This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • fishon Jan 18, 2013

    But you voted for a guy that actually did ban guns to be President. It just doesnt make sense to me. If it meant so much to you why vote for a gun banner?????
    vinylcarwraps23

    You keep saying that and it is true. By the time conservatives had the opportunity to vote in the primary Mitt had already won the nomination. Guess we thought having someone who had a chance to fix the economy was more important at the time, since both Mitt and Barack said they would not take our guns even though their past words and actions said otherwise.

  • superman Jan 18, 2013

    Gun control is like school security. Anything you do will only give you a false sense of security. Some people just dont obey the laws. They found that out with prohibition and drugs. Until they find a way to make people obey the laws they are just words on paper. You cant stop a train.

  • junkmail5 Jan 18, 2013

    What's funny about the conspiracy nuts is they contradict themselves.

    What actually happened is Lanza had an Bushmaster XM-15 and 2 handguns in the school (a sig and a glock). And a shotgun in the trunk of his car.

    But one set of nuts thinks he didn't use the Bushmaster despite the autopsys clearly showing he did, and the fact it was found in the school, all because they found a month-old report back when everyone was still confused on details that said the XM-15 was left in the trunk.

    Problem with that is- there was another confused report that the gun in the trunk was an XM (before it became clear there was one in the school) and the conspiracy nuts THEN pounced on that... because there's a video SHOWING them taking the gun out of the trunk. And it's VERY clearly a SHOTGUN.

    Because that's what was in the trunk.

    Here's a link with the video-
    http://www.patriotthoughts.com/2013/01/10/rifle-found-in-lanzas-trunk-not-a-bushmaster/

  • BubbaDukeforPresident Jan 18, 2013

    Listen folks, we don't need 10 bullets to take down deer. We need 15-20 rounds to protect us from criminals and anyone coming to take our guns.

    That sheriff that said "No rights are absolute" had better look for another job. He's not going to get reelected. And Obama just ensured that a Republican will win the presidency in 2016 with his assaults on so many of our fundamental rights. Anyone who doesn't see that gun control is not about preventing violence but is all about imposing tyranny is not qualified to have an opinion.

  • Crumps Br0ther Jan 18, 2013

    Otherwise, it is not a militia at all but an angry armed rabble. Flow Easy

    Do yourself a favor and Google "george mason militia", just cut and paste what I put in quotes and be enlightened.

  • Crumps Br0ther Jan 18, 2013

    Not that it matters now, you all have your marching orders and talking points and are firmly entrenched in your opinion so any new TRUTHFUL information that comes to light will be disregarded because its too late to turn back now. but NBC has done it again much like the doctored Zimmerman 911 call. The AR15 was in the trunk of the car at Sandyhook and was not used. But you keep trying to take them because you just dont like them

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

  • Dnut Jan 17, 2013

    One way to solve this problem and keep the 2nd Amendment: Register all guns. If you use a gun in a crime, whether you have registered it or not, you will go to jail for life unless you are found that you were defending yourself. Period. Good guys have nothing to worry about if they are protecting life and household. Bad guys have everything to worry about because most crime is with hand guns that are not registered in the inner city.
    lost in translation
    OH, your definitely lost.....

  • Dnut Jan 17, 2013

    The rights of the individual are natural rights and if they were granted at all they were granted by God and can not be taken away by any legal authority regardless of what act of legislation may of passed declaring otherwise. Rights are most certainly absolute, what is not absolute is that every individual will fight for their rights.

    Which is obvious from the uneducated to true meaning of the second amendment on these posts....but I will be fighting for MINE!

  • Dnut Jan 17, 2013

    Because we have asked the Govt and LEOs to protect the civilian population and expect them to have the proper tools to do so. If someone's job requires a gun and putting themselves in harm's way on OUR behalf, such as LEO or military, then we the people owe it to them to make sure that they have the tools they need.

    The big Gub'ment conspiracy theorists need to go outside and get a good dose of reality.
    Flow Easy
    .....You do know that by law there not required to defend you or I? Ever heard the term, "where's a cop when you need one", there's a reason for that.....just sayin'

  • junkmail5 Jan 17, 2013

    Because we have asked the Govt and LEOs to protect the civilian population- Flow Easy

    No we haven't. LEOs have no obligation to protect you, so sayeth the supreme court even.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

    People expecting the police, who won't be there until after a shooter has done his work, to protect them is part of the problem.

    So where are your meetings? What is the plan? If you're well-regulated, there must be some organization. Otherwise, it is not a militia at all but an angry armed rabble.
    Flow Easy

    Again, the supreme court disagrees with you... and their opinion is a lot more important in this case.

  • jrfergerson Jan 17, 2013

    Barfly you say:"
    I'm waiting for mental illness to become the primary focus of this debate. I believe mental illness is the root cause of most mass killings. It certainly seems to be in recent events." Some of these killings are just because people have no morals or values these days - in other words just plain sorry to begin with. example: the lady that sold her own child for drugs to a child molester - who both of them are just plain sorry folks

  • Come On_Seriously Jan 17, 2013

    "...then Law Enforcement should loose that right too. How can LEO and the Government say we the people cannot have these weapons but they themselves use them and will continue to use them."

    Because we have asked the Govt and LEOs to protect the civilian population and expect them to have the proper tools to do so. If someone's job requires a gun and putting themselves in harm's way on OUR behalf, such as LEO or military, then we the people owe it to them to make sure that they have the tools they need.

    The big Gub'ment conspiracy theorists need to go outside and get a good dose of reality.

  • doggypoos Jan 17, 2013

    Couple of suburban kids go off on a shooting rampage and its going to cost 500 million plus the rights of law abiding citizens. So when do the criminals pay for their action?

  • Barfly Jan 17, 2013

    I'm waiting for mental illness to become the primary focus of this debate. I believe mental illness is the root cause of most mass killings. It certainly seems to be in recent events.

  • doggypoos Jan 17, 2013

    So if the people are banned from having weapons like ar15's and ak47's or even handguns with multiple rounds then Law Enforcement should loose that right too. How can LEO and the Government say we the people cannot have these weapons but they themselves use them and will continue to use them. Why do I need weapons like those? Why do local law enforcement need an armored vehicle, helicopters, and now drones? Why do LEO use ar15's and hide their faces with mask? Don't fear the people, fear the criminal the the Justice system allows to be repeat offenders.

  • Come On_Seriously Jan 17, 2013

    "So which of you gun owners are part of NCs well-regulated militia?"

    "Every willing and able resident is a member."

    So where are your meetings? What is the plan? If you're well-regulated, there must be some organization. Otherwise, it is not a militia at all but an angry armed rabble.

  • junkmail5 Jan 17, 2013

    The part I like the most about the 2nd Amendment is the "Well Regulated" part. There's nothing regulated about those prepared for armed insurrection- Save It

    That's actually one of the primary reasons the 2nd exists. For the people to be armed as a bulwark against government tyranny.

  • Save It Jan 17, 2013

    The part I like the most about the 2nd Amendment is the "Well Regulated" part. There's nothing regulated about those prepared for armed insurrection against duly elected officials for regulating and controlling the distribution of firearms.

  • Save It Jan 17, 2013

    "sent emails to D- icksSporting that I wont be shopping there anymore since they decided not to sell assault rifles."

    I'm going to send them an email too. I will buy a basketball goal my sons been wanting at D- icks this weekend because they stopped selling assault style rifles.

  • Lightfoot3 Jan 17, 2013

    "So which of you gun owners are part of NCs well-regulated militia?" - Flow Easy


    Every willing and able resident is a member.


    "Attacks from multiple assailants? What are you, a double-naught spy? You've been watching too many James Bond movies." - prodigalrn


    ...or reading the news:


    http://www.wral.com/two-detained-after-raleigh-home-invasion-shooting/11948545


    http://now.msn.com/71-year-old-man-in-internet-cafe-shoots-robbers


    http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanHandgunner/AHJA09/?page=62

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

    http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10553140/

  • junkmail5 Jan 17, 2013

    One way to solve this problem and keep the 2nd Amendment: Register all guns.- lost in translation

    Except that's a terrible idea.

    Gun registries are expensive, and don't do anything to prevent or solve crimes.

    So much so that Canada, having realized their cost 33 times what was originally projected, and wasn't making anyone safer, actually got rid of their recently.

    Further, you then try and support your bad idea with a new sentencing law that is the same regardless of if the gun is registered or not... which makes the registration requirement make even LESS sense.

  • junkmail5 Jan 17, 2013

    Quick poll- So which of you gun owners are part of NCs well-regulated militia? -Flow Easy

    All of us. The entire civilian adult population of the US is the militia.

    You can also check out the Supreme Courts guidance in DC v. Heller for more on the individuals right to bear arms.

  • lost in translation Jan 17, 2013

    One way to solve this problem and keep the 2nd Amendment: Register all guns. If you use a gun in a crime, whether you have registered it or not, you will go to jail for life unless you are found that you were defending yourself. Period. Good guys have nothing to worry about if they are protecting life and household. Bad guys have everything to worry about because most crime is with hand guns that are not registered in the inner city.

  • junkmail5 Jan 17, 2013

    Attacks from multiple assailants? What are you, a double-naught spy? You've been watching too many James Bond movies.- prodgalrn

    That, or just reading the news.

    Home invasions are commonly done by 2-3 assailants... there was one locally just a week or so ago that was a big story on here in fact.

    ARs are also commonly used for varmint/coyote/hog control out west, where having more than a shot or two available allows you to not miss 3/4 of the pack/herd while busy reloading.

  • Brian Jenkins Jan 17, 2013

    "There are myriad things that you don't NEED. However, if you want them, and can afford them it's nobody else's business if you have it or not."

    Are you talking about drugs? Im having a hard time finding these no limit 2nd amendment supporters to actaully support liberty across the board. Why do some of them want a natural plant illegal but they also want bazookas? LOL isnt it up to me? Its my body. Its my money. Why isnt liberty across the board as long as you are not infringing on others?? Drugs dont kill. People who do drugs kill. Just like guns.

  • Brian Jenkins Jan 17, 2013

    sent emails to D- icksSporting that I wont be shopping there anymore since they decided not to sell assault rifles. Stopped at KMart for the same reason after columbine. never stepped foot in them again.
    bombayrunner

    See here is the perfect example of fake outrage. You seem so determined to keep your 2nd amendment rights, and Im all with you. But you voted for a guy that actually did ban guns to be President. It just doesnt make sense to me. If it meant so much to you why vote for a gun banner?????

  • Come On_Seriously Jan 17, 2013

    Quick poll- So which of you gun owners are part of NCs well-regulated militia? Each of you minutemen deserve to keep your gun under the 2nd amendment. The rest, well- it doesn't apply does it?

  • Barfly Jan 17, 2013

    "Attacks from multiple assailants? What are you, a double-naught spy? You've been watching too many James Bond movies. Fending off intruders, especially in a house, is better served with a shotgun. If an AR-15-type weapon is being used for hunting, one or two shots max, and whatever you're aiming at, if you didn't already hit it, is long-gone." prodigalrn

    What gives you the right to dictate what type of legal firearms a person my own? But, you want to give advice on what types of weapons folks should use for protection and hunting.

  • douglascarey Jan 17, 2013

    Laws don't deter criminals, punishment deters criminals. We need to enforce the laws we have with punishment appropriate to the crime.

  • Barfly Jan 17, 2013

    I'm confident 10 rounds of 40 S&W 180 grain Hydra-Shock jacketed hollow points is adequate personal protection. I keep a spare magazine loaded with the same just in case.

  • lrfarms27572 Jan 17, 2013

    I fail to see where this law is taking away the right to own a gun.

    yellowhorses

    it is not taking away the right but it is and infringement on the second amendment according to the way it is written

  • prodigalrn Jan 17, 2013

    When being attacked, especially by multiple assailants, those 10 shots dissappear rather quickly. In battle, not all find their mark.

    "I fail to see where this law is taking away the right to own a gun." - yellowhorses

    It takes away the potential usefulness of the gun. I don't think the average self defense situation needs a 30 round magazine. But New York's 7 round limit, which affects a LOT of guns (even revolvers) is going too far.
    Lightfoot3
    January 17, 2013 2:15 p.m

    Attacks from multiple assailants? What are you, a double-naught spy? You've been watching too many James Bond movies. Fending off intruders, especially in a house, is better served with a shotgun. If an AR-15-type weapon is being used for hunting, one or two shots max, and whatever you're aiming at, if you didn't already hit it, is long-gone.

  • bombayrunner Jan 17, 2013

    For all you liberals ... it doesnt matter 'WHY' we need assault rifles ... it only matters that the 2nd amendment says that we can and it shant be INFRINGED.

    You find out why when you dont have one and your only protection for you is the neighbor that does have one.

  • Barfly Jan 17, 2013

    "I still don't understand why anyone would need an assault rifle or a clip of more than 10. Other than killing people, what would you need one for? If you can't hit what you are aiming at with 10 shots, you don't need to be carrying a gun at all. I fail to see where this law is taking away the right to own a gun." yellowhorses

    Assault Rifle: A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

    Once again, we're NOT talking about assault rifles.

  • bombayrunner Jan 17, 2013

    sent emails to D- icksSporting that I wont be shopping there anymore since they decided not to sell assault rifles. Stopped at KMart for the same reason after columbine. never stepped foot in them again.

  • Lightfoot3 Jan 17, 2013

    "If you can't hit what you are aiming at with 10 shots, you don't need to be carrying a gun at all." - yellowhorses


    When being attacked, especially by multiple assailants, those 10 shots dissappear rather quickly. In battle, not all find their mark.


    "I fail to see where this law is taking away the right to own a gun." - yellowhorses


    It takes away the potential usefulness of the gun. I don't think the average self defense situation needs a 30 round magazine. But New York's 7 round limit, which affects a LOT of guns (even revolvers) is going too far.

  • junkmail5 Jan 17, 2013

    I still don't understand why anyone would need an assault rifle or a clip of more than 10- yellowhorses

    You don't "need" to own an SUV. Or a swimming pool. Or a 5000 sq foot house.

    But 2 out of 3 of those kill MORE people than assault rifles each year and we still let you have em.

    And that's WITHOUT owning THOSE being a right guaranteed in the constitution.

    So that's a pretty bad argument ya got there about "need"

    FWIW though there's something like 3-4 million ARs in the US... and 99.9999% are used by people yet don't kill anyone... so clearly not only ARE there uses for them other than killing, those uses make up the VAST majority of their actual use.

  • Lightfoot3 Jan 17, 2013

    "Actually yes, I am indeed okay with that." - Save It


    Great!


    "I find it quite absurd to even have conceal to carry permits if restrictions are placed on where they can be carried, like banks." - Save It


    Me too. Those rules don't apply to the criminal, so they serve no purpose other than disarming law abiding people that might could make a difference.


    "For those who didn't catch where I was going with the glove compartment comment, a large number of stolen handguns are reportedly taken from cars parked in peoples driveways when they are too lazy to carry the gun in the house." - Save It


    Gotcha! Whenever I have accidentally left my gun in the car I immediately retrieve it for fear of someone stealing it.

  • yellowhorses Jan 17, 2013

    I still don't understand why anyone would need an assault rifle or a clip of more than 10.

    Other than killing people, what would you need one for? If you can't hit what you are aiming at with 10 shots, you don't need to be carrying a gun at all.

    I fail to see where this law is taking away the right to own a gun.

  • Save It Jan 17, 2013

    "The law says if I eat breadsticks and salad at Olive Garden, I can't carry my firearm. So I have to leave it in the car, usually under the seat. Sounds like we need to change the laws so I don't have to leave it in the car. You okay with that?"

    Actually yes, I am indeed okay with that. I find it quite absurd to even have conceal to carry permits if restrictions are placed on where they can be carried, like banks. As long as the owner is being responsible and accountable for their weapon.

    For those who didn't catch where I was going with the glove compartment comment, a large number of stolen handguns are reportedly taken from cars parked in peoples driveways when they are too lazy to carry the gun in the house.

  • emtp2k Jan 17, 2013

    These are FIREARMS we are talking about and if people can't exercise due diligence in keeping them out of the wrong hands they are not responsible enough to own them. In many cases they should be held criminally accountable for failure to secure their weapon(s). Obviously a situation like a stolen gun safe wouldn't apply but the glove compartment? Come on. That's weak.

    Well using your logic then if the glocve compartment isn't a good lpace and it a firearm is stolen from it and the owner is responsible. Let's make car owners responsible for vehicles stolen that aren't locked away in a garage. If someone steals your car runs from the law and kills someone with it then you are hold you responsible. Makes perfect sense. NOT and neither does holding the gun owner responsible for a stolen gun.

  • ronnyg0447 Jan 17, 2013

    I keep seeing people saying "they don't need a large cap magazine" or "they don't need an assualt weapon" NEED has absolutly nothing to do with it. You don't NEED a car that goes faster than the posted speed limit. You don't NEED a house larger than one that will hold your family. There are myriad things that you don't NEED. However, if you want them, and can afford them it's nobody else's business if you have it or not. Statistics prove that a well armed community is a safer community. Legal gun ownership isn't a problem. The large majority of gun crimes are committed with stolen or illegally purchased guns. Send the criminals away FOREVER. One less problem for each.

  • junkmail5 Jan 17, 2013

    BTW, did anyone see the report the other day that more people were killed with HAMMERS last years, than with guns?- discowhale

    No, because that isn't true.

    the overall category of "blunt weapons" which includes everything from hammers and clubs and bats to chairs and tables however killed more people than RIFLES did.

  • fishon Jan 17, 2013

    I had thought about a concealed weapon permit but I feel that if I walk into a business and am attacked there will be enough armed people around that I want need a gun- lprop

    And WHY would a legally armed citizen care if you were being attacked? If the police don't have a constitutional duty to protect a citizen from harm (and they don't) why should you expect anyone else to do it for you?

  • Lightfoot3 Jan 17, 2013

    "What I don't understand, why gun owners or potential gun owners need these military style guns in the first place." - tc35d


    For some it's a want instead of a need. However, if we ever do need that militia to secure a free state, AR style rifles might be needed.


    "saying ‘Well, if I’d have been there with my gun I could have saved the day’ doesn’t solve the problem" - tc35d


    Correct, but it clearifies part of the problem (no good guy with a gun to stop tha bad guy), and indirectly offers a solution (let good guys have the means to stop the bad guns in these "gun free" zones).

  • epee131 Jan 17, 2013

    If you take away the "I don't think you need it" argument, why shouldn't a law abiding, back ground checked, mentally healthy, person own an high capacity, black, semi-automatic firearm provided it is stored correctly? Does it lead to higher crime? FBI statistics say no. Does it accidentally kill more people than other firearms? No. Now lets ask the real question: Why didn't gun control matter when it was ethnically diverse kids in Chicago and Houston but it does now when its predominantly Caucasian children in CT? That's called Liberal Hypocrisy. But don't worry, that's what makes you think you have the right to take something from me because you don't like it. Liberal's stand for an individual's rights. As long as they are rights they approve of. Hypocrites!

  • discowhale Jan 17, 2013

    The real problem with the feds 'taking' guns is the WHO part. As in WHO will do it!

    The LEOs aren't going to do it, many of them are gun owners too. And their unions and support groups are going to suggest a 'blue flu' rather than getting in between self-righteous politicians and angry citizens in an issue that will only cause MORE trouble.

    The military / NatGuard won't do it for the same reason, very few people will chance getting shot over things which they don't support. More to the point, LEOs and the military tend to be gun owners too. And the military took an oath to SUPPORT and DEFEND the Constitution, not the WH or the policies of whomever lives there.

    BTW, did anyone see the report the other day that more people were killed with HAMMERS last years, than with guns? If this WH is about saving lives, why aren't we collecting hammers or closing down Home Depot or Lowes or Stanley Tool Company?

  • junkmail5 Jan 17, 2013

    What I don't understand, why gun owners or potential gun owners need these military style guns in the first place. I own 5 guns myself and unless the coyote population here goes rampant and starts raiding our homes, i see no real or perceived need for a weapon of this type- tc35d

    People don't "need" 5000 sq foot homes, SUVs, swimming pools, or 80" TVs either. But they enjoy them.

    And 2 of those 4 things kill MORE people an AR-15s do each year too... WITHOUT being things the constitution guarantees you can own.

    the normal gun owner can't buy a fully automatic weapon- tc35d

    he can actually, it just requires a bunch of time, money, and paperwork with the ATF.

    Ahh, but the SCOTUS has yet to rule if marriage is indeed a constitutional right, am I wrong?- StateFan99

    yes, you're wrong. See loving v. Virginia

    "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,""

    That's justice Earl Warren from the majority opinion

  • saltnsanddefenderofdamiddleclass Jan 17, 2013

    "They're gunna git ur gunz!" Save It

    "sounds horrible....you should leave"

    Nope. Right here in your face sharp shooter.
    Save It
    January 17, 2013 12:07 p.m.
    Report abuse

    I hear "belgium" is nice

  • Lightfoot3 Jan 17, 2013

    "Many people do not own guns because we do not live our lives in fear of the world around us." - Save It


    Do people that carry spare tires live in fear of getting a flat?


    "Obviously a situation like a stolen gun safe wouldn't apply but the glove compartment? Come on. That's weak." - Save It


    The law says if I eat breadsticks and salad at Olive Garden, I can't carry my firearm. So I have to leave it in the car, usually under the seat. Sounds like we need to change the laws so I don't have to leave it in the car. You okay with that?

Oldest First