Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut Elementary School

/i].
I find it hard to understand the American attitude towards firearms but I do know a bit about the US Constitution. Nowhere does it say that anybody has the right to own a gun. If they own a weapon, they are supposed to be members of a militia. I doubt that many people in the US that privately hold weapons are members of an organised militia, or have indeed actually studied the Constitutional Amendment. The Second Amendment is actually based on a British writ that says much the same, except with the caveat that any ownership of arms must adhere to other laws - no such caveat is applied in the US Constitution.


Actually it does....

"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."
 
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
 
Regardless of the "right to bear arms" it is still important to make sure that this conversation comes down to so much more than whether or not a citizen should be allowed to own guns. We must remember to keep the mental health issues, safety of our schools. community involvement, etc. in our conversations. It seems that almost all of the discussions (not necessarily here, but all over) have come down to either guns or God. I agree, guns should take part in the discussions. God should not.

We need to step back, take an OBJECTIVE look at what really needs to be done and then look at a course of action. Rash decisions will get us nowhere except a step backwards.
 
In my neck of the woods there has been much discussion on the mental health aspect. I have not forgotten the kids, the teachers, and others, but we must keep in mind that all of the talk takes on this same tone after every massacre. The first thing I did when I got that night was email my daughter in law and tell her to give my two grandsons a hug, which she did for me without hesitation. I just don't like knee jerk reactions to serious problems.
 
The problem with the gun issue is that the gun lobbyists have the government by the balls- not the wording of the constitution or anything as that has been beaten to death in thousands of legal cases.

Its the lobbyists. Like so many other issues.

I am actually expecting Obama to come out with something (proposed law change of some sort) after this event (sickens me to try to come up with another name for it) in Newtown. It would be unprecedented but we all agree a necessary step to take that is waaaaaaay overdue.

I have hunting guns, locked in a safe, disassembled, in a room with a deadbolt on the door, ammo in a separate case locked as well. Not so hard to set it up this way. I can hardly play a triplet but I can make guns safe.

Personally would love to see every weapon registered with local police by way of a home firearm safety inspection that would be updated every 3-5 years or so. I think it would teach gun safety, allow cops to see whats going on in a home and know who has what. I have them, store them safely and use them for enjoyment occasionally and would be fine with them knowing. I also feel that if you arent OK with this, you have something to hide and shouldn't have it. Only reason I think this might work is because no one is slated to lose their guns. A real fear obviously.

The NRA would fight that for 1000 years for whatever reason- they would drum something up as they have for most gun issues in the past.
 
From an outsider's perspective, the American attitude towards guns is absolutely crazy. Would I like to own a rifle for target shooting in a controlled environment? Sure. It's fun. Would I like to own a rifle at home for no reason other than my own soundness of mine against some ephemeral 'bad guys'? Hell no.

That statement would be valid only if there were some uniform "American attitude towards guns." I keep two pistols in the house, a revolver and a small capacity semi auto, unloaded and secured and out of reach of the children. I believe the framers of the Constitution wanted Americans to be free to own arms generally, so that if there were a need to call people up to serve in a formal militia, then citizens would have some familiarity with firearms.

At the same time, I do support reasonable restrictions. I think weapons that can fire too rapidly, and large capacity magazine clips (whether the goofily menacing "assault weapons" or something else) should be banned. If you can't hit something with six shots, then you need to practice at the shooting range, not spray more bullets. There is simply no need in hunting or self-protection to have a weapon capable of such overkill. Also, if you are clinically depressed, a mental defective or have some other condition that could reasonably affect your judgment with regard to the use of a firearm, you should have your guns confiscated until a mental health professional clears you.

So, don't assume there's some kind of uniform attitude among gun owners. Many, like me, don't follow the radical agenda of the NRA and support reasonable restrictions.
 
All well said by DMC. I would own a gun for the same reason. BUt banning large clips, and semi-automatic weapons will not work now with the amount that have already been sold. If you are required to turn them in, the law abiding citizens will do so. They are not the problem. It's the criminal element that will never abide by such rules. I would like to see from this day forward, every weapon sold, traded or whatever have to be registerrd at the state level. Keep the US govt. out of it. They couldn't keep Fast and Furious safe. And putting Joe Biden in charge of a committee is ridiculous. Google Delaware gun laws, where Biden is from and see what is up. Nothing is registered at all. Joe has to clean his own house first.
 
Regardless of the "right to bear arms" it is still important to make sure that this conversation comes down to so much more than whether or not a citizen should be allowed to own guns. We must remember to keep the mental health issues, safety of our schools. community involvement, etc. in our conversations.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Mary. However issues such as mental health are far harder to tackle in the immediate future than that of small arms. I'm not saying that they should be completely ignored, but not enough countries in the world have adequate health care systems - let alone one that can provide proper mental health care - for all their citizens. If one is fortunate and affluent enough to have access to accurate diagnosis and necessary treatment then that is a blessing. The business of improving the mental health and general well being of the poor, disaffected, and misguided members of any society - some of whom may wish to do harm to others - is a long-term goal and certainly one that we all should be headed towards.

Yet whilst we're doing that is the idea of having fewer firearms in the world and fewer people able to access those arms inconceivable? Would not such an idea be considerably easier and quicker to achieve? To quote from that IANSA publication I linked to earlier:

"Guns may not be the root cause of violence, but they multiply it dramatically. Poverty, unemployment, injustice, frustration, fear, jealousy or depression can kindle the spark of violence; adding guns to such a volatile environment is like throwing petrol onto a fire.

When guns replace fists - or knives - the outcome is far more likely to result in death. So a mundane case of road rage turns into a homicide. An alcohol-fuelled argument leaves behind a corpse. Faced with the breakdown of personal relationships, such as and act of infidelity, a gun can turn a moment of blinding anger into a lifetime of regret. A dispute between neighbouring communities can erupt into a war once the first shots ring out.

The power to transform tension or anxiety into tragedy in an instant is a design characteristic of small arms. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing. Gunshot wounds are particularly severe compared with other injuries, because of the extensive damage to surrounding tissue. Guns, unlike knives, can kill at a distance, whether by direct aim or by a stray bullet. The presence of a gun also reduces the likelihood of bystanders intervening to assist the victim or to pacify the assailant."

"All societies are affected by gun violence but poor countries suffer the brunt of the impact. Poor people are the most likely to be shot, yet they are the least likely to receive treatment and rehabilitation. An estimated 3000 people a day are left severely injured by guns - that's three for every person killed [. . .] Because the direct victims of gun violence are overwhelmingly young and male, the death rate can have a serious impact on a country's workforce, especially in regions where women are traditionally occupied with bringing up a family."​

I think that last paragraph highlights the crux of the problem: when prosperous nations hear about influenza or malaria having such an affect on a poorer country's mortality rate then they do not hesitate to rush over and help. Yet someone somewhere is surely profiting from the manufacture and trade of small arms and it is the ones that can least afford to acquire them - both in terms of financial cost and the cost of human life - who suffer the most for it.
 
I've been reading this thread and thought I'd stay out of it, but just couldn't help putting my two cents in.

As you can probably tell by my username, I happen to be one of those dreaded "Gun" people.

As a member of the US Army for 22 years.........I had the opportunity to see many places where the government, or criminal elements, were the only ones with "arms" and it never seemed to work in the citizens favor. As much as we would all like to have "Peace on Earth", man is a violent species...........and, unfortunately will continue to be.

Personally, I think we need to look at all factors instead of the knee jerk reaction of banning all guns. It is an American constitutional right that has been in place since our inception............which was, by the way, a violent one. The vast majority of gun violence, in our country, is committed by criminals who couldn't care less what laws are passed.

I grew up in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, one of the poorest places in America, to this day. Anyone familiar with Pine Ridge will tell you it is not the "ideal" place to grow up. We had many issues, but guns were not one of them. For my 12th birthday, I received a .22/410 over and under, kept it in my closet along with the ammo............every kid I knew owned a gun, but we would never have thought of shooting each other.............plenty of fist fights, but no gun violence. Right or wrong it was the culture we lived in. It wasn't that we didn't see people use guns..........all of our heroes did, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, etc............but the guns were always, in our minds, used for good.

Todays kids, mine included, are not allowed this easy access to weapons. I think that is for the better, as children don't always understand the consequences of their actions. I do feel that children should be taught weapons safety and always respect the inherent danger.

What I feel changed was the way we raise our children...............

- todays children spend an average of 4 to 5 hours a day watching TV, playing video games, on the computer etc. Real social interaction isn't near as prevalent.

- Many children are raised in single parent households, as was I. The result, in a lot of cases, is the children do not get the same attention, guidance or supervision as when there are two parents in the house

- The lack of facilities to deal with the mentally ill.........these need to come back.

These factors, along with decreased individual responsibility, has not been good for our children.

I know plenty of you will disagree, and that is fine, but myself and many Americans see it the same way.

Bacterium, I had never known our second amendment, or the concept, came from a British document...........interesting, but not surprising, as most everyone in the original thirteen colonies had ties to Britain..........what document did it come from? I'd like to look it up.
 
Last edited:
/i].
I find it hard to understand the American attitude towards firearms but I do know a bit about the US Constitution. Nowhere does it say that anybody has the right to own a gun. If they own a weapon, they are supposed to be members of a militia. I doubt that many people in the US that privately hold weapons are members of an organised militia, or have indeed actually studied the Constitutional Amendment. The Second Amendment is actually based on a British writ that says much the same, except with the caveat that any ownership of arms must adhere to other laws - no such caveat is applied in the US Constitution.


Actually it does....

"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."

The supreme court interpretid that passage as each state was entitled to have it's own miltia(as in the national guard, in which that states Governor is commander in chief of) AND the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I highly doubt that the US Supreme will overturn itself.

Steve B
 
Agreed. Can't do much to stop the crooks.

But what if a mother was made to exercise far more stringent control over a ready made arsenal sitting in a cupboard just waiting for her idiot son to access so easily?

That's exactly what I'm talking about.Responsible firearms ownership..is a life....style ...change.Once you make an informed decision to legally posess a firearm,you must also agree to all the rules...not just the ones you like,that go along with safe and responsible ownership.You have to change the way you think to the same degree that you do when you bring a child into the world.Target shooting can be a lot of fun,but when it comes to securing my firearms,and safety I'm as serious as a heart attack.

In order to get a consealed carry,or target pistol permit,you must complete a training course usually given by local law inforcement.I hate saying this,but cops and the military shoot each other all the time.Safety takes a back seat to some commonly employed tactics,and some of this attitude bleeds through in their instruction.

That attitide is idiotic and has no place in proper training.Guns are suppose to be kept in a locked steel box or safe....and the ammunition is suppose to be stored in a seperate locked container.The only exception is when you're actually carrying a gun,at a range or hunting..leaving guns in an unlocked cabinet with available ammo it a recipe for disaster.

In NYC,the NYPD license section makes you take photos of trigger locks on all of your guns,and the firearms safe in which the'll be stored.They must acompany a notorized document when you renew your permit.The NYPD also checks on gun owners to make sure you are in compliance.This is a condition of ownership.Normally it would violate you constitutional rights,but by agreeing to firearm ownership,you waive that right,under very narrow circunstances.

I think that it's actually a smart thing to do,and if the local LEOs where this woman who had the guns did this,there is a possibility that this tragedy could have been avoided.If this humanoid couldn't get her guns,who knows what might have happened.

Plenty of common sense rules were broken.

Steve B
 
Last edited:
All well said by DMC. I would own a gun for the same reason. BUt banning large clips, and semi-automatic weapons will not work now with the amount that have already been sold. If you are required to turn them in, the law abiding citizens will do so. They are not the problem. It's the criminal element that will never abide by such rules. I would like to see from this day forward, every weapon sold, traded or whatever have to be registerrd at the state level. Keep the US govt. out of it. They couldn't keep Fast and Furious safe. And putting Joe Biden in charge of a committee is ridiculous. Google Delaware gun laws, where Biden is from and see what is up. Nothing is registered at all. Joe has to clean his own house first.

I agree that banning large capacity magazines is a measure that in real life application ...does NOTHING.The bad guy will just buy more magazines,to compensate .So instead of one 15 round magazine,the'll just carry two 10 round mags,or three 5 round mags.

With a little practice,you can reload a semi-auto in about 3 seconds.Pro target shooters can do it in about 1 second or less.When I was competitivly shooting police revolver,using speed loaders, I could reload in between one and two seconds and be back on target..

I agree with keeping the feds out of it,but the US government should help foot the bill.Keeping things on a state and municipal lever would exert a greater degree of monitoring of transactions and ownership.It would also insure that firearms and ammo were being safely stored,and kept away from innocent children as well as the psyco bad guys.

Steve B
 
All well said by DMC. I would own a gun for the same reason. BUt banning large clips, and semi-automatic weapons will not work now with the amount that have already been sold. If you are required to turn them in, the law abiding citizens will do so. They are not the problem. It's the criminal element that will never abide by such rules. I would like to see from this day forward, every weapon sold, traded or whatever have to be registerrd at the state level. Keep the US govt. out of it. They couldn't keep Fast and Furious safe. And putting Joe Biden in charge of a committee is ridiculous. Google Delaware gun laws, where Biden is from and see what is up. Nothing is registered at all. Joe has to clean his own house first.

I think most gun owners, like you and I, support reasonable restrictions, narrowly drawn to protect the public in some specific way. The stereotype that all gun owners are lunatics is wrong - as is the stereotype that someone who wants any reasonable restriction must be intent on banning all guns. Most people own guns and are OK with some restrictions. Unfortunately, the extremes get all the attention and the rational majority in the middle has no one to represent them.

As far as banning large capacity clips, where to you think criminals get theirs? They either buy them or steal them from law abiding citizens, or from other criminals. If we ban these clips, their numbers will gradually decrease.
 
A simple way to read the second amendment is to add/change a couple words to bring the language up to modern norms:

"Because A well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The problem with banning guns or even a type of gun is one of definition and scale. First how do you define an assault weapon w/o restricting Elmer Fudd's semi-automatic hunting rifle. They function in the same manner. One is just cosmetically different than the other. (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.) So you write a law to restrict the evil looking gun but still allow your hunting constituency to keep their hunting rifles and you've written a useless feel good law that does nothing. This can be seen with our last assault rifle ban. I bought my first AR-15 during the ban...

Second is the issue of scale. The world bank estimates there are 500 million small arms available world wide. Of which, incidentally, 100 million are AK-47 type (AKM, Type 56, M60, M70B2, Galil, and others) assault rifles. These are sold in some markets for $30-$125. Now keep in mind these are real assault rifles that fire in a fully automatic manner that are not currently available to the US consumer who can only buy semi-automatic firearms w/o jumping though special hoops. Now couple that with the fact that 300 million firearms are privately held in the United States. Finally, firearms aren't magical creations. They are really quite simple to make. Make them illegal and there will be money to be made for any guy with a mill and or lathe in his garage. All these factors mean that removing firearms from those that don't mind breaking laws will be impossible.
 
Last edited:
As far as banning large capacity clips, where to you think criminals get theirs? They either buy them or steal them from law abiding citizens, or from other criminals. If we ban these clips, their numbers will gradually decrease.

You realize in the last three days with the magazine buying panic that is going on right now in anticipation of new restrictions well over 100,000 new magazines have been sold in the last three days. Heck, I just added 6 more to my collection because if legislation passes it will be the best investment I've made since 2008. Based on the previous assault weapons ban in the US, prices will triple. If legislation doesn't pass they're still worth what I paid for them.

Furthermore, the military will have to keep much better tabs on their equipment. If they are banned, $40 per mag will buy private Joe a lot of beer. "Honest Sarge, I lost it in the swamp."

Edit to add supporting documentation: "Brownells sells 3.5 years’ worth of magazines in 72 hours" http://www.guns.com/2012/12/20/brownells-sells-3-5-years-worth-of-magazines-in-36-hours/

(Brownells is one of the largest if not the largest suppliers of gun parts.)
 
Last edited:
As I have learned more about how the event unfolded I have concluded that it is time to have armored structure in school buildings in the needed areas.
I also believe that a trained and armed special officer is needed at every school.
Perhaps It could be a job for officers who are nearing retirement who want to do it.
Children will always be prey for sick demented criminals simply because they are defenseless.

Gun control alone will not solve the issue.

The Newtown Fire Department has received 6000 Teddy Bears to hand out. They have handed out over 1000 already.
Millions of dollars in donations have come in for the families.
The media is beginning to thin out a bit and a sort of, "normalcy" for lack of a better word in starting to settle in.
Of course we all know that it will never be the same.

I am off to Sandy Hook in a few moments for Jazz band practice. We decided to hold it to get a break from the sadness.
 
Back
Top