• #2
    Trading safety for freedoms? One of the founders would be turning in his grave right now.....we're unworthy of the freedoms we claim to uphold and believe in if we're willing to give them up so many Americans died defending those freedoms over our history? This makes me sick.....
  • #14
    The fascinating aspect of this is that these so-called doctors would probably not even think twice about aborting a living human baby boy/girl in the womb.....selective and relative morality.....
  • #21
    Something this " writer" is not recognizing is seat belts are connected to driving. And driving is a privilege! Gun ownership is a constitutionally protected RIGHT! They subtlety try to skirt this by saying they respect the tradition of hunting. That doesn't mean ANYTHING. The constitution did not protect gun ownership in the constitution to ADRESS hunting.
  • #42
    @NTBFW Progressive liberals have an uncanny ability to redefine anything under the sun.....{in the Bible it says that they call evil good and good evil}.....
  • #69
    I'm in total agreement. We have already allowed big government to centrally control our lives in so many ways. Federal income tax began as a temporary measure to subsidize WW I which was also done during the Civil War. The difference is that the Civil War tax was repealed. We now work half of the year to pay all of our tax obligations. The graduated tax rate insures that we realize little advantage from a pay increase. Thus, the government maintains control of our individual socioeconomic status. NAFTA gutted our manufacturing sector, diminishing incomes and precipitating mortgage foreclosures and personal bankruptcies. The Patriot Act is in violation of the 4th Amendment. No Child Left Behind has reduced instructional time and government oversight has made a shambles of curriculum. I could go on but we all get the point. We have already opened the door to Big Brother. The domino effect is just beginning.
  • #13
    These Doctors should stick to things they know, and take heed in the following:....

    "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
  • #102
    Interesting comment, because that's exactly what Americans did when Congress passed the Patriot Act following 9/11. So basically, your argument doesn't hold water.
  • #105
    @Greytdog I fought against the patriot act just as hard fro the same reason. So actually you proved my point
  • #107
    @NTBFW we have a social compact in this democracy. Yes we have guaranteed liberties under our Constitution - but those liberties are there for the Common Good, not just the individual. If individual liberties were the sole point of our democracy, then once we gained our freedom from England, why institute a government? We've reached the point where we have to decide if we want to remain a democratic union or splinter off into separate entities. Do we destroy the social compact to ensure the rights of some? Is your right to own a gun - whatever weapon you choose to have be it a gun, a rocket grenade launcher, a missile, a nuke warhead - more valuable to you, then, than the right of a person who would like to be able to go to school, go to a movie theatre, go to a shopping mall, or even go to work and still come home alive - are their rights less than your rights:? Dr Dworkin isn't advocating taking away your guns - he's advocating a sensible approach to responsible gun ownership. There is a difference you know between blame and responsibility. We're not blaming all gun owners - we are asking you to understand that you share the responsibility of ensuring that all rights, not just yours, are upheld under our social compact as the United States of America. The fact that you refuse to even enter into a dialogue tells me that responsibility is not a valued component.
  • #109
    @Greytdog the reason I won't compromise is simple. There is no possible resolution to our differences. You want to undermine the constitution and invalidate the second amendment. It's all or nothing with you. You leave no room for compromise. Your excuse for the common good is straw man at its worst. Because the " reasonable" actions you want won't accomplish your stated goals. You refuse the simplest answer to the problem. Enforce current laws. Until you at least try that there is no rational argument for new laws. The only thing you will accomplish is denying us our rights with no gain on crime or violence.
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    While I agree with the writers op-ed right to feel as they do and understand why they feel as they do, the bottom line remains. The mother of that child bears the responsibility for what her son did because she knew he had mental problems and she allowed access to those guns to him. No amount of laws will change that. She paid with her life. We shouldn't have to pay for her mistake any more than those 26 other people should have had to. My condolences Newtown. I still have to fight back tears every time I hear Newtown. As a tough old grizzled cynic, my one soft spot is the children. But taking my guns is not going to change those who attack kids.
  • #12
    Glad you do have a soft spot. Sometimes that is hard to tell.

    I agree with what you posted here. It's why I can't support gun control. It's not about safety, it's about control.
  • #17
    @jessejaymes - The same as yours. I'm deeply concerned about the future of this country. And who is the future of this country? The children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. I care deeply about my family and my community as well. So there, I have soft spots too. I don't compromise them, they don't deserve to sold out.
  • #20
    @Neo_NtheMatrix neo you didn't need to start ranting about "socialists" again which is exactly what you did based on your daily posts concerning the future of this country. You know why my family is moving to Costa Rica? Including my granddaughter and her mother? Because we don't see a way back for America. We're totally scared to death of both the gangs and the right wingers. That means we are afraid of you Neo. I don't mean that as a childish insult. i mean that as fact. I think you're every bit as much a danger as the "socialists". Because you won't compromise on ANYTHING. That is what will be the final nail in the coffin of America. Love it or leave it? hell we're afraid of it. So we're leaving.
  • #23
    @jessejaymes - I didn't even mention socialists, you did. Then you started ranting about fleeing the country. If leaving for Costa Rica is what is best for you and your family then I wish you success and happiness there. My family can't and won't move there so we have to make America the best we can. We have a vested interest in the success of America. That's not a rant, that's just reality. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of compromising with failure. Success is the only option for me and mine.
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    i"mpingement on freedoms ought to be a trade-off for the desire and ability to save lives.
    We're not out to impinge on personal liberties "
    Your own words say other wise.
  • #37
    Doctors or not these guys are morons. Its been proven that gun control does not reduce violent crime and murders, the trend is quite the opposite actually. Both the UK and Australia saw significant increases in both murder and other forms of violent crime following their very strict gun control laws passing. As far as trading freedom for safety, we all know how the founding fathers felt about that. I'll choose the "risk" and remain free.
  • #45
    I agree that we need to address the mental health aspect. It's obvious in so many of these mass shootings that the underlying cause was mental illness and under reporting these illnesses to the proper authorities in a timely manner (or at all). Trying to pass laws that affect the wrong population is pointless. I'd like to see the real issues addressed.
  • #52
    But that's a difficult fix, the new American doesn't like difficult, they want easy and free.They want free phones, free medical care, to have someone else fix it for them so they can go on worrying about who dumped who on the Bachelor, who got eliminated on American Idol and when the next iPhone is coming out. So the quick answer is "guns are bad and anyone that owns them and wants to keep them loves guns more than children." If you point out silly things like the 2nd Ammendment or the fact that gun vilonce is disproportionally high in certain ethnic groups, the you are a "bigot" or "your hiding behind the constitution". The new America will not survive. Like sheep in a flood they will go down playing Angry Birds and Tweeting till the water takes them.
  • #54
    @SavageMazx Speak it, brother! At this point, they would have to admit their agenda was wrong and take a new path. We all know that's not going to happen. They are too committed to this idea of a false sense of security. They also know that if they somehow manage to squash the 2nd Amendment, they can easily squash the rest of the Constitution. People don't realize that document serves as our protection. I'm not willing to give that up very easily.
  • #97
    You make a good argument. But be careful about what you advocate. While being a felon (duly convicted by a jury) is a sound basis to deny such rights as voting and possessing arms - what threshold criteria would you propose to deny such rights for "mental illness" reasons? Presently, it seems to be the exclusive discretion of medical doctors - much like the profoundly misguided ones featured in this article.

    It's not much of a stretch to foresee many doctors making a "determination" of "mental illness" regarding a perfectly healthy (mentally, as well as physically) individual (such as yourself). After all, the majority of 'public-servants' within our own government have already published several official documents suggesting that a citizen's "concern about the constitution" is a legitimate basis to classify him as "a threat".

    I share your frustration with the seemingly endless cycle of lunatics committing homicidal rampages. But let's not provide our enemies the rope (and the gallows) to hang us with. Personally, I would rather suffer the occasional rampage, than an oppressive tyrannical government. At least we can present credible armed opposition against the lunatic.
  • #101
    @thumper11 In my profession, we must call the authorities if a person is a threat to himself or others. There is specific criteria that must be met to do this. It's not so simple as to say "I don't like this person and they shouldn't have a firearm." In fact, we report these people and that's the end of the line as far as we go. It's up to the police to follow up on it. We can force a 72 hour hold in a mental health facility but that's it, and only after a psychiatrist comes in to do an evaluation. The mental health facility itself has a panel of doctors and nurses that decide if the person is a legitimate threat. There isn't one person making the decision. I have more hope for healthcare professionals to do the right thing than politicians. Political views rarely come up in the ER. Also, it has been my experience that family members are told to remove the firearms from the home, not the police. Clearly, I do not agree with asking patients if they own a firearm as a regular part of their healthcare unless they are making suicidal or homicidal threats. We already have laws mandating this type of reporting. These incidents are simply under reported. The Aurora shooting would have been entirely prevented if the man's psychiatrist had done her job. Also, you have to realize that mentally healthy people don't go to the psychiatrist. These people wouldn't be in a position to be determined to be a threat in the first place.
  • #106

    "While being a felon (duly convicted by a jury) is a sound basis to deny such rights as voting and possessing arms..."

    Even THIS is not A sound basis to deny voting and possessing firearms. Do you know how many non-violent people are felons? Do you know how easy it is to become a felon? Hundreds of thousands of felons have never harmed a hair on anyone's head. Never robbed or raped anyone. Many may have never even fired a gun or used any weapon in a violent manner. Their crime was simply to be caught with drugs.

    Spree killers in recent history have NOT been felons. Klebold and Harris. James Holmes, George Hennard, James Pough, Mark Barton, Charles Whitman, Seueng Cho, and Adam Lanza, to name a few. None were felons. None were even convicted criminals of any kind.

    No, violent criminals should not be allowed to possess firearms. But non-violent criminals should have ALL their rights restored as soon as their probation/parole is completed successfully.
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    Pity the poor MD's who did the autopsies, Pity the poor MD who may have children of their own who were in different schools or class rooms. Pity the MD who have to treat a family minus a child, Pity the poor MD who have to deal with the trauma that has hit this community. Multiply that out by how many times a day an innocent is killed by gun violence, 2065 as of five days since Newtown and I think declaring this a public health issue is justified.
    It's time to put the paranoia aside and establish a system where real background checks including health issues are required. No one's threatening to take you're gun, there are just a number of "we the people" who want to be protected from criminals and psycho's.
  • #35
    @wonka45ACP a real background check to prevent their acquiring guns... The Senate has a bill out of committee to deal with bulk buys and interstate trafficking with real teeth in it. The states won't enforce the law so it's up to the feds. Bulk buys are not a problem in many states, no background checks performed, no waiting periods. That's dumb!

    It's amazing that trucks filled with black market cigarettes bought cheap in the Carolinas and resold in NYC are stopped almost daily and their cargo seized. But a buyer with 50 handguns in his trunk purchased in GA or FL has no worry about being stopped. He's not broken the law until there sold on the black market.\
    Not looking to take any legit gun owners rights or privileges I just want to enforce our laws and stop facilitating guns being sold to the wrong people
  • #41
    @wonka45ACP I don't believe we can do much more about the problem in the current political climate. This at least inhibits the facilitation of getting guns into the wrong hands I'm thinking in terms of what's doable.
  • #46
    Does it not bother you to hear? someone say, "do as we say not as we do" or hear someone that want's to restrict something from you? only to hear this from those that want to restrict it. SPRINGFIELD, VA - Gun Owners of America today awarded Sarah Brady's son, Scott, an honorary one-year GOA membership.

    "Now that Scott Brady is the proud owner of a high-powered 'sniper' rifle, he will most certainly need a fuller understanding of the Second Amendment than he ever received at home," said Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America.

    In her recent book, Sarah Brady admits to having engaged in a straw purchase when she bought a .30-06 on her son's behalf, allowing him to avoid the required criminal background check.
  • R Load more replies

  • #27
    There are steps that can be taken, but what those steps are is the choking point. Sure, lets decrease gun violence and, more importantly, violence. But, unless you have the "Minority Report", any weapon you take away might be the one that could have been used to protect a life.
  • #11
    These fine do good doctors need to take a stand against drunk driving accidents that result in death.It was tragic what happened that day do to a nut with a gun.I just wonder how many of these fine doctors have taken a stand from those injured or killed from booze ,drugs ,or domestic violence.Ahhh but speaking out on guns is the new cool.Its not about cool its about saving lives ,its a shame guns are the only focus.
  • #6
    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
    Benjamin Franklin

    Seems as though progressive liberals are willing to do anything to sell our liberty to purchase their power.....
  • #71
    NOPE.... Gee Doc, it's good that your PRACTICE is running so well that you have time to get involved in something that's frankly NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

    You don't want to have a gun.... fine. You don't have to have one.

    Doctors are actually nothing more than second rate mechanics who make more than their share of stupid mistakes that kill people. Among Medicare beneficiaries alone, preventable medical harm is the number 3 cause of death in the U.S. after cardiovascular disease and cancer. Over 198,000 PEOPLE per year are killed by medical professionals who make mistakes.

    It's good to see that the people of Newbury are blessed with medical professionals who are so good at their job that they have time for additional causes.

    By the way Doc, wasn't Adam Lanza supposedly being treated by a Doctor in the Newtown area? Wasn't it a mental health professional who dropped the ball on Adam's case that allowed him to be walking the streets to murder those children?

    The oath you took was called Hippocratic, not Hypocritical....
  • #63
    No I do not. Give an inch and people try to take a mile. Our freedoms are not something to be taken lightly. If we continue to give prices of them up. Pretty soon we will be nothing but pawns in a chess game.
  • #58
    How about the American public ban together and call for a federal capitol punishment law that would take the life of any doctor that caused death from malpractice? Isn't that just as fair?
  • R Load more comments...