Carney: Obama will “actively support” Dems’ push for new assault weapons ban

posted at 6:01 pm on December 18, 2012 by Allahpundit

A bit more specific than he was yesterday, huh? Sounds like those cabinet chats on new gun-control measures concentrated a few minds.

“He is actively supportive of, for example, Senator Feinstein’s stated intent to revive a piece of legislation that would reinstate the assault weapons ban,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters, publicly backing for the first time legislation Feinstein plans to introduce. The White House had previously been reluctant to publicly named any specific action it might support in an effort to prevent future massacres.

“[The President] supports — and would support legislation that addresses the problem of the so-called gun show loophole, and there are other elements of gun law — gun legislation that he could support,” Carney said. “People have talked about high- capacity ammunition clips, for example, and that is something, certainly, that he would be interested in looking at,” he added.

As a matter of pure politics, it makes all the sense in the world for him to bypass ticky-tack measures like banning high-capacity magazines and reach for a full assault weapons ban. Not only is he a lame duck, he’s suddenly getting cover on this from Democrats who would have kneecapped him on it six weeks ago. As Rahm Emanuel reminded us today, The One has always supported the ban; any hints to the contrary were nothing more than campaign-trail garbage shoveled at gullible rural Democrats whose votes he needed in purplish states like Pennsylvania. The odds of him getting a new ban through both houses of Congress are south of zero, but that’s okay. By asking for a lot up front, he might soften up Senate Republicans for an eventual compromise on the magazines or on background checks for private gun sales. (His ridiculous fiscal-cliff opening bid worked out reasonably well by softening Boehner up, no?) If Senate Republicans force him to drop the AWB in favor of something more modest, then he can (a) screech about how GOP obstructionism is placing our children in danger while (b) agreeing to the more modest bill in the interest of moving it to the House and putting Boehner and the GOP caucus on the hot seat.

This isn’t really about stopping the next Adam Lanza, in other words. Politically, for the White House, it’s about maximizing O’s leverage in future negotiations with Republicans on other issues by forcing them to take positions on this one that’ll further degrade their popularity and, by extension, their political capital. Policy-wise, it’s about trying to reduce gun violence more broadly, not preventing instances of mass murder. As some liberals admit, there’s not much that can be done legislatively to stop a determined rampage killer but there may be things that can be done that’ll cut the death toll from other types of shootings. They’re leveraging public grief over the victims of Sandy Hook, in other words, to advance a gun-control agenda that’s not really about Sandy Hook or Aurora or Virginia Tech. As a wise man once said: Never let a serious crisis go to waste. That’s smart politics, but I do wonder how the left’s momentum on this will hold up if/when they’re forced to start conceding that their proposals wouldn’t have done much good if enacted before last Friday. To take the most obvious example, Lanza’s rifle apparently did not qualify as an “assault weapon” under either Connecticut state law or the now-expired federal ban. Even if it had, there’s no earthly way that a new AWB would ban semiautomatic pistols or rifles categorically, despite the fact that the larger magazines and quick reloading made possible by semiautomatics are, supposedly, keys to higher death tolls. Not only would an AWB not stop the worst of the worst, in other words, it wouldn’t even stop the bad. But it’s something, and — crucially — it might move the Overton window on this issue enough to make the public more accepting of more aggressive gun-control measures later when the AWB inevitably fails to achieve much. (Just as single-payer will be the “remedy” when ObamaCare fails and more intrusive government policing of one’s diet will be the remedy when Bloomberg’s dumb “Big Gulp” ban fails, the only real “remedy” to gun-control failure is more gun control.) Too bad for liberals it’s not going to happen. But they’ll get some nice political mileage from it if/when they force Boehner and the House to torpedo it.

Here comes the pushback, though — the first statement from the NRA since the Sandy Hook shootings:

National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

Meaningful policy contributions, i.e. concessions, or some other form of contribution? I assume they’re going to call for better treatment options for the mentally ill to refocus the debate that way rather than on guns. But guess what: A more aggressive mental-health regime might not have stopped Lanza either.

Exit question: Why do gun manufacturers continue to make guns that look like military weapons even though they aren’t? I don’t care if the market demands it; you’re doing gun-control fans a huge favor by following that aesthetic. My hunch is that much of the power in the term “assault weapons” comes less from the term itself than from the fact that it frequently appears in newspapers alongside photos of an AR-15, which looks to an untrained eye like something you’d see in a Rambo movie. Rationally I know it’s not a machine gun but I recoil from it anyway in a way that I don’t when looking at pics of more traditional rifles. Want to make potential gun-grabbers more at ease with semiautomatics? Then make them look as little like automatics as possible.



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 4

AP, you answered your own question regarding why manufacturers make guns that look like military hardware. They sell, because a lot of people want that.

I don’t think giving in and making more ‘friendly’ looking models would change the landscape significantly. Liberals will just seize on some other aspect of the weapon to promote their FUD.

I should point out that this is all ancillary to the question of why do killers commit these mass shootings, because I don’t think there’s any clear demonstration that having weapons that look like military hardware causes or contributes to these events. From looking over past occurences, “looks like military hardware” doesn’t seem to be a common theme.

The questions we should be asking are not “Should we make guns that look nicer?”, but rather, “WHY are these models popular? What makes people want one? Why does simulated violence (in movies, TV shows, and video games) sell so extraordinarily well?”

I also think the popularity of violent movies, TV shows, and video games is not a cause, but yet another symptom. It’s a cultural phenomenon, and as such you can’t legislate it out of existence.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Why do gun manufacturers continue to make guns that look like military weapons even though they aren’t?

Multiple reasons.
Rail Systems. Now widely found on military style weapons offer a range of versatility. You can add and subtract accessories that are helpful based on what you are doing. You are to switch out your scopes based on the type of game you are hunting or targets you are shooting at. All in all a rail system commonly found on military weapons makes your gun significantly more versatile allowing it to be used for multiple different types of shooting.

Pistol Grips. This so called “evil feature”, as it was designated in the first AW Ban, makes handling a rifle easier and adds significant added stability for firing. It also reduces fatigue on the users hand while waiting to fire while hunting or when firing continuously such as at range.

Collapsible stocks. This again adds versatility to a weapon. It allows a user to adjust the stock to a comfortable distance making it easier to adjust for shorter arms and in finding a comfortable firing position for the shooters face.

None of these things add lethality to the weapon. It simply makes the rifle easier to use for its owner.
I’m sure there are many other features we can go along with but in reality Allahpundit it doesn’t matter what our guns look like we have a right to them not simply for self defense but if necessary to engage in the “R” word against an oppressive government. The purpose of gun control is to prevent the “R” word from being a plausible option for the oppressed.

theguardianii on December 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Anyone who can carry enough magazines and reload them fast enough could have killer just as many with a 1911 pistol which only holds 7-8 rounds ad has been around for over 100 years. These libs know this but it doesn’t matter as long as they can demogouge while standing on the bodies of these poor dead children. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to pretend these libs hearts aren’t filled with rage and are as black as lump of cole. Also with the revelation that Axelrod is attempting to raise campaign dough off this massacre only serves to further underscore the evil in these leftists hearts.

jawkneemusic on December 18, 2012 at 7:08 PM

A trained user could have killed the same number of kids with a Brown Bess in the 20+ minutes it took the cops to get there.

cobrakai99 on December 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Cost, and function. Simple as that. A turned and honed wood stock is one helluva operation compared to injected. They are also a more stable, and desirable consumer product. Why buy a 1970 Vega when you can drive a Beemer?

Limerick on December 18, 2012 at 8:20 PM

Mark Levin is ripping Diane FrankenFienstien a new one for being a complete hypocrite. He played audio of her talking about how she armed herself. She sounds like a spokesman for the NRA.

jawkneemusic on December 18, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Last thing, then it really is bed….we (says the no-gun crowd) can remove the 270 million weapons from the country, but we can’t remove the 30 million parasites.

Run, Limerick, run!

Limerick on December 18, 2012 at 8:25 PM

A trained user could have killed the same number of kids with a Brown Bess in the 20+ minutes it took the cops to get there.
cobrakai99 on December 18, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Or even sesqui with her beloved baseball bat, against smaller women and little children.

LegendHasIt on December 18, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Grips are too big for my hands. It jumps too much. Then again I’m a 00 buck kinda guy. Doors are cheap at Home Depot.

Limerick on December 18, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I find aiming low, at the gut, naturally brings center mass on target for the second shot. Then again, expecting the kick is a good compensator. Control the weapon, not the other way around.

Not trying to somehow lecture, of course, for I anticipate you know what you’re doing.

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I’d like to play devil’s advocate for a minute and ask our HA commenters their take on something. Know that I support the 2nd amendment and not just for hunting or target shooting, but what it’s actually meant for. I also believe current policy has essentially turned schools into practice ranges for people like Lanza. That being said …

As we all know, fully-automatic weapons are not used in these mass shootings. Tell me why this is. Is it because:
1) They are not readily available
2) They would actually be less effective at achieving the killer’s desired results
3) Some other reason

If you answer (1), say why, and explain how you square that with your beliefs on gun control.

Again, this isn’t what I actually believe. I’m just curious to hear some takes on this.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Last thing, then it really is bed….we (says the no-gun crowd) can remove the 270 million weapons from the country, but we can’t remove the 30 million parasites.

Run, Limerick, run!

Limerick on December 18, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I’d like knowing how many illegal guns are out there, in the mean streets of our cities.

But liberals will never dare ask.

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Logic and compassion will thwart all criminals. Believe! Focus! They will melt to tears as you explain your desire to survive.

Limerick on December 18, 2012 at 7:54 PM

Yeah.

Well, there’s something terribly wrong here when many of the people who are not responsible for any of this seem to be the ones cowering.

This whole thing is so frustrating to me.
I get angry over this not because I fear for my own personal gun rights. My primary focus in all of this has not been how any
future assault ban or new gun laws might affect me personally.

I hate seeing innocent people suffer! I hate seeing people being slaughtered like sheep when it doesn’t have to be! Whether it’s here in America or half way across the world!
Whether it’s at a school in Sandy Hook or the streets of Iran! This is more than just about “our guns.” This is about the fundamental rights of average people to be able to defend themselves from tyrants … whether they come in the form of a mentally deranged lunatic walking in off the street or a mentally deranged lunatic who wins an election or seizes power!

End gun free zones! Expand Castle Doctrine laws to include schools, shopping malls and theaters. Allow teachers and other school employees to carry concealed and offer training to those who want it!
And if it’s rejected by the left.. keep sending it back to them!

I also believe average people understand this argument! This is a simple argument! But if our side is going to be ashamed of liberty.. like our freedoms are to blame here.. then we will lose and more innocent people will suffer.

Madmen are not deterred by gun free zones and signs that say “No Guns allowed!” And people can understand the hypocrisy of the left … if it is pointed out to them! Fast and Furious, for example!

JellyToast on December 18, 2012 at 8:36 PM

LegendHasIt on December 18, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Yes, it does cept Doris was very kind compared to sesquatchpud.

arnold ziffel on December 18, 2012 at 8:41 PM

As we all know, fully-automatic weapons are not used in these mass shootings. Tell me why this is. Is it because:
1) They are not readily available
2) They would actually be less effective at achieving the killer’s desired results
3) Some other reason

If you answer (1), say why, and explain how you square that with your beliefs on gun control.

Again, this isn’t what I actually believe. I’m just curious to hear some takes on this.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 8:32 PM

There are a number of answers to your question.

1. Some states do not allow the purchase of full-auto guns.
2. Fully automatic firearms are cost prohibitive, with prices starting in the thousands (and even above 10K).
3. Transfers are processed through the BATFE, require a tax stamp, background check, and typically a 6-8 month wait to get the gun.

dugan on December 18, 2012 at 8:51 PM

dugan on December 18, 2012 at 8:51 PM

The National Firearms Act of 1934 makes it so hard to own an automatic weapon that it is basically illegal to the average person. They are regulated to the max.

Cindy Munford on December 18, 2012 at 8:56 PM

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Full auto weapons have been regulated with three different pieces of legislation. The first was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986. In essence, what these three laws have done is to say respectfully that fully automatic firearms must be taxed and regulated, cannot be imported from outside the United States, and can no longer manufacture and/or register new/existing full auto weapons with the BATFE.

For it to be legal, it must have been made and registered with the BATFE prior to May 19, 1986. These are what are known as transferrable NFA or Class III items.

TxAnn56 on December 18, 2012 at 9:01 PM

arnold ziffel on December 18, 2012 at 8:41 PM

And smarter too…. In fact Eb was smarter. And Mister Haney more honest.

LegendHasIt on December 18, 2012 at 9:05 PM

I wonder if the media has ever considered that their 24/7 hyperbole about financial collapse has made people more determined to guard and secure what they do have?

Cindy Munford on December 18, 2012 at 9:06 PM

This whole thing is so frustrating to me.
I get angry over this not because I fear for my own personal gun rights.
JellyToast on December 18, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Spot on. All the laws are already in place. The killer attempted to purchase a gun using his brother’s ID (Illegal), but the system worked and he failed. He then stole the guns from his mother (Illegal), killed her (Illegal), and then carried the guns to a school zone (Illegal), forcibly entered the school (Illegal), and murdered innocent school children (Illegal).

Yet we as law abiding citizens are now expected to take the blame and bear the punishment for a psychopath’s actions.

Any new laws will do nothing to stop the next killer. This maniac stole the AR-15. He stole the frickin’ gun!.

The discussion about gun control and access should end there. But of course now the statist Libs want to ban the rest of us from legally exercising our right and owning one.

Why do we need an “assault rifle?” – Precisely because this government does not want the citizenry to possess one.

FYI, the worst comment I heard today was from Bob Beckel – he blamed the mother (see: victim) for not locking up her guns well enough.

dugan on December 18, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Thanks for the answers. Everybody seems to agree that it’s impractical to own a fully-automatic in the US, due in no small part to legislation.

So how would you respond to a claim that legislation was effective at regulating fully-automatic weapons to the point where they are a non-issue in the US, and that therefore similar measures on other categories of guns — let’s say semi-autos for the sake of discussion — could be equally effective?

Obviously you can argue from the 2nd amendment standpoint. What else would you say?

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:10 PM

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Automatic weapons pose no greater threat than a single shot weapon. They in fact should have never been treated as a special category of gun. Take some time and read up on and study the mechanism aspect of guns. You will understand why I say this. The user is responsible, not the gun. Would you suggest regulation of users?

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 9:17 PM

blink on December 18, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Because BOOOOOOSSSSHHHHH!!!! Oh, and shut up.

Gun manufacturers could make guns look like water pistols; the target here is chipping away at that pesky constitution. Because way back then there was avarice and greed among human beings; not like today’s modern, ‘progressive’ society.

If gun owners completely caved to the anti-gun nuts, I would love to see what they would howl about after the first mass killing following the complete ‘disarming’ of Americans.

ghostwalker1 on December 18, 2012 at 9:17 PM

FYI, the worst comment I heard today was from Bob Beckel – he blamed the mother (see: victim) for not locking up her guns well enough.

dugan on December 18, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I agree 100% with the rest of your post, but are you really saying that the mother shares in no part of the blame for (presumably) not adequately securing her collection of guns from a child who was known to be … a bit off the rails? I don’t think it lets the kid off the hook, but … shouldn’t she be recognized as not having taken the proper steps? Even if she is a victim of the attack.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Automatic weapons pose no greater threat than a single shot weapon. They in fact should have never been treated as a special category of gun. Take some time and read up on and study the mechanism aspect of guns. You will understand why I say this. The user is responsible, not the gun. Would you suggest regulation of users?

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 9:17 PM

I would suggest no such thing. I am simply trying to prepare for some of the insanity I know I will hear from leftists.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:23 PM

As we all know, fully-automatic weapons are not used in these mass shootings. Tell me why this is. Is it because:
1) They are not readily available

As Cindy Munford stated above, fully-automatic weapons are effectively prohibited, unless you want to jump through numerous state and federal hoops. Here in OH, people actually do this, but they don’t commit crimes with their full-auto weapons.

However, the laws do not seem to inconvenience drug gangs in our major cities, who habitually make use of full-automatic weapons, usually smuggled into the country along with the drugs. This is especially common in states like CA, which of course prohibits law-abiding citizens from owning “ugly guns”.

The only answer would a be a worldwide prohibition on such weapons, and their manufacture, as well as their possession by military and police formations. You can be sure that in most of the “developed” world, civilians cannot legally possess full-auto weapons. Which of course calls for the question, “Where do those who traffic in them to drug gangs get them from”?

Answer; the manufacturers, or the military, or the police. Period. There are no other realistic sources. Even gunrunners need things like phony end-user certificates, and those come from governments.

By the way, I am aware that the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act prohibited sale of “legal” full-auto weapons to civilians if they were made after the date it was enacted.

I am also aware that under the 1968 Gun Control Act, several types of fully-automatic arms are already classed as “Curios and/or Relics” under the “hundred-year rule”, i.e., they were made over a century ago. And that within six years, any automatic arm manufactured or used during World War One will qualify. Like the Model 1918 Browning Automatic Rifle in .30-06, or the Hotchkiss, the M1910 Madsen, and of course first-generation sub-machine guns like the German MP-18, the Italian Beretta Mo.18 “Moschetto”, or the Italian OVP. By 2022, the M1921 Thompson will qualify, as well.

Now imagine copies of them made with all original markings. Try to prove it’s not “the real thing” for licensing purposes.

2) They would actually be less effective at achieving the killer’s desired results

Killers choose their implements for a variety of reasons. The ones most concerned with “efficiency”, and their personal survival, don’t bother with guns. They use car bombs. Suicidal killers tend to prefer explosives vests everywhere but here in the U.S.

Now consider how things might have been if Lanza had walked into the school with no guns- but twenty pounds of dynamite, and five or six pounds of finishing nails for fragmentation effect, in a vest- with a deadman switch.

3) Some other reason

See the answer to (2). Killers kill because they want to kill. If a gun is not available, they will find some other way to do it.

I would point out that, statistically speaking, very few serial killers use guns, even here in the United States. They don’t fit their desire to kill in a way they find emotionally “satisfying”. And those that do choose firearms, such as the original Zodiac in San Francisco, the New York “copycat”, or the “Son of Sam” killer, somehow manage to acquire guns in spite of being in jurisdictions which absolutely prohibit them. Which at least guarantees them defenseless victims. Just like “gun free” zones do.

Again, this isn’t what I actually believe. I’m just curious to hear some takes on this.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Well, you’ve just heard mine. BTW, before I was medically retired, I was a police crime-lab tech. My specialty? Ballistics evidence.

You might say I have some slight familiarity with both firearms… and crime.

cheers

eon

eon on December 18, 2012 at 9:28 PM

eon on December 18, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Thanks. Very interesting read.

Given what you said in response to (2), why do you believe that the Harrises, Klebolds, Loughners, Lanzas, etc, choose guns then? Do you believe that the act of shooting is integral what they are looking to ‘achieve’, or were they just ignorant of how to kill as many people as possible?

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM

Carney: Obama will “actively support” Dems’ push for new assault weapons ban

Who cares.

Folks will just have to buy their assault weapons and ammo from Eric Holder.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 18, 2012 at 9:40 PM

shouldn’t she be recognized as not having taken the proper steps? Even if she is a victim of the attack.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:21 PM

At this point no. There’s been no release of that detailed information yet. Once the dust settles, there will likely be lessons to be learned. But let’s not start blaming everybody but the killer here.

To play devil’s advocate, how do we know the mother didn’t catch her son breaking into her safe?

dugan on December 18, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Why do gun manufacturers continue to make guns that look like military weapons even though they aren’t?

Good grief AP, think about it. In part, because there is a massive aftermarket for accessories that fit firearms in military pattern. Further, manufacturers already to make firearms that don’t look like military weapons. What you are really asking for is that they don’t make their guns so scary looking.

You are completely playing into the burbling libtard emerging meme of, “Those weapons aren’t suitable for hunting, you don’t need them, we don’t want to ban your hunting weapons.”. The real uncomfortable truth is to break down homicides buy race. Guess what? The bulk of homicides come from communities other than the ones that overwhelmingly buy legal AR15′s, AKM’s, & FAL’s. In other words, the democrats own the demography that is shooting itself up, every single day.

roy_batty on December 18, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Who cares.

Folks will just have to buy their assault weapons and ammo from Eric Holder.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 18, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Now that right there was funny. Me not having much funny lately. ;)

arnold ziffel on December 18, 2012 at 9:47 PM

What’s puzzling me is why do these Mexican drug gangsters keep dropping and leaving their GUNS at teh crime scenes?
I could understand finding shells, but why are they dropping the whole gun that they paid good gringo dollars for?

dentarthurdent on December 18, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Orders from the Home Office (1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Wash.,DC)

It doesn’t matter. The dropped guns will be replaced.

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 9:56 PM

In other words, the democrats own the demography that is shooting itself up, every single day.

roy_batty on December 18, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Ruh roh. Did you just hear someone knocking at the door?

petefrt on December 18, 2012 at 9:57 PM

At this point no. There’s been no release of that detailed information yet. Once the dust settles, there will likely be lessons to be learned. But let’s not start blaming everybody but the killer here.

To play devil’s advocate, how do we know the mother didn’t catch her son breaking into her safe?

dugan on December 18, 2012 at 9:45 PM

We don’t know, and I agree that it is counter-productive to assign blame with incomplete or incorrect information.

On the other hand, it is difficult for me to imagine a scenario in which these guns were properly secured from the son, but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible. I’m not sure what you’re suggesting by “breaking in to her safe”, unless you mean he knew the combination for it one way or another.

Given that she apparently knew he was a headcase, I think if she stored the guns in a way where he could access them without her knowledge or approval, then she didn’t make the right decision based on the information she had.

To your point, we don’t know whether or not that’s what actually happened.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:59 PM

dugan on December 18, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I heard she was shot in the head while still in her bed, in her pajamas.

FNC reported today that there is info to suggest the mother was preparing to commit him to psychiatric care, and that just before he killled her he somehow got wind of it.

Still the reason for the school shootings is not explained.

petefrt on December 18, 2012 at 10:05 PM

I say again, how could these mass murders have happened at all? I mean murder is already illegal! So these people should not have been able to kill anyone! Right? If something is against the law it cannot be done by anyone correct? This is why we have laws against speeding, and drunk driving, and rape…and none of those things ever happen anymore! So sure…if we just pass a law banning all guns the country will finally be perfectly safe! I think the next law we should pass is that it will be illegal to be poor, that should finally solve poverty and hunger once and for all! Oh yeah, must outlaw droughts too! And Friggen hurricanes! No more of that crap!

BadMojo on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 PM

i still giggle about that.

sesquipedalian on December 18, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Chances are, you spend a lot of time giggling – in the basement, waiting for your luncheon Hot Pockets. And mumbling things like, “That’ll show’em. I’m smarter…I really am. They’ll be sorry…someday.”

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Carney

…can someone JUST punch that guy!
P L E A S E…!!!!

KOOLAID2 on December 18, 2012 at 10:18 PM

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

Since Jan 1 1990, 13,800 more people have been murdered in Chicago than in Iowa.
Expand

David Burge David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

Chicago, pop. 2.6 million. Iowa, pop. 3.1 million. More murders in Chicago since Jan 1, 2012 than in Iowa since Jan 1, 2002.

davidk on December 18, 2012 at 10:18 PM

BadMojo on December 18, 2012 at 10:14 PM

law abiding abide by law, others not so much.

roy_batty on December 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM

DAN QUAYLE killed this poor little children in NewTown apparently.

http://redirect.disqus.com/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticker.com%2F2012%2F12%2Fhow-dan-quayle-helped-make-adam-lanzas-assault-rifle%2F%3Ay7hFc14C2AWaBOwCidwSmP2Bfvs&imp=1355886847236444065&zone=internal_discovery&forum=politickerny&source_thread_id=981283007&thread=979873202

But Obama isn’t accountable for ANYTHING.

Welcome to the dying shell of what used to be America.

PappyD61 on December 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting by “breaking in to her safe”, unless you mean he knew the combination for it one way or another.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:59 PM

I’m with you, I don’t want to get into the weeds of speculation here. I’ll wait for the info to come out.

Just to clarify my remark, assuming the mother owned a gun safe; safes are not impenetrable (just do a quick search on Youtube and you’ll find a myriad of way to bust into them).

Too early to know any of this – but the actions of this maniac fall squarely on his shoulders. This kid was intent on killing.

dugan on December 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Is anyone else sick to death of the conflicting news reports we are getting. This evening I am hearing that his mom was going to have him institutionalized (good luck with that) this morning I was told by our crack media that she thought they were going to move to Washington State so that he could go to a college they thought would suit him. Now we’ve know that the media sucks for a long time but does the average American get it yet? Nope.

Cindy Munford on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 PM

law abiding abide by law, others not so much.

roy_batty on December 18, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Say it ain’t so Joe, say it ain’t so!

BadMojo on December 18, 2012 at 10:20 PM

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog

Chicago, pop. 2.6 million. Houston, 2.1 million. Similar demographics. 2012 homicides: Chicago 487, Houston 215.

davidk on December 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM

So if the guns were in the safe, what did he use to shoot her in her sleep. That’s if he did shoot her in her sleep, that could have changed in the last five minutes.

Cindy Munford on December 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Why does the media care more about the children in Newtown than in Chicago?

Cindy Munford on December 18, 2012 at 10:23 PM

on the magazines or on background checks for private gun sales.

The Oppressive-left knows that their liberty crushing agenda won’t stop the next mass-shooting, but that’s a feature and not a bug for the little tyrants.

Because once they started a registration regime with the halting of private gun sales, they will move onto registration with the Next mass shooting.

Then Confiscation with the next mass shooting.

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Why does the media care more about the children in Newtown than in Chicago?

Cindy Munford on December 18, 2012 at 10:23 PM

They don’t care about either, because that’s ‘too real’. Abstracts and memes work better for the liberal agenda.

Liam on December 18, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Exit question: Why do gun manufacturers continue to make guns that look like military weapons even though they aren’t? I don’t care if the market demands it… Then make them look as little like automatics as possible.

Wow, just wow! Yeah, like we are cornered into loser after loser presidential candidate because they are more palpable to the Left?

So what should a deadly weapon look like? How well does one think the Mary Poppins 44 or the Nerf 287-X will sell? So, weapons that will put a small hole in one side of you, and blow out the back of you need to be “toned down” in appearance somehow so that the Commies and Yuppies will have less to bit#h about???

Of course it’s largely about marketing…face it, taking advantage of the consumer’s testosterone (or estrogen) levels is almost as old as prostitution (and rather similar come to think of it). Also, there’s only so many possible configurations for a rifle taking into account human anatomy.

I guess maybe it’s also the same reasoning that got the Jeep and the Humvee into the civilian market. Every once in a while, an item manufactured by the lowest bidder turns out to be a real gem and they can market that design to a wider civilian market.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 18, 2012 at 10:30 PM

That was all FBI and police that went into Waco – not military.

dentarthurdent on December 18, 2012 at 6:53 PM

http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco_report_05.html

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 10:30 PM

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 8:16 PM

I have a seven yo niece who has her own rifle. It has a pink stock.

She’s an excellent shot, too. Takes shooting very seriously.

davidk on December 18, 2012 at 10:33 PM

The Oppressive-left knows that their liberty crushing agenda won’t stop the next mass-shooting, but that’s a feature and not a bug for the little tyrants.

Because once they started a registration regime with the halting of private gun sales, they will move onto registration with the Next mass shooting.

Then Confiscation with the next mass shooting.

Galt2009 on December 18, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Sadly yes. All the while ridiculing the very idea of confiscation, as if it’s something that has never happened anywhere before.

All it will take is a madman with a hunting rifle going on one of these rampages, and they’ll change their current flawed 2nd amendment interpretation from “guns OK for hunting LOL” to “what amendment?”.

Of course I don’t think they can win that one, but I didn’t think they’d be able to do half the crap they’ve actually done.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 10:36 PM

So if the guns were in the safe, what did he use to shoot her in her sleep. That’s if he did shoot her in her sleep, that could have changed in the last five minutes.

Cindy Munford on December 18, 2012 at 10:21 PM

We don’t know any of that yet (and I’m sure what we think we know will change) – but from what was reported, this killer attempted to purchase a gun using his brother’s ID. This to me seems to indicate that he thought it easier to try to buy a gun than steal it from his mother.

In any case, I find it unseemly to blame the mother in any of this. She cannot defend herself. And this killer was going to find a way to kill people, one way or another.

dugan on December 18, 2012 at 10:41 PM

oh del, read that again. nearly one in five came from a single, legal gun store. the rest could have come elsewhere, as the article suggest, from the south through the ‘dixie’ line, where it’s even easier to get them.
Del Dolemonte on December 18, 2012 at 7:05 PM

A) How many gun stores are there in Chicago/Cook County? Very few, I’d wager – so it isn’t unusual at all that most of the guns may have come from one store. (ALL the legal guns in Mexico come from the same store. There’s only ONE gun store in Mexico. The rest come from holder’s DoJ)

B)There is no “even easier to get them” at any lawful gun dealer. ALL gun dealers have to follow the same procedures; and their customers are all subject to the same instant background check.
And yes, I know all about ‘straw purchasers’. Save the pap.

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 10:44 PM

I’m trying to understand this rationale these Libtards have that maintains that millions of weapons that are rarely fired, and even then eclusivley for plinking on rifle ranges and deserted areas are the potential cause of Armageddon…but…getting drunk/high and working around heavy machinery is just A-friggin-OK?


Chrysler Autoworkers Caught on Camera Drinking Beer, Smoking Pot During Break

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 18, 2012 at 10:46 PM

AR-15 pattern carbines are the Ford Truck of modern American firearms.

If you want to drive a Prius that’s your business.

Kenosha Kid on December 18, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Given what you said in response to (2), why do you believe that the Harrises, Klebolds, Loughners, Lanzas, etc, choose guns then? Do you believe that the act of shooting is integral what they are looking to ‘achieve’, or were they just ignorant of how to kill as many people as possible?

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM

At the risk of sounding like a prude, I call “cultural saturation of violence” on this one.

Harris and Klebold were re-creating in their own minds the Matrix movies. Yes, I have seen them. As a longtime SciFan (not First Fandom but old enough I watched Men Into Space in its original syndication run- when Ike was President), I thought the movies sucked. They used flashy SFX and lots of violence to cover for a near-total lack of coherence in the storyline.

When two perps dress like the characters in the movie and previously state that they want to do what is shown in it, as Harris did, it’s a safe bet they weren’t motivated by Tales of the Gun on the History Channel.

Harris, BTW, was apparently the motivator; Klebold was more-or-less a follower. As Colin Wilson observed about Leopold and Loeb (Chicago, 1924) in A History of Murder, separately they were fairly “harmless”. But together, they fed each other’s fantasies and one (Harris, Loeb) became the de facto “kingpin”. The other (Klebold, Leopold) simply followed their lead. The result was, in Wilson’s words, a “pair which merged into a single murderer”.

(Moral; about the worst thing that can happen to a self-styled “superior type”, from society’s POV, is for him to acquire an acolyte.)

Loughner is a left-wing radical environmental fanatic, who tried to kill Gabby Giffords for not being sufficiently radical to suit him. (Aka the Olaf Palme’ Syndrome.) He chose a pistol mainly because political assassins seeking to “make a statement” have traditionally used pistols- see Booth and Lincoln, Guiteau and Garfield, Czolgosz and FDR, Sirhan and RFK, Agca and Pope John Paul II, etc. It was, in short, a “style” thing. Personally, I’m glad he didn’t have a bomb. (Suggested reading; The Dynamite Club by John Merriman.)

Lanza was a video-game addict. He apparently decided to go the “first-person shooter” route due to a combination of that plus knowing where he could steal a gun, or guns, when he wanted them.

BTW, the idea that he was acting out his mother’s supposed “doomsday” delusions is unlikely. After all, she was his first victim. If he was that devoted to her, barring some congenital brain defect, he’d be unlikely to kill her at all, let alone first.

As opposed to Edmund Earl Kemper, who killed and mutilated six women in CA in 1972, before killing his shrewish mother and one of her friends who liked to taunt him. After killing them, and then cutting his mother’s head off and removing her tongue, he called the police and turned himself in. Having finally worked up the nerve to do away with the real object of his rage, as opposed to just killing surrogates. Once the real object of his anger was destroyed, he had no reason to continue killing- or even living, actually, in his own mind.

I suspect Lanza will be found to have had very similar “issues” to Kemper. He just reversed the order of the procedure, and took it to the next level; murder en masse, followed by suicide.

NB; In law enforcement, we have a term for killers like Lanza who either (a) go on a rampage and then kill themselves or (b) only stop when a police sharpshooter takes them out.

That term is “suicide by cop”.

Just thought you’d like to know.

cheers

eon

eon on December 18, 2012 at 10:52 PM

eon on December 18, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Thanks again for the thoughts. I’ve got some reading to do.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 10:58 PM

i should also add that being 6’3″, 220 pounds and generally unafraid to get up close

sesquipedalian on December 18, 2012 at 7:17 PM

i still giggle about that.

sesquipedalian on December 18, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Don’t worry. The sight of a 6’3″, 220 pounds man “giggling” will scare off all the bogeymen.

Resist We Much on December 18, 2012 at 10:59 PM

We are literally living in the modern day times of the The Natural Born Killers (the Oliver Stoned movie, I know I know). Our society has become a reality tv, propaganda, false message, lazy, anti everything, cheer the death of the good guy instead of the bad, decadent nightmare. From the top down. Are there still good decent people out there, sure…but we are in the minority now. The whole point of the 2nd was to make it so that if the gov ever went all facist then the people could rise up and fix things (the Revolution clause). Once there are no guns there is no fighting back…and that my friends is the whole point…

Fett on December 18, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Carney: Obama will “actively support” Dems’ push for new assault weapons ban

Who cares.

Folks will just have to buy their assault weapons and ammo from Eric Holder.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 18, 2012 at 9:40 PM

I’m giving some thought to starting my own drug cartel. Then, I could get all the guns I want/need from The US Dept. of Justice. AK-47s. Barret M82A1s. M-i6s. With M-203s, of course. Probably all for free if my shooters would drop a couple at crime scenes so that they could be ‘recovered’ and “traced” back to US gun shops. That’d be a small price to pay.

/s/

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM

I like your train of thought. The gov pays you to fly guns to Central/South American, Canada, Pakistan, wherever. You aren’t going to fly back with empty cargo bays. With gps someone could drop guns out of the plane onto murder scenes along the flight routes, cuts on costs right there. We should call it Air America, wait I think that has been used.

Fett on December 18, 2012 at 11:24 PM

All it will take is a madman with a hunting rifle going on one of these rampages, and they’ll change their current flawed 2nd amendment interpretation from “guns OK for hunting LOL” to “what amendment?”.

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 10:36 PM

That meme was already warmed up a decade back. If you dig into the memory hole a bit, you will find the LSM decrying hunting arms as “tactical sniper rifles with military grade optics” and “No one has any legitimate reason to own those.”.

roy_batty on December 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM

http://www.rickross.com/reference/waco/waco_report_05.html

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Ok, so there were military personnel present. According to the report you posted, the Air Force provided overhead surveillance, and there were some Army Special Forces personnel there as “observers and/or advisors” – meaning no military personnel went in with weapons. Also at WAco, and Wounded Knee there were National Guard present – which are different because they ar actually owned and controlled by the Governor of the state. So I’ll concede that military involvement in Waco could be considered borderline or in a gray area with respect to posse comitatus – according to what is in that report – but clearly this was not a case of some military unit going in full force.

I was working for NORAD on 9/11 (as a contractor in NORAD HQ), and I can tell you posse comitatus was a major concern for that organization. The main reason NORAD was not able to respond quick enough was that prior to 9/11 NORAD was not allowed to get or see FAA track data on aircraft within US borders – because of posse comitatus. NORAD has external facing radars, and that was all at that time (that has changed since 9/11). There was a lot of talk about whether a NORAD fighter shooting down a civilian airliner would be a violation of posse comitatus, or whether since the airliner had been hijacked by a foreign terrorist to use as a weapon made it a valid act of war for the military to deal with. Not a single AF fighter pilot I knew wanted anything to do with shooting down an airliner full of civilians – but would have if ordered to do so to protect more people on the ground.

dentarthurdent on December 18, 2012 at 11:31 PM

theguardianii –

CPistol Grips. This so called “evil feature”, as it was designated in the first AW Ban, makes handling a rifle easier and adds significant added stability for firing. It also reduces fatigue on the users hand while waiting to fire while hunting or when firing continuously such as at range.

Collapsible stocks. This again adds versatility to a weapon. It allows a user to adjust the stock to a comfortable distance making it easier to adjust for shorter arms and in finding a comfortable firing position for the shooters face.

Having those is gun control I can get behind!

Most homeowners will be pumped up on adrenaline defending their life, both those make the gun more controllable.

Snowblind on December 18, 2012 at 11:34 PM

As we all know, fully-automatic weapons are not used in these mass shootings. Tell me why this is. Is it because:
1) They are not readily available
2) They would actually be less effective at achieving the killer’s desired results
3) Some other reason

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Besides availability, if the criminal actually knows much about guns, the fact is a full auto would make it difficult to actually hit a lot of targets. There’s a reason military people refer to using full auto with an assualt rifle as “spray and pray”. Without a lot of training and practice, the shot pattern for a full auto for most people looks something like this:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Where the first shot at the bottom of the line is the only one likely to hit the target. Meaning you’re most likely going to miss most of your “targets”. And you run out of bullets very quickly – with most of them missing.

dentarthurdent on December 18, 2012 at 11:44 PM

I am a huge 2nd Amendment guy. Gun owner and NRA member.

All said, what happened in Connecticut is deplorable and hard to rationalize. First Graders and their parents should not have to worry about coming home alive after a day at school. How do we fix this? I don’t know.

Reinstate the AWB? I have no real problem with that. Firearms subject to the AWB are firearms with certain cosmetic qualities rather than operational capabilities. Plenty of Mini-14s and Su-16s and others that don’t even touch the ban. Remove the ridiculous flash suppressors and bayonet lugs and even more AWB rifles are legal. Magazine capacity? I have, again, no problem as a gun owner with magazine capacities limited to 10 or less. I really don’t. I know many in the gun owning community will, but I don’t.

Even while we’ve enjoyed a swing toward firearms ownership among the general public, we can’t ignore what this massacre has meant to the national psyche. It’s serious. Don’t deny that.

JoeinTX on December 18, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Solaratov on December 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM

And if you take your cargo to Colorado or Washington for resale – it’s legal!!!

dentarthurdent on December 18, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Reinstate the AWB? I have no real problem with that. Firearms subject to the AWB are firearms with certain cosmetic qualities rather than operational capabilities. Plenty of Mini-14s and Su-16s and others that don’t even touch the ban. Remove the ridiculous flash suppressors and bayonet lugs and even more AWB rifles are legal. Magazine capacity? I have, again, no problem as a gun owner with magazine capacities limited to 10 or less. I really don’t. I know many in the gun owning community will, but I don’t.

Even while we’ve enjoyed a swing toward firearms ownership among the general public, we can’t ignore what this massacre has meant to the national psyche. It’s serious. Don’t deny that.

JoeinTX on December 18, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Sure – remove the bayonet lugs. How many mass shootings have involved a bayonet charge?
But the things you say you can live with – what exactly would they accomplish beyond something like soothing the national psyche – until the next mass shooting?
What exactly is the benefit of doing something that is merely cosmetic and does not solve the problem?

How about if we get past the emotion before we make a decision about what to do, and figure out a real solution based on real facts and an honest evaluation of what does and does not reduce crime?
In my view that means elimiating “gun free zones” – which is where all these shootings take place. We did not have mass shootings like this in this country until “gun free zones” – or better yet “defenseless victim zones” started popping up everywhere.

dentarthurdent on December 18, 2012 at 11:55 PM

rightmind on December 18, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Sorry for the slow response. I am on the road this evening. Didn’t mean to sound accusatory in my question. It was just an honest question in response to your request. Still my response is and would be much the same. The. Gun is less an issue than the user. This analogy holds true for many things. Guns are just one example.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Not sure where the period came from. ; ) iPad thingy!

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Having those is gun control I can get behind!

Most homeowners will be pumped up on adrenaline defending their life, both those make the gun more controllable.

Snowblind on December 18, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Those 2 items are exactly why I’m looking at the Mossberg 500 Tactical shotgun. Pistol grip and adjustable stock, so I can better adjust the gun to how my bum wrist and thumb do (or don’t) work.

dentarthurdent on December 18, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Sorry for the slow response. I am on the road this evening. Didn’t mean to sound accusatory in my question. It was just an honest question in response to your request. Still my response is and would be much the same. The. Gun is less an issue than the user. This analogy holds true for many things. Guns are just one example.

Bmore on December 18, 2012 at 11:55 PM

No worries, I didn’t take it that way. As to your point, I tell my friends, if liberal cavemen had existed, fire would be banned.

rightmind on December 19, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Will it include a ban of assault weapons to Mexico?

You know, like the ones that murdered over 500 people because the federal government allowed them to walk to drug cartels?

ButterflyDragon on December 19, 2012 at 12:51 AM

roy_batty on December 18, 2012 at 9:46 PM

That is a great rundown ref appearance.

My Remington 770 30.06 os black from muzzle to butt and looks like a military sniper rifle. It’s just a hunting rifle. I guess I need to carve a wooden stock for it.

hawkdriver on December 19, 2012 at 1:05 AM

I guess I need to carve a wooden stock for it.

hawkdriver on December 19, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Pink Krylon will render the dread object harmless.

Kenosha Kid on December 19, 2012 at 2:41 AM

OK, AP – you asked for it and here it is. I mean, how unthreatening is this little item:

tballard on December 19, 2012 at 3:35 AM

Hmm – that didn’t take the link:

<a href="http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15—evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx"&gt;

Hopefully that works.

tballard on December 19, 2012 at 3:37 AM

One more time – I’m not sure why it is not liking my links:

http://blog.riflegear.com/archive/2007/12/26/hello-kitty-ar-15—evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx

tballard on December 19, 2012 at 3:50 AM

Rationally I know it’s not a machine gun but I recoil from it anyway in a way that I don’t when looking at pics of more traditional rifles. Want to make potential gun-grabbers more at ease with semiautomatics? Then make them look as little like automatics as possible.

Asked and answered. You yourself said you recoil from it in a way you don’t from other guns. That’s the whole point – to scare the bejesus out of someone who’s trying to invade my home.

mrsknightley on December 19, 2012 at 6:55 AM

As usual, Obama and his merry band of idiots are attempting to solve the wrong problem.

rplat on December 19, 2012 at 7:26 AM

“Want to make potential gun-grabbers more at ease with semiautomatics? Then make them look as little like automatics as possible.”

So what you want us to do is enable the hysertical and neurotic minds of the filthy gun grabbers so they will like us better, and at the same time hand over some, oh, but not all, of our Second Amendment rights? Do you really think that will make them go away? Well I got news for you, they don’t give a rat’s crap about banning mean looking semi-automatic rifles, and they don’t care about saving lives, it’s all a phony charade. What they want is a completely disarmed citzenry, because they have an obsessive fear of guns, and they just think no one should be allowed to own one.

JackM on December 19, 2012 at 8:13 AM

A gun ban will not be considered by most of the American people until the fedrable gummint passes and enforces a law that make the crime of threatening to kill NRA members and other people the same as threatening the president. And that law be enforced. Of course, that will put most of the dem talking heads and politicians in jail. What makes the intellectual elites think that we are willing to give up our defensive arms to people that threaten to kill us? Really dumb, they are.

Old Country Boy on December 19, 2012 at 8:41 AM

“So how would you respond to a claim that legislation was effective at regulating fully-automatic weapons to the point where they are a non-issue in the US, and that therefore similar measures on other categories of guns — let’s say semi-autos for the sake of discussion — could be equally effective?

Obviously you can argue from the 2nd amendment standpoint. What else would you say?”

I don’t give credit to the laws cited which regulate machine guns for the reason the fully automatic may not be in common use by criminals. I credit both the prohibitve cost and the fact real assault rifles in fully automatic mode, are difficult to control and to shoot accurately. Miltary men have told me they generally prefer shooting in the semi-automatic mode, and when they do use the fully automatic feature, accuracy and control can be achieved only in short bursts of fire. There are however, a next generation of real assault rifles that allow more control while firing in the fully automatic mode.

More evidence of my point may be found in the kinds of weapons used by the Mexican drug gangs. For those guys, price is no factor. I don’t know if full autos are in common use with them, but I do know they made good use of the semi-autos B.O. and Holder sent them.

Also, the Second Amendment arguement must always be pressed, because it’s the Bill of Rights that’s at stake here.

JackM on December 19, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Ya know something, not only do I have a right to keep and bear arms, I also have a right to watch violent movies and maybe even play some of those shoot’em up video games.

Why should normal people like ourselves be prohibited from the above activities just because there exists deranged whackos that no one knows how to deal with? Geez, c’mon, think of all the drunken bastards who are unable handle the responsibilty of driving a car, and think of all the people they kill. For some reason, when it comes to DUI, we always put the blame where it belongs, on the irresponsible drunk. No one ever blames the car, other car owners, or the car companies.

Gun grabbers are truly evil people who must not be bargained with, they must be defeated.

JackM on December 19, 2012 at 9:08 AM

Exit question: Why do gun manufacturers continue to make guns that look like military weapons even though they aren’t? I don’t care if the market demands it;

For crying out loud, Allah.

You sound like O’Reilly.”Why would anyone want to own an AR-15?”

Not really the question. Because if you go there, then why would anyone want to own a Corvette, or a Cessna, or an MP3 player, because all of those have show in the past to cause deaths. More importantly, it is an inherent right in this country to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, whether that is owning a Corvette, and Cessna, et al.

The ranting from the left has never changed. It has and always been about ALL of the guns. The AWB was just a foot they got in the door.

To paraphrase Jurassic Park, life will find a way. If that kid wanted to kill a bunch of innocent people and did not have access to firearms, he would have found another way, be it fertilizer and diesel fuel, Molotov coctails, or some other form of destruction.

Picking up on the whiny, “Why would anyone want X?” argument takes us further down the road with Big Brother controlling every aspect of your life.

I have a question for the left. Why would anyone want to sit on their a## at home in front of a large screen tv playing Halo 3 all day, sipping a Monster drink and smoking a dube, in a public housing apartment where your Caddy is sitting outside the door, all paid for by welfare?

Tenwheeler on December 19, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Leading from behind, as always. He must be Greek.

Bevan on December 19, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Why would anyone want to sit on their a## at home in front of a large screen tv playing Halo 3 all day, sipping a Monster drink and smoking a dube, in a public housing apartment where your Caddy is sitting outside the door, all paid for by welfare?

I bet they’re black too. Horrors. Why don’t you ask what’s really on you’re mind?

lostmotherland on December 19, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Tenwheeler

Very well said.

What people like O’Reilly don’t know is, there are 30 million mean looking semi-automatic rifles in private hands across the nation, and these rifles threaten no one. Now, your freedom arguement suffices for me, but others may like to know these rifles, also called black rifles, or modern sporting rifles, are used in national, regional, and local competitions involving thousands of responsible men and woman every year. In some cases there are sizeable cash prizes to be won. Also, there’s a growing number of hunters turning to these rifles as their choice for hunting a great variety of game.

The sacred Bill of Rights is the primary reason we must fight these freedom hating zealots, and not let them team up with horrific murderers and attack our unique American way of life.

JackM on December 19, 2012 at 9:46 AM

“I bet they’re black too. Horrors. Why don’t you ask what’s really on you’re mind?

lostmotherland on December 19, 2012″

Do you see a racist behind every tree? Do you see a psychiatrist?

JackM on December 19, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Tenwheeler

“You sound like O’Reilly.’Why would anyone want to own an AR-15?’”

Here’s my best answer to this question:

“None of your friggin’ business.”

JackM on December 19, 2012 at 10:11 AM


The Bull Shit politicians want new Gun Control laws but the reality is they don`t enforce the current gun control laws on the books. Gun prosecution is down almost 40% under Obama so why doesn`t he start with that. In Chicago there is a ban on assault weapons,yet there have been 500 Chicago assault weapon deaths in 2012, so maybe that liberal ass hole Rahm Emanual should get his head out of ass and take care of Chicago

HAGGS99 on December 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM

The sacred Bill of Rights is the primary reason we must fight these freedom hating zealots, and not let them team up with horrific murderers and attack our unique American way of life.

JackM on December 19, 2012 at 9:46 AM

That right there is the major point in this.
Once they decide what kind of guns we can and can’t have, and the answer will eventually be none, then they can decide for us what kind of car we must drive, what size house we must have, what kind of food we can eat, and on and on. This is about eventual total control of our lives.
And you libtards – don’t try to tell me that’s over-reacting – they are already trying to force ALL of those things I just mentioned on us. It’s already happening – they just need to make sure we can’t put up any armed resistance.

dentarthurdent on December 19, 2012 at 11:21 AM

OF COURSE he will. The gun grabbers shot off in their pants after that shooting, a crisis too good to let go to waste.

I suspect Obama will support it “fast” and “furiously”.

Saltyron on December 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Joyce Carol Oates ✔@JoyceCarolOates 14 Dec 12 If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?

Marg Helgenberger ✔@MargHelgen @JoyceCarolOates One can only hope, but sadly I don’t think anything would change.
14 Dec 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Lovely.

I was sorry to see her leave CSI, but now, knowing what I know? Good Riddance, or as a bud from Snyder, Texas used to say,”Paya! See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya!”

Tenwheeler on December 19, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4