Hickenlooper and the 2nd amendment

posted at 8:31 am on December 15, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper took a lot of heat from fellow Democrats in the wake of the Aurora shooting tragedy for keeping a cool head and not caving to immediate demands for suppressing Second Amendment rights at a politically opportune moment. At the same time, he earned some additional credentials from conservatives for being a fairly independent minded executive. After the latest dose of mayhem from another maniac, however, the local press seemed to catch him reconsidering his position.

In a significant shift from his statements earlier this year, Gov. John Hickenlooper now says “the time is right” for Colorado lawmakers to consider further gun restrictions.

The Democratic governor made his comments in an interview with The Associated Pressthat comes less than half a year after the mass shooting in an Aurora movie theater that killed 12 and injured at least 58. His latest words also follow a shooting in an Oregon mall Tuesday that left three dead, including the gunman, who shot himself.

“I wanted to have at least a couple of months off after the shooting in Aurora to let people process and grieve and get a little space, but … I think, now … the time is right,” Hickenlooper said in the Wednesday interview.

Actually, I’ve previously maintained that this is precisely the wrong time to leap all over this. It smacks of being an opportunistic approach and capitalizes on the emotions of a grief stricken public to begin tossing out and debating gun grabbing arguments right now. But that genie is clearly out of the bottle and interesting facts are already emerging. As with previous tragedies, the sad patterns we’ve seen before are playing out yet again. The guns used by the maniac in question were legally purchased by his mother - one of the victims of the shooting – and taken without her consent. The shooter was a legal adult, apparently having no significant criminal record which would have warranted blocking his access in any event. The family seems to have had more than their share of trouble and turmoil, but that can be said of far too many families in America. Some are also reporting that the young man had a history of “mental problems” which you can also find in every corner of the nation. Friends are describing him as, “quiet and not very social,” but not giving any indication that he might be prone to violence. Unless more details prove otherwise, this was, in short, the almost completely unpredictable result of the actions of an evil madman who had given no actionable signals before his horrific assault.

Let’s stop and think for a moment about how the shooter got these guns. He took them from someone else who legally obtained them. He stole those guns. And this, of course, demonstrates yet again that those who are willing to employ guns to engage in violence aren’t going to pause and think about whether or not they should commit a robbery along the way. To stop an action like that which we witnessed yesterday you would have to eliminate the existence of guns, and we’ve all seen the figures on how well that works.

And let’s not forget that Connecticut already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.

So is Hickenlooper caving to the pressures of the far left wing of his party? That’s not clear yet.

Reached while traveling Thursday, the governor told The Denver Post, “I don’t think I flip-flopped at all. The AP was asking, ‘Should we have that discussion (about gun restrictions)?’ I said, ‘Sure. This is not a discussion that a free, open society should be afraid of,’ ” he said.

In that respect perhaps the Governor is right, at least in terms of the timing of the conversation. Generally, conservatives urge calm and quiet after one of these random acts of domestic violence and mayhem, preferring time for empathy and prayers for the victims and those affected by the tragedy. Conversely, gun grabbers seize the moment for their own devices. (In case you missed it, Allahpundit’s Quotes of the Day last night contains a robust roundup of what the grabbers in question are saying already.) These events shouldn’t be a reason for people to shy away from defending their own freedoms, while still maintaining the proper respect and empathy for those lost. And in a free nation, we can have this type of debate, no matter how painful the circumstances.

Would it be nice to wait until the bodies were laid to rest and the tears of the mourning were dry? No doubt. But the debate will happen either way. And we shouldn’t be too quick to judge Hickenlooper in this. The real message will be delivered when we see what sort of legislation is proposed in his state in the weeks and months to come and how he responds. We should be willing to allow his actions to speak louder than his words as we continue to pray for the fallen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Second look at the “Prohibition of Cosmetic Changes That Make Cutlery Look Skeery Act”?

Resist We Much on December 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Absolutely! Ban serrated blades now! I mean, seriously, they were designed for only two things – to cut aluminum cans and to cut meat! Obviously they were made for slicing through armor and right into an innocent human’s tender flesh! Oh, and blades with points, too! Those were obviously made for stabbing things, and not for something as benign as cutting carrots! Ban scary, pointy, serrated blades now!

Along those lines, almost $1 billion in property damage (not to mention lives lost) occurred due to arson in 2010. Heck, arson exceeds murder in crimes committed: 16.9/100,000 versus 4.8/100,000 murders. (That isn’t even limited to murders with a firearm, btw.) So, obviously we should ban accelerants and any object that produces sufficient heat to cause ignition of common materials: matches, lighters (even the crappy ones in cars), flint-n-steel kits. Yes, I know there are legitimate uses for fire – such as cooking. But, lots of those arsonists use things like gas ranges to start the fire – so they must be banned, too. And, obviously, gasoline-powered vehicles and tools will have to be banned so noone has access to an accelerant.

(Do I need a sarc tag? Perhaps for the benefit of our Chinese readers…..)
/sarc

GWB on December 15, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Look at the weapons employed in past shootings and the difference in fatality numbers when the weapon is a handgun.
The only time you see a higher death toll is when the attacker combines a handgun with other weapons, such as bomb.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

That has to be one of the – if not THE – stupidest statements made on Hot Air at any time.
It’s hard to believe that someone who could say something that stupid is allowed to walk around in public without a keeper.

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Actually, I’ve previously maintained that this is precisely the wrong time to leap all over this.

Actually, Hickenlooper said this BEFORE yesterday’s massacre. I think he was exactly correct after the Aurora shootings and an ass for his 180 degree turn around.

Colorado just gets bluer and bluer. Thanks to all those who ruined CA, then moved here to do the same thing.

I’m moving to Wyoming.

Common Sense on December 15, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Right, and the illegality of RPGs doesn’t have any impact on the difficulty of obtaining an RPG in downtown Hartford. Because affecting the supply of drugs is comparable to affecting the supply of large weapons. Perhaps you’re not as superior an intellect as you’d like to imagine.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I seem to have forgotten. Could you remind us of the last crime – murder or other – that was committed in America by someone wielding an RPG?

And, if you want to buy an RPG, you’ll have to go to New York, Dearborn, Chicago or Los Angeles. They’re available.

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I’m moving to Wyoming.
Common Sense on December 15, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Me too.

jawkneemusic on December 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Second look at the “Prohibition of Cosmetic Changes That Make Cutlery Look Skeery Act”?

Resist We Much on December 15, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Superior wordsmithing, that! Six two and even says we could get the geniuses in DC behind such legislation.

I seem to have forgotten. Could you remind us of the last crime – murder or other – that was committed in America by someone wielding an RPG?

And, if you want to buy an RPG, you’ll have to go to New York, Dearborn, Chicago or Los Angeles. They’re available.

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Don’t expect an answer from bayam; he probably had to drop off the thread to go disarm some lunatic shooter between shots. It’s especially rich for him to lecture on intellect. He obviously considers himself a real wit and, to give credit where due, he’s half right.

ghostwalker1 on December 15, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Which does not explain where Nancy Lanza acquired an AR-15 rifle…which is strictly banned in Conn. If you even bring an AR in to Conn., you have 90 days to disable it permenantly or sell it to a gun shop or give it to the police. No exceptions. They cannot be bought, sold, licensed or registered to civilians (citizens) in Conn.

Where did Nancy Lanza acquire this illegal weapon? What was she doing with it? Why did a “suburban mother” have an illegal “assault weapon”?

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM

And why on earth are YOU spreading that ignorant horseshit here amongst these idiot liberals? The CT AWB is just as superficial and deliberately misnamed for emotional loading as the Federal ’94 AWB. And CA’s AWB likewise.

Anyone in CT interested in purchasing an AR-15 can learn the ins and outs of their poorly crafted feeble ‘ban’ on these semi-automatic rifles (which are fraudulantly termed as ‘assault rifles’ to mislead the ignorant)

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_26/290819_Official_CT_Preban_Thread.html
http://ctcarry.com/FAQ/Index/Assault%20Weapon%20Ban

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Could you remind us of the last crime – murder or other – that was committed in America by someone wielding an RPG?

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM

No, but he can tell you how to disarm an RPG wielding assailant. As long as it’s a “revolver” type RPG and doesn’t have a rocket magazine.

hawkdriver on December 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM

This country needs to have the REAL dialogue……but everyone is scared to have it.
The majority of killers are Males. The majority of crimes involving firearms are committed by Males.
But all politicians ( who are majority of men ) keep missing this point. They selectively target the objects ( guns ), instead of addressing the shooters ( males ).

centre on December 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM

more f’n troll garbage.
Most of them are committed by YOUNG males, aged 20-25, typically with a history of mental instability and long-term prescriptions for SSRIs and/or Ritalin/Adderol/Methanphetamine, who grew up indoctrinated in liberal public schools in ‘no loser’ self-esteem / self-worshipping cloisters, wholly unprepared for the real world at legal adulthood, using illicitly-obtained firearms.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:12 PM

So, do I understand it to be the case that nobody at this school had a gun to defend these innocent defenseless children and teachers from a maniac that stole some guns and went on a murder spree? The school was a gun free zone? That is how irresponsible and dangerous gun control laws are. How many people may still be alive if the laws allowed them to defend themselves?

Ellis on December 15, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Which does not explain where Nancy Lanza acquired an AR-15 rifle…which is strictly banned in Conn. If you even bring an AR in to Conn., you have 90 days to disable it permenantly or sell it to a gun shop or give it to the police. No exceptions. They cannot be bought, sold, licensed or registered to civilians (citizens) in Conn.
Where did Nancy Lanza acquire this illegal weapon? What was she doing with it? Why did a “suburban mother” have an illegal “assault weapon”?
Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM

They’re banned in California too but with a few modifications you can make them “complaint”. Hell S&W has a whole line of AWB compliant AR-15′s on their website. Just further proof these libtard’s war on weapons doesn’t work. It’s the morally corrupt culture and the failures they have created in our mental health system that is to blame for these massacres. But they want to focus on the object used to distract from their failures otherwise they might have to examine their responsibility in these killings which we all know libs are all about personal responsibly. /sarc

jawkneemusic on December 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM

rayra on December 15, 2012

Just keep striking out in all directions. Sooner or later, you’re bound (by the law of averages) to hit an actual troll/anti-gunner/gun-banner instead of allies in the fight to preserve the Second Amendment.
Pay no attention to the allies – or even potential allies – that you may alienate in the process. It’s all good if it makes you feel better.

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Good post by Dana Loesch.

mr.blacksheep on December 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM

The media needs to new held accountable every time this happens. They ran with the Oregon mall shooting then this happened. They are irresponsible an vile.

jawkneemusic on December 15, 2012 at 2:28 PM

jawkneemusic on December 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM

In Conn., the ONLY way for a civilian to make an AR-15 “compliant” and keep possession of it is to render it completely and permanently inoperable.
The only other choices – should you move to Conn. and bring an AR, are to sell it to a gun shop, have it shipped (legally) to someone outside of Conn. or give it (gratis) to the police…within 90 days.
There are no “fixes” that can be made to it to make it legal to possess – other than rendering permanently inoperable.

If Nancy Lanza possessed an operating AR-15, she did so illegally. (Unless, of course, she was a police officer who had been issued the weapon [even cops cannot possess privately-owned AR-15s in Conn.] or a member of the military on active duty who had been issued one.)

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Not many people want to take away your little toys and sense of power, only the far left dreams of a gun free America. Bob Costas and others are proposing sensible regulation on the types of weapons with easy reach of your suburban nut job.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Bayam the communist scum… The cities that has the most gun regulations have the highest gun crime rates… In other word the cities that are controlled by liberals and where the parasites live have the highest crime gun rates… So the problem is not the guns, it is the liberals and their parasite voters…

mnjg on December 15, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Most of them are committed by YOUNG males, aged 20-25, typically with a history of mental instability and long-term prescriptions for SSRIs and/or Ritalin/Adderol/Methanphetamine, who grew up indoctrinated in liberal public schools in ‘no loser’ self-esteem / self-worshipping cloisters, wholly unprepared for the real world at legal adulthood, using illicitly-obtained firearms.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:12 PM

ADDENDUM: They are overwhelmingly cowards who go out of their way to a ‘Gun Free Zone’ to commit their foul acts. AND they usually self-terminate at the first sign of serious opposition. A real challenge and they give up, like the rest of their miserable lives.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Listen you ass, the target is IGNORANCE and LIES, and it IS in ‘all directions’. You ignorant nonsense-spreading moron.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:50 PM

In Conn., the ONLY way for a civilian to make an AR-15 “compliant” and keep possession of it is to render it completely and permanently inoperable.
The only other choices – should you move to Conn. and bring an AR, are to sell it to a gun shop, have it shipped (legally) to someone outside of Conn. or give it (gratis) to the police…within 90 days.
There are no “fixes” that can be made to it to make it legal to possess – other than rendering permanently inoperable.
If Nancy Lanza possessed an operating AR-15, she did so illegally. (Unless, of course, she was a police officer who had been issued the weapon [even cops cannot possess privately-owned AR-15s in Conn.] or a member of the military on active duty who had been issued one.)
Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I’m not all that familiar with CT gun laws. I just figured since they’re number 4 behind California in regards to how strict they are it wouldn’t be impossible to work around their ban since its pretty easy to work around it in California.

jawkneemusic on December 15, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Listen you ass, the target is IGNORANCE and LIES, and it IS in ‘all directions’. You ignorant nonsense-spreading moron.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Bite me, you azzclown.

YOU are the one acting like a moron who is a moron.

You and people like you do more harm than a dozen bayams.

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 2:55 PM

In Conn., the ONLY way for a civilian to make an AR-15 “compliant” and keep possession of it is to render it completely and permanently inoperable.
The only other choices – should you move to Conn. and bring an AR, are to sell it to a gun shop, have it shipped (legally) to someone outside of Conn. or give it (gratis) to the police…within 90 days.
There are no “fixes” that can be made to it to make it legal to possess – other than rendering permanently inoperable.

If Nancy Lanza possessed an operating AR-15, she did so illegally. (Unless, of course, she was a police officer who had been issued the weapon [even cops cannot possess privately-owned AR-15s in Conn.] or a member of the military on active duty who had been issued one.)

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 2:29 PM

AGAIN, this is factually untrue. Every bit of it. Solaratov is repeatedly lying / misinforming readers here. Compeltely full of shit on this issue.
‘Post-ban’ AR-15s are readily available in CT, compliant with their pitiful AWB restrictions on ‘Evil Features’. They must have plain barrels unadorned with flash suppressors or threading for same, no bayonet lugs (which are typically an integral part of a standard ar-15 front sight assembly) and must have a fixed / non-collapsible stock. CT’s AWB, like the expired Fed AWB and CA’s still in place AWB, specifically bans a few brand names / manufacturers, and makes a poor attempt to ban the rest via what’s termed an ‘Evil Features List’. A list of criteria which a rifle cannot have. Configuring an AR-15 sans those features makes it legal in CT, just as in CA.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:57 PM

to wit, in counter to the half-wit -

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/88899-Bushmaster-AR-15-s-in-CT

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/forums/79-Connecticut-Laws

Solaratov is an ignorant mofo, spreading misinformation.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:00 PM

What law would have been able to stop what happened, other than a complete ban on all firearms?

ButterflyDragon on December 15, 2012 at 9:38 AM

1. No law will prevent such things from happening. Human nature, and it’s darker side, have been irrevocably let out of the bottle like some noisome genie. A gun, a knife, a car….all tools that can be used to assuage the desires of the evil. Removing one tool begets the use of another for, as Aesop told us ages ago: necessity is mother of invention.

2. That such desires for blood and agony are a necessity for some is the direct root of the problem. There is little, if any, actual society remaining either in the U.S. or elsewhere; and therefore no intrinsic need for those individuals, those that participate in such a shattered realm that is, to act in an effectively benevolent or positive way to any other individuals that he encounters. This is evident in the immediate gratification mentality (along with all of its associated activities) commonly displayed and apparently revered on every form of media and in the open without shame by persons of all ages. Lack of society destroys an individual’s ability to act in a beneficial way; yet does nothing to satisfy the individual’s primal need for companionship and belonging. As a result, those who cannot be a part of something become spiteful and vengeful toward a group that he perceives can do precisely what he knows he cannot. Couple that with an instant-gratificatio paradigm of happiness, and the childish state of emotion which has been bred into the U.S. population for years; and there is basically one possible outcome: a large-scale tantrum. Sadly, here it ended in a blood-bath where 20 little kids are butchered along with several adults. Forgive me classifying such evil as a “tantrum,” but it fits the pattern of a child told it cannot have what it wants, and the child stews and pouts about it to the point of some explosive release of anger. I am not trying to minimize this matter.

3. Only the bravery and, unfortunately the likely sacrifice of, a truly heroic individual could have stopped or mitigated this abomination. The Non-Society at large refuses to accept this because there has been an inherent shift over several decades to minimize personal responsibility and ingrain self-esteem over honesty, bravery, solid work ethic, and other social behaviors necessary for a society to remain strong and, as much as fate will permit it, to flourish. Since there are fewer and fewer of this sort alive today, and likely even fewer teaching their children the necessary social behaviors to help take the U.S. off of its current fast track to Hell…well, you see where that is going to end. Basically, when the requisite building blocks of a stable society are no longer accepted as a norm, then there is no stability in the society. Without stability, people will not control themselves or be responsible for themselves; as a sad corollary to this, it seems that with more people refusing to take personal responsibility, there are even fewer willing to risk themselves to fight for a just cause.

DrScottMD on December 15, 2012 at 3:00 PM

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Wow. You’re not part of the How To Win Friends And Influence People crowd, are you? No matter which side you’re on, that sort of thing doesn’t really help your argument.

GWB on December 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Neanderthal,
You really should poke your head out of that deep arse cave of yours…..
A brain needs oxygen to process information correctly.

centre on December 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Did anybody see any ACTUAL tears on the Preezy in yesterday’s performance? All I see is his artful womanly mascara-blotting eye-fingering.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Did anybody see any ACTUAL tears on the Preezy in yesterday’s performance? All I see is his artful womanly mascara-blotting eye-fingering.
rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM

He’s a disgusting fraud.

jawkneemusic on December 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Plenty of AR-15 rifles on the rack at Sportsman’s Outpost in Wolcott, CT, 25mi NE of Newtown

http://www.sportsmensoutpost.com/

centre on December 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM

And a fine screw you, to you too.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:19 PM

seriously, ‘centre’, what sort of trite feminazi garbage is it to post that the principal criteria for scrutiny is ‘males’. What a lackwit thing to say. Might as well be blaming the rifle. Or the sun for coming up. You prattle about ‘processing information correctly’ but the finest discriminator you can come up with is ‘males’?? Laying the problem on nothing more narrow than half the friggin population. Like that makes any progress on resolving the issue. Real rocket scientist, you.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Hello people. HELLER Vs DC. You can’t ban guns!

TX-96 on December 15, 2012 at 3:41 PM

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM

I, and many of my family members, are active or retired law enforcement.
We all agree that the common denominator is that males are the more aggressive of our species and therefore commit most crimes.
So, exactly, what Expertise do you bring to this dialogue?….

centre on December 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Hello people. HELLER Vs DC. You can’t ban guns!

TX-96 on December 15, 2012 at 3:41 PM

2nd Amendment trumps all of it. I and millions more will NEVER surrender our legally obtained arms. Not to any post-facto law change or socialist govt. Every socialist / communist government that has banned or registered firearms has gone on to kill their citizens / subjects by the millions. Google ‘democide’ for the litany. Chief amongst them Germany, Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. It will not be allowed to happen here, no matter how much Obama’s Weather Underground puppetmasters desire it.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:46 PM

centre on December 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM

While I am sure you are correct, I have no idea where you want to go with this. Outlaw males?

Squiggy on December 15, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I, and many of my family members, are active or retired law enforcement.
We all agree that the common denominator is that males are the more aggressive of our species and therefore commit most crimes.
So, exactly, what Expertise do you bring to this dialogue?….

centre on December 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM

‘argument from authority’ / ‘appeal to expertise’ is one of the lamest and shittiest rhetorical stunts / fallacies in online argument. Weak sauce. It doesn’t take ANY expertise to recognize gender roles and testosterone’s role in recorded history. It takes a feminist-indoctrinated over-educated idiot to think it’s any sort of trenchant commentary to point it out. Like saying ‘males’ are responsible for shootings.

Your lame post posing as insight claimed ‘males’ are to blame. And then pretends that I am the lesser intellect for trying to list another half dozen more discriminating criteria that most of these mass shooters have in common, so some more effective response for preventing more occurences could be formulated. You might be incapable of seeing how foolish that makes you look, but most of the audience is not.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:53 PM

The thread is AmeriKa on display.

The once freest land is now the stupidest.

The one who s/b presidentin’ displayed indecency, twice, yesterday and today; he offered political fodder instead of just sincere condolences to the families, over an incredible tragedy, due to illness.

Schadenfreude on December 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Then again, maybe they are not. We did just reelect that marxist fraud as President.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM

In the meanwhile the name is being withheld? Why?

Schadenfreude on December 15, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Didd anybody see any ACTUAL tears on the Preezy in yesterday’s performance? All I see is his artful womanly mascara-blotting eye-fingering.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Obama Derangement Syndrome

libfreeordie on December 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Obama Derangement Syndrome

libfreeordie on December 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Beta Male Syndrome … or, just BM’s for short.

M240H on December 15, 2012 at 4:09 PM

centre on December 15, 2012 at 3:42 PM
While I am sure you are correct, I have no idea where you want to go with this. Outlaw males?

Squiggy on December 15, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Heh. “Softly, Softly, Catchee Monkey”.
But I prefer smashin’em. To each their own.

but seriously yes, where exactly does ‘centre’s foolish ‘males’ lead to? Nowhere but some feminist-amazonian idyll, where men are nothing but sperm donors and prey. Oh wait, that’s already the state of most blue ghettos. Congrats, feminists, on your successful destruction of the nuclear family, the nucleus of all civilization. Your genocidal impulse and murderous results can only be admired by Margaret Sanger, whose similar eugenics program pales by comparison. And the results are just the sort of shooter this topic is about. Coddled, unmentored, unregulated, a cancer preying on the weak, unstopped. A drug-addled parasite killing its host(s). And YOU with your bullshit overprotective schools and brain-destroying sedations created him and his warped psyches.
But hey, easier to blame ‘males’ than address the real causative factors. Broken homes. No masculine role models. Developmental brains saturated in methamphetamines. Deficient mentalities mainstreamed and left to prey on the general population. No-loser upbringings where all are set up to fail by being told they are all special winners, while being utterly denied any real tools for success OR coping mechanisms. Neutered with ‘crisis resolution’ that resolves nothing and instead turns childred into passive-aggressive pieces of shit. Unfettered by self-discipline OR externally-imposed discipline, set free to do quite literally ANYTHING, including mass murder. Wouldn’t want to impose anything as restrictive as mores or respect for human life or any of those ‘icky’ religious values on the little darlings.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Obama Derangement Syndrome

libfreeordie on December 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM

…as opposed to “chimpey Bushitler syndrome”

Schadenfreude on December 15, 2012 at 4:19 PM

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Wow,I really hit a nerve. The truth hurts the neanderthal!

centre on December 15, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Wow. You’re not part of the How To Win Friends And Influence People crowd, are you? No matter which side you’re on, that sort of thing doesn’t really help your argument.

GWB on December 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM

lol. Solaratov is spreading blatant lies, I’m calling him on it and repeatedly providing the proofs and I’m the ‘bad guy’? And somebody’s going to shield their eyes / ears because of my harsh tone. Tough. I’m not going to cater to the lowest common denominator / ‘low information voters’ / weak sisters who wont contemplate truths because of their source. That reeks of the sort of idiots who cry ‘Faux News!’.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM

In the meanwhile the name is being withheld? Why?

Schadenfreude on December 15, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Maybe so they don’t miss identify the shooter like CNN did yesterday?

agmartin on December 15, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Obama Derangement Syndrome

libfreeordie on December 15, 2012 at 4:04 PM

When are you going to self-immolate for the cause patriot?

tom daschle concerned on December 15, 2012 at 4:46 PM

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM

No, I was politely telling you that, no matter how right you might be, you really don’t help matters by being an a-hole about it.

That reeks of the sort of idiots who cry ‘Faux News!’.

Does that mean you’re declaring I’m an “idiot liberal”? Or just an “ignorant gainsaying ass”?

GWB on December 15, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Omnipresidentin’

Schadenfreude on December 15, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Have you wondered why, in such a target rich environment as a suburban shopping mall two weeks before Christmas, the shooter at the Clackamas Town Center only managed to kill two people before dousing his own lights? Part of the reason was a dodgy gun. But as is being reported by kgw.com, part was also due to the fact that, gun-free zone or not, Jacob Roberts was confronted by Nick Meli who was armed and has a concealed carry permit. No, he didn’t fire because he feared hitting an innocent person behind Roberts if he missed. But Roberts knew Meli was there: “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself.” David Frum was unavailable for comment.

Akzed on December 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM

[comments about my lack of grasp on how to win friends and influence people]
GWB on December 15, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Neither, you are a weak sister, whinging about my tone and deliberately ignoring the content. You’ve mistaken me as a misanthrope or incomplete psyche. I am neither. I choose to be accusatory and dismissive towards serial liars and the willfully ignorant. You demand I extend my pinky, I choose rather to extend my middle finger at the idea of mollycoddling. As for my being an asshole, well no shit, tell me something I and half the internet doesn’t know already.

The hour is late; Idiocracy is nigh. Now is not the time to cater to dilettantes and leftist liars. Particularly not in matters of politics and public policy, not with a deliberately-made-ignorant polity.
Rapprochement and comity are not my concern, encroaching communism rather is. We are just a few hundred more regulations and executive orders from complete destruction of our capitalist economy and all it entails and the widespread prosperity it enables. But one election away from a compleat socialist debacle and open civil war.
Yet here I am, beset by ankle-biting leftists and weak sisters. And parasitic public sector union workers sucking my lifeblood and demanding still more. And I’m supposed to be POLITE. What rubbish. It is past time to FIGHT.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

[comments about my lack of grasp on how to win friends and influence people]
GWB on December 15, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Neither, you are a weak sister, whinging about my tone and deliberately ignoring the content. You’ve mistaken me as a misanthrope or incomplete psyche. I am neither. I choose to be accusatory and dismissive towards serial liars and the willfully ignorant. You demand I extend my pinky, I choose rather to extend my middle finger at the idea of mollycoddling. As for my being an ‘a-hole’, well no shit, tell me something I and half the internet doesn’t know already.

The hour is late; Idiocracy is nigh. Now is not the time to cater to dilettantes and leftist liars. Particularly not in matters of politics and public policy, not with a deliberately-made-ignorant polity.
Rapprochement and comity are not my concern, encroaching communism rather is. We are just a few hundred more regulations and executive orders from complete destruction of our capitalist economy and all it entails and the widespread prosperity it enables. But one election away from a compleat socialist debacle and open civil war.
Yet here I am, beset by ankle-biting leftists and weak sisters. And parasitic public sector union workers sucking my lifeblood and demanding still more. And I’m supposed to be POLITE. What rubbish. It is past time to FIGHT.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM

rayra……
This is from Connecticut’s web page on gun control:

Who may possess Assault Weapons in Connecticut?

Law enforcement and military personnel may possess Assault Weapons in connection with their official duties, and any person who has a Certificate of Possession issued by the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit may possess the Assault Weapon listed on their certificate.

Can I get a Certificate of Possession for my Assault Weapon now?

No. The only exceptions to this would be a person who has been out of state serving in the military prior to October 1994, or a person who receives an Assault Weapon through bequeath or intestate succession providing the weapon already had a certificate. In these instances, the person has 90 days to register the weapon with the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit

I just moved into Connecticut and I possess an Assault Weapon. May I keep the weapon or if not what are my options?

Within 90 days of moving to Connecticut, you may sell the weapon to any licensed gun dealer, or you must do one of the following;

1) render the weapon permanently inoperable,
2) sell it to an out of state dealer,
3) relinquish the weapon to a law enforcement agency.

If you choose to keep the weapon you risk felony arrest.

I never registered my Assault Weapon, What are my options?

You can only render it permanently inoperable, or relinquish it to a law enforcement agency.

Can Connecticut gun dealers buy or sell Assault Weapons?

A licensed gun dealer may purchase any Assault Weapon that has a Certificate of Possession, or any Assault weapon that has been transferred into Connecticut as part of someone’s personal belongings for less than 90 days. The dealer may then sell them to other dealers, law enforcement agencies, or out of state.

Can Police Officers buy Assault Weapons?

No. Police Departments can buy them and give them to their officers to use, although the individual officers cannot buy Assault Weapons.
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&Q=494616&desppNav_GID=2080

I reiterate, rayra….
You’re an azzclown. Bite me, you moron.
And you should be careful calling your betters (that would be me – or anyone of normal intelligence) ‘lying mo-fos’.
As I said, you do more damage than a dozen bayams.

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Well, I’m sure not going to get into the ongoing flame war.

But to try to get back ON topic, I will just point out that in Colorado Springs today, the gun show I went to and our Sportsman’s Warehouse are absolutely packed with people buying guns and ammo of all kinds. A cleark at Sportsmen’s told me Thursday they were getting a shipment in Friday that would be on the shelves by Saturday afternoon. Well, I was there this afternoon and there wasn’t much for ammo left on the shelves – and it looked like a lot of AR types and handguns going out the door.
I guess everyone in this very RED part of Colorado is looking to beat Hickypoooper to the punch.

dentarthurdent on December 15, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Yet here I am, beset by ankle-biting leftists and weak sisters. And parasitic public sector union workers sucking my lifeblood and demanding still more. And I’m supposed to be POLITE. What rubbish. It is past time to FIGHT.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Oh, you poor, dear martyr. How you do suffer so. Just hang tough, lil fella. You’ll be appreciated…someday. You’ll show’em all, won’t you?

You’re about the last person anyone could count on to back them up in a real firefight.

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 6:50 PM

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Get a grip. You’re both on the same side fighting over trivial details – and you’re ruining this thread for everyone else.
For the record, you both may be partially right, depending on the specific characteristics of the Bushmaster AR-15 the shooter had.
Caompare this description of the CT assault weapons law to what the shooter actually had, and you have your answer as to whether it was or was not legal in CT.
http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm

Because of the way the libs write laws, trivial details make the difference.

And – I’m gone – got a company christmas party to go to.
The real world awaits….

dentarthurdent on December 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Why does violent crime drop in states that introduce concealed carry? Why is it lower, per capita, in places that permit carrying guns in public places than it is in places that don’t?

And it’s by far the lowest in countries where gun ownership is heavily regulated. The US doesn’t need to become a mirror of the Middle East and its culture of a heavily armed population in order to ensure public safety.

bayam on December 15, 2012 at 9:51 AM

2011 violent crime rate, UK: 3844.9/100k (No, that’s not a typo)

2011 violent crime rate, US: 386.3/100k

You were saying?

mnealtx on December 15, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Which does not explain where Nancy Lanza acquired an AR-15 rifle…which is strictly banned in Conn. If you even bring an AR in to Conn., you have 90 days to disable it permenantly or sell it to a gun shop or give it to the police. No exceptions. They cannot be bought, sold, licensed or registered to civilians (citizens) in Conn.

Where did Nancy Lanza acquire this illegal weapon? What was she doing with it? Why did a “suburban mother” have an illegal “assault weapon”?

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Wrong.

By law, it is illegal for anyone to (1) possess assault weapons, unless he or she possessed the weapon before October 1, 1993, registered it with DPS before October 1, 1994, and received a DPS certificate of possession for it; or (2) sell, transfer, distribute, or transport assault weapons (CGS § 53-202b).

mnealtx on December 15, 2012 at 7:16 PM

The only chance the gun rights extremists have of winning a real discussion/debate on this issue is to mute it.
Seems this tragedy has stolen that card from them for good.

verbaluce on December 15, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I’m sure this point has been made before, but it’s very odd to see politicians, celebrities, business moguls, all who surround themselves with guards armed to the teeth, tell us all we shouldn’t have guns.

blue13326 on December 15, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I’m sure this point has been made before, but it’s very odd to see politicians, celebrities, business moguls, all who surround themselves with guards armed to the teeth, tell us all we shouldn’t have guns.

blue13326 on December 15, 2012 at 8:01 PM

No. That’s precisely the problem…it’s not odd at all. It’s hypocrisy at it’s peak, and the problem is they don’t seem to have a problem with it at all.

I can’t wait for the apocalypse. (Meteor, Government or Zombie, either way) The left will make good food stock. :)

a5minmajor on December 15, 2012 at 8:33 PM

The only chance the gun rights extremists have of winning a real discussion/debate on this issue is to mute it. Seems this tragedy has stolen that card from them for good.

verbaluce on December 15, 2012 at 7:19 PM

a. You are not interested in a real “discussion/debate” since you’ve been losing it like a prom dress for the last fifteen years- as in, every Federal/Supreme Court decision in that time has been a hard pointy-toed cowboy boot kick to the crotch for you in that time. Good luck with those precedents.

b. Your need to “win” once again underscores the essentially juvenile nature of the Left’s ‘feelings’ predicated positions.

c. This battle isn’t going to be fought on the Hill; the GOP has the House, the Senate doesn’t have the votes, and Obuggerme would prefer to wage battle on other issues.

M240H on December 15, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Actually, I’ve previously maintained that this is precisely the wrong time to leap all over this. It smacks of being an opportunistic approach and capitalizes on the emotions of a grief stricken public to begin tossing out and debating gun grabbing arguments right now.

I agree! I think we should have a common sense waiting period for discussing any gun control. It’s just not right.

triple on December 16, 2012 at 3:56 AM

Lourdes on December 15, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Like last night, Another post where you demonstrate your ignorance on things related to firearms. ‘First person shooter’ (FPS) computer games have been around for nearly 20yrs. ‘Cowboys and Indians’ has been around for hundreds. Likewise I’m sure there’s some kids running around with a couple sticks and string playing Mongols and Uighurs.
So Uighur, please, SHUT UP about firearms.

Same goes to bayam, that ignorant gainsaying ass doesn’t know what it is talking about.

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I know how to shoot bullsite when I hear, see and read it, which is more than enough for me to manage “firearms”.

I’m not of the mind to argue specs with people who argue specs but miss their targets, or, who, like you, target all the wrong moving objects and ignore the giant blob about to from overhead.

You are the epitome of who and what gives the “right” (so-called because in your case, I think “mental illness” works to describe the hat you’re wearing) a bad name.

Temper, temper. Your problem is your damaged and damaging state of mind. You’ve memorized your specs well while you’re malformed temperamentally. Which means you are exactly the sort of person who should be limited to memorizing specs about “firearms” and not using them.

Lourdes on December 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM

My views about violent video games expressed here earlier acknowledge that “gaming” played a big part in the limited socialization and social “relationships” of more than a few of these deranged shooters.

It’s worth looking into. I haven’t the foggiest idea how such could be managed in light of the fringe few who tend to become isolated within these (and the violent) ‘shooter’ games as to the general population, but I do see it as a problem for some, a minority certainly, who are involved in gaming.

When a male has no other socialization other than frequent use of violent video games, and they have access to guns and other weapons in reality, I think it’s not a stretch to guess that they potentially can put down the game eventually and take up the “real world” weapon.

It’s a correlation, it should be addressed, which is all I am trying to do here.

Lourdes on December 16, 2012 at 6:22 AM

rayra on December 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I know how to shoot BULLSHITE when I hear, see and read it, which is more than enough for me to manage “firearms”.

I’m not of the mind to argue specs with people who argue specs but miss their targets, or, who, like you, target all the wrong moving objects and ignore the giant blob about to DROP DOWN from overhead.

You are the epitome of who and what gives the “right” (so-called because in your case, I think “mental illness” works to describe the hat you’re wearing) a bad name.

Temper, temper. Your problem is your damaged and damaging state of mind. You’ve memorized your specs well while you’re malformed temperamentally. Which means you are exactly the sort of person who should be limited to memorizing specs about “firearms” and not using them.

Lourdes on December 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM

Lourdes on December 16, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Hello Solaratov,

I went to the link you put up regarding Assault Weapons. Right after the paragraph you cite is another, succinct paragraph defining an ‘Assault Weapon’.

This is that same web site’s definition of an assault weapon:

“Assault Weapons

Section 53-202a of the Connecticut General Statutes gives the definition, and an itemized list of what weapons are considered Assault Weapons.

Definition. (1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: List of Assault Weapons…”

The key phrases are “fully automatic” and “burst fire”. It is very difficult to buy a weapon with these features. Not impossible, but VERY difficult (difficult like first born kept as hostage difficult, act of of God/act of BATF level difficult).

The media, and people who only know what the media tell them, use the term ‘Assault Weapon’ incorrectly. ‘Assault Weapons’ are not for sale in stores to the public in CT. Rifles that LOOK like them, because they usually have many features in common with them, ARE for sale in stores because they are good, reliable rifles. Some may think ‘they look eeevilll so they must be ‘Assault Weapons”. But, they aren’t. For the simple minded; when you think Assault Weapon, think machine gun if that helps. When it is an AR 15, bought in CT, it is not a machine gun.

So, definitions are necessary, and must be applied properly.

TL;DR Assault Weapons aren’t for open public sale in CT. Rifles that look similar are for open public sale in CT, legally. Big difference.

Now you and the other guy (rayra?) can go back at it. Just get it right please.

Whiskey Mike on December 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM

I would like to see administrators allowed to carry or have access to guns while on campus.

Excuse my ignorance of the subject, but are there any kinds of firearms that can be fired only when in a particular person’s hands? You know, guns with some kind of scanner to confirm the identity of the user. Also, what about guns which can be made inoperable remotely? Such firearms could be useful for self-defense and to protect others, if it ever came to that, and hopefully wouldn’t be a threat if they fell into the wrong hands.

I can hardly bear to watch or read the coverage of this event. I am furious reading about how the brave principal lunged at the armed gunman to stop him, but ended up getting killed. If only she had weapon to kill the worthless nothing and save lives before the police could get there.

bluegill on December 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

…are there any kinds of firearms that can be fired only when in a particular person’s hands? You know, guns with some kind of scanner to confirm the identity of the user.
bluegill on December 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM…

Good question. I’ve read about attempts at this, such as a ring worn by the gun owner that enables the weapon. The problem is making weapons 100% reliable (even without the wizardry), and perhaps, with professionals, the possibility of needing to share weapons. I don’t have kids, but accessibility and safety are issues when young ones can gain access…this would be something useful in that circumstance.

trl on December 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Dental it’s Not a trivial detail, Solaratov is LYING. lying by selectively ignoring that it IS possible and legal right this minute to go buy AR -type weapons in CT. I have repeatedly provided the links and proofs. Yet Solaratov continues to claim you can’t. Then shovels a narrow denial in support. It’s horseshit. And then he argues distraction about tone, as if that means a damned thing about which of us is the liar.

rayra on December 16, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Whiskey Mike on December 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM

I have all along been particular in my descriptions and definitions about which types are legal and which are restricted. In this topic and several others. I have provided links to specific CT law and guwowner sites which detail which brands and configurations are legal to own. solaratov started off and continues shrieking that you cant own an AR-pattern rifle in CT. i have repeately demonstrated that you can. You can leave me out of your remonstrations.

rayra on December 16, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Quick note:
The Constitution lists one and only one reason to bear arms
Amendment 2
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.

hippiepunk on December 16, 2012 at 9:24 PM

After watching Barry cry fake tears, I wondered, how many innocent children have your drones killed again Barry?

booger71 on December 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Solaratov on December 15, 2012 at 2:29 PM

But is it REALLY illegal? Has such a prohibition been tested in the courts?

unclesmrgol on December 17, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3