BR gun sales rise on fear of upcoming restrictions

“Unfortunately, with the current administration and their knee-jerk reaction  to look at either banning or restricting the sale of firearms to law-abiding civilians,  it has gotten people uneasy.” Jim mcclain, owner of Jim’s Firearms

Kevin Reed spent his Wednesday afternoon examining the inventory at Jim’s Firearms on Siegen Lane.

Reed, a Michigan resident who is visiting family in Baton Rouge, said he wanted to see the selection before it disappears.

“I really wanted to come and see what was left on the shelf,” he said.

Reed and other firearm enthusiasts have been spending more time at Baton Rouge area gun stores and pawn shops, and the shop owners and employees are saying they have seen greater gun sales since the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn., on Friday.

Jim McClain, owner of Jim’s Firearms, said his store has seen an increase in sales, especially with “military-style weapons,” in recent days and weeks.

However, McClain said his shop usually sells more firearms around December because of Christmas shoppers.

He also said sales have gone up since President Barack Obama was re-elected Nov. 6.

Obama on Wednesday said he is asking a team led by Vice President Joe Biden to offer “concrete proposals” to curb gun violence no later than January, according to the Associated Press.

“Unfortunately, with the current administration and their knee-jerk reaction to look at either banning or restricting the sale of firearms to law-abiding civilians, it has gotten people uneasy,” McClain said.

“It’s unfortunate that a 20-year-old psychopath, who stole his guns after he committed a felony and made a horrendous act, is causing a nation to look at their freedoms and their gun rights,” McClain added, referring to Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman in the Connecticut shootings.

Reed said he owns a variety of guns, including multiple AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, for self-defense purposes. He teaches self-defense classes and is a National Rifle Association certified handgun instructor.

Reed said the country does not need more restrictive gun laws because the Second Amendment allows citizens to own firearms for self-defense.

“If you disarm the public, you’re leaving only the police with weapons, and the criminals, who won’t give them up,” Reed said.

Tommy Powell, president of BJ Pawn and Gun in Denham Springs, said gun sales have “definitely soared” in the past few days.

Powell said most of the guns sold have been semiautomatic rifles such as AR-15s and AR-10s.

He said his customers are worried about either losing their guns or being unable to purchase them later. He is worried tighter gun laws could lower his sales by 15 percent, Powell said. However, he said he does not see tougher gun legislation being passed immediately because of the lobbying power of the NRA.

“Guns have always been a large portion of my business,” Powell said. “We’ve already been trying to position ourself so that it doesn’t hurt as bad. But it’s going to hurt.”

Robert Rich, owner of Rich’s Coin and Gun on Monterrey Drive, said demand for all types of guns at his store has gone up “300 percent” since Friday.

Rich said he always sees an increase in demand at this time of year, but not at this level.

He said his customers, like others, are worried about losing their gun rights.

“It’s hard to say where exactly they (lawmakers) are going to pinpoint their target for banning or limiting purchase on guns,” Rich said. “They could approach it from several different angles. We really don’t know yet what the final legislation is.”

A number of other local gun sellers declined comment for this story, citing the sensitive nature of the issue.

Dick’s Sporting Goods has removed all guns from sale and display in its store nearest to Newtown, the company said in a statement on its website. It also has suspended sales of modern sporting rifles in all of its stores nationwide. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation website, a “modern sporting rifle” is a semiautomatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger.

Local managers for Dick’s could not be reached for comment.

In a related matter, “Sons of Guns,” the popular Discovery Channel reality TV show about Baton Rouge-based Red Jacket Firearms, is not scheduled to air anytime soon, Discovery Channel spokeswoman Amy Hagovsky said in a statement Wednesday.

“ ‘Sons of Guns’ is currently not on the schedule and it is not on the schedule in the near future,” Hagovsky’s statement said.

Hagovsky did not respond by press time to questions as to whether the show was put on hold because of the Connecticut tragedy. Representatives for Red Jacket Firearms also could not be reached for comment.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (154)


1) Comment by Caveman177 - 30/12/2012

Yes we can match the government why do you think the want our guns and to change laws for them they want as many off them out of our hands as possible. The population is greater then the military if we was to rise against them they couldn't stop us and they know this. And the whole thing about moving if you don't like these guns are want it to change you MOVE because last time I checked it is my right not a privilege to bare arms for whatever reason I are anybody else wants to for protection, fun, or just to say I have one. And on another note if you were to take them away what's next knives, bats, shovels, rakes. Charles Manson used a fork should we ban those too. Yes it was a horrible thing that happened at that school and should have never happened but with a sign hung out front that says " no guns" should have been a sign that said "come kill us we are defenseless ". I hope it never happens to you but if you are ever robbed tell them to wait so you can call 911 an the cops to get there. When I call 911 it's to tell the cops to come clean up. One last thing the Brady bill was past in 1994 till 2004 it worked so good it stop the shooting at columbine in 1999 that ban worked great any more great ideas.

2) Comment by Duckyluve - 22/12/2012

Nobama can't balance a budget yet he wants to worry about guns. The guns he needs to be worried about are the ones he authorized to smuggled across the Mexico border. Traitor

3) Comment by DMJ - 21/12/2012

It's funny how the NRA's answer always seems to involve more guns. If I didn't know any better, I'd suspect them of not caring at all about public safety and of only being concerned with selling guns. Nah...that couldn't be it...

4) Comment by wadep66 - 21/12/2012

Hilarious. The same folks supporting armed guards at every turn are paranoid that Customs and Border Patrol purchased bullets. WHATNOW: That total (UP to 200 million, not 750) was over a five year period, and Winchester is apparently very happy and bragging about it. It's posted on their website with the real information. The paranoid comments on the link you post further underscore who really lives in fear in this country: the gun hoarders. And Jim's firearms certainly has nothing to gain out of characterizing our current administration as "Knee Jerk" and "banning weapons to law-abiding citizens". I guess he forgot about all the folks who somehow got those once legal guns. Someone please explain how the law-abiders who buy these weapons never let them pass into the hands of non-law abiders. Someone is breaking the law who once "legally" owned those guns. What a bunch of paranoid sheep.

5) Comment by brhope - 21/12/2012

Well leave it to the NRA to suggest putting the same tool used to kill children in every school now. "We must scare..I mean protect the kids" How bout stop lobbying tools for death. Keep to the hunters and stop spreading your fear inducing marketing to promote purchases of fire arms. What mother needs five+ guns? But hey its our freedom and marketing in this country is perverting the true meaning of necessity.

6) Comment by DMJ - 21/12/2012

was not the AK, that is

7) Comment by DMJ - 21/12/2012

Yes, and Afghanistan has been a bastion of prosperity and peace ever since, hardly ever using those same weapons we gave them against us. Also, it was the AK that helped the Mujahadeen defeat the Soviet Union, it was anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. If only we could put a security guard in every school, mall, theatre and give them an RPG... THEN, we'd be safe...

8) Comment by Springer98 - 21/12/2012

Any of you thinking that an armed populace cannot take on a superpower & prevail, might not remember the U.S.S.R. invading Afghanistan. They had complete air superiority & much more sophisticated weaponry. The poorly armed Mujahideen, whose primary weapon was the AK 47, prevailed after 10 years. The U.S. military is about to leave the same place, without a victory. There probably weren't too many people betting on the small group of rebels in America, defeating the greatest military on earth in the late 1700's either.....

9) Comment by DMJ - 21/12/2012

I swear, if you look on the $20 bill, there's a guy in the bushes!!! What's he doing there?!?!

10) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 21/12/2012

from one of the "articles" to which whatnow linked: "The 1 year contract with four option years comes at a time when many Americans believe that DHS, along with certain aspects of the military, will soon turn their sights on the American people during some sort of martial law scenario." --- yes, a little paranoia goes a long way. The people who want more guns are the same people who believe this garbage.

11) Comment by DMJ - 21/12/2012

Whatnow, a little paranoia goes a long way. Try and spread it out a bit....

12) Comment by brhope - 21/12/2012

Whatnow_ They are coming to get us! We need to buy more guns that will do nothing against them, but gosh darnit we need more guns! One can never have too many guns that will NEVER be use for its intended purposes. We NEED to stand up for a document written 200+ years ago, even tho technology has led the way for changes. We must live our lives in FEAR of two things Jesus and the government, and spread this fear to anyone who will listen. Let me know next time a mass shooting happens, I want to be the first one in line at the gun store the next day. Cause nothing says gun sales like a shooting and necessary fear.

13) Comment by Whatnow - 21/12/2012

CountryAttorney, I agree. The government has already infringed on our right to choose with the enforcement of Obamacare and lightbulbs. They tried it with food, and the kids did the right thing. They wouldn't bite. Little by little they infringe on our Constitutional rights as individuals. They spy on us constantly through our social media. http://rt.com/usa/news/nsa-whistleblower-binney-drake-978/ The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. In the last three years numerous domestic US government agencies have ordered a total of over 750 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition. (http://theintelhub.com/2012/04/05/the-us-government-has-ordered-over-750-million-rounds-of-40-caliber-hollow-point-ammunition-in-the-last-three-years/) Who are they planning to shoot?

14) Comment by brhope - 21/12/2012

Since when can I take down an elephant with a slingshot. Cause that is what it will be like for those who think they can take on a "tyrannical government" with their "STORE BOUGHT" "AS SEEN ON TV" semi auto AR-PeaShooter.

15) Comment by old yat - 21/12/2012

Correct me if I am wrong but most gun control advocates are left of center Liberals. They want to outlaw guns to stop the killing of innocent human beings however they are the same folks that are Pro-Choice and are okay with abortion. What about the thousands of innocent lives that are lost that way every year. I know I am getting old but did I miss something here?Maybe MBW could explain how you can be both Anti-Gun and Pro-Choice and how is Anti-Gun Pro-life,it is wrong to use a gun to take a life but okay to use a medical procedure!! Call it what you want,murder is murder,born or unborn, they are both human beings.Can someone please explain to me the difference between the two? God Bless&Happy Holidays to all !!!

16) Comment by nimby? - 21/12/2012

MBW , maybe . both are with the same thought : you like what you have and don't want someone to take it , simple .

17) Comment by 1ryben - 21/12/2012

People do defend the first amendment, all the time. That being said, yes there are restrictions to free speech because words to harm. Everyone agrees with the fact that words can harm. Therefore in order to protect the populous we do restrict certain forms of speech. I don't understand the resistance to admit to the harm that guns do. Guns can and do harm why not restrict certain types of gun ownership to protect the same populous? I truly do not understand how anyone would be against this and believe me, I'm trying.

18) Comment by 1ryben - 21/12/2012

What's with this fear of the government stuff? Are you really serious? You really think there is a chance that the government of the USA will suddenly turn against the people? And if they do, what will your Bushmaster do? That's neither here not there because NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS! What myself and like minded individuals are proposing is a better, more responsible way to insure proper gun ownership and use.

19) Comment by MBW - 21/12/2012

@nimby? ---- Locking the doors to one's house or car is a simple precaution that doesn't risk harm to anyone. Far different than packing heat.

20) Comment by nimby? - 21/12/2012

just a thought ; when you leave home do you lock the doors/windows , arm the alarm . do you do the same after parking your car ? does your wife/daughter take precautions walking to their vehicle at night ? why , there is nothing to fear ...

21) Comment by MBW - 21/12/2012

Now, if only people would defend the 1st Amendment as forcefully as they defend the 2nd.

22) Comment by MBW - 21/12/2012

It's pro-life to be anti-gun. Period.

23) Comment by MBW - 21/12/2012

Abortion isn't the reason we have a culture of death in this country...it's guns. When we need guns to feel safe or powerful, that's a sign of a larger problem.

24) Comment by MBW - 21/12/2012

Guns are inconsistent with a "culture of life".

25) Comment by CountryAttorney - 21/12/2012

Who here thinks that the second amendment was written to preserve hunting, or target shooting? I didn't know them personally, but I don't believe the framers of the Constitution were interested in people having fun with guns. The second amendment is about self preservation...it is meant to provide individuals with a means for protecting themselves from criminals, yes, but more importantly it is meant to provide individuals with a means of protecting themselves from a tyrannical government. So no, DMJ, and all the rest, I don't need a Bushmaster for self defense in the home. I need it, and have a right to it, just in case the government tries to remove my liberties. At this point, the government is very very close.

26) Comment by Chucky - 21/12/2012

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

27) Comment by Chucky - 21/12/2012

I like naked arms and why would you cover them up ?

28) Comment by NearBarbarian - 20/12/2012

Divining the meaning of the 2nd Amendment without taking into account its eighteenth-century/Enlightenment context, is like divining the Mayan calendar without speaking Mayan or understanding Mayan theology. Fortunately, unlike the Mayan calendar, we have A LOT of clues about the world view of the philosphs who founded this country. First, we know that they intended for the Constitution to be a provisional work in progress, shaped by the needs of "the living, not the dead," to borrow Tom Paine's words from Vindication of the Rights of Man. Second, the eighteenth-century connotation for "People" is different than the late-twentieth and twenty-first centuries' connotation. The Constitutional Convention crowd used the term to mean the aggregate land-owning population, the nation; they did not usually mean individuals. Third, the latter point leads to this one: many of the founders did not trust everyday people in the lower-case. Hence the dismissal of direct democracy for a representative government, hence the favor given to land-owning elites, and hence restrictions on suffrage. Extend that attitude to the 2nd Amendment, and you'll strike closer to its intentions. Fortunately for us, because of the Declaration of Independence, the spirit of the Revolutionary Enlightenment principles, and the purposeful open-endedness of the Constitution, Americans have been able to address the the vagueries and flaws that the founders could not and/or would not. That being said, though, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were also carefully composed in ways that would force future generations of citizens to deliberate amongst themselves about what those documents mean. In other words, they left us the admittedly challenging task of deciding the character, virtues, and values of the United States. With that in mind, if something is not working--such as laws related to our use of weapons--then it must be changed. If something endangers the greater good, we are obligated to confront it through our democratic process. In our context, if gun owners--who, by the way, have the most powerful lobbyists in D.C.--are not willing to enter a good faith dialogue with their fellow citizens about what is one of the most significant public safety matters of our time, then the other citizens must appeal to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government to intervene. The last sentence probably inspires some to buy SMGs, RPGs, and anti-aircraft guns--which is pitiful and disconcerting, to say the least. In spite of all the Ted-Nugent-style histrionics, guns for personal protection and hunting will NEVER be outlawed in this country. However, does it seem necessary to regulate guns at least as much as cold medicine and drivers licenses? Yes. Beyond that, we should really be talking about roots of so many of America's problems: glorification of violence (at all levels of our culture), a general sense of entitlement/exceptionalism, the relationships between gender constructs and power, socio-economic expectations and inequality, a growing sense of alienation among individual Americans, increasing tribalism, and so forth. Regardless, any discussion and action on any of those matters must be situated in historical and socio-cultural context--all of which entails a great amount of self-critique and good faith amongst those involved. On that note, the majority of Americans (including a large contingent of the pro-gun crowd) were willing to declare a multi-billion dollar war on most of the eastern hemisphere, to create a whole new government agency and cabinet position (DHLS), and sacrifice an inordinate amount of their civil liberties because of an extremely rare but extremely horrific attack on the Atlantic seaboard in 2001. One wonders, then, at the resistance to deal honestly with a rare--but less rare--occurrence that is threatening not only the lives of those killed or maimed by gun violence but also the sense of security and community across the nation. Home grown terrorism is no less dangerous than terrorism coming from elsewhere; and the methods of inflicting terror are integral to any terrorist's act. To quote from Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach," "let us be / True to one another."

29) Comment by Whatnow - 20/12/2012

Spud, You also spoke a lot of racist mishmosh, but I do have to consider the source, I suppose. Gun control has not been good for the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party knows it. The Democratic Party paid a heavy price for 1994's gun control legislation: Sixty two Congressional seats. That's what they lost in the mid-term election that year. I'm sure they remember, but don't worry, they will be reminded.

30) Comment by julwood - 20/12/2012

The gun-loving, flag-waving "patriots" are always ready, on a moment's notice, to overthrow the government. Warped sense of patriotism.

31) Comment by Chucky - 20/12/2012

Am i

32) Comment by ScotB - 20/12/2012

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Pretty simple. The government is constitutionally prohibited from infringing on our right to own arms. In "District of Columbia vs Heller" the Supreme Court ruled the second amendment protects an individual's right to possess arms. Not surprising, since the intent of the amendment was to protect the people from the state, which they acknowledged was necessary to keep armed as well via its militia. I carry a gun because carrying my own policeman is too heavy.

33) Comment by Springer98 - 20/12/2012

Also, if you have a concealed handgun permit, you do have to prove that you can safely handle the gun. You have to shoot at the range, quite a few rounds to qualify for the initial permit & also every time you renew it. If you have anything worse than a traffic ticket on your record, the State Police will not issue you a permit.

34) Comment by Springer98 - 20/12/2012

1ryben Just to clarify your comment about air guns being used in the Olympics, yes they are used in the Olympics, but you make it sound as if they are the only ones used. Also used in competition are .22 short & .22 long rifle, .32 acp & 12 gauge shotgun, 2 3/4" #8 shot, for skeet shooting.I also have an air rifle (that I've had over 50 years). Kind of hard to punch holes in paper at 300 yards with an air rifle, though. If you find one that will do it, please let me know, as pellets are so much cheaper than high powered rifle cartridges! Thanks!!

35) Comment by Whatnow - 20/12/2012

Bouncer, the only shooting sprees in Louisiana have been in the hoods just about everyday in New Orleans and Baton Rouge. Bubba doesn't live in da hood.

36) Comment by localgal - 20/12/2012

This country does not have a gun problem, it has a stupidity problem. Want to know what's just as deadly as an AR-15? Someone texting while driving. If there are people who really think they can text and drive at the same time, how in the world do you expect them to reason out how our gun laws should be changed, which guns should be banned and how guns should be handled period. We could not stop Timothy McVea. He used fertilizer. Son of Sam used a revolver. If someone is as disturbed as Adam Lanza, he/she will find a way to kill people---with a bomb, poison, a hunting bow, a rifle with a scope like what happened at the University of Texas. Turns out that guy had a brain tumor. And never mind the statistics from Australia and England. Australia has only a 10th of the population of the United States. And England's murder rate still went up after they banned guns. Not gun deaths, but murder in general. And what about those who were killed at Virginia Tech? No they weren't children, but they, too, had mothers and fathers. President Bush himself signed a law strengthening the provisions of the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) in 2008 in response to the Tech shootings. A death is a death, whether it's an adult or a child. It's shocking whenever it happens, but rushing to change gun laws or anything related to them because of the emotions involved, just for the sake of saying we did something is not going to help. Rational, reasoned approaches are what are needed here, not extreme reactions one way or the other.

37) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

No one said ban all guns!!! Not even your favorite non-assault semi-auto. If you kill with it or not, it is a machine designed for killing. If its all about target shooting an air rifle breaks paper too. And they use those in the Olympics. None of us say responsible folks shouldn't own guns. The trick is to try to limit the amount of irresponsible folks that get access. Right now the only competency test happens at the point of first purchase with a cursory background check. Is there anything else? Do you have to prove you can safely handle the thing? You know, like we do for cars? You should have to regularly prove your competency.

38) Comment by Chucky - 20/12/2012

Give up your gun for bread and let the BRAVE get you a job , sorry DMJ just being stupid today , Happy Yule and all that ,

39) Comment by Springer98 - 20/12/2012

I agree with you nimby? I have never been in fear while carrying concealed. When a person gets on up in age, it's not nearly as easy to defend yourself with your bare hands, as when you are young. As you stated, being aware of your surroundings is your best defense.

40) Comment by nimby? - 20/12/2012

anytime an incident such as this happens the first responses from the left are to ban all guns , so the right responds to this . closing loopholes , tighter restrictions will help . those who play by the rules will have lost a bit of freedom thanks to those who don't . being aware of your surroundings , cognizant of the situation is not "living in fear" , it's being smart .

41) Comment by Springer98 - 20/12/2012

DMJ, you are correct, I should have included "stupid". When I punch holes in paper, I have a very adequate backstop,in the form of a large dirt mound. If you think it's a bad idea to own a gun, it probably is for you to own one. I've owned guns for 6 decades & have never hurt a single person. You see, my dad trained me well in the rules of gun safety, as did his dad before him. Being that you mentioned stats & responded to almost everything that I stated, why didn't you respond to my statement on black on black killings, that dominate our news almost daily?

42) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Springer, your comment reminds me of that guy a few years ago who couldn't find his drill, so he used his gun to punch a hole in the wall of his trailer so he could mount his TV....and in the process, killed his wife who was standing outside. The guy wasn't bad...or unstable. You forgot to add "stupid" to the list of character traits that make owning a gun a bad idea. If only we had tests to see who was bad, unstable or stupid before they could buy a gun (facetious). Instead, we have a test after....which is when someone gets shot. Laws aside...it's a bad idea to own a gun. Chances are, it'll be used for harm rather than self-defense. The stats couldn't be clearer. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

43) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 20/12/2012

So see, if everyone had a gun , murders would go down. Its that simple. As more and more people were killed, there would less to shoot and the murder rate would drop.Simple. Obviously, the symbol of the Cross resembles a sword which in olden times was a substitute for a gun so God himself endorses guns, which are great sport as seen on TV! But really, the idea that guns are made for killing things is such a myth, I myself like to take potshots at nothing in particular in my backyard to amuse myself, haven't killed anyone yet. Plus, in a pinch, guns are great for pushing burgers around on the barbeque. How could such a benign tool ever be used for killing things and people? The whole guns are made for killing conspiracy is an invention of the gun manufacturers in order to get people to buy them but is just a marketing ploy, don't be fooled.

44) Comment by Springer98 - 20/12/2012

It seems that a lot of folks see guns as 'killing machines'. I have several guns that have never spilled a drop of blood (human or animal). Don't you people realize that many guns are used for sporting purposes? Target shooting, skeet shooting, just punching holes in paper is fun! Heck, even the Olympics has shooting competition. My guns & ammo are locked safely away in a gun safe, except the one I carry legally daily. A gun is also a solid investment. Every gun that I have ever owned, has increased in value. Guns are only bad in the hands of a bad or unstable person. If you could take away black on black killings with guns, the statistics in the U. S. wouldn't look nearly as bad. You don't believe this? Just look at the homicides map that is published daily in this paper!

45) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Let's not pretend guns aren't more lethal than other conventional weapons. (the old "let's ban baseball bats" argument and such...)

46) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Speaking of China, the same day as the massacre in Newton, some guy in China lost his marbles and decided to kill a bunch of kids. He couldn't get a gun, so he used a knife and stabbed 23 people. Everyone survived. Everyone shot in the Newton massacre died. Turns out, the guy had been taught how to use a firearm very effectively by his parent. Something to think about...

47) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

Well, I think we all know who will be the first to go when the Zombie apoclypse happens. At least I will have a chance. :)

48) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

@brhope: The 20 children being shot for no reason whatsoever was a horrible tragedy done by a horrible man. But, what I find tragic is that it seems the world, even CHINA...yes CHINA, has to say something about America's killings only for incidents like this. And I find that tragic because people are shot and killed daily but get no attention whatsoever because it is not "newsworthy." Like they die and the world just does not care. That, I find tragic..

49) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

To Bill Paxton: it doesn't.

50) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Real mature, Chucky. Very substantive.

51) Comment by Bill Paxton - 20/12/2012

Where and how does the black on black crime fit into this discussion?

52) Comment by Chucky - 20/12/2012

OK , all my guns have been loaded with sugar and spice with no powder or primer. I scraped all my knives till dull and d-fanged the dogs can I come back into society? Or i am still stupid and un-armed ?

53) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

Again, if YOU don't trust the government, YOU move. You will never match the firepower of the government of the USA. (Now tell me about the Afghan rebels keeping our soldiers at bay again using donkeys and slingshots, that argument won't work either)

54) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

What's the saddest of all...is that people are more upset about a hypothetical future threat to owning guns than about the actual tragedies that spark these debates. Very sad.

55) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

speaking of the car vs. gun thing... when people die in cars, does anyone say that we should drive MORE in order to be safe? Something to think about next time someone's queuing up that particular false analogy.

56) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

At the end of the day it not about socialism or freedoms. Look people, kids were killed. With weapons that were marketed to the scared masses who are dumb enough to believe every threat they hear on the radio and tv that its going to happen to them. Guns are evil devices and we have crazy people in this world. I trip and fall sometimes, but I dont walk around with a helmet on my head all the time. Stuff happens

57) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Also...if "the government" wanted to take away our guns or kill anyone not willing to give them up, they could. The U.S. military is the most advanced, largest and deadly in the world by far- more than all other militaries combined, in fact. Moreoever, the military is not composed of robots or aliens; they're americans just like us. They wouldn't do this for 2 reasons: 1. no one's asking them to 2. I'm sure lots of them are pro-gun rights too. In fact, I know they are. So, for the sake of reasoned, intelligent debate, let's stop pretending that anyone is suggesting banning all guns by force of "the government." It's distracting and counterproductive.

58) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

The automobile is not designed to kill. Guns have but one purpose, kill. We regulate cars more than guns and these regulations have saved lives. We have not, nor will not end all auto accidents and deaths but there is no doubt the dramatic decrease in auto deaths. Remember when seat belts was an option. When people though seat belts would cause more deaths? What about the Pinto? It only blew up when hit from the rear. It's not the Pinto's fault right, it was the irresponsible driver of the car that rear ended the Pinto. Cars don't kill people, right? Again, we didn't ban the automobile, only took action to make it safer. And those those that do not meet the safety regulations are no allowed to be sold or imported here. The NTSB does not allow you nor into own any auto we wish. The second amendment does not grant you the right to own any gun you wish either, nor does it state you can own said guns free of regulation.

59) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Devolving again into a all-out ban vs. zero restrictions debate? As if there were no other choices. Now we're quoting Jefferson, as if he could predict what impact the 2nd Amendment would have on today's society back in the 1700s? Jefferson's dead. Who cares? Talk about pointless... We don't have to have brownshirts taking away all guns (as if that what's anyone wants and as if that were even remotely possible, logistically) in order to have sensible gun controls. Let's try and keep our eye on the ball, folks.

60) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

Technology will lead to socialism. You see what I put on the end of that sentence? PERIOD

61) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

What do i need to read and comprehend? All I know is i can walk into a gun store buy a gun that (by my hands or someone that stole it from me) can kill many innocent lives very fast. Now argue for the need or "right" for that. Dont tell me I need to bare arms to protect myself from gov. The same gun that kills kids that anyone can buy will do NOTHING to stop a so called "tyrannical gov." in today's times. So I dont buy into the whole protect your freedoms with pee shooters argument. If the gov. wants to come get everyone, guess what people, we loose. Guns or no guns.

62) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

Yes, if the government wants to take total control of us they can. At any second. They have MUCH better and deadlier weapons than we do. And I do not say I fear that they would ever do that. I think that at least, like a criminal considering breaking into my home, they would think twice about it. If we had no guns, they could do all they wanted without fear of ever being shot. That to me is a scary thought. It just takes one determined person to want to do that. Look at Hitler. Back then, not one person ever expected him to turn out the way he did when he was elected. Once again, for me, that is not a reason I own a gun. I own guns to hunt and to protect myself if someone breaks in when I am home. That is all. And even then, I would hate the fact I had to shoot someone afterwards, but if I see a man in my home holding a gun, I wouldn't think twice about it. And when kids do come over, trust me, my guns go right into my bedroom closet and locked shut with a pad lock and then I close my doors to my room and make sure they do not go near that door. I am super protective when it comes to that. Granted though, I will pull out my pellet gun sometimes and let the kids shoot cans, just like my father did for me. Standing over their shoulder the entire time.

63) Comment by Winkchance - 20/12/2012

brhope, You just made my point. The founding fathers were protecting the people from the governement because they had seen how governemnt could enslave the populaces if not armed. They had watched what had happened in Europe and they wanted the people of this new nation to be truly free of tyranny. For some reason you favor the governement control over your own freedom, which only leads me to think you are a socialist. If so, a constitutional republic,as is this country, does not seem to suit you. You should consider a socialist country that would better suit your needs as subject since you are willing to give up your rights as a citizen.

64) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

What about the well regulated portion of the amendment? Again I nor others are trying to take away the right of gun ownership. Well regulated, that's all I'm asking for. Someone will point out the hundreds, maybe thousands of gun laws currently on the books, a million laws will not equal well regulated. C'mon, seriously, banning all guns is not the answer nor is arming everyone so what is the right thing to do? Quit spouting the talking points. Seriously, keep an open mind. Until recent discussions I was very pro second amendment, everyone should own whatever gun they wish, the responsibility lies with the person holding the gun, etc. Now, I'm not so sure. If you want to own a machine whose sole purpose is to kill then you most prove you are capable of that responsibility.

65) Comment by Winkchance - 20/12/2012

1ryben, 4 times as many poeple are killed by alcohol and vehicles each year. How are they anymore "killing machines" than firearms. And to correct a statement earlier, owning a car is not a right addressed in the constituion at all where bearing arms is addressed there so your argument is truly flawed because you are comparing apples to oranges.

66) Comment by Winkchance - 20/12/2012

BR hope, you need to read and comprehend, teh citizenry have the same rights as the common soldier. There are no soldiers running around with nuclear missles. Simialrly, back in the 1700s the common citizenry did not own cannons, they also did not own frigates, or have a calvary at their disposal. They had rifles, pistols and swords the likes of the regular soldier.

67) Comment by Winkchance - 20/12/2012

1ryben, to answer your question - another knee jerk/feel good reaction by legislators because of the actions of criminals. If you think that is wrong than you are right. Criminals still get the drugs illegally and still make meth. So the regulation has done nothings. This idea that additional regulatiosn for criminals to ignore is somehow and aswere is just foolish. Does not work with medication, will not and has not worked with firearms. There was a gun ban from 1994-2004 and there were numerous mass killings on school campuses with AR 15s and explosives and knives and hand guns etc. Columbine, the evident that anti gun folks point to was in 1999 and no "assault rifle" was used. The same in Paducah, Ky and countless other locations.

68) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

Wink_ Right on. But here is the BUT. I dont have the right to own a nuclear weapon, but the government does. I dont have the right to own a tank, but the gov does. I dont have the right to own drones, or land mines or i could go on. But the government has all these so called "rights" Sure I can go buy 20 AR-15s but that wont even dent a tank or shoot down planes. So this "protection from the government" argument is irrelevant. Do you really think an established government wants it people to be equal in military power? Hey it was a pie in the sky idea, and given the times a great one, but like Dylan said, the times are a changing.

69) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

There needs to be much higher standards for owning a killing machine than a car. Yes, let's have a sort of gun title and teach its sale. At every sale there should be a background check, mental competency, certification exam. I also believe that if you own a killing machine you are reasonably responsible for seeing that it does not get stolen.

70) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

Now, I do agree with you 1ryben a little, maybe teaching people to respect a gun and how to properly use it, just like getting a drivers license may be good. I would accept that only if they implement a law requiring a license to have kids. Many parents have kids and have no idea how to raise, treat or respect them and therefore they grow up to be murderers, either in gang fights or in schools. BUt, back to your idea of standards of holding a gun, that was taught to me by my dad when I was a young boy. Rule one, you pick a gun up or get one handed to you, no matter what, you check to see if it is loaded...even if your friend handed one to you right after he checked. Rule two, even if you know for a fact a gun is unloaded, NEVER point it at anyone, unless someone is attacking you or something. Main rule for me when we went hunting (using a 12 guage when I was 9), never shoot eye level. There could be someone on the other side of the bush in front of you. Simple rules that SANE and civilized people follow. The crazies make us all look bad. Like the earlier comment saying crazy white men do these types of mass murders so, people see a white man with a gun, they think he is capable of doing such horrors. And that is like saying that the black men in this city who kill daily represent all young black men. You can't compare them together.

71) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 20/12/2012

Most police forces didn't rear their ugly heads until well after the founding of this once-great Republic.

72) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

Again, my questions go unanswered.

73) Comment by Winkchance - 20/12/2012

Again to help clarify for those who have not read a history book or actually comprehend the written language - There were police forces when the 2nd Amendment was written, as well as a standing army and well developed cities up and down the east coast free from "roving bands." (really?) The second amendment addresses 2 items and seperates these in the context of the amendment. 1. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Constitutional scholars all agree that there are 2 points being made here - that a state militia is necessary to protect the state and that the citizens have the right to bear their own arms. The founding fathers were very clear about both these intents and you can find it in all fo their writings. The second amendment gave the citizens the right to protect themselves equal to the state. "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." Zachariah Johnson "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

74) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 20/12/2012

Please, do us all a favor, read the United States code where it defines "militia."

75) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

By the way, the term "militia" IS used in the 2nd Amendment. You in a militia, anyone? No? Didn't think so. (by the way, marchiafava's one-man militia where he sits around in a bomb shelter eating MREs reading survival magazines doesn't count)

76) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Look...keep your guns. Hell, buy more of 'em (actually, don't. please.) But keep them secure. Don't keep them in your car like a moron. Don't sell them to someone you don't know and trust. Be smart about it. Can we at least agree on that much?

77) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

That stupid $100 per word" thing again? Ugh. We've been through this... There ARE limits to free speech when it comes to public safety. There are also limits to free press and freedom of religion. And the going door to door to get the guns?? Why go through the trouble of making up an imagined threat that no one has suggested, then ridiculing it? And what if I was attacked?? By a gunman? I'd probably be shot. You see....if someone was going to randomnly shoot me, It'd be a pretty big surprise, so I probably wouldn't be expecting it, gun or no gun. You mean to tell me you walk around armed all the time expecting an attack? What kind of life this that? No thanks. I feel safe enough...with no gun. You should try a little less fear in your diet. You might like it.

78) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

About tracking guns and the government knowing everyone who has one in the name of public safety: I have an idea that people do not want that just in case, as it is possible at any second, the military and the president decide to throw the constitution out the window. They would know exactly who has guns and they would go to each owner and get every gun out of that house. Then if we were "allowed" to continue our lives mostly the way we do now a few things would happen. The criminals would still have their guns and could rob any home without fear of being shot and those robberies would increase 100 fold almost over night and those same criminals could then "take over" neighborhoods by putting the people who live there in fear that they would be shot if they did not pay up. They would never call the police because then there would probably be people killed to instill more fear. OR worse, you say something bad about the new government, you would most likely be shot because the government would have no fear of doing so. Who will stop them? The people with their knives and bats? Dictators a created when the population has no way to defend itself. Hence, what the founding fathers were getting at. You may say, that would never happen... but I would almost guarantee you in most countries where guns are banned, the people may feel safe around each other, but I would almost guarantee that they fear their government. Look when the leader of N Korea died recently, I would make a good solid bet that a lot of those people balling crying were doing so in fear of the result of not looking very sad. You may say that would never happen here, but all it takes is one person to think otherwise and see the opportunity. NOW, as far as an AR-15 that I can go buy, it is merely a rifle that LOOKS just like the military weapons. They are not fully automatic, just like a "normal" hunting rifle. It just looks cool. Even some hunting rifles have clips as well. And DMJ, you say 30 round clips were an issue. OK, what is a good number? 15? 10? 5?

79) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 20/12/2012

Yes, cars ARE a right, as is ALL private property. Don't you already know that?

80) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Here's a little raw data. No spin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

81) Comment by The_Host - 20/12/2012

Please point out to me where the term "Muskets" is used in the 2nd Amendment. You keep referencing cars and registration, cars are not a right are they? You can track and trace and do anything you want the point is when someone goes off all you will be doing is investigating after the fact. I would prefer to be armed before the fact and that just might shorten the investigation. DMJ you seem to think others hold no regard for their own personal safety and have no right to defend themselves. If you are attacked DMJ what will you use to defend yourself? And I am still waiting to see if you are cool with paying $100 per word you say to have free speech under the first amendment. Or if you will be front and center to go door to door getting those evil guns away from all those evil people. Lets say you track a gun that was legally purchased and then stolen. What has tracking that gun given you to now retrieve it? Nothing thats what.

82) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

Its funny how the people who call people sheeple, usually all think the same.

83) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

Mark_If the right to own slaves were in the constitution, would you still be in support of it, or can I use it to wipe with now?

84) Comment by Chucky - 20/12/2012

DMJ - Black powder musket ? that is a start, but i can reload faster than you cus i have two, and practice.

85) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 20/12/2012

Why did the founders even bother to debate and write the constitution and bill of rights if today's intentionally dumbed down Amerikan sheeple are just going to use those documents for toilet tissue?

86) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

Well this has been a good board. I like hearing from the scared fox news watching crowd every now and then to remind why im not like that. We will not be worrying about this 20 years or so from now. Children's minds are what is needed to control the masses. So when these kids grow up they are going to have a life of being scared and hopefully educated on the harms/benefits of fire arms. 20 years ago homosexuality was major taboo. Now due to educating and informing the young about it a new level of tolerance is being welcomed. We grew up drink colas and eating really bad food. Did we know better? Maybe? But now kids are more and more aware of the dangerous foods that are out there and beginning to avoid them. So with all this awareness in schools and with parents, over time the tolerance for firearms will diminish.

87) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

You got that right, Mark...probably not in the way you meant it, but still...

88) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 20/12/2012

DMJ claims below "we're not morons." After reading all these posts, I'm not so sure.

89) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

I asked this on an earlier article and received no explanations. Why is it that I can buy as much ammunition as I please but have a limit on allergy medications? Why can we limit first amendment rights but not second amendment rights?

90) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

For the record, I'd be ok with everyone having a top-loading musket with no background check or waiting period.

91) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Ben Around, first of all....heh? The musket was the AR15 of its day?? hahahaahah!!! The technology was little better than a potato gun. In fact...it's about the same. My point is this... the 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there were no police forces, no National Guard, when there were roving bands of hostile natives, deserters from the British military. The "best military in the world" wore red coats and stood in straight lines as well. Times change. The Constitution changes. Either we can be literalist/orgininalists and say that only those in a well-regulated militia can have a gun, or we can be realistic and realize that historical context should be taken into account when considering laws. If we didn't do that, black people and women couldn't vote (Romney would have won, as well. lol). But we don't do that, because we're not morons. The Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment gives anyone the right to carry a gun. Fine. But rights aren't unlimited, especially when it comes to public safety. There are limits to the right to free speech and freedom of the press as well. You can't practice a religion if it interferes with public safety. Why should gun ownership be any different, especially considering the enormous human cost that is the direct result of easy access to firearms??

92) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

"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 to the Constitution of the United States of America. There it is in black and white WELL REGULATED. Oh and for the purposes of a militia in order to protect the free state (government). I see no mention of personal protection.

93) Comment by Ben Around - 20/12/2012

Oops, make that "Hey"

94) Comment by Ben Around - 20/12/2012

Hay DMJ, perhaps yopu should study the history of firearms. The musket was the AR 15 of its day. It was state of the art technoligy. The best military in the world was armed with it. Were you trying to prove our point for us, or was that just an accident?

95) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

"The first thing the British did before the revolution was confiscate muskets." Exactly...muskets. Not AR 15s, not Glocks, not Tech 9s... You trying to prove our point for us, or was that an accident?

96) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

"You do realize that once I buy a gun at a store, I can sell it and that sale doesn't have to be reported either?" You're absolutely right. That's another huge problem right there. If we don't track weapons, how would we even hope to reduce the risk that criminals get their hands on them? Answer: we don't. That's why we lead wealthy nations in gun ownership, sales and the subsequent homicides. All guns are legal at some point. Weapons used in crimes get recovered. We need to figure out where they came from. If we do, patterns emerge and we can actually...hold on....prevent crime. You're right...this wouldn't prevent a wackjob from going postal up in a school or office, but you know what would reduce the carnage? Preventing that guy from getting certain types of guns and ammo in the first place. If Lanza or Loughner would have had to reload before getting off 30 rounds, more people would be alive.

97) Comment by Ben Around - 20/12/2012

brhope has a point. But, I think they call it asymmetrical warfare, you know that thing that's been kicking conventional armies butts all over the worl for decades. And about Winkchance's comment; you don't need to study a whole lot of history. That reference in the second amendment to militia tells you what kind of weapons the founders had in mind.

98) Comment by Chucky - 20/12/2012

Ben Around - Now we are talking ! My neighbor has no gun so why should me ? In fact i just got rid of all my matches so no more fire how about that for safe, and i cut off my water so no more drowning, No nukes and no mean dogs ! Hey will turn in my BB gun for work.

99) Comment by Winkchance - 20/12/2012

People really need to study history and understand it. The 2nd amendment was put in place to give the citizenry the right to defend themselves against their government and tyranny. When written, the citizenry had the right to own the same arms as those carried by soldiers and militia – something not allowed in most countries and only afforded to the wealthy or soldiers. So as a citizen, without this right, you were at the mercy of the person with the weapons. So moving forward in time, the citizens continue to have the same rights to bear the same arms as the soldier or police officer. It is that simple. You cannot defend yourself against your government and tyranny if they have modern weapons and yours are 50 years old or greater. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with bravado, hunting or skill and everything to do with your ability to protect yourself, your family and your rights. The first thing the British did before the revolution was confiscate muskets in Boston.

100) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

Wink_ you are right. I will throw a but in there. All the weapons that i can buy legally or illegally would do nothing to a ATF tank or SWAT tank or an attack drone. Yes we are allowed to protect ourselves, but do people really think they can protect themselves from the Gov. I cant buy a tank, or rocket launchers, or EMP devices, or thermal imagining from a satellite. Citizens will never be able to compete with government in an arms race. They learned that during the rev war. "We won by having the same arms as military" We better not let the people have better stuff than us from now on if we want to keep this new power." Come on. Give up on the arming yourselves for protection. Take that money and feed the needy, educate the uneducated, help the sick, make your life revolve around love not fear.

101) Comment by Being_Stupid - 20/12/2012

Spudaroonski, nobody is stopping you from moving to North Korea where you belong.

102) Comment by Ben Around - 20/12/2012

Hey, Chucky may be on to something! He just doesn't go far enough. Let's ban private ownership of anything. No one will have a gun to shoot anyone with. You could check out a knife from the government property clerk if you needed to open a box (under close supervision, of course). If your clothes were issued by the government, no one would want to steal them. They'd have the same thing. We could all ride on public transit, so no one could steal your car (you wouldn't have one). Oh, and there'd be no high-speed chases! Man, the more I think about this, the better it gets! Everyone could live in government run appartments all packed together in big cities (good for the environment). The furnishings would all be identical so no one would have to take they from you. Since the government would supply all your needs, there would be no need to get a pay check (no check fraud). You would just work a whatever job the government office of civil employment assigned you to. It would be utopia!

103) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

We talk about "rights" and "legalities" well think about this. I have the "right" to carry a tool used for DEATH whether animal or defense. But I dont have the "right" to carry a harmless plant and enjoy for personal use. I have the right to own something that in my hands or someone else hands could KILL innocent people. But there is "WAR" on something that our founding fathers grew and cultivated and used for many years

104) Comment by Spudaroonski - 20/12/2012

Whatnow, evidently your reading comprehension skills are suspect since I specifically stated that it was white males who are responsible for the majority of these MASS killings which in fact they are.

105) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

"And the government does NOT know what guns people have. They do not track that." There's part of the problem right there. The gov't knows what kind of health insurance you have, what kind of car you have, your phone number, your address....but not if you own a killing machine. Still....I'm not so concerned with tracking ownership stats (though we should) as I am about tracking sales. We need to track sales; this would at least help us understand the illegal gun market. Plus, it would in no way, whatsoever, infringe on our current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. There's nothing in there that says we can't restrict and regulate sales and sellers.

106) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o

107) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

OK, DMJ...just a question? You do realize that once I buy a gun at a store, I can sell it and that sale doesn't have to be reported either? Now, I would just assume here, you would come back and say something like "they should track that also, like when I sell my car, that sale has to be reported." And I ask again, so what if they track the sale, from store to person or from person to person? What does that prevent? I can sell my gun to my good friend. Tell the gov't about it and then what? Will that prevent my friend from going crazy and killing people? Just because the gov't knows someone has a gun, will that prevent them from doing mass killings? No, those people go into those situations knowing they aren't coming out. And if all transactions were tracked, do you honestly think street criminals will report their purchases from each other to the gov't? ONCE AGAIN, this ONLY punishes those law abiding citizens, helps out the criminals and still does NOT prevent someone being an IDIOT and shooting someone else over a basketball game!!!

108) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

What you mean "you people" ??

109) Comment by BoiledCrabs - 20/12/2012

It will all boil down to the fact that morality, ethics, self respect, and dignity cannot be legislated. We live in a country wherein the majority want the government to rule over anything they don't like but go easy on what they don't mind. A good example is the enforcement of DUI laws. Drunk drivers kill almost as many people in the U.S. as do people with guns. If you get sent away for killing someone with a gun you might be in jail for a while. If you kill someone with a vehicle because you were drunk they might just let you walk with a slap on the wrist. Maybe that's because too many judges, lawyers, and cops are alcoholics. But the root of the problem is not alwys the availablilty of something but rather how it's abused.

110) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 20/12/2012

"Illegal gun" ? LOL, unless it has an obliterated serial number of has been modified without paying the necessary federal tax, there is no such thing as an "illegal" gun. You people and your comments remind me why this once-great Republic no longer is.

111) Comment by Chucky - 20/12/2012

band guns, anyone think of that ?

112) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

Banning all guns, not gonna happen. Arming the masses, not going to happen. Something HAS to happen. To deny there is a gun problem is just that, denial. A kid got shot yesterday in Baton Rouge over a basketball game! Every gun starts its life as a legal firearm. Somewhere along many become "illegal." When? How can we, yes WE, prevent this. A car needs a title transfer but not a killing machine? (Don't start that people did in cars nonsense, I'll blow up that argument t too if you like)

113) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

And the government does NOT know what guns people have. They do not track that. When you go buy one, all they know is that you are having a background check run. They do not know what you buy, how much you buy [And if they do, when they are NOT supposed to, then that is invasion of privacy and you are ok with that?]

114) Comment by Whatnow - 20/12/2012

Spudaroonski, evidently you don't read the Advocate crime section very much. Every day there are numerous crimes with guns and there are not very many involving whites. You might want to check that out. Check out today's crime section about the teens bringing a stolen gun to school. Wonder where they got that gun? Who stole the gun? Yeah, blame it on the original owner while you're at it.

115) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

Criminals will always steal legal guns if they get the chance. Then they sell them on the street (or turn them in no questions asked to get gas cards funded by the taxes paid by the people who bought the guns legally in the first place) Don't punish me or other legal gun owners.

116) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

@whatnow: You are saying the program was NOT a screw up? That ALLOWING military type weapons to be bought HERE and cross the border is not dumb? Not to mention the guy in your article is the lead ATF guy and can't keep track of his own guns and people here want these people to keep track of every other gun? He should be in jail according to this article, but this admin doesn't seem to care. Notice the people stepping down after the 9/11 attack a few months back? And poor Clinton fell and got a cold all in the same week preventing her from testifying.

117) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

How long do you think before we start reading about shooting accidents involving a newly purchased AR? "Father and son at shooting range and one shoots other with AR" or "Family owned sever assault rifles and shoots neighbor" All these FEARFUL people will be looking for justification of their recent purchases. Well if its your gov you fear taking your guns, well guess what? If you purchased legally, the gov knows EVERYTHING about you. almost down to shoe size, so go ahead stock up, they know everything you are doing and what you own.

118) Comment by 1ryben - 20/12/2012

What kind of person lives in a place that they feel that they need protection from their government? Not the government, but their government. In USA it is an elected republic the government is us. Yes, I still feel this way. We are the government. Why is the government so divided, inept, worthless? Look at us, the people here. No one wants to listen. Compromise is a bad word. Empathy is a weakness.

119) Comment by Spudaroonski - 20/12/2012

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

120) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Here's a little data for those who think America's gun culture is a good thing.... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?ref=opinion

121) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Lastmanstanding is proof that the most dangerous person a gun owner is likely to encounter is himself. A girl scout is going to knock on his door selling cookies and she'll get her head blown off because this yahoo is afraid the government is comin' for his guuuuns. This guy sees a massacre on TV and thinks to himself: I gotta get me one of those! Wow. And I mean "wow" in the worst way possible.

122) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

Lastman_ you watch FOX news much? Well I may be what you call "ignorant majority" but I will not live my life in a state of fear, which by the way is form of control. Keep thinking the world is dangerous place and keep wasting money on guns you will NEVER need. "tyranny" I bet you say terrorist like George Bush too.

123) Comment by Whatnow - 20/12/2012

Fast and Furious was a screw-up? What a laugh. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?221304-Ex-ATF-official-s-gun-at-Mexican-cartel-shootout-that-killed-beauty-queen.

124) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

So 200 more years from now when we have guns that shoot anthrax bullets and personal nuclear grenades, people will be still shouting about the 2nd amendment?

125) Comment by LastManStanding - 20/12/2012

I've bought 4 new guns since this happened, 1 of which was an AR- 15. I bought these guns so that when the government convinces the ignorant majority (because that's what our country has become) that guns are bad and the criminals decide to take what they want, I will be able to protect my family from the tyranny of an overwhelming government and criminals. You naive people stay on your soap boxes, you'll be the first ones the criminals and government go after. Don't come crawling to me looking for help.

126) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Folgers- like the guns in the Fast and Furious program? No. That was a screw up. I'd like tracking to work. Ideally, I'd like to take the DEA's marijuana budget, liquidate the ATF (what a joke of an organization) and give the balance to the FBI to establish a task force on illegal gun trafficking. Like you guys always say... it's the illegal guns, not the legal ones, right? Pesonally, I think a key piece of the puzzle is answering the question: at which point did legal guns become illegal? But hey... the Director hasn't returned any of my calls yet. lol

127) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

My point, DMJ, was that you can actually tell me that you can trust the government to keep track of all guns? They can't even deliver mail without going broke. Not to mention, the main point is, the only guns tracked would be those of legally obtained guns. I keep them in my house and so what if the government knows I have Desert Eagle .40 next to my bed? What does that prevent? What does that control? Just asking because I just want to understand why you and people like you think the government can be trusted knowing what kind and how many weapons I have. I am not being sarcastic. I really am trying to understand.

128) Comment by phil - 20/12/2012

Unfortunately I think there are just too many guns out there now and it is not feasible to just stop selling certain types of guns or ammo now. I have to think that one way to stop this from happening in schools again is to arm the teacher(s) with a shotgun with buckshot (or similar) and let everyone know it. This thing that happened in the school is an indication of a sick society and possibly a case of one person who was mentally ill having easy access to a gun. Another issue is, I think we are teaching violence to kids by letting them play violent video games etc. Some nut might just get tired of playing the game at home and try playing the game for real with real people and possibly be too sick to know the difference. We have more than one problem in the USA - too many guns and too many nuts, and too much violence that is reinforced/taught by games etc.

129) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 20/12/2012

BoiledCrabs, close, but.... try looking at thehomicide rate from the US (3.7/100,000) for 2009 and Switzerland (0.52/100,000) for 2010. Not all citizens are trained. All males over 20 are trained as they are conscripted into the MILITIA and attend a boot camp. They are ISSUED a rifle (or pistol in the case of officers and medics) Switzerland ranks 30th in the world in homicides per 100,000 citizens. (The US is 13th). The suicide rate (using firearms) is another matter entirely

130) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Switzerland, they can only have certain types of guns and a certain amount of ammunition. Also, there is a well-maintained national registry. The government keeps very close tabs on who has guns. Same with Canada, more or less. If the U.S. had laws similar to that of Switzerland, I'd consider that a big win for gun control. Good suggestion, BoiledCrabs.

131) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 20/12/2012

LOL, so, according to YOUR "logic," if semi-automatic weapons WERE in existence back then, the constitution would have excluded them? Is THAT what you're preaching? BTW, a 1700's musket would have killed a baby back then.

132) Comment by foldgers - 20/12/2012

DMJ said, "..The government should at least be able to track gun sales, so that we can figure out how criminals get guns in the first place..." - - So, like this current administration kept track of the military style guns in the fast and furious program?

133) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

Yea, but when the 2nd amendment was written all they had were muskets and swords. Not semiauto baby killing machines that anyone could purchase at walmart along with their beer and diapers.

134) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 20/12/2012

Poor DMJ, (and others) just won't ever learn the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.

135) Comment by Stephen - 20/12/2012

You cannot make this up.

136) Comment by BoiledCrabs - 20/12/2012

In Switzerland there are 4.5 million guns in a country of just 7.9 million people. That means that there's a gun in every house basically. Yet there were only 24 gun murders in 2009. The difference in Switzerland is that everyone is trained to use a gun and expected to have one. A lack of gun laws is not the problem. People not abiding by the law is the problem. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens, not those who would commit crimes.

137) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 20/12/2012

"I don’t think" We know that. As far as you "thinking" that he would not have gone to the school if there were armed guards, that is pure conjecture with no basis in fact (yet you present it as fact). He was on a suicide mission, and he chose that school for a very specific reason which I stated. The Portland mall shooter did not kill himself because someone pointed a gun at him. The person (Nick Meli) who pointed the gun admitted that he pointed it then ducked down because he was afraid he would shoot a bystander. The shooter's rifle kept jamming. That's why he ended it. And, by the way, that shooter was also wearing a kevlar vest so I doubt he was as worried about getting shot by a handgun from a distance. -- http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts- mall-shooter-183593571.html

138) Comment by brhope - 20/12/2012

Looks like Larry the Cable Guy walks in local gun store, "What they shootin all them kids with?...That one? I'll take three!"

139) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

Any adults on these boards? Why is it when anyone mentions ANY kind of gun control or restrictions (as if we didn't need any), the pro-gun crowd immediately goes into sarcastic hysterics? "Let's just get rid of all guns! Case closed." I'm getting tired of writing this, but I'll do it anyway since it hasn't sunk in, apparently: a total ban on all guns and zero restrictions are NOT THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS. Obviously, no civilian needs a Bushmaster for self-defense. No one should be allowed to have thousands and thousands of rounds of ammunition. No one needs an arsenal. The government should at least be able to track gun sales, so that we can figure out how criminals get guns in the first place. ALL sales should include a background check. No more gun show loophole, "private collector/ occasssional seller" nonsense. We can maintain the right to bear arms without having to foolishly deny that easy access to firearms and ammunition is friggin dangerous. Geez...

140) Comment by DMJ - 20/12/2012

What a sadly predictable headline. Figures...

141) Comment by Chucky - 20/12/2012

Make guns illegal,l any one think of that ?

142) Comment by agagent - 20/12/2012

I don’t think the murderer would have gone to the school if he knew he had to face an armed guard or armed law enforcement. He stole his mother’s rifle. It was reported to be left in the car. The murderer killed himself when he heard the approaching sirens of armed law enforcement. The murderer in the Portland area mall also killed himself when someone pulled a pistol on him. This year the Connecticut legislature defeated a law mandating treatment or confinement to preempt violence of a disturbed individual. Only 10 states do not have such a law, including Connecticut. This murderer might have been locked away if Connecticut had passed the law.

143) Comment by Bouncer - 20/12/2012

The sad thing is that when Lose-e-anna is mentioned on any national platform, those cap-wearing Bubbas in the forefront of the picture are what everyone else associates with this state. It's unfortunate that we are seen as a state full of backwards, ill-educated, gun-toting racists, but what's even sadder is that most of the people living here apparently don't care enough to try to reverse that image.

144) Comment by Spudaroonski - 20/12/2012

Oh my, I seem to have hit a nerve with some of the delicate flowers on the board. Their little ears are offended by remarks i made. Of course I don't recall them asking anyone else to curtail remarks about race when the topic is about welfare or food stamps or other government programs that help the poor or crime rates or education. Kinda of a drag being the other side isn't it? Such hypocrites.

145) Comment by Being_Stupid - 20/12/2012

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

146) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 20/12/2012

Honest debate is great but agagent's lies do not add anything to teh conversation " The school gun-free zone did not deter the murderer, but may have offered an inviting target for the mass murderer." He chose that school because "Nancy Lanza reportedly volunteered with kindergartners at the school for several years. Flashman said that Adam "believed she cared more for the children than she did for him." " --- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza- motive_n_2329508.html

147) Comment by Chucky - 20/12/2012

Hey i have an idea, Lets get rid of all the guns, case solved, and we are happy. Any one with a better thought?

148) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 20/12/2012

"The weapons used for the murders were stock semi-automatic pistols with standard removable magazines..." With each lie you tell, does it get easier? --- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301- 18563_162-57559416/assault-rifle-used-during-sandy-hook- massacre/ /// http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/16/sandy_hook_el ementary_school_shooting_adam_lanza_used_semiautomatic_rif le.html /// http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/national/ar-15-with- high-capacity-magazines-used-by-adam-lanza-in-sandy-hook- school-shooting

149) Comment by The_Host - 20/12/2012

Spud nice way to turn this into a racist thing somehow. Even though the guy at Ft. Hood was screaming muslim sayings as he shot people. Or how about those not so white guys they call the DC Snipers? Oh and FYI Obama and his buddies still refuse to call Ft Hood Shooting terrorism. So please spare us all your racist remarks. I assure you bullets are not the thing that discriminates between black and white and neither are guns. Once again it all goes back to the individual.

150) Comment by agagent - 20/12/2012

The most recent mass murderer was definitely not from the middle class. The weapons used for the murders were stock semi-automatic pistols with standard removable magazines, and not an assault rifle or high capacity magazine. The firearms should have been lock away securely. The school security was not adequate and was an easy target for the murderer. The murderer was mentally disturbed and should have been on treatment or removed from the public. Exposure to violent movies, video games, and violence on the internet could have played a part. Connecticut already had severe gun ownership restrictions. The school gun-free zone did not deter the murderer, but may have offered an inviting target for the mass murderer. Murderer did not legally own the firearms. Connecticut lacks laws mandating treatment or removal of the mentally ill from the public. States like Virginia and countries like Switzerland are very gun friendly, have high gun ownership, and low gun violence. The murderer killed himself rather than face law enforcement who were armed . . . and now the liberals only want to talk about gun control.

151) Comment by markedwardmarchiafava - 20/12/2012

Some of the comments here only serve to remind me why this once-great Republic isn't.

152) Comment by Spudaroonski - 20/12/2012

I'll bet the overwhelming majority of these sales were to white males. Big surprise huh? I have a suggestion for cutting down on some of these mass killings. Since the majority of them are done by frustrated white males with a deep sense of entitlement the police should begin a program to actively profile young white males like they do with black males and foreigners. And let me pose the question that needs to be asked. Why aren't these types of killings called what they are...acts of terrorism? When a white middle class male goes on a rampage and kills a boat load of people we call it a tragedy and cry about did they get the mental health care they needed. I'll bet if this Adam Lanza's name was Abdullah no one would care about his mental state or try to understand why he committed such an act. Everyone would shout terrorist and our police state would dutifully ramp up their tracking and harassment of these others. Well I say it's time to start tracking these camouflage cap wearing white males too. Like Chris Rock said, I'm more afraid of Al Cracker than I am of Al Quada.

153) Comment by Elderly Man - 20/12/2012

A man can never have all the shotguns he wants but we all need at least one, but the pathetic social misfits who demand having a Bushmaster are just insecure about their manhood.

154) Comment by dday198 - 20/12/2012

when a dem is in the white house gun stores mop up