Best
167 Comments
Post
  • #2
    !
    Gun control is only a good idea if you want to make sure that there are more Connecticut school shootings. Disarming the law abiding citizens only guarantees that only criminals have guns. Criminals and liberals are the last of which we want to arm.
  • #6
    !
    Yeah, I mean if only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started. Oh, wait a minute ....
  • #7
    !
    Gun control does not necessariy mean disarming anyone. it can mean better control over keeping guns fro the criminals.
  • #11
    !
    @Graywatergirl

    Yeah maybe if she was psychic too. You're probably one of those people that thinks making guns illegal will prevent criminals from doing things like this.
  • R Load more replies

  • #43
    !
    @politixmary This poll is rather biased.... it assumes the answer to the Newtown shooting to be a gun control issue. Missing is the "Newtown tragedy has nothing to do with gun control" option
  • #53
    !
    We rarely agree but in this case we do. The most strict gun laws being proposed by the furtherest of the far left today would not have prevented the Newtown tragedy.
  • #12
    !
    I blame the mother for the entirety of this tragedy. She knew what she was dealing with, and she thought it was a good idea to train him to use assault weapons? Let alone allow him access to them?
  • #8
    !
    The thing is....when/if they pass a law that doesn't work...and it won't, there will be a call for "more gun control". Anti gun folks have one goal in mind.....disarming the American public. It's a one step at a time process. Only the law abiding will follow gun bans. History has proven gun bans relenquish power to the Gov't. Government wants a top down system when the opposite is suppose to be how it works.
  • #13
    !
    I am a gun owner. I want to keep my guns.*I believe I have a right to keep my guns. I also have a responsibility to those guns. Joe Scarborough was a congressman for 4 terms. He had a perfect rating from the NRA. Joe Scarborough has spoken to this situation better than I ever could. I know I nor he can convince the far left who live in a pipe dream world where all guns are confiscated. I know I nor he can convince the far right who live in a pipe dream world where everyone walks around with a gun on their hip. But if your heart is still heavy today and the tears still come when you see the faces of those tiny innocent children who are being buried as we type, I implore you, I beg of you to watch what Joe Scarborough has to say.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=50222...
  • #79
    !
    It's not about guns or gun laws. There are plenty of gun laws on the books - Ct. has a ban on assault rifles - a school zone is a gun free zone. Blame the court & justice systems for not totally enforcing existent laws. Clear out our 'death rows' & make more room in prisons for gun criminals. Like Eric Holder & his 'fast & furious' fiasco.
  • #25
    !
    Sad as it may be, there are far too many citizens in this country who are obviously not responsible enough to own firearms. Here you have a mother who knew her son had mental and anger issues, yet she still owned a cache of dangerous weapons which were not locked up or put away out of her sons reach. Also as with many parents of children with problems, they don't want to admit their child would do such a thing. Very poor parenting on her part. With that said, I don't think repealing the 2nd amendment will change anything, but I do think there is some major reform necessary for the current systems in place regarding gun purchases. All gun owners should have to undergo background checks, all should have to take a mandatory firearm safety course and pass a safety test in order to recieve a firearm license, and all should by screened physcologically. There needs to be a standard national system in place instead of state-by-state variations of gun laws. In addition, there should be a time limit on how many firearms you can purchase in a set amount of time to prevent instances like the Colorado shooter who went on a gun shopping spree weeks before his massacre. I also believe there needs to be a system in place in which mental health doctors submit the names of those who have a predisposition or issue with their mental health that makes them a risk to own a firearm, and those people would be listed as not able to purchase one. Combine this with placing armed officers on every school grounds is a start to preventing future incidents.
  • #50
    !
    I voted you up because I agree with most of it. I don't agree with Mental health doctors blacklisting people. Shrinks have the highest rate of suicide in the nation. These are not people I want determining my fate and my guns.
  • #144
    !
    So, if we can modify the 2nd amendment, would it be ok to modify the first so that certain harsh statements could no longer be made and if we look close, i think we can see where they have already started to get around the 4th. Where should it stop? Perhaps out of all this, two new countries will evolve? As it goes today, the posibilities seem endless.
  • #3
    !
    If they would do it in an effective manner. Not by trying to disarm law abiding citizens. I could potentially support permitting if the gov't didn't abuse it.
  • #49
    !
    @OpEn_MiNdEd yeah I don't consider keeping nutjobs disarmed gun control, but what do they consider crazy? That's the thing that would concern me. What constitutes crazy? Schizophrenics? Manic Depressives? Southern Whites?(lol, bought a third of gun owners)
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    !
    This is america, nobody can agree on anything gun related, i'll say this anybody that mental should not have ANY access to any guns.
  • #60
    !
    What/who can classifies an individual as mentally ill? I'm sure that I could convince a couple of people that you are mentally ill, even when you're not!!! The government can and will use this "mentally ill" issue to their advantage!!! They will go as far as saying that a persons belief/s is part of being mentally ill!

    This is a warning to all of you preppers and gun owners!!! The government will use this against you!! They will classify your beliefs and your way of life as part of a mental illness that they say you have!!! You will be put on a 'No Gun Buy List', identical to the No Fly list!! You will be sidelined and your rights will be taken away under the authority of the NDAA!!!

    WAKE UP!!!
  • #127
    !
    @Malitia_Man
    I agree in part. Instead of "mental illness" it should be based on "evidence of violent tendencies" or "loss of touch of reality" from an illness.
  • #139
    !
    @CommonSense

    Question:
    We already have "evidence of violent tendencies" here in TN. If you have been charged with a drug crime or domestic violence, then you can not buy a firearm from a gun store!

    "Evidence of violent tendencies" also can be exploited by the government in an unconstitutional manner!!! The vulnerability of the pubic today is so rampant, the government could go as far as saying that liberty lovers show evidence of violent tendencies, and the pubic would believe them!!! The same with the "loss of touch with reality"!!! What is reality now? Communism?
  • #154
    !
    @Malitia_Man
    I meant in connection to a mental disorder. A person who shows no signs of propensity to violence from it shouldn't be penalized for a little anxiety or depression.
    By "losing touch with reality" I mean one's perception of physical reality.
    Putting the 2nd amendment aside those Tennessee laws should be challenged on a due process basis. No penalties should be put into effect until after someone has been convicted.
  • #167
    !
    This particular tragedy is about the mentally unstable and having them institutionalized without having to commit a violent crime first.
    His own mother tried to get help before she and the others were murdered but she was turned away because he hadn't committed a crime yet.
    This is the real reason behind the CT School Massacre. He was mentally unstable with unpredictable and uncontrollable violent outbreaks and those reports were ignored.
  • #152
    !
    Gun Control will lead to more people snapping and tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting taking place. Even if CONgress tried, the votes won't be there. Too many pro-2nd Amendment in the House and Senate. It takes 60 votes in the Senate, they aren't there. It takes the House of Reps. The votes aren't in their either. Instead of trying for gun control, let's tackle the real problem: Mental Health. We have cut funding for mental health studies and assistance over the years. Instead of doling out for welfare, take some of that money and let's open up some mental health facilities. All of these shooters had some sort of mental health problem. If there were more to address mental health issues, maybe a couple of these tragedies would be averted. Additionally, arm the citizens at schools (if they so choose to), or at the very least place cops back on campus, that way if some nut does try this again, the officer can take him/her out before any kids are injured/killed.
  • #129
    !
    Right now crime as a whole is down, which is odd considering the economy.
    Crime rates. For violent crime, it is right around where it was in the mid70s and peaked in the early 90s.
    I think the crime rate has to do more with population density and growth of population in urban areas. The more people who are in proximity the greater the chance for people to commit crimes against each other and when this new proximity is relatively new and includes a lot of people you don't know the chances are even greater because strangers don't get along as well as long-time neighbors. The chance of "us v. them" concepts forming are a lot greater as you have to deal with strange, new people more often. The biggest examples are things like the rise of inner city gangs.
    As the Baby Boom is behind us people have adjusted to living in closer conditions, communities have come together, and less people are moving in all the time so it's relatively stable. That's why crime rates are going down.
  • #124
    !
    Why is it people use assault rifle for semiauto ? Any gun can be called assault gun.take the rem 870 or win 70 mossberg 500 . a single action bolt action can be considered also.
  • #115
    !
    I'm puzzled, why do hoplophobes so strongly resist the possibility of ANYTHING other than guns to be the cause of problems?

    Semi automatic rifles have been commonly available since the 1930s. The AR15/M16 available since the 1960s with high capacity magazines. Pistols with high capacity magazines since the 1930s. All of this technology existed for a very long time before these CRIMINAL acts have began to appear.

    If the technology existed and the CRIMES didn't, what changed and why wouldn't you want to focus on that rather than another failed attempt to control something that OBVIOUSLY isn't the problem?

    We've tried gun control, it hasn't worked.

    National Firearms Act 1934, enacted in response to the gangsters of the 1920s..... result, FAILED.

    Gun Control Act 1968 enacted in response to the JFK Assassination passed on skids greased by the blood of Dr. King and Robert Kennedy. result FAILED

    Firearms Owners Protection Act, banning Machine guns.... result.... FAILED.

    Clinton Assault rifle ban including hi capacity magazines... result FAILED

    Shall I continue to list the state laws as well? Gun control has been tried.... it DOESN'T WORK.

    Tell me...Why are YOU resistant to addressing all of the issues?

    It amazes me that people would rather continue to have mass shootings where innocent men, women, and children die then even discuss solutions to the problem...

    It also amazes me that people would rather continue to have mass shootings where innocent men, women, and children die then recognize the solid facts proving gun and/or ammo restrictions DON'T WORK.

    Why should your new angle on the same thing be any more successful than the countless failed attempts we've experienced?
  • #121
    !
    Honestly, it's the principles the country was founded under. They, the forefathers, weren't attempting to establish a government of moral and just principles. It was established with a tyrannical premise; whereas, it was just a replica of the same government they despised. The only difference is they were going to benefit from taxation, this time. The right to possess guns were just a means of suppressing and/or oppressing change by instilling fear in those whom sought to be recognized as equal. Guns aren't going anywhere, they're actually useless in a debate concerning sense in common with natural law.

    Uncertainty (natural) is being fought off with Certainty ( gun control ). Uncertainty is the only problem plaguing Americans. It's the cause of everyone's addictions, the only cause. There are those that need to feel superior or the highest in the food chain, when they see it slipping away, they result to threats as a means of resecuring their positions. Some use substances ( natural ) to separate themselves from reality; it's temporary but it allows them to deal with their uncertainties. The government just can't personally deal with everyone's uncertainties; especially, when it has to do with whether they're significant enough or not. Bottom line, the new world order is one person's importance doesn't require someone else's importance to be lessened. It's going to be a difficult adjustment for Whites but it will be enforced!
  • #123
    !
    Furthermore, you act as if decisions have the ability to choose which consequence accompanies it. Consequences of an action aren't guaranteed. You can't reasonably conclude that if you get in your car that you will make it back home safely. Man's desire to compress time, impossible, is the cause of life taking on some much recklessness. The drunk's agenda is just as important as the sober family, on the way to a church social. Of course, leniency will be given, in the mete of justice; being that drinking provides a source of revenue for states. Patronizing bars, lawmakers understand people have to get home. Drunk driving is acceptable and within reason; therefore, the laws won't be strict.

    A gun is only a means of killing quickly, if necessary. Technically, there was nothing wrong with what Adam Lanza did. He operated a weapon properly, killed people with it and then saved himself a lot of being bothered. There are at a minimum 70 million residents in the US with a mental disorder; we have no intention of treating them all, they treat their own illnesses with hatred, domestic abuse, drugs, alcohol, self-abuse, shopping, pride and the list is very long. The majority of the time, we high five, when stupidity gets going good, take a drink and party on. Life is great and living is wonderful. The only difference is who's celebrating and it depends on if it's someone we liked or despised. Black in the ghetto, Suburban White, Country White or Hispanic or Middle Easterner; everyone has a chance to cheer, when a particular person loses a game, a war or a life. It's natural; we're just a sick world.
  • #114
    !
    Rampage killings are best addressed as mental health issues.
    I could see putting semi-automatic weapons that are based on fully automatic weapons actually issued to military forces, under the 1934 act.
    The 1934 Firearms Act doesn't prohibit ownership, but strictly regulates it.
    That would include AR and AK style guns.
  • R Load more comments...
Post