Letter: Assault weapons are not guns

The Republican Party of East Baton Rouge, headed by Louis “Woody” Jenkins, maintains that this NRA lunacy about the Second Amendment is a “litmus test” issue for the Republicans and they are going to unite and take a strong stance.

Against what, the United States Constitution? The Republicans locally and nationally have paid no attention to our Constitution since George H. W. Bush.

The NRA lobby , and our “great” governor and Legislature, in order to fight the federal government and attack our Constitution, have put in our state constitution a “strict scrutiny” clause, which of course our good people voted for.

Fact: There is not one word about personal weapons for hunting or self-defense in the Second Amendment: “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.”

Fact: No one, not one state, not one government, not one person in authority, has promoted taking our guns away. This is a lie told by the Republicans and the National Rifle Association.

Fact: An assault weapon — semiutomatic or automatic — is a weapon, not a “gun.”

Fact: The Newtown School Massacre was accomplished with an assault weapon.

Fact: The Republicans and the NRA are promoting using assault weapons to defend schools and your home.

Do we need a “litmus” test or a sanity hearing?

I challenge the governor and Legislature to do common-sense soul-searching and perhaps get some redemption by passing a complete ban on assault weapons in Louisiana. It will not atone for their sins, but it would be a great legal test of the efficacy of their propaganda.

Ron Thompson

retired lawyer

Norwood

Comments

1) Comment by Whatnow - 01/02/2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZtdFtsXBCY&sns=fb

2) Comment by Whatchange - 30/01/2013

Tea_Slayer; you win, feel better. DMJ; believe it or not, I agree with you more often than not.

3) Comment by popseal - 30/01/2013

$$$ BILLIONS AND BILLIONS $$$ go through the advertising industry on the evidence that repeatedly showing images and messages that change buying habits. Are we to believe that the flood of violence in pop culture media has no affect on a weak or disturbed mind? To overlook the connection is criminal stupidity or the product of something else no less corrupt. You and I know the difference between cartoons like Grand Theft Auto or the Terminator/Rambo type movies..not so the nut case!

4) Comment by DMJ - 30/01/2013

Whatchange, thanks for being one of the more reasonable members of the other side. They won't listen to me...Maybe they'll listen to you.

5) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 30/01/2013

Whatchange, to refresh your memory, here is what I stated "Whatchange...really? It's quite simple. For a clause to be independent, it HAS to be able to stand on its own as a sentence. "A well-regulate..." can not stand on its own, no matter how much you object to it. I didn't make up that rule. You used it incorrectly. Deal with the fact that you were wrong. And it's ensure, not insure.. more grammar that you are incapable of comprehending. Again, please show me the verb in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." I can't wait.." ///// First of all, still waiting for you to show me the verb in "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." //// Second of all, I didn't slam your spelling. Your entire argument was based on falsely claiming that the second amendment contains two INDEPENDENT clauses, which I proved it doesn't. To further prove that you didn't have a great grasp of grammar, I pointed out that you should have used "ensure" instead of "insure". That is NOT a spelling error but a grammatical one. //// So I will ask again: Why would Erick Erickson, a RW operative lie? Why would the Connecticut State Police lie? Why would the medical examiner lie?

6) Comment by Whatchange - 30/01/2013

@Tea_Slayer; I tried having a civil discussion with you before, when you could no longer argue the point you resorted to slamming my spelling, how's that reflection looking. By the way, as I have I stated before, I strongly believe we need to ban military style weapons, high capacity magazine, tighten private sale loop holes, and strengthen background checks, I do believe you are for all these also, now what is you argument against me, what because I don't believe everything I see in the media or that I can think for myself, or that I don't agree with you at all.

7) Comment by coachblades - 30/01/2013

During my planning period when im done with my work all i do is fantasize.....About your mom! Boom

8) Comment by nimby? - 30/01/2013

"assault weapons" will be banned in spite of the fact the majority of gun crimes/violence/deaths are committed with hand guns . if further legislation does not curb the level of violence there will be more . eventually it will come to private citizens not being allowed to own personal firearms of any kind . maybe not in my life , but it will . slow erosion .

9) Comment by jedleland - 30/01/2013

back to work coach blades, sumner high isnt paying you to goof off on the internets fantasizing about barrel length and suppressing latent feelings of sexual inferiority or inadequacy via a gun fetish

10) Comment by coachblades - 30/01/2013

Ok all you gun grabbers. Calm down its not going to happen for you. No republicans will vote for an asssault weapons ban and guess what its not just us "evil" republicans either. Dont you democrats make up a majority of one house? Yes. And it wont pass there either. Even most democrats in congress realize that gun control of any kind simply doesnt work. The idea is a great theory that just doesnt work. SOOO many democrats have already come out and said they wont support a ban on assault "weapons" or guns. Heck they cant even really decide what makes a gun an assault weapon is it a piece of plastic pistol grip? OH YES the evil pistol grip causing death worldwide. Is it a Barrel Shroud You know the "thingy on your shoulder" as one dem put it. or is it based on the large caliber of the gun a .223 round being one of the smallest rifle rounds out there. OR will you just limit the shooter to a 10 round magazine so now he has to take 2 seconds to drop an empty mag and put in another 10 rounds?? It wont pass not because the NRA is this juggarnaut of a special interest group but because the legislators like their jobs and they know americans like their guns and they will vote accordingly. Iv said it before and ill say it again. THE ONE THING THAT HAS IMPROVED UNDER THE OBAMA ECONOMY IS GUN SALES!! BARAK OBAMA GUN SALESMAN OF THE DECADE!! THANK YOU DEMOCRATS YOU PUT HIM THERE

11) Comment by DMJ - 30/01/2013

Someone please explain this "government takeover" theory to me. And just what would "the government" do once they take over? Govern? Install military bases? Provide social services? Levee taxes? Regulate commerce? This is all so frightening!! I got news for everyone: The U.S. already controls the U.S.; that's why it's called the U.S. and that's why the U.S. runs it. This whole theory is stupid. First of all, "the government" is not some foreign entity; it consists of Americans, just like us. Secondly, the government already runs the government; there's nothing to take over. What am I missing? (Please don't reference the Nazis, because personal firearms had nothing to do with the Nazi seizure of power, and I'll be glad to destroy that argument if I'm baited into it). Well?

12) Comment by nimby? - 30/01/2013

a matter as serious as gun control would need to be placed on a national ballot for the majority to decide . I'd be willing to bet turnout would exceed any recent presidential election ....

13) Comment by phil - 30/01/2013

jedleland - perhaps the tea parties have actually been taken over by the politicians in power? Think about it.

14) Comment by phil - 30/01/2013

I do not really think we need assault weapons to protect ourselves against thieves and people who might break into our homes, etc. The reason we really need assault weapons is to protect ourselves from a possible takeover of the government either from internal or external forces or perhaps if the government attempts to take all of us over. If that was not a real possibility I would actually say ban all guns. The fact is, we need guns to protect ourselves from our own government in the event our own government turns on us and tries to establish a dictatorship etc. Of course, I do hope that never happens. The original writers of our Constitution were smarter than we might think There, I said it.

15) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

humorless, angry opponents of the President

16) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

Views of the Tea Party movement are at their lowest point ever, with voters for the first time evenly divided when asked to match the views of the average Tea Party member against those of the average member of Congress. Only eight percent (8%) now say they are members of the Tea Party, down from a high of 24% in April 2010 just after passage of the national health care law. - rasmussen

17) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

professional victims...

18) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

Your quibble is with arch-conservative erick erickson not me

19) Comment by InPVille - 29/01/2013

@jedleland: "Mitt Romney ran a campaign on just how bad things are, but he was rejected by a majority of Americans . . ." Actually both Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama were rejected by a majority of Americans. President Obama only received the votes of 33.8% of Americans eligible to vote. So he was rejected by 66.2% of Americans. Mitt Romney received the votes 31.4% of Americans eligible to vote. So he was rejected by 68.6% of Americans. 34.8% of Americans eligible to vote didn't vote which is a larger percentage of Americans than voted for either candidate. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t31/tables/tab01-01.pdf -[**]- This is a table of the voting population from the 2000 census. The population is a bit larger today. So the numbers should actually be a bit worse for voting percentages. Voting totals are from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main -[**]- If you wanted to be honest with yourself, you would have to admit this is not exactly a ringing endorsement for either side.

20) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

We scream "benghazi" and "Fast & Furious"

21) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

purveyors of outrage

22) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

Erick Erickson is the Editor-in-Chief of RedState.com, a property of Eagle Publishing, Inc. Under Erickson’s leadership, RedState has become the preeminent right of center community online and is the most widely read right-of-center blog on Capitol Hill. Prior to leading RedState, Erickson practiced law for six year and managed a number of political campaigns. Every weeknight, Erickson broadcasts live out of Atlanta on the 50,000 watt powerhouse News/Talk WSB on 95.5 FM and 750 AM, the nation’s most listened to talk radio station. He also regularly fills in for nationally syndicated talk radio host Neal Boortz. According to Newsweek, “Erickson has grabbed his party’s power brokers by their elephant-stitched suspenders. Avid readers include Rush Limbaugh, former senator Fred Thompson and House Minority Leader John Boehner.”

23) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

Who the h-e-ll wats to listen to conservatives whining and moaning all the time about the outrage du jour? Seriously?

24) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

Conservatives, frankly, have become purveyors of outrage instead of preachers for a cause. Instead of showing how increasing government harms people, how free markets help people, and how conservative policies benefit all Americans, we scream “Benghazi” and “Fast & Furious.”

25) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

We’ve become professional victims dialed up to 10 on the outrage meter.

26) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

“What I am finding is that among conservatives there is too much outrage, p!ss, and vinegar. It makes our ideas less effective. We have become humorless, angry opponents of the President instead of happy warriors selling better ideas. We are not even selling ideas. Conservatives, frankly, have become purveyors of outrage instead of preachers for a cause. Instead of showing how increasing government harms people, how free markets help people, and how conservative policies benefit all Americans, we scream “Benghazi” and “Fast & Furious.” We’re off key and off message. We’ve become professional victims dialed up to 10 on the outrage meter. Who the h-e-ll wats to listen to conservatives whining and moaning all the time about the outrage du jour? Seriously? Mitt Romney ran a campaign on just how bad things are, but he was rejected by a majority of Americans who felt like he really did not care about them and really had no plans to improve their lives. Bitching about Benghazi doesn’t do that either.” Erick Erickson, Redstate

27) Comment by Whatnow - 29/01/2013

jedleland, we wouldn't be so full of p!ss and vinegar if it wasn't the liberal President involved in lies and our rights and especially to be able to bear arms. And he keeps doing it, and so many of "You" don't care. Just one thing. Don't patronize "us" conservatives. We don't think the same so don't include "us" with you.

28) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

“What I am finding is that among conservatives there is too much outrage, p!ss, and vinegar. It makes our ideas less effective. We have become humorless, angry opponents of the President instead of happy warriors selling better ideas. We are not even selling ideas. Conservatives, frankly, have become purveyors of outrage instead of preachers for a cause. Instead of showing how increasing government harms people, how free markets help people, and how conservative policies benefit all Americans, we scream “Benghazi” and “Fast & Furious.” We’re off key and off message. We’ve become professional victims dialed up to 10 on the outrage meter. Who the h-e-ll wants to listen to conservatives whining and moaning all the time about the outrage du jour? Seriously? Mitt Romney ran a campaign on just how bad things are, but he was rejected by a majority of Americans who felt like he really did not care about them and really had no plans to improve their lives. Bitching about Benghazi doesn’t do that either.” Erick Erickson, Redstate

29) Comment by jedleland - 29/01/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

30) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/01/2013

Just curious, why would the Connecticut State Police lie? Why would the medical examiner lie? Keep up the conspiracy theory ***** you are just providing more evidence of your insignificance.

31) Comment by Whatnow - 29/01/2013

Yeah, people don't lie... that's why everyone was told the truth of what happen with "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi.

32) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 29/01/2013

whatchange, Your response (and whatnow's various rants) are precisely why you can't have a rational conversation about gun control with the gun lover crowd. You present them with facts and they invent some vast conspiracy to take your guns, including a RIGHTWING website and the Connecticut State Police lying about what weapon was used. You people are sickening in your ignorance

33) Comment by Whatnow - 29/01/2013

DMJ, is that another one of your assumption? Keep guessing. I think your assumptions are playing overtime. Like I said, when called a name like a paranoid, it just gives the liberals and end to their argument. They don't know what else to do but call names. I have followed all the laws on the books and I haven't killed anyone yet, but I'm the bad guy? What joke!

34) Comment by SouthernAttorney - 29/01/2013

Fact: A semi-automatic assault weapon is a type of "arm." Fact: A strict scrutiny test would not allow a state-wide assault weapons ban without an amendment to the constitution. Fact: A state-wide assault weapons ban would have to be approved by a vote of the people. Fact: That ain't gonna happen. Your only hope, Ron, is something at the federal level.

35) Comment by DMJ - 29/01/2013

They seem to bother you quite a bit, even when used by you towards yourself.

36) Comment by Whatnow - 29/01/2013

DMJ, Nah, that's what liberals call us. And I'm not bub. And if words creep you out, I won't even go into what we call liberals. I wouldn't want to ruffle the lace on your shirt or creep you out any further. LOL! Liberals labels have never bothered me and never will. They are just words used by libs when all else fails.

37) Comment by DMJ - 29/01/2013

Whatnow, you called yourself a racist, terrorist, ***** threat to national security, troublemaker, birther, traitor, conspiracy theorist, anti-American, religious fanatic, war-monger, homophobe, greedy, separatist. Hey, if some of those labels are accurate, that's your business. Either way, those are all your words, bub. And you're creeping everyone out.

38) Comment by Whatnow - 29/01/2013

DMJ and Tea_Slayer, since you both think I'm a danger and paranoid makes me laugh. That's some new labels from the left when someone doesn't agree with you liberals. LOL!

39) Comment by DMJ - 29/01/2013

Whatnow, I never called you any of those things. Seek help. Paranoia, if left unchecked, can be very dangerous....especially combined with firearms.

40) Comment by rockynoggin - 29/01/2013

The whole problem with the current discussion is exemplified in Mr. Thompson's letter. An educated and rational man, Mr. Thompson chooses to use the situation to score political points and not address the issue at hand. The interpretation of the Second Amendment has been clearly established as protecting personal firearm ownership (which Mr. Thompson, as an attorney at law should know - see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)). Second, Mr. Thompson hands an indictment of violating the constitution to the Bush administration - no argument from me. But he ignores the same by the current administration. Here's the problem - politicians don't really care if we maintain our freedoms as long as we maintain the illusion of being free. There is a solution and it evolves from personal responsibility. Here's where the NRA could really score some points with me - take out a Superbowl ad (or some other prominent campaign) to help educate people about gun safety and responsible ownership. My fear at this point is the mass of folks going out to buy guns for fear that the "gubmit" will take them away is going to create some hazards in the near future because people aren't trained in gun ownership and use. I know the NRA provides training, but unless people are encourged to be responsible gun owners - well, they won't be.

41) Comment by InPVille - 28/01/2013

@Ron Thompson: Fact: An assault weapon — semiutomatic{sic) or automatic — is a weapon, not a “gun.” : This supposed fact is nothing of the sort. Dictionary.com: gun : noun : 1. a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance. 2. any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun, or revolver. 3. a long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory. -[**]- Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: gun : noun 1 a : a piece of ordnance usu. with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory b : a portable firearm (as a rifle, pistol) c: a device that throws a projectile --- This is the same wording as the current online Merriam Webster dictionary -[**]- Here is a link to a number of assault weapons of today and the past http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=assault+weapons&qpvt=assault+weapons&FORM=IGRE -[**]- An assault weapon can be a pistol, a rifle or may be used in both fashions. Since by the common definition of the word a "gun" may be a pistol or a rifle. All are weapons just as a sword, a knife, a bronze statue, a nine iron, a baseball bat all may be a weapon depending on the use to which they are put. -[**]- And as for no one promoting "taking our guns away"; ever heard of incrementalism. Also, how many times have politicians claimed that their legislation would do one thing and could not be used for something else but that something else is exactly what happened. The politician who authored the legislation which led to "Affirmative Action" programs stated when the legislation was being debated in Congress that the legislation would not lead to Affirmative Action. -[**]- "Fact: There is not one word about personal weapons for hunting or self-defense in the Second Amendment:" Tell that to the Supreme Court. The court has long upheld that U.S. Citizens have the right to self-defense. This is a natural right which precedes the Constitution. If you depend on a call to 911 to protect you in the event of a home invasion, you might get lucky. But I hope your business is all in order and your burial prearranged.

42) Comment by Whatchange - 28/01/2013

Tea_Slayer; I see you're still on that Magical Mystery Tour. RedState, really, that's your source, Yea, we all know the police would never lie and they always admit when the are wrong. Oh man, better check this I might have a word ms spelled.

43) Comment by Scrooge - 28/01/2013

Tea_Slayer, better be careful, Whatnow might shoot you for disagreeing. A reasonable person might understand that the 2nd amendment does not negate the1st .

44) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 28/01/2013

Just from reading his last rant, I'd say Whatnow is the poster child for why we need mental health screenings prior to issuing gun permits

45) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 28/01/2013

The Bushmaster was used according to the Connecticut State Police, and even Erick Erickson at Red State agrees. http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record- straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/ but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant...continue

46) Comment by Chucky - 28/01/2013

P.S nimby? The worst massacre's of women and children happened during the Vietnam War read "Any Thing That Moves" I understand it was not on American soil, yet we are responsible. Many and most did not do this, but as always our leaders knew. Blessed be the whistle blower for they shall reap crowns in heaven.

47) Comment by Chucky - 28/01/2013

Last comment on this, When the world gets rid of Nuclear and Atomic and Bio/Gen weapons I will think of a world with out guns.

48) Comment by nimby? - 28/01/2013

on December 29, 1890 , in this nations worst massacre nearly 200 men , women and children were killed by the U.S. 7th cavalry , after being disarmed ...

49) Comment by Whatnow - 28/01/2013

DMJ, What did you call me? I'm a RACIST for criticizing Obama. I'm a TERRORIST because I believe in my 2nd Amendment Rights. I'm a ***** for supporting the Constitution. I'm a THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY because I refuse to shut up! I'm a TROUBLEMAKER for asking unanswered questions. I'm a BIRTHER for questioning the lack of documentation of the Commander in Chief. I'm a TRAITIOR for blowing the whistle on my corrupt government. I'm a CONSPIRACY THERORIST for presenting documented facts. I'm ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting Constitutionalists. I'm a RELIGIOUS FANATIC for believing that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I'm a WAR MONGER because I support the Troops. I'm a HOMOPHOBE because I believe in the sanctity of marriage between and man and a woman. I'm a GREEDY CAPITALIST because I believe that you are not entitled to what I have earned. I am a SEPARATIST because I oppose illegal immigration and Sharia Law. Yep, GUILTY AND DANG PROUD OF IT!!! SO, WHAT'S YOUR POINT? for someone to swear he's not doing something, you aren't trying very hard. You would be surprised how many people feel the way I do.

50) Comment by DMJ - 28/01/2013

Whatnow, you're sounding more paranoid every day. I'm sorry if I've exacerbated what seems to be an already precarious mental state. And I swear I'm not trying to insult you, but you do kind of sound crazy...like marchiavafa-crazy. Good thing you're armed... Please, don't blow some postman's head off when he's delivering your mail or shoot some girl scout who's trying to sell you cookies because you think Obama, the Black Panthers and the U.N. are coming for your guns.

51) Comment by nimby? - 28/01/2013

'Fact: The Newtown School Massacre was accomplished with an assault weapon" , not . the "assault weapon" was found in a vehicle . certain media outlets continue to lie . why ? sounds as tho Mr Thompson was simply echoing something he'd heard rather the finding out for himself , how conservative of him ...

52) Comment by nimby? - 28/01/2013

there are those who feel they are smarter than "you people" , and would prefer limiting your ability to make decisions , choices . rather than hold the individual accountable . it is all our faults , so we all must be punished .

53) Comment by Elderly Man - 28/01/2013

Mr. Thompson, thank you for your good sense.

54) Comment by Whatnow - 28/01/2013

Well, DMJ, a whole lot of people do not trust our government in the least because of lies. So, we believe that if this confiscation happens, what will be next? We also know that this President, along with his cronies and the U.N, want all guns banned. So, we believe that this is just the start. I may be crazy and want to protect myself against tyranny, but I'd rather be crazy and able to defend myself and my family than to be supremely logical and dead. And I may be killed for not wanting to give up MY weapons, but that is the only way they will get them. It's just the way I feel. The government is stocking up on 750 million rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammunition.for the Department of Homeland Security then another order for a whooping 750 million more rounds, the FBI with 100,000,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition, US Forest Service recently purchased 320,000 rounds of ammo and, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking an additional 13,500 rounds. It makes me leery. Why is the US government buying millions of rounds of hollow point bullets specifically for use in domestic operations while at the same time attempting to label everyday gun owning Americans as possible terrorists? And why hollow points for training? That's mighty expensive bullets just for training. Something smells....the Geneva Convention won't even allow hollow points to be used in war. During the Iraq War the U.S. military used 70 million rounds of ammunition per year. Compare that with the 750 million rounds of hollow point bullets that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ordered in March. And then it further ordered another 750 million rounds of various types of ammunition. Who are they going to fight? Why buy all that ammunition unless you are going to use it?

55) Comment by Elderly Man - 28/01/2013

We need assault weapons. Woody Jenkins has not done enough to help all Americans arm ourselves properly.

56) Comment by DMJ - 28/01/2013

"Are we not allow the same weapons that they use?" Exactly. They have the same weapons. How'd they get them? Here is where the drugs/guns analogy breaks down. You see.... guns are legal AND we have a vast black market of them at the same time. How'd that happen? We'll never know unless we can track the guns. And we'll never be able to track the guns until we realize that the 2nd Amendment does not protect those who sell these weapons. I'm not saying we should shut them down, but we should hold them accountable. And yes, Fast and Furious happened, but long prior to that episode, the cartels were waging their wars with U.S. guns, all of which were legal at some point. How'd that happen? And Whatnow, I believe what the estimable windbag Al Sharpton was referring to is the fact that just because we have rights, does not mean limits cannot be placed on those rights when it comes to public safety. I'm pretty sure I've pointed out the numerous limits to the rights in the 1st Amendment, when those rights endanger the public. In cased you missed it, I'd be glad to point them out again. Why wouldn't we limit the 2nd Amendment accordingly? We've seen what happens when we put no limits on it. Hasn't worked out very well, has it?

57) Comment by Whatnow - 28/01/2013

“People do not have the right to unregulated rights in this country,” Sharpton continued. Un, excuse me????? Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/sharpton-on-2nd-amendment-people-do-not-have-the-right-to-unregulated-rights-in-this-country-video/#ixzz2JIjBTkW3

58) Comment by Whatnow - 28/01/2013

DMJ, no, I won't concede. You are punishing a lot of people who would never, and I mean never, point their gun at another person unless they or their home was being threatened. We are not the enemy. The enemy is the thug, criminal, those who don't value life and the insane. Are we not allow the same weapons that they use? What if it were more than one attacking? Do you think for one moment that these people are going to admit to having guns or register them? They come from gun runners and if you watch the films that I posted, you would see that the cartels are in the U.S. with guns. Our own government was caught giving guns to the cartels. You are being very naive to think that the criminals will follow any law. We do and we are being punished for it.

59) Comment by billynurse - 28/01/2013

How about actually keeping gun-criminals put away for a meaningful time period? THERE'S a start.

60) Comment by billynurse - 28/01/2013

Does Ron Thompson know what an "assault weapon" means, or recognize one? (I'm sure most conjure up the picture of something that "looks" like the AK47) Once again, the idiotic "militia" argument rears it's head...Once again, "regulated militia" is stated,...THEN "right of the people to bear arms" Has anyone heard of an UN-ARMED militia? Why the redundancy? These are 2 separate items. "arms" are whatever a LAW-ABIDING citizen needs to defend themselves, their family, and home, and nothing less. Government tyranny is not a made up phrase , though polite society shuns the thought of it's possibility here. Just picture the czechoslovakians throwing rocks at the tanks. History ALWAYS repeats itself.

61) Comment by DMJ - 28/01/2013

Just curious... is any gun control needed? I mean... since there's really no such thing as an assault rifle and since the size of the clip doesn't matter... do we just do nothing? If only people were half as concerned about the victimds of gun violence as they are about their own guns. Here's the thing...in order for it to be easy for you to get your guns, it has to be easy for everyone and anyone to get the same guns. Do you at least concede this point?

62) Comment by Whatchange - 28/01/2013

It has now been found out that the assault weapon " WAS NOT" used in the shooting but was found in the trunk of the car as more than one video has shown and as MSNBC, CBS, and other news agencies reported, they also reported 4 handguns were found in the school building. Good thing Mr. Thompson is retired. I still don't believe the general public has any business owning any type of military weapon.

63) Comment by Whatnow - 28/01/2013

(http://videos.allinnra.com/share/a-defenseless-population.aspx#.UQa5_WfjCwR) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

64) Comment by Bighug - 28/01/2013

Most of the Iawyers I know are pretty nice people, but I couldn't help making a joke about the letter writer. I apologize to any nice lawyers who I may have offended

65) Comment by Sandy - 28/01/2013

The letter is foolish and disingenuous. 1) First of all, the proposed assault weapon ban DOES involve confiscation of your guns. If you already own an AR-15, you are allowed to keep it while you live, then it must be turned over to the government rather than passing it on to your heirs. That is confiscation in my world. 2) Fact: An assault weapon is both a gun and a weapon. As a baseball bat is both a piece of sporting equipment and a weapon. 3) Fact: An AR-15 is a very good home defense weapon (or gun, whichever you choose). 4) The Newtown massacre MAY have been accomplished with an "assault rifle", but it really doesn't matter. It could have just as easily been done with a single shot .22 pistol, because there was no one in that school to stop him. 5) The author of this letter has absolutely no idea what an assault rifle actually is. He just knows what he thinks one looks like. Notice he does not define what an assault weapon is anywhere in his rant. 6) Fact: His letter suggests that for an attorney, his grasp of constitutional law is pretty shaky.

66) Comment by nimby? - 28/01/2013

the more I'm reading that the AR 15 Bushmaster was not used in the Conn. school shootings , was found in a vehicle . if this is not true I'll say no more . if it is why would media outlets continue a hoax(lie) ? were they a biased accomplice to an agenda ? if this is true I've seen no retraction , front page or back .

67) Comment by HRoark - 28/01/2013

We'd be a much more tranquil society if the government would take all the guns away from the people who like them best and give them to the people who like them least.

68) Comment by mh1949 - 28/01/2013

Yes DMJ banning your so called ASSAULT WEAPONS & HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES would save lives like the gun bans in Chicago and D.C.. Strange as it may seem I know someone who has owned several of these dreaded weapons for probably 20 or so years and not one of them has murdered anyone. Of course you and your obamacrats could never understand how this could be possible.

69) Comment by DMJ - 28/01/2013

American criminals don't get weapons from the cartels. Cartels get their weapons from Americans (the vast majority of which do NOT come from the ATF). We need to regulate and track the sale of guns which, by the way, would not infringe on a single person's 2nd Amendment rights, as the right to SELL a gun is NOT constitutionally protected. Oh, and if the AR15 is not an assault rifle, why is it the preferred weapon in mass shootings (Aurora, Newtown, D.C. Sniper, firefighters in upstate NY)? Yes, banning assault rifles and large capacity magazines would most definitey save lives. True, regular street killings are mostly done by handguns, but mass shooters tend to prefer military-style assault rilfes and large capacity magazines. Jared Loughner was tackled as he dropped his gun while reloading. He had a 33 round magazine. Imagine how many lives might have been saved had be been tackled after only firing 10 shots. The guy in Aurora had a 100 round magazine. He shot 70 people. You really need a 33 or 100 round magazine for hunting or self-defense? Of course not.

70) Comment by Corvette Racer - 28/01/2013

In case no one has noticed, the second amendment has two clauses. The left leaning liberals only want us to pay attention to the first part of the sentance, the well regulated militia part. Please note that the second part of the sentance states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". This is two entirely separate statements. Now, on to "assault weapons" What defines an "assault weapon"? According to the previous ban, if it has two of the following, a removeble magazine, a pistol grip, an adjustable stock, a bayonet mount, it is an "asault weapon". I can take an AR-15, place a fixed stock and remove the pistol grip, and it is the exact same weapon, however it is no longer ruled an "assault weapon". How many people here believe that the AR in AR-15 means Assault Rifle? You would be surprised. AR is short for Armalite, the original manufacturer of the M-16, and it's legal sporting rifle cousin, the AR-15. Once again, the liberals want to ban "scary looking" weapons to save humanity. There were 24 killings in Chicago this weekend, the city with the toughest gun laws in America. How many were done with "assault weapons"? None. Banning so called "assault weapons" will not save a single life, because the criminals will not obey the law, and will just get their weaponse from the cartels, which by the way, obtained them from your US government, including Eric Holder, and your president.

71) Comment by Chucky - 28/01/2013

Stop the silly talk about grenades and shoulder fired missiles, citizens are not allowed (exception to all rules apply) even automatic guns, only semi auto. Clip size seems the big issue, the cosmetic is next, my shotgun can only have a certain barrel length not asking for shorter . Ammunition, heck citizens can use ammo that is band by the Geneva Convention and I do not see that changing. When we start talking about banning guns that are not banned now we start that erosion of gun rights.

72) Comment by gumbo33 - 28/01/2013

I so glad this issue is distracting EVERYONE from discussing real problems like the stagnant national and global economy and the rapidly declining public k-12 and higher education in our state.

73) Comment by DMJ - 28/01/2013

Great letter, Ron. Unfortunately, those who need to take it to heart never will. They've seen too many bad movies on cable, where they think a home invasion is imminent and not only will they be ready for it, but they'll need an AR 15 to properly defend themselves. Litmus test or sanity hearing, you ask? Sanity hearing. The 2nd Amendment has been twisted and warped so much over the past few decades that it no longer protects people; it endangers them. It goes way, way, way past the idea of personal gun ownership and now protects and shields dealers and manufacturers from even a modicum of accountability for the weapons of mass destruction they sell. Only when people put aside their childish fantasies of being their own one-man army and their selfish (and strange) desire to stockpile an arsenal for the heck of it and realize that public safety is at stake here, will we be able to do anything meaningful about the epidemic that is easy access to guns. Only then. Judging by some of the comments, I'd saw we're a ways off. People have allowed their fear to make them pawns of the gun industry. It's sad and it's dangerous.

74) Comment by phil - 28/01/2013

Chucky - I don't care to get into a word game about what a word game is. I suppose an assault weapon could also be classified as any weapon that is used to kill innocent people. Then we get back to asking if a hammer is an assault weapon if it is used to kill innocent people. I think this is a question of where to draw the line. I suppose hand grenades and rocket launchers could be classified as arms too, but most people would not want to see the average citizen own one. I personally do not know where to draw the line on this problem. However, I am also back to saying that some of these recent shootings have been by young people who should not of had access to any type of arms - at least not any more dangerous than a hammer.

75) Comment by Bwaites985 - 28/01/2013

Fact: An assault weapon is a type of gun. Fact: You are splitting hairs with the second amendment. Fact: You are obviously in favor of punishing law abiding citizens with your favorable opinion towards gun control legislation. Fact: Criminals don't follow the law. Fact: You will be upset when no assault weapon ban occurs. Fact: You will change your mind about gun control if you are ever in a situation where your life or the lives of ones you love are in danger and you need to have a gun. Fact: You are entitled to your opinion, I hope you just don't ever regret it.

76) Comment by Chucky - 28/01/2013

A word game would be , is the machine gun an assault weapon or is it a defensive weapon ? I believe it is how used.

77) Comment by tradewinns - 28/01/2013

popseal; be careful, lawyers know how to play to a father in law as well as a jury. the supreme court has ruled the 2nd amend. says we can have our weapons. that pretty much shoots down this argument. restricting this right may still be up for discussion, but the right remains. the letter writer has a few things going against him, first and foremost; he's a lawyer. in my dictionary that is defined as a bottom feeding piece of slim that developed from the excrement of whales in the deepest part of the ocean which holds truth as a sin and with money as its only god. i left out all the curse and more descriptive words due to the policy of this site.

78) Comment by phil - 28/01/2013

Chucky - so I see you actually get my point..

79) Comment by phil - 28/01/2013

Recent news in BR has been very sad. Children are being shot because folks cannot be responsible gun owners. That is one of the problems. If you own a gun, keep it out of the reach of children, keep it in a safe and secure place, and handle it properly.

80) Comment by Chucky - 28/01/2013

phil , It ( machine gun ) has GUN as part of it's name.

81) Comment by phil - 28/01/2013

I am not sure what to say about this assault weapon situation. However, is a machine gun actually a gun or is it an assault weapon? I think we are just playing a word game sometimes.

82) Comment by popseal - 28/01/2013

The only lawyer I like is the one that married my daughter. I've watched him for enough years to believe he is a moral man. The rest are self serving stinkers that withhold information that you're paying them to advise you about, thereby creating billabe hours to pay for their expensive leather brief cases. They make their money by creating "gray areas" that require long deliberation (more hours).

83) Comment by [e-mail] - 28/01/2013

Thompson's comments are a reflection of attempts to frame and demonize people who believe that the US Constitution adequately addresses this issue, i.e. "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear, and attempting to define certain arms as "assualt weapons that are not guns" is as ludicrous an assertion as ever was.

84) Comment by jdk944 - 28/01/2013

Mr. Thompson, your so called "facts" are just really "your opinion". I would encourage you to check out what was REALLY used at Sandy Hook. The latest information is that is was JUST hand guns. I would also encourage you to do research on what our Founding Fathers said about the 2nd Amendment. You know, the ones that WROTE the Constitution, etc. If you are going to write a letter, at least be honest about your agenda!!

85) Comment by agagent - 28/01/2013

Hammers and clubs are assault weapons, too. The FBI reports that more murders are committed with hammers and clubs than with rifles. Not only children but the anti-gun crowd should take an NRA firearms safety course before they display their lack of knowledge on the subject.

86) Comment by prbeav - 28/01/2013

Our militia need readiness to overthrow the oppressive government. Citizens! Nuclear arm yourselves!

87) Comment by Chucky - 28/01/2013

It appears that it is time for gun safety classes to be taught in schools at an early age.

88) Comment by Bighug - 28/01/2013

I'm still trying to figure out what the "terms of use" are for this site. In that last comment, I called someone a lawyer and it wasn't removed.

89) Comment by Bighug - 28/01/2013

Mr. Thompson had me puzzled for a minute. I've owned many types of guns over the years, and have done a little gunsmithing work. I thought I knew what a gun was, but he says an assault rifle isn't a gun. According to my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary it is, but then I realized that Ron is a lawyer. I think lawyers use a different dictionary.

90) Comment by postscript56 - 28/01/2013

It isn't the criminal element or the mentally ill who scare me. It's folks like Woody Jenkins - fearful, anxious little people who are convinced evil jack-booted government agents are trampling the consitution and confiscating weapons, who don't feel safe in their own homes unless they are curled up with their assault rifle. That's who scares me most.

91) Comment by ScotB - 28/01/2013

Since you are a lawyer, you should not object to a strict scrutiny standard to protect our Constitution. After all, lawyers are sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution, of which the 2nd amendment is an important part. Your facts are nothing more than straw man arguments that have no bearing on why our elected officials should consider a ban on "assault weapons" - a dubiously defined term at best. The .223 Bushmaster is an excellent weapon for home defense, not for hunting. It is designed to bring down people (because bears & mountain lions are not invading our homes), minimal barrel kick, without secondary damage from penetrating thru the target. A relatively light round compared to some, it may be necessary to use several rounds to disable an attacker. It may be necessary to use quite a few rounds to disable multiple attackers. It is within the capacity of most women to use proficiently, whereas a shotgun with a heavy round may not be.