At Least 27 Dead In Connecticut School Shooting - Cbs News

F430murci · December 17, 2012

Good - I am happy that we have got to the point where discussion of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the table.

Actually not good,

I am sorry to have taken part in it actually & will add no more to the flames regarding Constitution etc.

But just thought I would point out what the amendment states in reply to your post &

also that it it the American Citizens alone who shall decide on any further amendments.

I agree with a post made early on by "The Blether" I think?

In it he said this topic is about 27 dead. The moderators have also stepped

in many times to remind us of that. This is not the time nor place/thread to debate

gun laws/Constitution interpretation etc.

Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow there will be a topic in this world news section about

proposed laws/possible changes etc. soon enough. That would be a topic to post all this other stuff in.

It was a terrible evil thing that happened. Perpetrated by a possibly sick, definitely evil

person. My heart goes out to the families & their loved ones he hurt.

We owe it to those children, those families and out children and families to do whatever we can to try to prevent this from happening again. America should be more committed to that than hanging onto some silly right to possess assault weapons which are absolutely useless in society.

sustento · December 17, 2012

I know there is a vast difference of opinion here, but I prefer freedom with some added risk to what I see as a false sense of security in an unarmed populace. Some things are worth dying for and freedom is one of them for me.

It's not you that's dead though, is it? It's a bunch of primary school children in Sandy Hook.

NeverSure · December 17, 2012

All great points. No one will answer why assault weapons are essential or what benefit they provide that outweighs harm imposed.

First, US citizens don't own assault weapons and I'm actually a bit tired of making that point. Assault weapons are fully automatic machine guns. Only people such as reporters and other uneducated people keep calling these weapons that. Paint a rifle black and it scares the uneducated. The military has assault weapons with which they conduct assaults.

Again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is that the citizens have more power than the government. A baseball bat won't get you there.

What kind of weapons were available at time2nd amendment was drafted? Not exactly the type where you could mow down entire classroom or theatre full of adults before someone could flee or kick some serious butt on the perpetrator.

Again, the Second Amendment is to keep the people more powerful than the government. If the government ups the anti with better weapons, then so must the people.

I do not buy home invasion argument to a great extent. How many home invasions are thwarted each year by someone shooting the perpetrator?

A lot. Not only are invaders confronted and usually run off rather than shot, but just knowing that a home is armed is a deterrent for all but the drugged up crazies. Then you really do need some defense.

If you have children and keep weapons locked up or empty, do you really have time in most beak ins. Seems like most would occur at night when people are asleep or when house is empty during the day.

When the house is empty, the guns should be locked in a safe. At night there is one under my pillow. Children don't have access to my guns. Do you take away all cars because of drunk driving deaths? No, you punish the drunk. If someone allows a child to have a gun and something happens, that adult is liable for it.

Seems like more people are accidentally killed inside the home by mistakes, negligence, kids finding or accidental discharge than used against perpetrators.

Again, you don't take cars away from people due to the (many times more deaths than by guns) problems which occur, even by drunks and idiots. You accept some risk by driving, and you make sure you yourself are responsible. That's the best you can do.

Also, people seem to continue to ignore my postings about mass murders in so many other countries including the 46 deaths at the hands of the government in Thailand. No country is exempt. The scariest part is when the mass murders are by the government against the people.

People also seem to ignore the 90 million gun owners in the US who DIDN'T commit a crime with a gun on that day. Statistically the numbers are small, and again I'll take my freedom, and my knowledge that my government can never overrun the people in exchange for some risk just as I take some risk when I get into my car.

In the countries where people have given up their guns in exchange for what they perceive as safety, cannot see into the future and promise what may befall them just as the Germans couldn't predict what Hitler would do even to babies and small children after they surrendered their guns. The rest of the story about Europe has yet to be written. Europe is shaking at the core, and a central government is controlling the money for the Eurozone, and I would be afraid to live there. Much more afraid than in the US.

Chicog · December 17, 2012

Again, the Second Amendment is to keep the people more powerful than the government. If the government ups the anti with better weapons, then so must the people.

I look forward to ICBM's, Neutron bombs, Tanks, Blackhawks, Aircraft Carriers, Cruise missiles, Fuel/Air bombs, Uranium-tipped shells, F15s and F35s being available in your local gun store.

Honestly, how on earth can you come out with this and keep a straight face?

Publicus · December 17, 2012

Official public data on the web from the FBI shows that from January to November 2012 there were 16,808,538 (yes, 16,8 million) Applications for firearms in the USA, including the type of fire arms.

From November 1998 to November 2012 (14 years) a total of more than 156 Million (!) applications for firearms were received in the US.

Only some serious consciousness and awareness of the dangers of possessing firearms amongst Americans themselves is necessary to change the way of thinking in order to realize that the rest of the world also lives and survives WITHOUT hundreds of millions of firearms in private possession.

The same way of changes in thinking amongst a large part of the Americans happened with/about same-sex marriage...it took decades to realize and accept that the world is changing; the same will be needed for firearms

US Gun statistics overall:

https://docs.google....JIdEFNUXc#gid=0

datablog by The Guardian:

http://www.guardian....ny-guns-us#data

How many guns per State:

http://www.guardian....y-guns-us#state

Guns in the U.S. and Knives in the schools of the PRChina: http://www.bbc.co.uk...ory_continues_1

Again, guns in the U.S. and Knives in the schools of the PRChina: http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-10862175

The PRChina wrings its hands over knives in an increasing number of adults attacking children in schools: http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/8653827.stm

Again, but this time, 22 PRChinese school children attacked in their school by a man with a knife: http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ack-school.html

Knife Attacks Against Chinese school children between 2010 to date in 2012: http://en.wikipedia....010â€"2011)

It's remarkably the same nature of a problem, just different weapons, opposite cultures. In the U.S. and the West in general, we talk about the problem and try to deal with it, although the Guardian seems not to pay much attention to the stabbings of Chinese young people in their schools. Beijing anyway tries to muzzle the facts and the realitiy, and doesn't much care, except to take care no one hears about it. Here we have two cultures of violence by two distinctly different means, i.e., weapons. Availability of a weapon is a factor in the serious social problem of mass homicides. The students who have been victims of knife attacks in schools of the PRChina seldom die from a knife slashing, whilst victims of gun violence in the U.S. do die, shot up multiple times in some attack incidents such as the awful one at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday.

folium · December 17, 2012

Yesterday we had a Republican Congressman on Fox News, ( Where else would a lunatic like this get a platform), saying that the Headmistress should have had a machine gun so that she could have "Taken the gunman's head off". Rep Louie Gohmert also told Fox News he believed that the way to prevent similar incidents is to increase the number of guns available rather than limiting access. The idea that teachers at elementary schools should be armed in this way, potentially having fire fights with presumably the children stuck in the middle is surely the product of insanity. And to think that someone with these crazy views was voted into public office is mind boggling to be honest. Sadly he probably will have a large number of supporters and no doubt will increase his majority next time around. God help America with politicians like this.

They will not even let the corpses of 6 year olds get cold, before the come with their apologetic nonsense and their crazy ideas!

Sometimes it is very very hard to feel sympathetic and tolerant towards Americans, if THAT is what they propagate!

It is easy to misunderstand. From the beginning, the reason for the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to bear arms had everything to do with allowing citizens to protect themselves from the government. It was to assure that the people were more powerful than the government, and they are.

Even though the government has far more powerful weapons, they are too far outnumbered. Also, the people can hide as civilians an come in and out to fight guerrilla style.

Never in history has any guerrilla army been defeated on its own soil. We saw that in N. Korea in the 50's, in Viet Nam in the 60 - 70's, and are today seeing it in Afghanistan. It just cannot be done, even against the US military.

This is why I reject all statements about citizens needing guns only for sporting purposes or even just for hunting. That's NOT what the guns are for. They are for defense of the home, the person, and the populace, and this requires capable weapons.

SO BEFORE anyone thinks this belief in defense against government is crazy, let's not forget the many massacres around the globe by governments against their people. In 1976 the Thai government massacred and then mutilated the bodies of 46 university students who were protesting. Link BTW the right to protest is also protected in the US.

There isn't room here to list all of the massacres by governments against their own people just in my lifetime, and certainly not in my father's lifetime and he fought against Hitler who killed 6 million Jews who had surrendered their guns to him. The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in China resulted in the government killing at least hundreds and many believe thousands of protestors. How would that have turned out if the Chinese citizens had guns? There were about 1/2 million protesters and a population of over one billion.

I know there is a vast difference of opinion here, but I prefer freedom with some added risk to what I see as a false sense of security in an unarmed populace. Some things are worth dying for and freedom is one of them for me. As a matter of fact, the increasingly centralized monetary power (and money makes the rules) in Europe, and a somewhat unarmed populace would scare me. History says there are things to be concerned about when government gets too much power.

Too many inaccuracies to enumurate here. Unfortunately people read this kind of emotive half-truth and it re-inforces their paranoia.

Most USA citizens that I know - including my very large extended family - are against public ownership of assault style weapons, seriously beefed up checks on the suitability of potential owners of any gun, and limits on the quantity in any household.

There is a religious-like fervour about the constitution of USA as amended, but there is little thought put into implementing it correctly. Specifically the amendment states clearly that the arms should be well-regulated. If that had been the case there would not have been an arsenal in that house because of the unstable son, and those kids would not be dead now.

RIP

NeverSure, your grasp of history is almost comical without wishing to be needlessly unkind.

This selective veneration of the Constitution is also troubling. Do you support the wording of Section 2 of Article 1 which states that black slaves count as 3/5ths of a human being, Section 9 of Article1 that preserved the importation of slaves for a further 20 years, or Section 2 of Article 4 confirming the status of slaves as chattel property of their owners who could not be assisted in escaping slavery?

All these were quite rightly swept away (at least in theory) with the 13th Amendment of 1865.

Hopefully now with a groundswell of disgust and outrage stemming from this massacre in Newtown the ambiguous wording of the Second Amendment can be addressed and a more relevant and responsible Amendment introduced.

Gun control in the UK is not perfect but at least something has been done (auto/semi-auto weapons banned post Hungerford, handguns banned post-Dunblane, and the Scottish government plans to make air weapons subject to a license requirement), and thousands of unnecessary weapons have been removed from circulation. Don't see much evidence of the need for the UK population to need to defend itself from an overbearing government.

Exploiting paranoia and insecurity has been a well practised route to excess profitability for the US weapons industries, who sadly have not only supplied vulnerable housewives in affluent suburbs but narco gangs and international terrorists, both of which are fully documented and public knowledge. Time for a change of approach perhaps?

folium · December 17, 2012

Specifically the amendment states clearly that the arms should be well-regulated.

Actually

It is the Militia that shall be well regulated & the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment States

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

At the end of the day if there is to be any further amendments to the Constitution

it will be the citizens of the USA who decide & they alone.

Quite right that only the citizens of the USA can change the Constitution, but isn't now a great time to be reviewing this ambiguous, fine for its time, piece of 18th century compromise?

NeverSure · December 17, 2012

Again, the Second Amendment is to keep the people more powerful than the government. If the government ups the anti with better weapons, then so must the people.

I look forward to ICBM's, Neutron bombs, Tanks, Blackhawks, Aircraft Carriers, Cruise missiles, Fuel/Air bombs, Uranium-tipped shells, F15s and F35s being available in your local gun store.

Honestly, how on earth can you come out with this and keep a straight face?

See, that's just silly. The government wouldn't unleash those weapons onto its own soil or its people. That would be entirely counterproductive. Anyone wanting control would want the infrastructure and the wealth intact. If there were, say, a Hitler type, he would want to subdue and control the people but retain and control the wealth. Just as we saw in Viet Nam and Korea and now in Afghanistan, that has to be anti-personnel and often door to door.

Just as the US with all of its superior firepower and weapons was unable to subdue the N. Koreans or the N. Vietnamese and now those in Afghanistan, it would be even more unable to subdue or control its own people on their own soil.

I repeat. Not once in history has a guerrilla style army ever been defeated on its own soil. Not even by the "mighty" US military. But such groups have run the US military off several times in my lifetime.

There are fewer than 2 million people in the US military including reserves, and they are scattered all over the world. On the other hand, there are 90 million armed Americans, at home, prepared to defend themselves and their homes. Get it? It can't be done. Never has the US military or police come up against such a force and yet even the lowly Taliban will not be defeated on their soil. The US and the Brits will leave Afghanistan without a victory, just as happened in Iraq.

I posted before that at the end of WWII when the surrender was signed by the Japanese, the Emperor said that the reason they never considered invading the US was because of the armed civilian population. He was right too. The Japanese would have never made it past the beaches. Normandy would have looked like a picnic.

Edited December 17, 2012 by NeverSure

NeverSure · December 17, 2012

Specifically the amendment states clearly that the arms should be well-regulated.

Actually

It is the Militia that shall be well regulated & the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment States

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

At the end of the day if there is to be any further amendments to the Constitution

it will be the citizens of the USA who decide & they alone.

Quite right that only the citizens of the USA can change the Constitution, but isn't now a great time to be reviewing this ambiguous, fine for its time, piece of 18th century compromise?

Not at all. If ever this was a dangerous world with a dangerous US government it is now. I'm getting hoarse after saying too many times that the reason for that amendment was for the people to be able to subdue the government if necessary. That right and that potential is never archaic.

One of these days the Eurozone will be in chaos and then I think a lot of Europeans will change their tune. They are going to have a dictator arising from those who control the money and they will be powerless against it. Today they are smug. Tomorrow is a different day.

Europeans today have grown up and lived in peacetime. They have forgotten recent history. But history repeats itself.

F430murci · December 17, 2012

All great points. No one will answer why assault weapons are essential or what benefit they provide that outweighs harm imposed.

First, US citizens don't own assault weapons and I'm actually a bit tired of making that point. Assault weapons are fully automatic machine guns. Only people such as reporters and other uneducated people keep calling these weapons that. Paint a rifle black and it scares the uneducated. The military has assault weapons with which they conduct assaults.

Again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is that the citizens have more power than the government. A baseball bat won't get you there.

What kind of weapons were available at time2nd amendment was drafted? Not exactly the type where you could mow down entire classroom or theatre full of adults before someone could flee or kick some serious butt on the perpetrator.

Again, the Second Amendment is to keep the people more powerful than the government. If the government ups the anti with better weapons, then so must the people.

I do not buy home invasion argument to a great extent. How many home invasions are thwarted each year by someone shooting the perpetrator?

A lot. Not only are invaders confronted and usually run off rather than shot, but just knowing that a home is armed is a deterrent for all but the drugged up crazies. Then you really do need some defense.

If you have children and keep weapons locked up or empty, do you really have time in most beak ins. Seems like most would occur at night when people are asleep or when house is empty during the day.

When the house is empty, the guns should be locked in a safe. At night there is one under my pillow. Children don't have access to my guns. Do you take away all cars because of drunk driving deaths? No, you punish the drunk. If someone allows a child to have a gun and something happens, that adult is liable for it.

Seems like more people are accidentally killed inside the home by mistakes, negligence, kids finding or accidental discharge than used against perpetrators.

Again, you don't take cars away from people due to the (many times more deaths than by guns) problems which occur, even by drunks and idiots. You accept some risk by driving, and you make sure you yourself are responsible. That's the best you can do.

Also, people seem to continue to ignore my postings about mass murders in so many other countries including the 46 deaths at the hands of the government in Thailand. No country is exempt. The scariest part is when the mass murders are by the government against the people.

People also seem to ignore the 90 million gun owners in the US who DIDN'T commit a crime with a gun on that day. Statistically the numbers are small, and again I'll take my freedom, and my knowledge that my government can never overrun the people in exchange for some risk just as I take some risk when I get into my car.

In the countries where people have given up their guns in exchange for what they perceive as safety, cannot see into the future and promise what may befall them just as the Germans couldn't predict what Hitler would do even to babies and small children after they surrendered their guns. The rest of the story about Europe has yet to be written. Europe is shaking at the core, and a central government is controlling the money for the Eurozone, and I would be afraid to live there. Much more afraid than in the US.

Maybe getting facts straight help with your credibility, esepcially since I have pointed this out several times . . .

ASSAULT WEAPONS:

Title XI, subtitle A, formally known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, but commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban, barred the manufacture of 19 specific "semi-automatic firearms "classified as "assault weapons."Assault Weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
`( The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
`© The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(K) A conversion kit.
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
- `(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
  `(ii) AR-10;
  `(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
  `(iv) AR70;
  `(v) Calico Liberty;
  `(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
  `(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
  `(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
  `(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
  `(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
  `(xi) M1 Carbine;
  `(xii) Saiga;
  `(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
  `(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
  `(xv) SLG 95;
  `(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
  `(xvii) Steyr AUG;
  `(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
  `(xix) Tavor;
  `(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
  `(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
  `(i) Calico M-110;
  
  `(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
  
  `(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
  
  `(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
  
  `(v) Uzi.
  `(i) Armscor 30 BG;
  
  `(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
  
  `(iii) Striker 12; or
  
  `(iv) Streetsweeper.
  `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
  
  `(ii) a threaded barrel;
  
  `(iii) a pistol grip;
  
  `(iv) a forward grip; or
  
  `(v) a barrel shroud.
  `(i) a second pistol grip;
  
  `(ii) a threaded barrel;
  
  `(iii) a barrel shroud; or
  
  `(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.
  `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
  
  `(ii) a pistol grip;
  
  `(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
  
  `(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr1022/text

F430murci · December 17, 2012

Oh by the way, Neversure (Approp . . .), US Citizens can also own assault rifles or fully auto stuff mfg prior to 1986 if I recall correctly. Have to check my date, but a Class III license is really not that difficult to obtain. Now the Federal registry on machine guns is very strict and they are extremely expensive so most of your garden variety criminals won't be using these for random crimes. Truth is, semi is much more accurate and deadly than full auto on the assault rifles and a criminal can pay $ 150 for a receiver to make an AK or AR fully auto so they won't spend huge dollars and register federally for a Class III when they can buy and AR-15 or AK Romanian eddition not subject to class III registration for a few hundred bucks and get fully auto at a fraction of the price if they so want. Again, FA is aonly good for supression fire so no need for FA to rob a bank or commit mass murder.

F430murci · December 17, 2012

All great points. No one will answer why assault weapons are essential or what benefit they provide that outweighs harm imposed.

First, US citizens don't own assault weapons and I'm actually a bit tired of making that point. Assault weapons are fully automatic machine guns. Only people such as reporters and other uneducated people keep calling these weapons that. Paint a rifle black and it scares the uneducated. The military has assault weapons with which they conduct assaults.

Again, the purpose of the Second Amendment is that the citizens have more power than the government. A baseball bat won't get you there.

What kind of weapons were available at time2nd amendment was drafted? Not exactly the type where you could mow down entire classroom or theatre full of adults before someone could flee or kick some serious butt on the perpetrator.

Again, the Second Amendment is to keep the people more powerful than the government. If the government ups the anti with better weapons, then so must the people.

I do not buy home invasion argument to a great extent. How many home invasions are thwarted each year by someone shooting the perpetrator?

A lot. Not only are invaders confronted and usually run off rather than shot, but just knowing that a home is armed is a deterrent for all but the drugged up crazies. Then you really do need some defense.

If you have children and keep weapons locked up or empty, do you really have time in most beak ins. Seems like most would occur at night when people are asleep or when house is empty during the day.

When the house is empty, the guns should be locked in a safe. At night there is one under my pillow. Children don't have access to my guns. Do you take away all cars because of drunk driving deaths? No, you punish the drunk. If someone allows a child to have a gun and something happens, that adult is liable for it.

Seems like more people are accidentally killed inside the home by mistakes, negligence, kids finding or accidental discharge than used against perpetrators.

Again, you don't take cars away from people due to the (many times more deaths than by guns) problems which occur, even by drunks and idiots. You accept some risk by driving, and you make sure you yourself are responsible. That's the best you can do.

Also, people seem to continue to ignore my postings about mass murders in so many other countries including the 46 deaths at the hands of the government in Thailand. No country is exempt. The scariest part is when the mass murders are by the government against the people.

People also seem to ignore the 90 million gun owners in the US who DIDN'T commit a crime with a gun on that day. Statistically the numbers are small, and again I'll take my freedom, and my knowledge that my government can never overrun the people in exchange for some risk just as I take some risk when I get into my car.

In the countries where people have given up their guns in exchange for what they perceive as safety, cannot see into the future and promise what may befall them just as the Germans couldn't predict what Hitler would do even to babies and small children after they surrendered their guns. The rest of the story about Europe has yet to be written. Europe is shaking at the core, and a central government is controlling the money for the Eurozone, and I would be afraid to live there. Much more afraid than in the US.

Maybe getting facts straight help with your credibility, esepcially since I have pointed this out several times . . .

ASSAULT WEAPONS:

Title XI, subtitle A, formally known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, but commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban or Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban, barred the manufacture of 19 specific "semi-automatic firearms "classified as "assault weapons."Assault Weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun; rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:

`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
`( The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
`© The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(K) A conversion kit.
`(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
`(ii) AR-10;
`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
`(iv) AR70;
`(v) Calico Liberty;
`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
`(xi) M1 Carbine;
`(xii) Saiga;
`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
`(xv) SLG 95;
`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
`(xvii) Steyr AUG;
`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
`(xix) Tavor;
`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).`(i) Calico M-110;
`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
`(v) Uzi.`(i) Armscor 30 BG;
`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
`(iii) Striker 12; or
`(iv) Streetsweeper.`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.`(i) a second pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a barrel shroud; or
`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

http://www.govtrack....110/hr1022/text

That is a political, bureaucratic definition, designed to scare and control. It is not the term used by the military or by knowledgeable gun owners or dealers.

An assault weapon is fully automatic - a machine gun, such as the M16 common in the US military.

The liberal press and our liberal bureaucrats would define a hunting knife as an assault weapon if they took any advantage from it.

That is the Federal definition. You may disagree with it all you want, but the fact is you were wrong. Your inability to admit you were wrong further damages your credibility.

Besides, you are talking about an Assault Rifle. Do you even have weapons or are you just arguing politics that have no applicaiton to you . . . Your knowledge base seems very weak on this subject.

My father, uncle, grandfather and great uncle are or were gunsmiths and gun collectors. Brother is a federal agent. I have been around guns all of my life and I have shot full auto as well as cannons. I just chose not have them in my house now because I have kids and I do not see the need. Even my shot gun is at my brothers as I have not used it since he did.

NeverSure · December 17, 2012

Oh by the way, Neversure (Approp . . .), US Citizens can also own assault rifles or fully auto stuff mfg prior to 1986 if I recall correctly. Have to check my date, but a Class III license is really not that difficult to obtain. Now the Federal registry on machine guns is very strict and they are extremely expensive so most of your garden variety criminals won't be using these for random crimes. Truth is, semi is much more accurate and deadly than full auto on the assault rifles and a criminal can pay $ 150 for a receiver to make an AK or AR fully auto so they won't spend huge dollars and register federally for a Class III when they can buy and AR-15 or AK Romanian eddition not subject to class III registration for a few hundred bucks and get fully auto at a fraction of the price if they so want. Again, FA is aonly good for supression fire so no need for FA to rob a bank or commit mass murder.

IF the particular state allows it, one can get a license for a fully auto weapon but the weapon must be pre-ban and they are very expensive to buy, and then to shoot.

Also if the state allows it, one can get a manufacturer's license called an 07 SOT FFL and then convert guns like AR-15's to fully auto. It's not the receiver which makes the conversion. It's an auto sear combined with a trigger group which will convert.

Now, if you get that license in a state which allows it, you may convert your weapon and register it with BATF (federal) as an automatic weapon. It cannot be converted back. It cannot be sold to anyone other than law enforcement or another 07 SOT FFL. So, you're stuck with it. Now you keep your license forever, or you destroy the gun and send it to BATF with the proper paperwork so that they can register it as destroyed.

The first time you take it to the range and burn through $1,000 worth of ammo faster than you can load magazines, you'll be tired of that game.

Oh, and please send your comments to the US Secretary of Defense telling him of the lousy performance of all of the rifles in the hands of the US military. I'm sure he'll get right on it, recall them, and issue semi-automatic versions because they are so much more effective.

Look, if you need to conduct an assault on a group of bad guys in a building and you have to enter (say as Seal Team 6 does) then you go in spraying. Several guys spraying. You toss in or fire in a few grenades first. Maybe some are flash-bangs to disorient. THAT is assault. That is what an assault weapon is for.

For long range accuracy each group of troops probably carries a (horrors) bolt action rifle in the form of .338 Lapua magnum sniper or .50 BMG. For close range, fully automatic won't be soon discarded.

folium · December 17, 2012

Oh by the way, Neversure (Approp . . .), US Citizens can also own assault rifles or fully auto stuff mfg prior to 1986 if I recall correctly. Have to check my date, but a Class III license is really not that difficult to obtain. Now the Federal registry on machine guns is very strict and they are extremely expensive so most of your garden variety criminals won't be using these for random crimes. Truth is, semi is much more accurate and deadly than full auto on the assault rifles and a criminal can pay $ 150 for a receiver to make an AK or AR fully auto so they won't spend huge dollars and register federally for a Class III when they can buy and AR-15 or AK Romanian eddition not subject to class III registration for a few hundred bucks and get fully auto at a fraction of the price if they so want. Again, FA is aonly good for supression fire so no need for FA to rob a bank or commit mass murder.

IF the particular state allows it, one can get a license for a fully auto weapon but the weapon must be pre-ban and they are very expensive to buy, and then to shoot.

Also if the state allows it, one can get a manufacturer's license called an 07 SOT FFL and then convert guns like AR-15's to fully auto. It's not the receiver which makes the conversion. It's an auto sear combined with a trigger group which will convert.

Now, if you get that license in a state which allows it, you may convert your weapon and register it with BATF (federal) as an automatic weapon. It cannot be converted back. It cannot be sold to anyone other than law enforcement or another 07 SOT FFL. So, you're stuck with it. Now you keep your license forever, or you destroy the gun and send it to BATF with the proper paperwork so that they can register it as destroyed.

The first time you take it to the range and burn through $1,000 worth of ammo faster than you can load magazines, you'll be tired of that game.

Oh, and please send your comments to the US Secretary of Defense telling him of the lousy performance of all of the rifles in the hands of the US military. I'm sure he'll get right on it, recall them, and issue semi-automatic versions because they are so much more effective.

Look, if you need to conduct an assault on a group of bad guys in a building and you have to enter (say as Seal Team 6 does) then you go in spraying. Several guys spraying. You toss in or fire in a few grenades first. Maybe some are flash-bangs to disorient. THAT is assault. That is what an assault weapon is for.

For long range accuracy each group of troops probably carries a (horrors) bolt action rifle in the form of .338 Lapua magnum sniper or .50 BMG. For close range, fully automatic won't be soon discarded.

Meanwhile back on Call of Duty 63, Black Ops edition......

NeverSure · December 17, 2012

That is the Federal definition. You may disagree with it all you want, but the fact is you were wrong. Your inability to admit you were wrong further damages your credibility.

Besides, you are talking about an Assault Rifle. Do you even have weapons or are you just arguing politics that have no applicaiton to you . . . Your knowledge base seems very weak on this subject.

My father, uncle, grandfather and great uncle are or were gunsmiths and gun collectors. Brother is a federal agent. I have been around guns all of my life and I have shot full auto as well as cannons. I just chose not have them in my house now because I have kids and I do not see the need. Even my shot gun is at my brothers as I have not used it since he did.

Our federal agencies are led by liberals with an agenda. They aren't to be trusted. As I said, they would label a hunting knife an assault weapon if they had a purpose for it. Real gun owners, dealers, and even military members know what a real assault rifle is, and the liberal press and liberal agencies can't change it.

One thing politicians do well is to play with words to gain advantage.

folium · December 17, 2012

That is the Federal definition. You may disagree with it all you want, but the fact is you were wrong. Your inability to admit you were wrong further damages your credibility.

Besides, you are talking about an Assault Rifle. Do you even have weapons or are you just arguing politics that have no applicaiton to you . . . Your knowledge base seems very weak on this subject.

My father, uncle, grandfather and great uncle are or were gunsmiths and gun collectors. Brother is a federal agent. I have been around guns all of my life and I have shot full auto as well as cannons. I just chose not have them in my house now because I have kids and I do not see the need. Even my shot gun is at my brothers as I have not used it since he did.

Our federal agencies are led by liberals with an agenda. They aren't to be trusted. As I said, they would label a hunting knife an assault weapon if they had a purpose for it. Real gun owners, dealers, and even military members know what a real assault rifle is, and the liberal press and liberal agencies can't change it.

One thing politicians do well is to play with words to gain advantage.

Whatever you want to call it, why does a suburban housewife in an affluent neighbourhood need a semi-automatic rifle and why is she allowed to have it and the ammunition unsecured?

endure · December 17, 2012

Neversure - if you want to hang on to your guns what do YOU think is a suitable solution to the school shooting/mass shooting phenomenon in the US?

NeverSure · December 17, 2012

Look, I've said my piece and I'm out of here. The last time the Brits got into trouble Churchill begged for help from the US and he got it. He got it in the form of boys who already knew how to shoot by hunting, farming, and generally growing up around guns.

The next time you guys need help, and you will because you've become such weak liberals, I hope the US refuses it and lets you go against the EU on your own. The EU will try to swallow Britain which is in trouble enough as it is.

Good luck.

NeverSure · December 17, 2012

Neversure - if you want to hang on to your guns what do YOU think is a suitable solution to the school shooting/mass shooting phenomenon in the US?

There is no solution to the evil of man. It's always been here. When people didn't own guns their own governments slaughtered them, man woman and child. It happened in Thailand in the 70's. Hitler got 6 million. It's happened in so many countries in my lifetime I can't even list them, but I'd hate to be in N. Korea where the government has all of the power and human abuse is rampant.

I wish those people had guns.

Nothing will stop carnage. It's one thing or it's another. Too often it's a government doing it.

People giving up guns to government is not a change for the better nor is it safety. History proves that.

We cannot stop mass murder in any country, not even in Britain from where so many objections come.

Gone.

folium · December 17, 2012

Look, I've said my piece and I'm out of here. The last time the Brits got into trouble Churchill begged for help from the US and he got it. He got it in the form of boys who already knew how to shoot by hunting, farming, and generally growing up around guns.

The next time you guys need help, and you will because you've become such weak liberals, I hope the US refuses it and lets you go against the EU on your own. The EU will try to swallow Britain which is in trouble enough as it is.

Good luck.

Bye..

Dig out your history books for a little revision...

PS The UK is already part of the EU.

sustento · December 17, 2012

Look, I've said my piece and I'm out of here. The last time the Brits got into trouble Churchill begged for help from the US and he got it. He got it in the form of boys who already knew how to shoot by hunting, farming, and generally growing up around guns.

The next time you guys need help, and you will because you've become such weak liberals, I hope the US refuses it and lets you go against the EU on your own. The EU will try to swallow Britain which is in trouble enough as it is.

Good luck.

The last time anyone successfully invaded Britain was 946 years ago...

F430murci · December 17, 2012

That is the Federal definition. You may disagree with it all you want, but the fact is you were wrong. Your inability to admit you were wrong further damages your credibility.

Besides, you are talking about an Assault Rifle. Do you even have weapons or are you just arguing politics that have no applicaiton to you . . . Your knowledge base seems very weak on this subject.

My father, uncle, grandfather and great uncle are or were gunsmiths and gun collectors. Brother is a federal agent. I have been around guns all of my life and I have shot full auto as well as cannons. I just chose not have them in my house now because I have kids and I do not see the need. Even my shot gun is at my brothers as I have not used it since he did.

Our federal agencies are led by liberals with an agenda. They aren't to be trusted. As I said, they would label a hunting knife an assault weapon if they had a purpose for it. Real gun owners, dealers, and even military members know what a real assault rifle is, and the liberal press and liberal agencies can't change it.

One thing politicians do well is to play with words to gain advantage.

Okay, now you are sounding out in left field. a Hunting knife is not labeled as an assault weapon and is much different than a Bushmaster or AR-15 with a 30, 50 or 100 round clip. No "liberals with an agenda" are trying to ban hunting knife's as assault weapons.

Assault rifles are not the same as assault weapons. Gun dealers, politicians, me and anyone that reads about it can easily understand the difference. An assault rifle is a fully auto rifle. An assault weapon is semi-automatic version of the fully auto rifle. Not too terribly difficult and no one is trying to trick anyone as the definition of assault weapon is very specific, list model numbers and lacks any ambiguity. Would be stricken if ambiguous . . .

Scott · December 17, 2012

A lot of off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

Stay on topic, please.

LaoPo · December 17, 2012

Guns in the U.S. and Knives in the schools of the PRChina: http://www.bbc.co.uk...ory_continues_1

Again, guns in the U.S. and Knives in the schools of the PRChina: http://www.bbc.co.uk...acific-10862175

The PRChina wrings its hands over knives in an increasing number of adults attacking children in schools: http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/8653827.stm

Again, but this time, 22 PRChinese school children attacked in their school by a man with a knife: http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ack-school.html

Knife Attacks Against Chinese school children between 2010 to date in 2012: http://en.wikipedia....010â€"2011)

It's remarkably the same nature of a problem, just different weapons, opposite cultures. In the U.S. and the West in general, we talk about the problem and try to deal with it, although the Guardian seems not to pay much attention to the stabbings of Chinese young people in their schools. Beijing anyway tries to muzzle the facts and the realitiy, and doesn't much care, except to take care no one hears about it. Here we have two cultures of violence by two distinctly different means, i.e., weapons. Availability of a weapon is a factor in the serious social problem of mass homicides. The students who have been victims of knife attacks in schools of the PRChina seldom die from a knife slashing, whilst victims of gun violence in the U.S. do die, shot up multiple times in some attack incidents such as the awful one at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday.

The topic at hand is about the shockingly tragic shooting and killing of 20 very young children and 6 adults by a mad boy in Newtown Connecticut USA and not China.

There are mad people all over the world, including in a small country like Norway where mad man Anders Breivik (judged to be sane...!) was single handedly responsible for the murder of many on July 22, 2011 ending 69 lives, many of them brilliant young students on a camping holiday.

And you're mistaken about the reporting by the Guardian; they DID report about the stabbing of 22 schoolchildren in Chengping on December 14th:

http://www.guardian....ool?INTCMP=SRCH

What's more important: can anyone imagine WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if the 700 million people in Europe, the 1.3 Billion people in China and the 1 Billion people of India, could get access the same "easy" way to firearms as it is possible in the US ?

There are an estimated 270 Million firearms in PRIVATE possession in the USA on a population of 315 million; that's an average of 85% of the population.

If the same laws would be in place, that would mean:

For Europe a staggering 595 Million firearms in PRIVATE possession!

For China it would mean 1.1 BILLION firearms

For India it would mean 850 million firerarms

Shall we "allow" the same firearms-laws for Thailand.....South and North Korea, Japan, Indonesia and what about the Middle East ?

Thailand would have a mindblowing 57 Million firearms in PRIVATE POSSESSION....May Buddha forbid such a law!

Edited December 17, 2012 by LaoPo

DocN · December 18, 2012

Good - I am happy that we have got to the point where discussion of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the table.

Actually not good,

I am sorry to have taken part in it actually & will add no more to the flames regarding Constitution etc.

But just thought I would point out what the amendment states in reply to your post &

also that it it the American Citizens alone who shall decide on any further amendments.

I agree with a post made early on by "The Blether" I think?

In it he said this topic is about 27 dead. The moderators have also stepped

in many times to remind us of that. This is not the time nor place/thread to debate

gun laws/Constitution interpretation etc.

Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow there will be a topic in this world news section about

proposed laws/possible changes etc. soon enough. That would be a topic to post all this other stuff in.

It was a terrible evil thing that happened. Perpetrated by a possibly sick, definitely evil

person. My heart goes out to the families & their loved ones he hurt.

This is EXACTLY the time, to pick up a discussion!

Actually, it is already TOO LATE!

jpinx · December 18, 2012

Good - I am happy that we have got to the point where discussion of the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is on the table.

Actually not good,

I am sorry to have taken part in it actually & will add no more to the flames regarding Constitution etc.

But just thought I would point out what the amendment states in reply to your post &

also that it it the American Citizens alone who shall decide on any further amendments.

I agree with a post made early on by "The Blether" I think?

In it he said this topic is about 27 dead. The moderators have also stepped

in many times to remind us of that. This is not the time nor place/thread to debate

gun laws/Constitution interpretation etc.

Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow there will be a topic in this world news section about

proposed laws/possible changes etc. soon enough. That would be a topic to post all this other stuff in.

It was a terrible evil thing that happened. Perpetrated by a possibly sick, definitely evil

person. My heart goes out to the families & their loved ones he hurt.

This is EXACTLY the time, to pick up a discussion!

Actually, it is already TOO LATE!

The discussions have descended to repititions of entrenched views. There's nothing constructive coming out of this anymore. We have sorely tried the mods patience and I - for one - am very grateful for their sensitive touch. Time for the politicans to move in and hopefully there will never be another reason for us to have this kind of debate.

The funerals are going on now and I feel so sad for those families who have an empty bed in their house now. Nothing can fix the hole in their lives.

RIP

devilish · December 18, 2012

It's pretty horrendous that such young kids were killed by gunfire. I think it's hard for most people to understand how someone can do this type of thing. You wonder what goes through their head, etc. This really has been happening too much here in America. We had the shooting at the movie theater not long ago here in Colorado.

Is it about Gun control or Gun education or Mental Health treatment or larger Societal issue(s) ? ? ? hard to tell

DocN · December 18, 2012

It's pretty horrendous that such young kids were killed by gunfire. I think it's hard for most people to understand how someone can do this type of thing. You wonder what goes through their head, etc. This really has been happening too much here in America. We had the shooting at the movie theater not long ago here in Colorado.

Is it about Gun control or Gun education or Mental Health treatment or larger Societal issue(s) ? ? ? hard to tell

Start with one, let the others follow!

Ferangled · December 18, 2012

Reading the recent posts on here gives a very worrying glimpse into the paranoid mind of a pro-gun American. There seems to be an irrational fear that is being used as justification for mass armament, why? I blame the US media to a certain extent, Fox news and similar controlled news outlets have brainwashed people and it seems it's all too easy for a US citizen to get lost in the scaremongering and buy into what they are fed hook line and sinker.

There's talk about an armed population being a check on your own Government, well who's checking the moral balance in the US, who's monitoring the ethics of the situation? Since when are your rights more important than the rights of others? Somehow your right to bear arms is more important than the rights of those innocents gunned down in cold blood as a direct result of irresponsible gun ownership and weak gun control regulations?

Why this irrational fear of your own Government and your own people, your fellow man? Some vague references to Nazi Germany... some inane fantasising about guerilla warfare... is this a good example of what someone should be diagnosing as mental health and treating appropriately? Get out more, socialise with other people, I find the more widely I travel and the more people I talk to the better my perception of my fellow man is. Reality check - The vast majority of people out there are decent sorts, much like you or me, they're not seeking to enslave you, kill you, rob you or impeach on your personal freedoms, they're just trying to get by as best they can and enjoy what time they have on this earth.

In the face of this terrible incident those calling for tighter gun controls and new regulations should be commended, now is just the time to bring about change. It's a natural response to this terrible side effect of having such weapons freely available and a horrific reminder of what such lax laws can result in. It is high time that changes were made, how many more innocents have to die before people realise that something is deeply wrong?

Those digging their heels in and advocating the easy access US citizens have to such devastating firearms, firearms that have no place in the world outside the arena of war, need to take a long hard look in the mirror. To make such comments on this particular thread shows a deeply saddening lack of compassion for those that lost their lives that day and their families who will be effected forever by this tragedy. There is a distinct lack of empathy being shown and some very callous and self centred opinions being voiced.

As to the comment on WW2, good God man, you need to wind your bl@@dy neck in. The UK stood alone against Hitler and the Nazis, fighting the good fight while the fat US bankers worked out how best to extract money from the situation and your troops stood idol with their fingers up their butts. All the while true men were fighting and dying next to each other; we had no choice, war was on our doorstep, mainland Europe had succumbed to the Nazis and still the US stood idol. I guess Pearl Harbour had nothing to do with the US joining the war, just a coincidence and there was no price paid for the assistance in arms and troops from the US? Your pride is misplaced, your country profiteered from the war in a cold, calculating and mercenary fashion. Utter ignorance and the perpetuation of these lies does nothing to educate your people.

F430murci · December 18, 2012

Reading the recent posts on here gives a very worrying glimpse into the paranoid mind of a pro-gun American. There seems to be an irrational fear that is being used as justification for mass armament, why? I blame the US media to a certain extent, Fox news and similar controlled news outlets have brainwashed people and it seems it's all too easy for a US citizen to get lost in the scaremongering and buy into what they are fed hook line and sinker.

There's talk about an armed population being a check on your own Government, well who's checking the moral balance in the US, who's monitoring the ethics of the situation? Since when are your rights more important than the rights of others? Somehow your right to bear arms is more important than the rights of those innocents gunned down in cold blood as a direct result of irresponsible gun ownership and weak gun control regulations?

Why this irrational fear of your own Government and your own people, your fellow man? Some vague references to Nazi Germany... some inane fantasising about guerilla warfare... is this a good example of what someone should be diagnosing as mental health and treating appropriately? Get out more, socialise with other people, I find the more widely I travel and the more people I talk to the better my perception of my fellow man is. Reality check - The vast majority of people out there are decent sorts, much like you or me, they're not seeking to enslave you, kill you, rob you or impeach on your personal freedoms, they're just trying to get by as best they can and enjoy what time they have on this earth.

In the face of this terrible incident those calling for tighter gun controls and new regulations should be commended, now is just the time to bring about change. It's a natural response to this terrible side effect of having such weapons freely available and a horrific reminder of what such lax laws can result in. It is high time that changes were made, how many more innocents have to die before people realise that something is deeply wrong?

Those digging their heels in and advocating the easy access US citizens have to such devastating firearms, firearms that have no place in the world outside the arena of war, need to take a long hard look in the mirror. To make such comments on this particular thread shows a deeply saddening lack of compassion for those that lost their lives that day and their families who will be effected forever by this tragedy. There is a distinct lack of empathy being shown and some very callous and self centred opinions being voiced.

As to the comment on WW2, good God man, you need to wind your bl@@dy neck in. The UK stood alone against Hitler and the Nazis, fighting the good fight while the fat US bankers worked out how best to extract money from the situation and your troops stood idol with their fingers up their butts. All the while true men were fighting and dying next to each other; we had no choice, war was on our doorstep, mainland Europe had succumbed to the Nazis and still the US stood idol. I guess Pearl Harbour had nothing to do with the US joining the war, just a coincidence and there was no price paid for the assistance in arms and troops from the US? Your pride is misplaced, your country profiteered from the war in a cold, calculating and mercenary fashion. Utter ignorance and the perpetuation of these lies does nothing to educate your people.

I agree. The Republican base can be very impressionable. Just look throughout the Bush years and all of axis of evil speeches, keeping air ports at orange level long after threats had passed, and his constant use of thugs and evil one language. I used to think to myself is anyone really buying this, but it did appeal to it's intended audience. Same with gun message. Some people, as evidenced here, buy into it hook line and sinker while some of us sit back and wonder do people really believe that or think that way.

Sign In

At Least 27 Dead In Connecticut School Shooting - Cbs News

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Latest posts...

Popular in The Pub

ASEANNOW

MORE INFO

POPULAR AREAS

CONTACT US