Yes Dave, it's time to raise the issue again

[Gordon Gray]

So Kevin and runnin, I ask the following.

What would either or both of you support, from the "hardware" (Second Amendment) side of the issue, to prevent another Newtown?

GG

 

[Len44]

"Balance" is not just a good word, it is an excellent word to contemplate in most situations where a difference of opinion arises.

Kevin, nice input, thanks for posting. Although, I must add, I do not see how owning a larger home (because one wants to do so) has the potential to harm so many people so suddenly and without warning. Same thing with fast cars, although perhaps they are a bit more potentially dangerous than large homes.

Fast women, however, are a completely different story..

 

[runnin17]

Gordon,

I personally would not support any legislation banning guns. That is my personal opinion of the matter after growing up around guns and understanding that they are not something to be taken lightly. Gun safety should be stressed to every child (and adult for that matter) in homes that choose to own guns. I believe the current level of gun regulation is sufficient on the "hardware" side. Please understand that the gun laws as they were in place in CT worked just as intended. Adam Lanza was not allowed to purchase any weapons due to his history of mental illness. His mother was a law-abiding gun owner and paid the ultimate price for not giving into her son's delusions. People like to place blame on the mother, but in actually doing a bit of research into the situation it appears as though she was trying to get help for her son. That I think is part of the issue. Why is it so difficult for people to get the required mental health counseling or for close family members to ensure that their close relatives are given the help they need if they feel those people are a danger to themselves or others?
I understand this is also a difficult question because of the possibility of abusing the system, but the question has to be asked.

Also understand that Columbine happened under the previous assault weapons ban and in looking at the crime data for that time period there was no appreciable drop in violent crime related to so-called assault weapons.

I am all for making America safer for our children, but as a father I will trust myself, my wife and other close relatives before I trust the government to look out for the best interests of my family. I know that may sound callous and Gordon you may even say it is paranoid, but I believe in individual liberty and freedom. I am not of the opinion that we must continue to give up our freedoms for the sake of "feeling" safe.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

 

[timm]

Thanks runnin i think u explained your position very well i think we r at a place where people feel like something, anything needs to be done. Again i hope that it is not something empty. People are desperate for a solution...a fix to a very complicated problem i just hope that it isnt a knee jerk and the mental health issue is addressed as it should be .

This is the start of the biden 2016 campaign. Something he can hang his hat on

Btw runnin awesome ben franklin quote. Who here agrees with it?

 

[Gordon Gray]

What's essential liberty?

 

[Len44]

And so now the "esteemed" NRA wants to divert attention and run a personal attack ad against the President of The United States of America.

Shameful. Yet typical.

I also like this quote from Ben Franklin: "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."

 

[eknuds01]

So Kevin and runnin, I ask the following.

What would either or both of you support, from the "hardware" (Second Amendment) side of the issue, to prevent another Newtown?

GG

Want to prevent another Newton?

Arm the teachers. Give them the training to both protect the themselves and the kids. If security guards can be hired by banks, nuclear power plants, private citizens, etc to protect themselves and their clients, why can't teachers do the same?

As others have suggested, more comprehensive background checks are a start. I, personally, think Gun/Trade shows are OK...but maybe tighter regulation is needed as far actually making the purchase goes.

To go along with what others have already stated, clearly mental health is at the root of the problem. Violent video games, ready access to weapons and ammunition, an increasing reliance on living in a digital world where we are becoming more and more isolated from each other are also important components.

Alcohol might very well kill way more people through car accidents and alcohol related diseases. But if one is taught to respect it (or anything) from a relatively young age, it's certainly possible to use something like Alcohol over your lifetime in a responsible manner.

Erik

 

[Len44]

We require registration of cars, as well as a license to operate (drive) one.

We do not exempt the registration requirement just because a vehicle is sold privately -- or at a "car show."

So, I have to ask, why not with guns?

 

[slowGEEZR]

What's essential liberty?

I believe Franklin was talking about the freedom of speech, but can be taken to mean any other essential freedom, such as the freedom of religion, etc.

 

[timm]

What's essential liberty?

I would suggest that he was referring to the liberties described in the constitution?? Just my take anyway...

 

[timm]

And so now the "esteemed" NRA wants to divert attention and run a personal attack ad against the President of The United States of America.

Shameful. Yet typical.

I also like this quote from Ben Franklin: "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."

I say 'good luck with that'.... I thought the NRA was brought into the conversation at the White House? What happened there?

 

[runnin17]

We require registration of cars, as well as a license to operate (drive) one.

We do not exempt the registration requirement just because a vehicle is sold privately -- or at a "car show."

So, I have to ask, why not with guns?

To that I would say that driving is not a right as outlined in the Constitution. Please understand that we are discussing the "right to bear arms" and if the government should be limiting that right more so than it already does.

Now to address the NRA's remarks. I would ask if people really truly believe it is not even a little hypocritical of the president to allow his family to be protected by guns (and even automatic weapons) and yet he is telling the American people that essentially it is not okay for them to protect their families with guns.

The president is important, his family is important and should be protected. Why is it that he has the right to the level of protection he receives and yet my family does not? This country was founded on equality and I see so much today that is moving us further and further away from the idea of equality in our society. It saddens me and it makes me fearful for the safety of my family and the fate of this nation.

 

[Hocky]

To that I would say that driving is not a right as outlined in the Constitution. Please understand that we are discussing the "right to bear arms" and if the government should be limiting that right more so than it already does.

Now to address the NRA's remarks. I would ask if people really truly believe it is not even a little hypocritical of the president to allow his family to be protected by guns (and even automatic weapons) and yet he is telling the American people that essentially it is not okay for them to protect their families with guns.

The president is important, his family is important and should be protected. Why is it that he has the right to the level of protection he receives and yet my family does not? This country was founded on equality and I see so much today that is moving us further and further away from the idea of equality in our society. It saddens me and it makes me fearful for the safety of my family and the fate of this nation.

Like it or not, you're not equal. He is a target. You aren't. That is a big difference. Teachers sign up to teach, not to be body guards. I very highly doubt that many teachers will feel very good about having to receive arms and combat training.

I am not necessarily for gun regulation, but listening to most people who are anti regulations arguments can get laughable...

 

[Gordon Gray]

We are doing very well so far guys. Let's please keep it that way.

GG

 

[runnin17]

@Hocky: So explain to me where we need to draw the line here on who is and who isn't a "target".

Are you telling me that due to the small risk of my family being a target that I should not have the same right to protect them as the president? If so, that thinking is on the verge of viewing the president as a "lord" and the rest of the populace as mere peasants in my opinion.

I understand that people should quickly learn life is never fair; however, I distinctly remember hearing Obama lecturing on how he wants to make people give "their fair-share" and "do their part". So I would ask, who decides what that will be? Should Obama be the final say in what is fair? I personally don't think so.

There is obvious hypocrisy taking place is this gun regulation debate. My concern is that too many people are making an emotional decision and not a logical one.

 

[Len44]

To that I would say that driving is not a right as outlined in the Constitution. Please understand that we are discussing the "right to bear arms" and if the government should be limiting that right more so than it already does.

Well, for one thing, I seriously doubt the "Founding Fathers" contemplated the "rights" of car owners when they were assembling the U.S. Constitution. Further, there is a LOT of controversy regarding the original intentions of the "right to keep and bear arms." Of course, one could hardly expect the radical Supremes to accurately figure out the nuances involved -- since they were / are in hot pursuit of a specific partisan agenda.

Now to address the NRA's remarks. I would ask if people really truly believe it is not even a little hypocritical of the president to allow his family to be protected by guns (and even automatic weapons) and yet he is telling the American people that essentially it is not okay for them to protect their families with guns.

A bit snarky, wouldn't you say? Not to mention a wholly different context. Next thing you know, President Obama will be criticized by the NRA as "hypocritical" for allowing the military to use weapons.

I do wish the majority of responsible members of the NRA would take back control of their organization. The current leadership is in place no doubt because they were able to over-promise how they would "Stand Up" to Washington and not allow ANY compromise regarding the "rights" to own any weapons they desired. Yes sir, "we need them there bazookas when we're out there huntin' deer."

The president is important, his family is important and should be protected. Why is it that he has the right to the level of protection he receives and yet my family does not? This country was founded on equality and I see so much today that is moving us further and further away from the idea of equality in our society. It saddens me and it makes me fearful for the safety of my family and the fate of this nation.

First, You are not the leader of the Free World.

Second, if you want equality, the tea-party folks and most Republicans will accuse you of being a socialist.

Third, the irresponsibility of so-called "leaders" of the NRA makes me fearful for the safety of everyone. They have yet to do anything except oppose anything and everything responsible people have proposed. They do not seem to want to even try. THAT is sad.

 

[Len44]

@Hocky: So explain to me where we need to draw the line here on who is and who isn't a "target".

Are you telling me that due to the small risk of my family being a target that I should not have the same right to protect them as the president? If so, that thinking is on the verge of viewing the president as a "lord" and the rest of the populace as mere peasants in my opinion.

I understand that people should quickly learn life is never fair; however, I distinctly remember hearing Obama lecturing on how he wants to make people give "their fair-share" and "do their part". So I would ask, who decides what that will be? Should Obama be the final say in what is fair? I personally don't think so.

There is obvious hypocrisy taking place is this gun regulation debate. My concern is that too many people are making an emotional decision and not a logical one.

Actually you sound like you're still pi$$ed that President Obama was re-elected (Most folks in Oklahoma are, it seems). It's OK. I used to think pretty weirdly when I lived in Oklahoma in my formative years...

Your statement suggesting that anyone is seeking to compromise your "right" to protect your family is pretty silly. Of course this is not the case. No one here has proposed (or would propose) any such thing. And your notion (as stated) that President Obama or any of us here view the POTUS as "lord" is simply outlandish! Where on earth do you come up with such nonsense?

Yes, there are certain things on which the President of the United States has the final say. Not much, mind you, because too many in our Congress want this particular President to fail -- even if that means putting politics first and our Country second. However, we had an election recently, and that tact didn't seem to work out so well for the republicans. Remember Sarah Paiin? Remember her famous line, "How's that workin' for ya?" For the republicans, not too well, I'd say...

 

[Bevensee]

I'm Danish, so in reality it's none of my business how the US wants to run it's schools. But I'm happy that I can send my kids to school without having to worry about guns, and that I live in a country where the very idea of armed teachers seems absurd. I hope it stays like that. I feel sorry for those parents.

 

[Len44]

From a FB contributor today, regarding the NRA's absurd ad accusing the President of the Untied States of hypocrisy:

"...even GOP Presidents had Secret Service protection---like all Heads of States families in the WORLD. anyone who does not understand why, is deficient to discuss the gun topic...

For the record, I do not disagree with this comment.

 

[runnin17]

I am not disagreeing that the president needs protection. I do disagree that the president has anymore of a right to that protection than any other American. It seems like people are subtlety trying to change the subject. Also, I was wondering how long it would take someone to result to insults. They really have no place in this discussion and labeling my opinions as outlandish, contributes absolutely no substance to this topic. I could just as easily label many of the counterpoints to my opinions as outlandish, but I believe in having a logical, educated debate.

With the reference to equality, please understand that when I speak of equality I refer to the term as used by the Founding Fathers and not the notion that many of today's progressive politicians like to use when they speak of "equality". I believe in the individual's right at the pursuit of happiness regardless of race, creed or religion. That is quite different from the "share the wealth" mantra that many progressives like to cling to.

Also, yes I am not happy that Obama won re-election but that doesn't really matter at all. He won so get over it. However, I do not agree with the president's notion that because he won the American people have given him a "mandate". When I here politicians speak in terms of mandates I get a bit nervous about their motivation. Are they looking out for the best interest of the American people or have they convinced themselves they are above reproach?

Please keep this debate civil. I understand there are different points of view on this issue. I do believe that this nation as a democratic republic needs to return to embrace the ideals of individual responsibility and hard work. There is no one miracle fix for gun violence in this country. I personally do not believe that stricter gun control is the right answer to address this issue.