do you think we could withhold a bit of the money we pour (waste?) into the Middle East and pay for an armed presence in the schools? Yes.

Our children are in danger RIGHT NOW, not some time in the future. I am not aware of any direct threat made to children at that moment, but it is inevitable that something will occur in the future.

What do you want to see happen? I don't have kids, so I don't care. I just don't want it of affect my taxation.

GetReal, nice post. Enema? You are a real sweetheart. Tea baggers? You like pornographic references? Tells us a lot about you.

Beck, you say, " I don't have kids, so I don't care."

Good post. Makes a lot of sense. Lets let the kids die, just don't make me pay to protect them. I'm not sure but I think you might be in the minority with that kind of thinking.

You got to love the left. They have never disappointed.

The NRA is so beholden to weapons manufacturing that they can't afford to support sensible solutions. http://www.schoolanduniversity.com Wayne LaPierre makes millions from the killing industry and is just supporting his own bloodied income. Everyone knows that limiting weapons is only part of the solution.

No one here on this channel seems to understand the real problem, the problem that 28 souls went to heaven prematurely, through the portals of hell. My lord, help us. Amen.

Teabagger' Finalist For Oxford's 'Word Of The Year

It should be noted that the term "teabagger" appears on Oxford's list because of the usage cited on that list, not because of any other meaning. Citations for the political sense were found in a number of legitimate sources throughout the year. As a reference to members of the currently active Tea Party, the word has been used in speech and print by both liberals and conservatives. In this context, the term "teabagger" is a reasonably conceived informal name for an affiliate of the Tea Party, and as a word in the news, it earned a mention for the year 2009.

Having deliberated carefully over the word-usage evidence, Oxford's lexicographers are confident in their judgment that "teabagger" is a political term

teabagger, democrat or republican who cares?

Staff Heavily Armed and Trained
Any attemp to harm children will
Be met with deadly force!
Israeli School sign, just wondering when was the last time they had trouble there with mass shooting be it by a teabagger, democrat or republican?
$50k to train, buy a safe and train school members to provide security in elementary schools is a much better use of taxpayer money then buying 8 turf fields wouldn't you say? Total cost for the turf fields 8 million dollars total cost for safes and training for 51 elementary schools 2.5 million dollars.
Fight fire with fire in this instance, it works

Johnathon, El Al has never been hijacked either. Wonder why that is?

GetReal, it is still a pornographic reference. And it still says a lot about you. Yes, enemas, filth and pornography. Your way of discussion.

Without the leftist diatribe, what is it exactly that you hate about the Tea Party? Please cite references. If they are racist give some examples, if they are violent please specify. Etc.

Yeah DGeorge don't taze me bro ain't going to work with a deranged killer, only force and the deadlier the better.
Some can sit in their ivory towers and debate lexicography but that's not solving any problems except for the employees at Oxfords.

"Investigators combing the scene Tuesday of a Christmas Eve ambush that killed two firefighters and injured two others made a grisly discovery: another victim.

"Armed with a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle — the same weapon used in the Dec. 14 school massacre in Newtown, Conn. — a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun and a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver and a stockpile of ammunition, Spengler Jr. set a "clear ambush on first responders," Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering said at a news conference Tuesday."

As our President said about the Newtown massacre : “We can’t tolerate this anymore"

The time for stricter gun control is NOW!

Nice try GetReal, but no cigar. You knew well what you were saying. Now your wonderful debating skill involves suggesting that I'm gay and involved some sort of sexual activity with my "partner". You lefties sure are consistent. Still can't verbalize your hatred for members of the Tea Party can you.

DGeorge if "get reals" head wasn't so far up there he wouldn't need the enema.

2.65 million is what is needed to buy a safe that works with fingerprints, guns and training for educators or staff on site at 53 elementary schools in Loudoun. Tell me what you'd rather have the weapons and trained people to protect the children at our schools or the turf fields that will cost 8 million dollars accorrding to Kevin Kuesters.

Despite endless evidence and examples, still the hand-wringers claim that ordinary citizens have no need for AR-15 type weapons, etc...look at how heavily armed these home invaders (who wind up being repulsed by the armed homeowner) are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY-lu0

Then of course there were the upstanding Korean-American store owners during the L.A. riots of 1993:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmsKGhLdZuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRc_FlmW2Jc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs

I find it interesting that back in the late 50's and through the 60's even with 2nd Amendment rights secure that a large segment of the American public living under the tyranny of government sanctioned institutionalized racism rejected violence and guns and chose and implemented non-violent protest to end the tyranny imposed upon them by state and local governments. Interestingly enough, they succeeded as we all know and should remember. It is completely possible to change a tyrannical regime without the use of guns. I believe those patriots from that period in our history were far braver to face the full power and violence of those tyrannical regimes than any single person on this thread of comments saying they need guns to preserve their version of freedom and liberty.

Martin, tell that story to the unarmed and peaceful demonstrators in Tianamen square.
Tell it to the peaceful peoples of Cambodia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, need more examples? Plenty more where those came from.

Mr. Joy, you mix apples and oranges. Personal self defense and the right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment with the intent to provide a means to topple a tyrannical regime are quite different. One is constitutional and enforced under federal statute while the other is state and local laws. Also you mix black militants with non-violent black protesters. Maybe you just can't help yourself for lumping all black people into a single category. Some personae of the non-violent movement may have kept firearms for their personal self defense or in their homes to protect their family but armed violence against the oppressive regimes enforcing racist laws was not a strategy anymore than such an idea of people armed with military styled weapons with high capacity magazines would be a strategy against the force and power of our government today. The brilliance of the non-violent, non-gun brandishing civil rights patriots was their capacity to think and act in a multidimensional reality the likes of which you and other supporters of linear thinking with respect to guns and the 2nd amendment are seemingly incapable of doing. Your rabid and linear approach to this issue is akin to the failed strategies applied by the far right in the last election. The message from you and the NRA is "be afraid" in your homes, communities and nation. Same message of the KKK, southern segregationists and today's right wing extremists and in all fairness extremists on the left side of political causes.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787; “The Works of Thomas Jefferson,” Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5) Vol. 5

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Source: The Federalist No. 46.

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them..."
George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington

"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
George Mason (1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington
Source: from debates during the Virginia state ratifying convention (June 14, 1788), quoted in Elliot’s Debates

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

- Thomas Paine

Any of you going to offer any solutions or are you just going to spout gibberish?

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

Joe, the solution is obvious. We need an armed presence in our schools. We can do that immediately . Anything other than that is, as you say, gibberish.
.

I don't want to jinx anything, but It's been over 48 hours since the last mass killing. I think this country may have turned the corner on this issue.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." --

"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."

- Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."

- James Monroe

Oh sure I am going to trust the government to control firearms just like they do with immigration and the drug war. The stuff you are spouting is fine in the 1700's and the classroom but is of absolutely no value except to take up space here on patch. As far as programs go the AA is looking for a few good men and you are eminently qualified according to your gibberish comments.

The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Don Joy I would disagree with you if you told me it was daytime just because you are a insufferable butt cheek. You have no solutions just BS. Are you imparting words of wisdom if so it's difficult to tell. Oops wait let me go quote Admiral Kirk that will sway any nay-sayers.

Sorry...I should have added that this was not my opinion...but that of Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger...

But really there has to be some control, there could be some restriction a certain amount of training taken. I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47 is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home and certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.

Thank you, thank you very much!

Goodness gracious Mr. Joy, it was our public education system that failed to make critical thinking a necessary component of government and civics instruction rather than enshrine the words of slave owning, native people killing founding fathers as the tenets of our civilization. I think political leaders of the past including the "founding fathers" were skilled at saying and framing arguments around a supposed single issue while winking and nodding to the special interests of the day about the more subtle meanings behind their position. Armed citizens in most if not all of the colonies were land owning white guys. In the southern states, citizens were more concerned about having arms at hand to put down slave rebellions. In all of the states and territories, as they expanded westward, arms were "essential to guard against Indian attacks" but then historical truth tells us that they were really essential to take land away from and to kill native peoples. Anytime the slaves or Native Americans revolted against the tyranny of the United States with arms they were outgunned by all those angry white guys bearing arms. Quotes from slave owners or so called free men in a slavery tolerant culture about freedom and liberty only weakens your position. The NRA is a house of cards and its advocates and shills are paper tigers. You and they exalt gun violence to deal with run amok gun violence. Completely irrational and proven so by the civil rights generation.

Darn...sorry...I did it again, Those were a compilation of quotes from Ronald Reagan. My apologies!

Laws restricting assault weapons needs to happen however. It is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... it won't stop all assault-weapon crime, but, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. Which or course is what we are looking to do here.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Source: I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56, 1894

Martin...thanks. I agree. I'm not an NRA member and I'm not a gun owner, or hunter. But I have no problem with gun ownership as you describe it...at all. And the NRA used to be a responsible organization who helped pass previous reasonable gun control measures. Looks to me like the NRA has simply become a lobbying arm of the gun industry, rather than sticking to their original mission representing gun owners. btw...my post above was actually originally a quote made by Ronald Reagan. Just trying to make the point that this has not always been such a partisan issue.

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England"

""To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."" - John Adams

Tsk, tsk Martin. You show that you are not an NRA member, or a hunter, or for that matter a person with even a meager understanding of firearms.
"........small clip shotgun...." That statement Martin, is laughable in the extreme. Like another on this forum you have shown your colors.

There are the voices which say that guns are not the answer to gun violence, and they wish to remove as many guns from the equation as possible. One can easily embarass them by pointing out that their plan to do so involves bringing more guns to bear on the situation--to be exact, that they would deploy more government guns against those in the population possessing them, to force the turnover of said guns in civilian hands!

In the same way, those who argue that more guns are not the answer to situations like the horrible Newtown massacre, etc., can never answer you when you ask them why they would never renounce calling 911 in such an emergency, and summoning more guns to the scene.

The problem is not guns in themselves.

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Joseph Story (1779-1845) U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1811-1845. His Dad was one of the Sons of Liberty who took part in the Boston Tea Party and fought at Lexington & Concord in 1775. The above quote was from 1833.

Gibberish and nothing construtive equals blather!

"All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in continual readiness a good musket or other gun, fit for service."
Connecticut Gun Code of 1650

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America"
Gazette of the United States October 14, 1789

Well Jonathan, lets hear something constructive from you. How will you stop the possible copycat killer that may strike this January when the kids return to school? We have already had a possible copycat in Calif caught before he could act.

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
Richard Henry Lee (1732-1794), Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

My thoughts are the same as my brother in law J. Brewer.

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789 Episcopal pastor, friend of Benjamin Franklin

"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) Political and Spiritual Leader of India

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
Sen. Hubert Humphrey, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4

"...By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
President John F. Kennedy

"If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime."
Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Subcomittee on the Constitution (The Making of America, p.695)

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."
Arkansas Supreme Court Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, 560, 1878

Well said Martin!

In the concept of a gunshot wound held by most individuals, the bullet goes through the person like a drill bit through wood, 'drilling' a neat hole through structures it passes through. However, this concept is erroneous. As a bullet moves through the body, it imparts kinetic energy to the surrounding tissue, flinging it away form the bullet’s path in a radial manner (direction) and producing a temporary cavity considerably larger than the diameter of the bullet.

The size and the shape of the temporary cavity depend on the amount of kinetic energy lost by the bullet in its path through the tissue, how rapidly the energy is lost, and the elasticity and cohesiveness of the tissue. The maximum volume and diameter of this cavity are many times the volume and diameter of the bullet. Maximum expansion of the cavity does not occur until some time after the bullet has passed through the target.

The temporary cavity phenomenon is significant because it has been found to be the most important factor in determining the extent of the wounding in an individual in regard to the interaction of a bullet with the body. In the case of low-velocity missiles, e.g., pistol bullets, the bullet produces a direct path of destruction with very little lateral extension within the surrounding tissues. Only a small temporary cavity is produced.

So shoot them more then once to be sure!

I think there is sufficient reason to suspect that "Don Joy" and several others in this forum on both sides of the issue are agents provocateur intended to keep us hooked to the site with vitriol, bombastic words, and untempered offal spewing from the keyboard. If that is the case, shame on you Patch and shame on all of use for coming back to this thread like a dog coming back to its vomit.