February 19, 2018 · OPINION
Our thoughts and prayers don’t stop hail of bullets
By Kathryn Kadilak
With tears streaming down their faces, walking in a queue, hands on the shoulders of the kids in front of them, the students at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, exited the horrific scene of a mass shooting that resulted in 17 dead and 14 wounded.
The alleged perpetrator of this crime is a former student who had been expelled for serious behavior problems. He also owned many weapons, including the AR 15 he carefully selected for its capacity to kill.
Let me start by saying this: Guns kill people. Period. In 1996, Australia suffered a mass shooting and reacted by enacting strict gun control laws. In the more than 20 years since, there have been no mass shootings in Australia.
Guns don’t belong in the hands of mentally ill individuals and yet, in February 2017, President Trump signed legislation repealing the Obama-era restriction on mentally ill individuals having access to guns. The National Rifle Association was pleased. I was horrified, and I hope you are, too.
We must protect our children and all victims of gun violence. If our legislators are too deep in the pockets of the NRA, then it is time to vote them out of office. It is our moral duty to act. Thoughts and prayers are good, but not enough.
Vickie · March 6, 2018 at 2:55 am
As I read some of the additional comments added, it comes to mind that Chicago and Baltimore welcome those that adhere to gun control. I think it's called "shooting fish in a barrel." Let's make schools like airports and airplanes. Pay to protect children like rock stars. Start building mental health facilities. Cure evil and hard heartedness. Solve the real problems. Enforce the laws that exist. Don't just pick and chose like Chicago, CA, WA,OR, and parts of MD. Look for the triggers for the evil that kills, whether it be by car, truck, bomb or a gun. The gun doesn't shoot itself. It has no evil. It is the human that offers that element. The evil, anger, or mental illness chooses whatever is handy. A box truck and fertilizer? A pressure cooker. For that matter, words wound, like bullying. Guard against that, fellow commenters. You are entitled to your opinions, but it isn't OK to shout down other views. But, if you want to move, I will help you pack.
citizen observer · March 5, 2018 at 8:05 pm
Obama assigning members of the Muslim Brotherhood to top security positions was okay with you Silii? Trump should have cleaned out all Obama holdovers when he took office. Just like Obama did when he was inaugurated.
Thank the ACLU for allowing the violently mentally ill to walk among us and own guns.
Obama divided this country by race, religion, gender, and political affiliation for his boss Soros; for a reason. And it continues to work.
nonewtaxes · March 5, 2018 at 1:48 pm
Never before has someone with a security clearance and practicing gross negligence in handling the information associated with the same been allowed to walk away. Yet Clinton got a free pass.
Silii · March 2, 2018 at 10:21 am
Given that restrictions on the mentally ill to buy weapons has been lifted, there really is no such thing as "mentally ill" when it comes to gun purchases and restrictions. Mental illness no longer enters the picture. So, Trump wants to take guns from people, then worry about due process. And, since "mentally ill" isn't defined, that means anyone could have their gun taken.
I don't know why people keep blaming and referring to Hillary and Obama. Neither is president. Trump is now responsible for the chaos he is causing, as well as the extreme divisiveness. Never in history has the White House been full of people who had access to the nation's top secret information without the appropriate level of security clearance. You folks out there would have gone into cardiac arrest by now if a former president had been so careless and ignorant and unqualified.
citizen observer · March 1, 2018 at 11:28 am
He was referring to taking guns from the mentally ill.
Trump said he wants "one terrific bill" that can address better background checks, arming qualified teachers and school officials, increasing the age limit for certain gun purchases, and finding new ways to keep guns away from mentally ill people and others who should not have them.
It's what needs to be done and he has both sides against him, so it must be right. Good to see a politician that listens to the people, not lobbyists. No wonder Congress doesn't like him.
Silii · March 1, 2018 at 7:24 am
Trump stated at the White House yesterday at a meeting with Congressional representatives that he wants to take guns away from people, then initiate due process. Yep. Don't believe it - watch it for yourself. Trump wants to take guns from people.
nonewtaxes · February 28, 2018 at 12:57 pm
Ain't never gonna git BJ to use facts nor his commie buddy JG.If'n the facts don't support there position they make up stuff, cherry pick stuff, or try to change the topic. Wen that ain't working they resort to personal attacks.
JG be wanted to no all peoples names. Dont know why. But if'n you aint showin him your perosnal id he be thinkin that you dont know nothing anyhow. Yet I defer to billy the shakespere and ask what's in a name?
BJ aint explained how I support the 2 amendment is complicit in murder but he livin in the US aint justified the genocide of the US indians. Own an apple product = complicit in child labor. HEat or cool your house = complicit in enviromental destruction.
BJ thinks because I support the 2 Amendment as written, or in any form,that I must be a big bad gun owner. I don't own a gun but understand the reason and support the reason that it was mandated as an Amendment.
I notice that people who don't have a Bill of Rights such as the Chinese and the Russians, and the North Koreans, and the Cubans ect are all oppressed by the government.
Freedom is joined by Responsibility and Cost. Liberals want people to shed self responsibility and transfer that to the government because its easier I guess.
BJ · February 28, 2018 at 11:44 am
Or so stupid to brag like our Liar-in-chief.
BJ · February 28, 2018 at 11:41 am
Citizen Observer - I can't stand hHillary Clinton! But even she isn't so stupid so would have run into that school.
citizen observer · February 28, 2018 at 10:40 am
Thank you for your comments Vicki. There are many problems that need to be addressed, unfortunately the media only focuses on one.
Don't pay too much mind to BJ. When he started bashing Trump over this, he announced he was just another snowflake liberal still upset that his corrupt, commie queen lost the election. These problems have been going on long before Trump was elected. I've done lots of research on this matter, but liberals don't like facts that are against their agenda.
Sad that progressives use tragedies to promote their Saul Alynsky agenda to remove the guns instead of looking at all the issues. Where was BJ's fury when Obama did nothing about any of the problems after a school shooting? Or how about Obama's Attorney General running guns to drug cartels, that were later used to kill US citizens? Or Obama's Project Cassandra that allowed the Hezbollah to run drugs and guns so he could get their approval to give Iran nuclear power while people in their streets chanted death to the USA? Or opening our southern border so cartels had a highway to run drugs and guns into the US? Or using federal agencies against political opponents (a main reason many started arming themselves)? The list goes on and on exposing the liberal hypocrisies.
I am not a big fan of tweeting Trump, but I do like his agenda to keep this country free. Trump met with many governors several days ago. They talked about many of the problems that need to be fixed at the state and federal levels, including mental health and the age discrepancies for buying different types of guns. Hopefully something will be done at all levels to prevent future problems, and already more than his predecessor did in 8 years.
BJ · February 27, 2018 at 9:33 pm
Vicki - do your homework...the 2nd Amendment does not cover AR15's. The Supreme Court has rejected every case brought up by the NRA trying to place AR15's under the blanket of the right to bear arms. Do some homework before applauding those that don't know what they are talking about (i.e. citizen observer and nonewtaxes).
Vickie · February 27, 2018 at 6:40 pm
Wow. I just read all these comments, however painful. I want to applaud nonewtaxes and citizen observer, the rest know where that leaves you. Thanks, citizen observer for your excellent work in providing facts and statistics for those that either forgot, or chose to ignore history. what happened in FL was horrible. I am not complicit because I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Citizens have that right, not open to liberal interpretation. that includes having the tools to use arms, i.e. ammo. You do not have a right to tell me I have to inventory my bullets or how many I might use to hunt. It is not your business.
I saw a list of shooters in prior mass shooting crimes the other day, and in that group, only onw was under 21. He used his mother's firearm. If we expect 18 yr olds to vote or go into the service, they should not be banned from buying long guns. an article said recently that 75% of 18-25 year olds could not qualify to join the military. Many could not pass physical fitness tests. We need all that qualify, so we aren't going to up the age to join. those that stridently try to blame those that support the 2nd amendment, including the NRA, who killed no one, just know we will not give up that right. Remember, freedom is not free. It is not the gun, it's evil. It's the hard heart, the criminal, not law abiding citizens. Ask Chicago, and if they tell the truth, their strictest laws make no difference, other than making the innocent less protected. more people die there than anywhere else in the U.S.
If push came to shove, and one of you faced this recent killer in that school, would you have preferred to fight back, have someone next to you fight back, or hope you were near a closet? I would want my concealed carry, or someone armed next to me. I sure wouldn't want a sign that says Gun Free Zone - Sitting Ducks.
citizen observer · February 27, 2018 at 8:59 am
We need to follow the example set by rhe Obama administration.
Quit calling them illegal firearms.
Start calling them undocumented weapons, and allow them to live in sanctuary homes.
nonewtaxes · February 26, 2018 at 7:40 pm
The 2nd amendment doesnt give anybody the right to do that. What are you smoking?
Why do you live in the US. A lot of land was gained by genocide of the Native Americans. By living in the US you justify that genocide.
BJ · February 26, 2018 at 12:56 pm
Nonewtaxes - you don't seem to understand what the definition of "well regulated" is. Buying weapons and shooting up schools, concerts, and other venues IS NOT a well regulated militia. It's murder!
nonewtaxes · February 26, 2018 at 10:34 am
Since you agree with the Supreme Court and those guns are still legal than what's the problem?
THat's how some of us felt about the last administration. That goes to show how tyrannical the government can be. 1/2 the people are happy 1/2 the time and 1/2 the people are upset 1//2 the time. As long as the government can keep it from 2/3 of the people being upset 23 the time then the full effect of the 2nd amendment wont be put in force.
I think the men who wrote the Constitution knew more about it than any Chief Justice is makes an interpretation.
"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."
That's pretty straight forward to someone as simple as me. All freedom is fought for. It is never given because the oppressor never wants to give up power. The right to bear arms is a right of the people not the government. That right shall not be infringed.
BJ · February 26, 2018 at 8:52 am
nonewtaxes- I have to agree that we need protection from the government, especially the current administration. If the purpose of Right to Bear Arms IS to protect us from the government however, then why aren't they taking that right away completely, everything else in the Constitution is being attacked, why not the 2nd Amendment? They are attacking our right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness every day.
Jim Griffin · February 25, 2018 at 5:24 pm
I'm sticking with the US Supreme Court majority decision in Heller written by Justice Antonin Scalia:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
That's Justice Scalia. He was smarter about this stuff than most and there isn't a conservative alive who doesn't revere Scalia's opinions. Yours is apparently at odds with his. And mine. You're right, it's simple.
nonewtaxes · February 25, 2018 at 5:15 pm
I believe the Right to Bear Arms is to protect citizens from the government. That what rights arm - protection from the government. The Right to Free Speech and Right to Assemble are all protections form the government.
That you want to willingly surrender your rights shows your ignorance as to what Rights are and an ignorance as to why they are.
The Constitution which states these Rights was written about 10 years after the end of the revolutionary war. It has nothing to do with having a standing army and everything thing to do with having a militia - armed citizens that are nor commanded by a government.
The Right to Bear Arms, from a Clausewitz point of view after politics fail, is the ultimate form of voting.
You may choose to lull like a baby in the arms of the government but I do not. Every time the government restricts a Right it restricts a freedom. You may choose to surrender your freedom but I do not choose to surrender mine.
I know the choice to surrender your freedom is easy for you because its seems simple just like you.
Jim Griffin · February 24, 2018 at 12:53 pm
NNT: Soldiers use grenades. Should they be legal to buy and carry? The police and law enforcement use specialized surveillance tools that access the cellular system. Should they be legal to buy and deploy?
There's a gulf of difference between tools afforded those who stand on the wall and those protected by them. Your failure to discern the difference is telling.
BJ · February 23, 2018 at 1:51 pm
nonewtaxes - This country has an immense standing military, unlike when the 2nd Amendment was written. Why do we need a bunch of rambling road warriors with high powered rifles and large clips protecting us? The reason you want your big bad weapons is because you are afraid, paranoid, and like showing off how "BAD" you are to friends and family. Get outta here with that bogus BS.
nonewtaxes · February 23, 2018 at 8:51 am
Yep, and no one should be allowed to drive unless they are trained. Not high school driver ed but real on the track training.
Fitness test? Donuts are not fitness.
Check out George Banks. He was a highly trained officer. Killed of his whole family with an assault gun. Being in the military or police dont make you safe by itself.
So youre saying discipline is the key? Tough to have discipline in society when socialist policies take away self responsibility and likewise discipline.
I guess you missed the whole lets disarm law enforcement?
What purpose do you think the 2nd amendment is for? DO you think the founding fathers. who hide to hie their guns from the British, were really thinking about guns for hunting only?
BJ · February 23, 2018 at 8:04 am
nonewtaxes - you said it right there in your statement...the only ones who should have access to assault weapons are TRAINED in the military and police force. Something else trained in both those professions is responsibility and discipline, + they have to pass a fitness test including mental health.
The age thing is a smoke screen. The Sandy Hook murderer used guns his mother purchased.
nonewtaxes · February 22, 2018 at 10:24 pm
Yep. And no one should be allowed to join the military until they are 21+ that way they cant learn how to use an assault gun nor be sent to a place where its required to use an assault gun.
Lets not have anyone under 21 be in law enforcement neither. Or lets have law enforcement disarmed.
citizen observer · February 22, 2018 at 12:45 pm
When a 19 year old can't buy beer or a handgun, but can buy an assault style rifle; something is wrong. No one under 21 should be allowed to buy any type of gun.
I agree that large magazines aren't necessary. Where should the line be drawn is the problem. Are 6 shooters unneccesary? No automatic assault rifles are allowed anywhere in the US.
BJ · February 22, 2018 at 9:39 am
Co - I follow what you are saying. First and foremost, my heart goes out to the families of gun violence wherever they are in this country. Even though there have been studies about violent video games not being a factor, I truly believe that is a flawed study. If the person is stable it may not affect them but someone who is already dealing with mental health issues might be pushed over the edge, much like the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary. Have to disagree with you that the government taking guns away from sane, law abiding citizens is not the answer. I am not talking about all guns. There are 345 million guns in this country (that the authorities know of)!!!! WHY do we need so many guns?? No one outside the military or police needs or should have an assault rifle or high capacity magazines, period!
citizen observer · February 22, 2018 at 7:42 am
I forgot to include this. It is a non-partisan review of gun laws in each state. Chicago falls under Illinois law, which requires all jurisdictions to follow state law but they can enact stricter laws if they desire. Until 2010 they had a county ban handguns until it was overturned by the Supreme Court. There are also many court cases to review that deal with guns in this country.
citizen observer · February 21, 2018 at 7:41 pm
BJ- No one wants hear about anyone being shot. I referred to Chicago because they have one of the strictest gun laws in the country, but people (kids) are dying in a hail of bullets pretty much daily. I'm sure you have read about the young boy that was shot and killed as a message to his gangster father, after he accidently walked into the wrong alley.
There are a lot of things that need to be fixed. The 50+ years of the declination of mental health treatment needs to be addressed. Violent gangs that ignore laws and run guns need to taken out of the equation. How about the ultra violent games that are prevalent and available to youth now. Movies were rated X to keep them away from minors for a reason. Maybe violent games need to be similarly treated so kids can go outside and play; building quality social skills and learning the real world has options other than killing your enemies and friends.
Having the government take guns away from sane, law abiding citizens is not the answer.
BJ · February 21, 2018 at 3:21 pm
CO - I'm guessing that you are saying, "If we could only get criminals and gangs to follow our laws." as a joke but really is this a time for that kind of talk. Don't see anything funny about people (kids) dying in a hail of bullets.
PNR1 - I did think of that, and there is a perfect place for a discussion to begin on doing something.
PNR1 · February 21, 2018 at 11:03 am
I dont see anyone asking the question - Why are the shooters overwhelmingly young, caucasian, males?
citizen observer · February 21, 2018 at 10:23 am
The ACLU is very active in blocking any attempts to deny those with mental illness their rights, including gun ownership.
Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and the highest murder rate. If we could only get criminals and gangs to follow our laws.
BJ · February 21, 2018 at 7:32 am
The definition of a military-style assault weapon can vary by state, but in general it means any semiautomatic weapon that includes features or attachments “that appear useful in military and criminal applications but unnecessary in shooting sports or self-defense,” according to an assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
In all but six states and the District of Columbia, it’s legal to sell, transfer and possess military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, including assault rifles and pistols. In all but seven states and the District, it’s also legal to purchase high-capacity magazines.
Among other forms of gun control, the most widely enacted are restrictions on possession of a firearm by high-risk individuals, including individuals with criminal records, mental health or substance abuse issues.
Virginia has two of the seven firearms laws and generally has some of the loosest gun restriction laws in the country.
BJ · February 21, 2018 at 7:17 am
While in the military I was taught to kill, if needed, but I took no pleasure from the thought of killing another human being. It is when the thought of killing someone, anything, comes with the feeling of pleasure, that we are in trouble as a society. Until it happens to you, someone you know, or in your community, the shooting of children in Florida is another blip on the radar of most Americans, otherwise how have we sat by while people all over this country are being murdered. Anyone that doesn't believe that some kind of gun control is needed is complicit in those deaths.
Jim Griffin · February 20, 2018 at 6:16 pm
NNT: I own a number of firearms and enjoy them. We rely upon them for safety. I teach our son about firearms. Your supposition that I want to make it nearly impossible to enjoy the exercise of the Second Amendment is demonstrably false. We enjoy handguns, shotguns, rifles, target shooting and more on a regular basis.
You want to make debates personal, but behind a mask of anonymity. Yours is another one-way personal attack without regard for the issues.
Yes, we can always kill one another. Agreed. Nonetheless, reasonable people seek reasonable regulations. Even POTUS today announced support for just what I am predicting here: Tougher verification, no bump stocks, tougher age limits for some weapons.
Standing unreasonably against regulation is not support for the Second Amendment. It is destructive of the Second Amendment and invites further attack on the good within it.
nonewtaxes · February 20, 2018 at 6:06 pm
No JG, you miss the point entirely and that was the point I was making. I wasn't using easements as an analogy but as another example where you fail to understand the point.
I understand your use of mirrors. You "support" the second amendment. You support the right to bear arms. You don't want to take that right away. All you want to do is make it nearly impossible to enjoy it.
The law will always be behind on guns unless it goes nuclear. All you need today is a CAD file and a 3d printer. And if you want to go basic, all you need is a pipe, a nail, and a rubber band.
citizen observer · February 20, 2018 at 12:22 pm
The FBI didn't even notify the local authorities that they were called about a potential threat.
I am not a member of the NRA, and don't even own a gun. However, I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and have been doing a lot of research on this issue. History has some dismal views of what happens when a country takes guns away. As I said before; there is a reason globalists like Soros politicize each tragedy instead of focusing on the real problems.
It is up to each state to pass laws as they see necessary. There are many Supreme Court rulings on what is allowed to be done to those with mental illness. The ACLU also has been very proactive in limiting actions involving the mentally ill.
About a year ago; Congress and Trump eliminated a rule proposed by Obama during his last days (I won't even start asking why he waited until his last days to propose it) in office that would have included in the federal government gun background database, people who received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments.
This was a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done, but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns.
The regulation was repealed in 2017 because this rule violated not just the Second Amendment but the Fourth, as it deprived the affected people of a right without due process. The government does have the power to restrict and even deny gun ownership to people, but it has to show that these people have engaged in behavior that makes weapons dangerous in their hands.
That's why the regulation was opposed not just by National Rifle Association (NRA) but by several mental health and disability groups and by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The press and left wingers have largely ignored the latter groups' opposition to the rule, preferring to play up the power of the NRA and their influence on Republicans to turn the issue into a partisan fight.
4 states have enacted gun laws dealing with mental illness. Gun controllers argue that such a law could have prevented Cruz from buying or keeping a gun.
But even if Florida had one of these laws, it's not clear that anyone would have sought an order to disarm Cruz. Had the FBI followed thru on the notification they received, it is possible an order could have been obtained. Just recently a girl in Maryland had her mom read in her diary that she intended to do a school shooting. Her mom reacted and authorities prevented a bloodshed. For some reason it wasn't headlined on CNN.
At the time of the attack, both of Cruz's adoptive parents were dead, and he was living with the family of a friend. The friend's parents knowingly allowed him to bring his rifle with him, although they stipulated that it be kept in a locked safe. If they were not aware or alarmed enough by Cruz's behavior to stop him from keeping a rifle in his room, it seems quite unlikely that they would have gone to court in an effort to disarm him. And although Cruz's mother (who passed away last November) reportedly called police to help her deal with him on more than one occasion, from reports it appears the officers did not seem to have viewed him as a serious threat.
Cruz was treated for depression, and he was, according to former neighbors and fellow students, weird, troubled, angry, and sometimes scary. But he did not have a psychiatric record that disqualified him from buying a gun.
This is what needs to be changed. When teachers, coaches, or anyone notices defined threatening behavior from an individual; courts should easily be able to order a psychiatric evaluation despite what the ACLU wants. If this evaluation proves problematic, then said individual is placed on a federal " no gun" list. Taking guns from sane, law abiding citizens is not the answer.
Jim Griffin · February 20, 2018 at 9:08 am
NNT: I get it. It's not working. People want action on guns, heroin, even deadly trucks. They will eventually achieve their aims.
We understand the rhetoric: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Righto. Your grandma's rocker in the attic. Got it.
Your analogy to conservation easements misses the point entirely, but that's no surprise. It's not the wealth transfer that offends, it's the centrally-planned land use that cross the line.
We already classify firearms and license the use of, say, noise suppression or extended magazines. People want the government to go further and that seems appropriate and reasonable along with more extensive background checks at the time of purchase.
nonewtaxes · February 20, 2018 at 8:56 am
My point JG is that it's people who kill people and the test with the rocker and the gun still stands. You can put heroin next to the gun if you like. If you don't stick it in your arm its harmless.
You can try to ban heroin. Addicts will still find a way to get to it. The heroin doesn't come to them. They go to the heroin. It's a behavioral issue.
If you choose to operate your car in a normal manner it is a great tool for getting around. If you choose to take a nap in your car in the garage with the doors closed you take a very long nap. Same car but different behavior. Same goes for a gun. Use a gun to hunt deer or what not and all is fine. Or you can use a gun for murder. Either way, the operator chooses the action. A gun is incapable of choosing. No gun has ever been charged with murder.
The challenge is not silly. You don't understand the challenge. It's just like the issue with the conservation easements and low income housing. In both cases there is a transfer of wealth away from the taxpayer and to a special interest group. In one case, easements, the transfer goes to wealthy people and in the other case, low income housing, the transfer goes to low income people. In both cases the taxpayer loses wealth. Still, you condemn the transfer through easement because it burdens the taxpayer but you support the transfer to low income housing even though that also burdens the taxpayer.
You don't have to ban guns to ban guns. You just have to make them impossible to get. That would be a defacto ban.
Jim Griffin · February 20, 2018 at 8:05 am
NNT: I do not hear any proposals for banning guns, so why the analogy to banning trucks?
On the other hand, we do restrict truck operation of a certain class of trucks to drivers with licenses that match that class of truck. Is that where you were going with this? If so, that makes sense to me -- match the gun to the certification, and AR-15 rifles (and those like them) belong in the hands of properly trained and certified marksmen.
Your challenge is silly. If you put heroin "in your attic next to grandma's old rocker and check on them 10 years from now" both the heroin and the rocker will have killed the same number of people - zero. Is that the new test you propose? One that even a nuke will pass? Or heroin?
Your grandma's rocker test makes no sense to me, and I suspect Sheriff Mosier feels the same way. Even your grandma might say you are off your rocker with that one.
BJ · February 20, 2018 at 1:04 am
Nonewstaxes - a pickup truck can not walk into a classroom in the hands of a killer. Not the same classification as a gun. Blaine Johnson
nonewtaxes · February 19, 2018 at 11:46 pm
IF the LA shooter used a pick up truck rather than a gun the damage would have been the same. Would you propose banning pick up trucks? Should France ban delivery vans?
Still, I challenge you to reference any incident where a gun killed someone. If you put the blame on the gun for the behavior of the operator than shouldn't you want a ban on cars also due to the behavior of dui?
BJ · February 19, 2018 at 8:42 pm
Thought and prayers are like someone saying they are sorry as they keep hitting you over the head with a bat. Sounds deranged said often enough. Forget banning guns, with the 2nd Amendment it will never fly. What we can do is limit or ban the amount of or type of ammunition that those guns need to kill (military and police exceptions). Say a hunter uses his/her AR-15 to hunt deer, and I have heard there are some that do, they don't need a magazine with 30 rounds, if they did they should give up hunting, instead issue them 5 rounds, and make them accountable for those rounds. Same with any weapon. We need serious emergency training and security doors with metal detectors, much like American Embassies overseas, put our National Guard to work manning the entries into schools. Do something because nothing is no longer an option Congress. We are fed up with your excuses. Taking bribes from the NRA for your election or reelection campaign is no longer going to get a pass. I served in the military and do not own a gun, it is a personal choice, I'll stick to my crossbow, it's silent and just as deadly as any gun in a home invasion.
Jim Griffin · February 19, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Second Amendment supporter here, but amenable to reasonable regulation and the steps needed to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, and that includes those adjudged mentally ill.
We aren't supporting the Second Amendment when we stand in the way of good efforts to bring reasonable regulation to this fundamental right. There was an effort to deny gun sales to people on the govt's "No Fly" list -- but it was defeated. That's an example of being a penny wise and a pound foolish on gun rights.
Silii · February 19, 2018 at 5:43 pm
The Las Vegas shooter could not have maimed and murdered as many people as he did using a knife from his hotel window.
The local police had been to Nik Cruz's house at least 31 times acting on reports about Cruz. They were not allowed to enter the house and confiscate his guns. Isn't that what you gun lover want - for authorities not to be able to confiscate anyone's guns?
The FBI would not have been able to do anything the local authorities couldn't do. The same laws apply to the FBI as to local police. So, quit blaming the FBI.
Trump and Republicans have consistently supported cutting funding for mental health programs via trying to repeal the ACA and via other budget cuts. Trump and Republicans lie lie lie when they say they support programs for mental health issues. The federal government does not run all mental health programs. Take a look at state budgets and programs.
Shooters using guns kill people. period.
Quit making so many excuses for the slaughter of our school children, our church goers, our concert goers. People are buying weapons to kill people with and are using them for same.
citizen observer · February 19, 2018 at 4:32 pm
33 were killed and 130 wounded in a knife attack at a chinese train station. Guns aren't the real problem.
The responsibility for the Florida attack lies squarely on the FBI. They received warning of this individuals threats to attack, but failed to do anything. They even apologized on their website.
Since the federal government took over functioning mental health care from the states in 1963, they have run it into the ground.
Including President Kennedy, five Democratic and five Republican presidents have presided over the 50-year federal experiment. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush appointed presidential commissions to examine the failed programs, but nothing useful came from either. Reagan gave the responsibility back to the states, but they have never resumed programs.
Former President Obama did very little, since his lead agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, denied that a problem exists. Its contribution to the president's response to the Newtown tragedy focused only on school children and insurance coverage. And its 2014 action plan, a 41,000-word document, included no mention of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or outpatient commitment, all essential elements in an effective plan for corrective action.
The evidence is overwhelming that this federal experiment has failed, as seen most recently in the mass shootings by mentally ill. It is time for the federal government to get out of this business and return the responsibility, and funds, to the states.
And there is a reason globalists like Soros are paying to politicize every mass shooting into gun control, instead of focusing on the real problems. People need to wake up before it is too late and we have lost all our freedom.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.
nonewtaxes · February 19, 2018 at 2:42 pm
A gun has never killed anybody. If you put a gun in your attic next to grandma's old rocker and check on them 10 years from now both the gun and the rocker will have killed the same number of people - zero.
The last mass killings in Great Britain and France were done by vehicles. Are you saying that vehicles should also be restricted?
In the Boston bombing a pressure cooker was used. Should pressure cookers be banned also?
A story I once heard is that the very first killing was done with a stick. Should sticks be banned?
People kill people. It's been happening before guns were ever invented and will continue to happen even if guns are banned.
Mental illness probably has a great deal of subjectivity in diagnosis. There would be a mass ruining of lives if a pro gun ban government decided that any people who filed for a gun permit were mentally ill. After all, why does anyone really need a gun? The government is here to protect us all and hamburgs and hot dogs are cheap.
I wonder what the founding fathers would think of a government that banned the people from owning guns. Should Concord and Lexington be stricken from the history books because that history is no longer acceptable?
Is it even ok to call the founding fathers founding fathers or should they be called the founding people?
I challenge you to show me a gun that decided it wanted to take single life let alone commit a mass murder.
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
Friday, May 18
Name change applications, spring festival booths, mental health first aid graduates and precipitation this year
Friday, May 18
Two entrepreneurs merge their home-based bakery businesses in Fifth Street shop
More Fauquier news
Friday, May 18
Tractor-trailer runs off highway and comes to halt against utility pole in marshy pasture at Wildcat Mountain Road