Last Updated:July 27 @ 03:16 pm

Brown: Sandy Hook and the Second Amendment

By Susan Stamper Brown

With emotions running high in response to the heart wrenching events that took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary School December 14, many of my liberal friends and family members believe now is the perfect time for gun control legislation.

As heartbreaking as it is that 20 children in Connecticut will not have the chance to open Christmas presents, celebrate birthdays, go on a first date, drive a car, graduate, get married, and have kids, there are millions of kids out there who will. And they are the reason why the rest of us need to fight for the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution which Progressives are so predictably willing to give away.

Before Americans were able to corporately exhale upon hearing the news about the Connecticut shooting, liberals hopped on the gun control bandwagon. One of MSNBC's many loose cannons, Ed Schultz, went on a rant saying, "Hiding behind the Second Amendment doesn't cut it anymore," and described our founders as slave-owning bigots. It's real hard to wrap your hands around the hypocrisy of those who cry giant crocodile tears over the loss of these 20 precious children (and they should), but care little about millions of children who will never see the light of day due to abortion.

And here we go again; Progressives are manipulating the Sandy Hook massacre as a way to strike down the Second Amendment. Truth is, gun control is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound. Seems to me a better solution is to do something about the culture of violence currently destroying our society from the inside out -- and place armed guards in schools in the meantime. Chances are, had one been at Sandy Hook, I wouldn't be writing about it today.

I may date myself here, but when I was a kid, I didn't stay inside playing violent computer games or watching violent movies; I played outside with real people who picked flowers in the spring, climbed trees in the summer, jumped in leaf piles in the fall, and ice skated on frozen ponds in the winter. And I grew up to be a responsible citizen and gun owner.

As I've written before, if you listen to liberals long enough it's not too long before you find yourself in Bizarro World. And in the case of the Second Amendment, Progressives like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pretzel it into something it is not. On "Meet the Press" December 16, Feinstein inferred arming school guards is a crummy idea because "the rights of the few" (i.e. the millions who own guns) would, in her world, somehow "overcome the safety of the majority." Say, what? Bizarro.

As brokenhearted as we all are over what happened in Connecticut, gun control will not stop those lacking certain emotional filters from doing bad things to children — and others. Policies in China, for example, make it largely illegal for private citizens to own and sell guns. Possession or sale of a gun can lead to anywhere from a 3 year prison term to the death penalty. I digress to mention that because the Chinese government has little regard for human life, gun laws were devised to protect the tyrannical Chinese government from its citizens rather than the other way around.

Nevertheless, people find a way to do bad things, and in the case of the Chinese, crazy people are still hurting children. Oddly, on the same day the Sandy Hook massacre took place, a knife-wielding Chinese man stabbed almost two dozen children at an elementary school in central China. And he found a way to do it although the Chinese government recently enacted strict knife regulation measures after a spate of deadly knife and cleaver attacks on school children in China in 2010, killing 20 and wounding 50.

Before long, the Chinese will be eating steak with teaspoons, and so will we -- if we relinquish our Second Amendment rights to those who would rather steal the rights of the masses than address our society's moral decline. With that in mind, the best gift we can give our kids this Christmas is a future filled with the promise of freedom.

-----

Susan Stamper Brown is an opinion page columnist, motivational speaker and military advocate who writes about politics, the military, the economy and culture. Email Susan at writestamper@gmail.com or her website at susanstamperbrown.com.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.2/10 (277 votes cast)
Brown: Sandy Hook and the Second Amendment, 9.2 out of 10 based on 277 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

101 Comments

  1. Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
    December 18, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

    The progressives on the left have for close to a 100 years pushed our educational system to teach social studies instead of traditional values based on the ethics and moral values of our Founding Fathers as a basis for their beliefs.
    School children are taught that they all DESERVE to be respected instead of learning that they MUST EARN respect from their peers and others. They are being taught that when they are not respected they should take action and unfortunately this action has been in the form of violence against others.
    When those on the left start to realize this, only then will our country begin to get a handle on the increasing violence that is happening in our country.
    We do not need more gun laws, we need our children to be taught the basics of ethics and morality and the consequences of ignoring them.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (98 votes cast)
    • norditeComment by nordite
      December 18, 2012 @ 5:31 pm

      The moral thing to do would be to fund mental health programs and ban automatic weapons and huge ammo clips.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.7/5 (67 votes cast)
    • Texas GuyComment by Texas Guy
      December 18, 2012 @ 6:01 pm

      nordite, you are displaying your ignorance for all to see. “Automatic” weapons are, for the most part, already severely restricted. None of the mass shootings since 1950, if you study the history of such things, has involved an automatic weapon. You probably meant to refer to semi-automatic, which is a different thing altogether. A semi-automatic shoots only one time with each pull of the trigger. It is a bit faster than a single-shot, single-action weapon but no more deadly. As for “huge ammo clips” in this case size doesn’t matter. With very little practice, anyone can exchange a full clip for an empty clip in a matter of a couple of seconds. All such a ban would do is promote the sale of pants with big pockets so a person could carry more clips. I’m willing to bet a dollar to a donut that you don’t know the difference between a clip and a magazine. Can you answer that without looking it up? I doubt it.

      Funding mental health programs would be helpful, but first we need to get rid of or water down the ACLU-promoted laws that severely restrict how we handle and deal with mentally ill people, as well as getting rid of some of the asinine privacy laws. Do you know you can get jail time for reporting someone as mentally ill? It’s true, even if the person really is sick.

      All I can say is, good luck with all of this. Our once-great country is in for a rough future. It’s like an unstoppable train. Look at recent history (the last 100 yearts) and tell me I’m wrong. Any country that can elect a proven socialist who fills the administration with known, self-proclaimed Marxists and then get re-elected after doing an abysmal job is beyond redemption. For once I’m glad I’m old enough that I will not see the final result. It won’t be pretty.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (104 votes cast)
    • begneli2011Comment by begneli2011
      December 18, 2012 @ 6:16 pm

      Nordite, this is an absolute truth that cannot be refuted : Thousands are killed yearly by DUI drivers. Many drivers never drive drunk, but if your idea is to take guns away from innocent responsible gun owners because of a few bad guys , the use exactly the same logic for DUI drivers, take away vehicles from the good drivers. Ban cars. It will save thousands of children and grownups.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (72 votes cast)
    • davnkatzComment by davnkatz
      December 18, 2012 @ 7:27 pm

      nordite expresses a typical libterd attitude. According to what I heard, the perp tried to enter the school the day before. Then, he shows up with wi9th a variety of weapons and mucho ammo, smashes glass and shoots the lock off the door (the school was in lock-down at the time), then enters the school and goes on a murderous rampage.

      CONSIDER THIS! If just one teacher and or one administrator had been licensed for conceal carry and had the weapon handy, the perp would never had gotten past the front door and all those children and adults would be alive today.

      Chances are , if the perp had known teaqchers and administrators were licensed and had weapons available, he would not have gone to the school in the first place.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (68 votes cast)
    • gunguruComment by gunguru
      December 19, 2012 @ 11:39 am

      Most gun aficionados are baby-boomers, so if the liberals simply wait 20 years, they can then pass any laws they want. In the meantime, I think a national firearms owner’s license issued by the ATF would be effective in reducing the overall gun crime rate. This would discourage casual gun owners and marginal people who don’t take the responsibility seriously. It could cut gun sales in half.

      The mechanism to do this is already in place. I have a similar license, called Curio & Relic. It is easy to get, and cheap, but takes about 3 months while the ATF does a thorough background check. The new license could be as narrow as being required for purchases of new semi-autos.

      Another option would be to move assault-type weapons into the Destructive Device category, which requires registration. The ATF has done this before with the Striker-12 and Streetsweeper drum-fed shotguns. This requires no legislation, but it would represent a major increase in gov’t power.

      As for those who fear licensing, I’ve got news for you: If you receive catalogs from Cabelas or Gander Mountain, the government already knows you are a gun owner.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.5/5 (17 votes cast)
    • recce1Comment by recce1
      December 21, 2012 @ 1:36 am

      Texas Guy, nordite meant what he or she said out of abject ignorance about guns as has almost every liberal poster I’ve read. They’re also abysmally ignorant about why the Bill of Rights was written and what the writers meant. That’s why the Constitution today is moribund.

      By the way, there was an automatic weapon, a MAC-11 I think, used in a murder around 1989. It was by a police officer murdering a police informant. I’m sure it was to cover up corruption by government officers.

      Like all too many liberals, I believe that nordite is either unaware of or opposed to Benjamin Franklin’s (Benjamin who?) admonition that “They that would trade essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” That’s why they so favor our Fabian socialist president Mr. Obama.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  2. way2coolComment by way2cool
    December 18, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

    I just heard a breaking news report while driving: UofM student stabs his mother repeatedly and kills her. Yep, next are knives. Perhaps we should go back to the Neandethral Age and eat with our hands; ooops, they used clubs! Next…

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (69 votes cast)
  3. ctyank66Comment by ctyank66
    December 18, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

    Somehow I don’t think the Founding Fathers were thinking of assault weapons and other weapons designed to cause massive killing of human beings when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Individual ownership of sporting or defensive weapons for the citizens yes,
    but leave assault weapons, machine guns, etc. to our “well regulated militias” (Nat. Guard, State Police, etc.)not the crazies with armories in their homes!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.9/5 (106 votes cast)
    • rrg51Comment by rrg51
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

      I believe you are incorrect, in that the 2nd Amendment specifically supported a citizen militia (not the National Guard as you posit). Consider also that the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights addressed the rights of individuals. True, since 1934 owning a fully automatic weapon is greatly restricted. However, thousands of us participate in regular marksmanship competitions with classic and modern military type ordnance.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (86 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

      Ctyank66, guns don’t kill people. I believe our Founding Fathers were aware of this and a quote that eerily could be said of our country today comes from within John Adams “Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798″:
      “…should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practicing iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (68 votes cast)
    • ron38Comment by ron38
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:33 pm

      I hate what happened at Sandy Hook however we cannot blame other people for the actions of others. I don’t believe they should Ban Military type weapons because of incidents such as this, I have one Military type weapon that I bought over 12 years ago and have never put a round in the chamber, In other words I have never fired it. It is a Garand ,caliber 30 M1 I bought it for a souvenier since I carried and used it for 10 years in the Army of which I am retired. I have numerous other guns pistols and rifles and I have never fired one of them I like guns and that is why I bought them, However if I or my family were ever threatened in my property and i felt endangered I would probably use one. Just for information purposes The only thing I have ever killed was a rabbit and I was about 13 or 14 years old at the time. The person responsible for this was The shooter and if he had been treated properly by the Mental Health facilities this conversation would not be happening. Ron.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (56 votes cast)
    • jw11Comment by jw11
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:51 pm

      WOW, Are you lost! (ctyank66)
      Please read the comments here from the many intelligent posters.
      Please, the sooner the better and then you too can maybe, help the rest of the brainwashed left siders and others like them.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (30 votes cast)
    • kdubComment by kdub
      December 18, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

      Hi ctyank66, First, I don’t think you know what the Founding Fathers were thinking. When they installed the 2nd Amendment, they carried muskets, as did the British soldiers. That was the technology of the day. If the British soldiers had been carrying full auto AK47′s, our Founding fathers would have been carrying full auto M16/AR15′s. And they would have inserted the 2nd Amendment as well.
      And as a point of interest, to those who are uninformed, none of the mass shootings were carried out with Machine Guns. It is illegal for your average citizen to own one. Only if you have a Federal Firearms License allowing you too. They are very expensive and very few can qualify. According to strict definition I am told, all guns are assault weapons. How do you know what is an assault weapon? By looking at a picture? Or because someone else told you so? John Adams (A Founding Father) was asked one, “What is the Militia” His response was “What is the Militia? The People” We are the people, not the National Guard. I am thinking about having the 1st Amendment repealed. The problem with freedom of speech and freedom of the press is that it makes some very uninformed people think they should be able to tell me what I should and should not do. People who may have, as you say, armories in their homes, does not make them crazies, nor does it make it any of your business. Collecting firearms is as legitimate a hobby as collecting modle airplanes or anything else for that matter.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (57 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 18, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

      “According to strict definition I am told, all guns are assault weapons” – kdub

      You nailed it

      And why it has been literally impossible for any law to be written to ban assault weapons that did not ban entire classes of guns

      What could be used?

      Caliber?
      Firing mechanism?
      Stock?
      Color?

      Of course, Feinstein thinks the whole world will change with limiting the number of rounds in the magazine, just like Bloomberg is going to save the world by limiting the size of sugary drinks.

      Guess it never entered their head someone could just have two

      Can hear them both quacking now. Why, why, why

      It is the same brilliance which would have a glass window by a locked door

      To them, it is really not whether it works or not, they just feel ever so powerful telling people what to do.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (34 votes cast)
    • Texas GuyComment by Texas Guy
      December 18, 2012 @ 5:47 pm

      Can somebody please come up with a rational definition of “assault” weapon? I have asked many, many people to do that, some of them liberal, some of them conservative, and have yet to get a logical, rational answer. Don’t give me the standard lines about semi-automatic or magazines or clips or high-capacity magazines or scopes or bipods – none of those make a gun an “assault” weapon. So what does? Diane Feinstein, that brilliant architect of Clinton’s assault weapons ban, did it by going through a catalog and picking out the models that she thought looked evil, nasty and aggressive. Well, that was real scientific, wasn’t it? I am looking for a difinition based on science and logic, not emotion or opinion. First person to give the correct answer doesn’t win anything, but I’ll sure be glad to finally have the answer, assuming there is one.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (23 votes cast)
    • slowhandComment by slowhand
      December 18, 2012 @ 7:32 pm

      ctyank66: Agree. I’m sure no one, including our Founding Fathers, was able to predict future weapon developments.

      That said, they did know however, that in order to stand up to an oppressive and condescending monarchy who employed the most powerful, modern and disciplined naval and land forces at the time, they had to at least match the capabilities of the English arsenal one for one.

      If you ever visit the foundries, blast furnaces and mills up in Salisbury, Sharon or Lakeville, where they produced barrel stock, 6, 8 and 10 lbs cannons, cannon ***** and blackpowder 24/7 during the Revolution, you might come to realize that providing our continental armies and militias with “sporting or defensive weapons” was probably the last thing on their minds.

      BTW, what is a defensive weapon?

      On a side note: Connecticut has a partial “assault weapons” ban with a list of specific restricted features and certain brands of semi-automatic assault weapons. After Sandy Hook, our populistic lawmakes show willingness to support a bill to restrict magazine capacity next month, but first (tomorrow)they have to figure out how to cut over 30 million dollars from mental health and disability programs. Go figure.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (11 votes cast)
    • slowhandComment by slowhand
      December 18, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

      @Texas Guy: my best guess is that the term “assault rifle” originated from the English translation of “Sturmgewehr”, an infantry weapon of Nazi Germany which combines the characteristics of a large magazine capacity carbine, submachine gun and automatic rifle. Google image it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (4 votes cast)
    • rzraickComment by rzraick
      December 18, 2012 @ 8:26 pm

      I disagree with your position completely. I am a bit tired of hearing variations of this false argument. If I may relate it to the first ammendment, the first ammendment was not put in place so that we could talk about the weather, it was put in place so that a potentially tyranical government would not be allowed by law to restrict our own criticisms against it. Now our traitorous government wants to make any criticism of it into an act of terror to silence the very purpose that the right of free speech was not to be impaired.

      The second ammenment was not put into place so that we could go duck hunting. It was put in place so that the government could not disarm the people leaving them defenseless against the possible tyranny by the central government. You do not seem to have a grasp on history or reality.

      Every time you see some emotional appeal by some politician to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country, you need to strip away the mask of deception and look at the real adgenda of such hypocrits.

      They do not care about your safety. They care about their own expansion of power, to ultimately move toward a totalitarian government and complete enslavement of the people.

      If you do not like guns, then you are free to rid your home of any such weapons. But you are rather arrogant to think you can second guess the founders who knew exactly what they were doing. And even more arrogant to think you have a right to disarm others who have a right to defend themselves.

      If you have a rational brain guided by logic and rational thought, as opposed to an illogical position based on emotionalism, perhaps you can re-think your position.

      If you were advocating law which would somehow manage to disarm, lunatics, criminals and tyrants, you would get my complete agreement, but what you advocate is dangerous. Very much more dangerous than any gun would ever be.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (29 votes cast)
    • gopuc12450Comment by gopuc12450
      December 18, 2012 @ 8:40 pm

      We’re not here to rewrite the documents gifted to us by the Founding Fathers.”I don’t think”, is only a preface to your Liberal opinion. The Second Amendment of the Constitution is VERY clear; it is precise.
      That said, other documents of the time describe the Second Amendment as a Clause that will Ensure the People are Free – from an overbearing government.
      That, my friend is what keeps Liberals awake at night.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (18 votes cast)
    • VeeDubComment by VeeDub
      December 19, 2012 @ 7:48 am

      @ctyank66: I agree with you. Let’s leave weapons in the hands of the “well regulated militia” as you stated. And let’s use the founding father’s words to back up your stance.

      “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426

      “Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – M.T. Cicero”, (in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching on the “militia” referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

      “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” – Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (13 votes cast)
    • paulofalexandriaComment by paulofalexandria
      December 19, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

      If you read all of the documents, the FF had three things in mind with the 2nd Amendment: 1) that the people (men) called for military duty knew how to use and maintain firearms. As an example from the time, our snipers, who were Kentucky long-rifle hunters, were better than the British Hessian snipers, who were game wardens, simply because they used their rifles every day to feed their families. The military still needs people comfortable with and knowing how to shoot firearms. 2) that people had the right to self defense. Then as now, the police were minutes away when seconds count. 3) An armed citizenry forms the last defense against tyranny – and yes this was explicitly on their minds.

      Important note: the word “arms” as used in the 2nd Amendment refers to the weapons typically carried by an infantry soldier: spear, sword, pistol, rifle. Heavy machine guns, artillery, grenades, etc are properly “ordnance” and wouldn’t be carried by a typical foot soldier (except at the squad level).

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • skypilotdarkfyreComment by skypilotdarkfyre
      December 19, 2012 @ 1:58 pm

      Well regulated in the language of the times meant well trained.
      In addition to the writings of the founding fathers referring to the militia as the whole of the people,
      They felt that a standing army was a threat to the people and was to be avoided; they were so adamant that they adopted the militia act of 1792 requiring every man to purchase the best military weapon available.
      They were to keep ammunition for it and keep it in good repair.
      It was never to be sold or pawned.
      The American civilian militia was always to be as well or better armed than the military.
      Article 10 of the U.S. military code also still recognizes both the the uniformed militia and the un-uniformed militia and that militia is the civilian militia.
      The argument was once made that a certain rifle should be outlawed.
      It was better than that used by military or police. It held more ammunition than any gun should.
      It was the 1873 Winchester. We were to have rifles, pistols, shotguns and any other ordinance used in military action.
      As a point of interest the Dred Scott decision (which was overturned) argued that no “negro” could ever be allowed citizenship as that would mean they would have the same rights as white people and could carry weapons anywhere they went.
      Obviously the courts recognized the rights of the people to keep and bear arms in that hearing as well as others but only someone who actually studies the history of law (and not just what we are taught in school) will find many of those records because a concerted effort has been and is being made to make it as hard as possible to find the old court records and rulings.
      When a criminal was released from serving his time all rights were restored including his God given right to defend himself. He had a right to make a living in legitimate commerce to raise a family and to put his life in order. Now every obstacle that can be placed in the road is there to keep him or her under thumb.
      The entire Constitution has been and is being subverted often by well meaning people who are trying to make things better and politicians who milk every incident for the sake of gaining or maintaining power..
      We are the Militia.
      The AMA, doctors and most especially pharmaceutical companies kill thousands of people each year.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • recce1Comment by recce1
      December 21, 2012 @ 1:55 am

      ctyank66, first, no assault weapons have been used in ANY mass murder since the day of Prohibition and Capone. I believe the last time an automatic weapon was used in a murder it was done by a government official, a police officer, to murder a police informant, a civilian, in a coverup around 1989.

      Secondly, Jefferson wrote, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

      Madison wrote, “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

      Story wrote, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

      Perhaps you don’t know who these men were and what they were writing about and perhaps you don’t care. However, those who want to see a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law do care and care greatly.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • recce1Comment by recce1
      December 21, 2012 @ 2:07 am

      Texas Guy, an assault weapon by definition is a rifle used by a single individual capable of rapid fire with one pull of the trigger, i.e. select fire which fires a 3 round burst with one pull or full auto which empties the full magazine by holding back the trigger. I can also fire a single shot. Machine guns take two or more people to use. Man portable machines guns are called submachine guns.

      What liberals are emoting over are assault “looking” weapons but they are only single fire capable with each pull of the trigger. Otherwise all semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and pistols, including double-action revolvers would be classified as assault weapons, which is exactly what liberals are trying to do.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • jimpeelComment by jimpeel
      December 21, 2012 @ 7:58 am

      ctyank66

      So you actually believe that the people who wrote the Constitution — who kept a brace of operable cannon as lawn decorations and defined the militia as the “whole of the people” — didn’t want the populace to be armed with weapons of war?

      Do you actually believe that these people — who were so farsighted, and several of whom were inventors — did not foresee the continued advancement of the invention of arms?

      If that is your belief then you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  4. alouisisComment by alouisis
    December 18, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

    Predictably, conservatives are running around crying about the loss of 2nd amendment rights. Listen, if any of you ever actually read the entire 2nd amendment, and retain at least the linguistic abilities of a 5th grader, you would know the 2nd amendment gives you no rights to handguns, concealed weapons or any other firearm for that matter unless you are a member of a well regulated militia.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.7/5 (92 votes cast)
    • jb12Comment by jb12
      December 18, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

      God gives me the right to protect myself and my family. If gun control worked then Chicago would not be like a war zone. By the way, I suppose you are smarter than those on the Supreme Court.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (59 votes cast)
    • alouisisComment by alouisis
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:03 pm

      Please show me where God gives you a right to own a firearm and kill someone else?

      I never mentioned gun control, you did. The basis for all of this gun advocacy is always pointing back to the 2nd amendment. I simply pointed out the 2nd amendment makes no such guarantee.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.9/5 (61 votes cast)
    • rrg51Comment by rrg51
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:09 pm

      “Keep and bear arms” has none of the restrictions of which you speak. Each of the first ten amendments address the rights of individuals, not of a group. The context of the writers was of a citizen militia, not a standing army.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (54 votes cast)
    • MSGranComment by MSGran
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

      Alouisis…if you’ll read Luke 22:36, you’ll see where the disciples were told to sell their cloak and buy a sword (the weapon of choice in their time). I would guess since Jesus told them to do it, He was giving them a right, don’t you?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (38 votes cast)
    • agnesdayComment by agnesday
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:30 pm

      Not only do I read and write slightly above the fifth grade level, I can also quote you the entire Second Amendment:

      Amendment II. 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 first part of the sentence is a participial phrase modifying the verb; the main clause is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms[,] shall not be infringed.

      James Madison did not have modern comma usage, hence the brackets.

      The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Independent clause. All the rest of your comment is conjecture of the Left.

      Final comment: please restrict your schoolyard bullying tactics to people who can’t see through them.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (68 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

      What a fool! Did you ever take a course in logic? Didn’t think so, otherwise you would able to read without misconstruing the meaning of a sentence.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (17 votes cast)
    • jeanbaptisteComment by jeanbaptiste
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

      Actually it was the liberals ranting about gun control that drew comments about 2nd Amendment rights.

      Assault weapons is a political term used to obscure the actual intent of a proposed law or prohibition. It is similar to other liberal terms such as “quantitative easing” instead “printing money to pay for more spending”, “investment” instead of “buying votes”, “millionaires and billionaires” instead of two hundred thousandaires, “balanced approach” instead of “my way or the highway”, “affordable” housing instead of “taxpayer subsidized” etc.

      In the previous assault weapon law all of the weapons prohibited were just semi-automatic rifles with a killing capability no greater than the legal semi-automatic rifles. The intent of this law was to be the next step on the pathway to total gun control. This is the liberals ultimate objective.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (46 votes cast)
    • mrpilkingtonComment by mrpilkington
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

      Amendment II

      “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.”

      Where does it say one must be a member of a militia to own a gun? It says,”the right of the people.”

      What is a “well regulated militia?” The second amendment says nothing about a government regulated militia.

      You are absolutely correct when you say the Second Amendment does not give me the right to “handguns, concealed weapons or any other firearm for that matter” That would imply that my rights come from the government. They do not!
      Amendments to the Constitution do not give rights . They limit the power of the government to take away my rights.

      If you had the “linguistic ability of a fifth grader” you would know that the second amendment does not give the government the power to in fringe on my right to own what ever Arms I choose to own.

      Maybe the obesity problem in this country can be solved by regulating spoons. The government should determine the size of spoons and ban those that can deliver large amounts of food. I should be careful when I say this because you and people like you will probably think it will work.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (41 votes cast)
    • jw11Comment by jw11
      December 18, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

      Militia? What the do you think legal gun owners and those with a carry permit would form? WE have the ability to get together for a common cause like…oh a threat to our constitutional rights when ever it is time.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (26 votes cast)
    • oldvetComment by oldvet
      December 18, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

      While most of the comments here have it right, let’s see if we can make the 2nd Ammendment very clear. Well regulated militias exist at every level of government. The term “regulated” could only apply to constituted entities authorized to issue regulations. That does not apply to the idea of ‘citizen militias’ that have no authority to exist. The term “being necessary” is a causative inference. Perhaps restating the 2nd Amendment will make it understandable:
      (Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.) The PEOPLE is every one who is NOT a member of a well regulated militia. The founding fathers enumerated this right to ensure the individual right to self defense. Particularly against out-of-control militias.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (25 votes cast)
    • bakerfoxComment by bakerfox
      December 18, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

      Oh, yes it does too. It states: “the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed”. the 2nd amendment simply says: Bare: that means any weapon that a person can carry and use. It simply says “arms” which includes any type of arms: weather it’s a spear, crossbow, knife, or firearms. It makes no distinction. There are people in this country who own automatic weapons: m-16s, M-60 machineguns, Browning 50 Cal. machine guns etc. but you don’t see or here of them committing mass murder do you? No, because they are responsable gun owners who use them for compitition. By the way the “Regulated Militia” is NOT the National guard. A “Malitia” is an army of citizens not employed by the government. You need to go back to the 5th grade huh?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (20 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 18, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

      “you would know the 2nd amendment gives you no rights to handguns, concealed weapons or any other firearm for that matter unless you are a member of a well regulated militia.” – alouisis

      You are right, the 2nd Amendment does not give me any rights.

      It is an admission by the Federal government they know I have the right and they promise to not prevent my free exercise of it because a free state cannot be be protected if it is tying the people’s hands.

      So, as hard as it maybe for you to see, tying the people’s hands only serves to lower the security of a free state

      Which is exactly what we see with the nonsense of gun free zones, no one being protected

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (16 votes cast)
    • kdubComment by kdub
      December 19, 2012 @ 8:11 am

      LAPhil: I can tell that you are a liberal. Know how? You look for any irrelevant perceived fault (grammar) and throw insults, and miss the point of the discussion entirely. I think we can see who the Fool is around here.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • VeeDubComment by VeeDub
      December 19, 2012 @ 10:33 am

      @alouisis; You are dead wrong on so many levels there isn’t the space to educate you (as if you’d be willing to learn anything).

      Reference 1) “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government” ~ George Washington

      Reference 2) “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” – George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426

      Reference 3) “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169

      Reference 4) “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

      Reference 5) “Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” – M.T. Cicero”, (in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the “militia” referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

      Reference 6) “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

      Reference 7) “[...] The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” — Majority Supreme Court opinion in “U.S. vs. Miller” (1939)

      Now…. Do ANY of those sound like they are referring to the National Guard or only “organized” state run militia groups? HARDLY!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • paulofalexandriaComment by paulofalexandria
      December 19, 2012 @ 1:03 pm

      Yes it does. First of all, read the Amendment carefully. “In Order…” is not a qualifying statement, it is an informative statement. “The right shall not be abridged” is absolute. Secondly, “the militia” comprises all able-bodied males (and females nowadays” who may be called up to become part of the army, or may volunteer for duty. Then, as now, the military needed recruits who already knew how to shoot.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  5. jb12Comment by jb12
    December 18, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

    The Supreme Court who makes the ultimate decisions concerning our laws says that private citizens have a right to bear arms—-PERIOD. I would imagine that most 5th graders are aware of that. Read the Bible and you will also learn that a person has the right to defend himself and protect his family.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (42 votes cast)
  6. rthomComment by rthom
    December 18, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

    You have it completely wrong ctyank. The 2nd Amendment pertains to the PEOPLE keeping and bearing arms. The Militias of the states had artillery. The militias were the states barrier between them and an overbearing federal govermnent. From the Delaware Bill of Rights dated 11 Sept. 1776:

    Sect. 18. That a well regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
    Sect. 19. That standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the Legislature.

    If you would look at he many State Bills of Rights in force at the time the U.S. Constitution was being debated and then ratified you will find this or similar references to the source of defense of Free Governments is the people and an armed people at that.

    It was not until the Wilson administration that the State Militias were placed under Federal control.

    The reason the Constitution consists of Defined Powers for the Federal Government is that those who wrote it KNEW that more peoples and societies were enslaved by their own governments than by external invasion.

    The author of the article is absolutely correct in that it is the MORAL DECLINE of our society which is the driving force behind law and order collapse.

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
    It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?
    Geo. Washington, Farewell Address

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (40 votes cast)
  7. cspringsdaveComment by cspringsdave
    December 18, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

    We put armed guards in banks to protect our money. Why would anyone hesitate to place armed guards in schools to protect our children?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (42 votes cast)
  8. koranalystComment by koranalyst
    December 18, 2012 @ 3:26 pm

    I am not “runing around”, and I am not “crying about” the potential loss of the second amendment. I have two college degrees from legitimately accredited colleges/universities, whose linguistic requirements were onerous. Perhaps you may have heard that when an opponent resorts to ad hominem attacks, that person generally is perceived as having lost the argument.
    I am not an expert in constitutional law, but I would remind you that the second amendment places no restrictions on the types and numbers of “arms” that may be kept or born. Also it has been generally agreed that the term “well regulated militia” means the self-organized and self-trained citizenry.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (36 votes cast)
  9. clarencedebarrowsComment by clarencedebarrows
    December 18, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

    The 2nd Amendment is there to empower the people to protect themselves against an oppressive government. That’s all one needs to know. To discuss the type of weapons necessary to accomplish that end is a diversion which misses the main point of the Amendment.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (39 votes cast)
    • bobgantComment by bobgant
      December 18, 2012 @ 5:59 pm

      Clarence deBarrows is the first person who has gotten it completley RIGHT.
      It is dreadful that so many children were killed in Connecticut, but it is also dreadful that our politicians are trying to use this tragedy to pass a law, the restriction of the right to bear arms, which is totally unconstitutional.

      The Second Amendment to the US Constitution was added to protect the citizens of the US from the Government. As such, the private ownership of military weaponry, including assault rifles and more, is protected by the US Constitution. Back then, self defense was a fact of life, which they had to exercise frequently to protect their families from the Indians and marauders. So that never had anything to do with the Second Amendment. Their greatest fear was a tyrannical government.

      Further, it is being reported that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are trying to over-ride our Second Amendment by a UN treaty. Totally unconstitutional, because to amend or change any part of the Constitution, the People and the States have to approve any amendments. I STRONGLY encourage all to oppose any of the above restrictions on the People of this great Country. I remind you of the purpose of the Second Amendment — To protect us from the Government, not each other. That includes owning weaponry as powerful as the Federal Government has.
      CW5, US Army, Retired

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (15 votes cast)
  10. dghostComment by dghost
    December 18, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

    My heart goes out to the families who have lost precious loved ones in this tragedy. Compounding the mistakes that cause these kind of tragedies is the wrong way to help prevent them, it will only encourage more of them.

    ctyank66 & alouisis are part of the problem, they have defective abilities to critically think through the actual failure modes in play here. The perpetrator was clearly not in his right mind, whether he was in his left mind or somewhere else is open to conjecture.

    Why if gun possession was illegal, he could have bought one from a Holder DOJ STING, so that wouldn’t have helped stop the tragedy. Kinda makes ya wonder how that idiot got his job…

    We could have declared the Perp an idiot, but the left will only agree to commit an idiot like that, after they have committed a crime. Kinda makes ya wonder who’s the idiot…

    Banning firearms form schools kinda makes everyone there a sitting duck for an evil doer, ever notice most of these crimes take place where government takes it upon itself to guarantee that firearms can not be used to stop or eliminate the the evil doer? Now what idiot thinks that was a smart move?

    Frankly I’m sick and tired of the left wing nuts and the incessant rant about the second amendment. The second amendment is not about anything other than giving the people, like me the power to overthrow our government when it becomes tyrannical, make a move on the second amendment, that’s tyrannical. If you’re not an idiot you understand that’s what the founders intended because they didn’t trust government, even one they created.

    Ever wonder why evil doers don’t attack the political left? Could it be out of professional courtesy?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (28 votes cast)
    • barfaulknerComment by barfaulkner
      December 19, 2012 @ 9:38 am

      Right on……
      I think that the left should target the alcohol. It kills far more people.
      I think our forefathers saw the need because they knew the corruption of the “power” men give themselves. Each branch of our government was set up to control that “power” so that abuse could not happen.
      Today it appears that the word “Honorable” in front of their names has lost its’ meaning. It appears that the majority has lost its meaning to minorities who ban together. There is no way that our government can exist from the onslaught of the powerful “power” one gives oneself.
      I personally will donate a firearm to any teacher who will use it to protect my kid PERIOD. Your rights to not own a gun is your right.
      Please be the person who really believes no one should own a gun and put a sign in your front yard, on your car, on your loved ones and ON YOURSELF that you do not and cannot defend yourself.. so if anything happens someone should call the police. If you do this, I will believe that you believe that firearms really have no place in your world. Otherwise, shut the heck up.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  11. powertothepeopleComment by powertothepeople
    December 18, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

    It is sad indeed that as children lay in their own pool of blood the result of a mentally ill or deranged individual that we find ourselves debating the “right” to bear arms.

    But, we must have this discourse as there are so many factors at play. The framers of the Constitution were concerned about the risk of the citizens from a tyrannical government. Yes, the citizens of a nation must be able to protect themselves not just from the “bad guy” but also from a government that would enslave its people. I am not sure any leftest could ever accept this premise as the left prefers the power of government over the power of freedom.

    The moral fabric of this nation has been crumbling for decades as a result of the progressive left’s policies of unlimited abortion, sex, freedom to do anything, failing schools, broken families, broken marriages, entitlements out of control and on and on. All of these issues must be addressed to prevent other acts such as this horrible mass murder. Taking guns away from the law abiding citizens will not stop mass killing alone…unless you prefer the results of nations such as Russia, China, Cambodia, Germany and a host of others where the disarmed population was mass murdered by the government.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (23 votes cast)
  12. paulofalexandriaComment by paulofalexandria
    December 18, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

    I was trying to reason with a Progressive friend of mine on Facebook, and couldn’t get her past “its gun rights vs our children.” She literally thinks that increasing controls is the only, much less best, way to avoid massacres.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (12 votes cast)
    • Texas GuyComment by Texas Guy
      December 18, 2012 @ 10:29 pm

      Tell her to Google “Luke Woodham” and then Google “New Life Church Colorado.” Tell her to keep reading until she comes to the part that tells how those two incidents ended.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
  13. CarolComment by Carol
    December 18, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

    You know they keep saying gun control but I think it should be called bullet control or human control because if the human didn’t pick up the gun and shoot it NOTHING would ever happen.

    To think that there are 3 million people own this type weapon it makes me shutter.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.7/5 (11 votes cast)
    • dghostComment by dghost
      December 18, 2012 @ 4:49 pm

      Start shuddering because the fact is, it is many millions, closer to 40 million and those kind of weapons are flying out of gun shops as fast as they can get them. NOW QUIT SHUDDERING, THOSE WEAPONS ARE YOUR INSURANCE POLICY, the people can not be enslaved by our less than stalwart government as long as there are that many of us out here with the fire power to put an end to any governmental monkey business. Exactly as our founders intended.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (21 votes cast)
  14. memawComment by memaw
    December 18, 2012 @ 4:24 pm

    I think of all the times I “killed” people with either a toy gun or with my thumb and forefinger when I was a kid. None of my friends or family nor I have ever killed anyone for real or had any desire to do so. This stuff about not allowing your children to have toy weapons is just plain crazy. Having guns for protection, sport or just as a hobby is not that much different. It’s what’s in the heart that causes people to want to kill.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (17 votes cast)
  15. shafawnComment by shafawn
    December 18, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

    There are polar opposites represented in the world as opposite as the north and south poles. There is good. There is evil. Conservatives believe that but I do not think “liberals” believe that anymore.
    Because the United States is a super power it has taken the polar opposite role against many totalitarian regimes of both communists and fascists and fought for the freedom and democracy of people all over the world for 200 years. America has made mistakes but because of it’s humanitarian value of human life we have prevented more wars than we’ve engaged. Europe is a good example. Before America became a super power Europe never went more than a couple decades before fighting with each other somewhere and often times in civil war themselves. Through humanitarian relief and aid from the United States the world over has been effected and influenced for the good in the majority of historical instances. America isn’t God. America has made mistakes but you cannot deny that even Americans themselves are giving and caring by nature exampled in the millions of dollars given every year from average American citizens donated to the crisis relief in foreign countries. In fact average American people give more to foreign countries than every other contributing country in the world combined.
    Ok stay with me here because the point is this. The world was in check because of the spiritual, political, military, social superiority of the United States. The world was not in check mate because the United States is a power for good not evil.
    Meaning we created a kind of centrifugal force. The world balanced on a set of scales so to speak. There was no way that communism or socialism or fascism or any other ism could take over the world or put their boot too far down someone’s throat before the United States stepped in to stop it and or hinder it and expose it so the world has “played nice” in the last 200 years or dealt with America’s wrath.
    The communists knew they couldn’t defeat us UNLESS they infiltrated us from within our own ranks and changed our way of thinking. They’ve been effecting communist thinking change from the inside out for my entire lifetime until we are only now a diluted form of what we once were.

    The destruction of the 4th amendment and this fresh attack on the 2nd amendment is just bigger chunks now of knocking the legs out from under freedom. If they can silence the people (1st amendment), if they can take away the right to defend yourself (2nd amendment). If they can take away private property and make it state owned(5th amendment). If they can take away any and all rights to privacy (4th amendment)… what is the difference between us and communism? Every amendment is at jeopardy if even one is destructed and they already destroyed the 4th amendment. Do you think that will be enough for them?
    Our economy is holding on by a tiny thread. In fact we are falsely and deceptively held in operation when we should have collapsed already. While we’re standing here at the brink don’t you find it more than a coincidence that this present government will try and destroy every bit of personal freedom we have left before the economy finally collapses after Obamacare? Does anybody not believe that Obamacare will be the final straw that broke the back of economic America? When you’re hanging on by your fingernails you don’t go flapping your arms. Obamacare would be big broad flaps even if our economy were stable and healthy which it is FAR from!

    And after collapse what then? No more super power United States which is what Europe, China and Russia want already. And who will fill that vacuum? Are our liberal (communist) Americans SO STUPID to think there are no more polar opposites of good and evil in the world? Are we all just one big socialist loving, hand holding earth after that?
    America will be forced into socialism and the rest of the world will finally be at peace?

    No, the scales will tilt and evil will be allowed to rule. No more balance. (And the same ignorant people who caused this will probably blame God) And that is the problem. Honestly it’s a spiritual problem because the root of it is they don’t believe in good vs evil anymore.
    They don’t believe there is any merit in honoring God so if there is no God then evil is canceled out as well. That means no accountability to anyone but greed and selfish ambition which is where we are.

    So.. we’re trading freedom for free stuff are we? Liquidation sale on American freedom. All amendments must go. Up for grabs currently.. 2nd amendment. Jump on the band wagon. These amendments are going CHEAP! We got some free Obama phones for ya. We got everything you need to be dependent on the government for life. Step right up.. all you have to give up is your freedom.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (15 votes cast)
  16. David in MAComment by David in MA
    December 18, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

    “Progressives”: Lets start calling them by their real titles.
    Socialists, Communists, Marxists,islamics, call them what they are and recognize them for what they are. EVIL and Un-American, intent on destroying the best nation on the planet rather than immulate, destroy. Mentally ill people, dangerous people, and we got one of the b astards in the White House.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.8/5 (16 votes cast)
  17. tonymComment by tonym
    December 18, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

    Certainly there is enough evidence to attest to the statement Ms. Brown has made that the country is in moral decline. Addressing the moral decline, if at this stage that is even remotely possible, will not prevent psychopaths from carrying out their evil deeds. They are psychopaths not because the eschew morals but because for whatever the physiological or psycholgical reason, they do not have the capacity to adopt a moral framework to control behavior and relationships with other humans.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (8 votes cast)
  18. freedomfighterComment by freedomfighter
    December 18, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

    Instead of talking about taking the rights of Citizens to own guns away from them, we should be looking at things which might really aid greatly in the problem with gun attacks.
    Put armed guards in schools, and events, to protect the innocent.
    Put emergency doors in classroom to the outside, which would allow teachers and students a means of escape in a situation such as this, and also a means of getting out of the classrooms, instead of being forced to walk calmly through smoke filled, and possibly even fire filled hallways. Or even, build safe rooms into the classes to protect children and teachers in just such a situation as this tragedy. The Children are tomorrows Citizens, Technicians, Computer specialists, Scientists, Astronomers, Mathematicians, Teachers, Firemen, Wives, Husbands, ETC, ETC, and most importantly, our kids, which they are to us until the day we or they, God forbid, are taken.
    Raid the homes of all felons, and confiscate their weapons, likewise the homes of mentally unstable known individuals. They have no rights to own guns.

    Taking guns away from law abiding Citizens is not the answer. A gun kills no one, it is only a weapon of a bad person, it is the person responsible for what the gun does.
    Shall we outlaw cars, because there are vehicle accidents?.
    shall we outlaw knives, because people are killed with them?.
    Shall we outlaw home furnaces, because they explode and kill people?. Where does the idiocy end?.
    Banning the rights of owning guns, is not going to stop the crazies from shooting people. Would be killers, and mass murderers, will get their weapons of choice, no matter how strict or crazy the laws are against owning them! They WILL get weapons, and disarming Citizens of weapons will not change this fact. There are many sources on the black market, and many unscrupulous weapons dealers who will be most happy to supply these weapons to bad people. All it will do by disarming law abiding Citizens, is take their ability to protect themselves, and their loved ones, away from them, while making it easier for those with bad intent to attack them. If the Government, and or other agencies disarm the Citizens, they only succeed in giving the bad guys more unarmed targets to take advantage of. We must have the right to protect ourselves, those we care about, and possibly in a case such as this one, even innocents.
    Many of these mass slayings could have possibly been minimized dramatically, had some armed Citizens, or patrol men been present.
    So in effect, the taking of guns from Citizens could conceivably remove the protective side of arms. We never hear of the law abiding Citizens who have used concealed weapons to protect, only those instances when people are killed by them.
    The gun is a two way weapon, which can be used for protection, or for murder. I would venture to say that the good of them outweighs the bad.
    We were given the right in the second Amendment, to protect ourselves and others from tyranny, no matter from what source it comes. The removal of that right only makes sheep and enslaved, of the Citizenry, and masters of those with bad intent, and the means to implement their destruction of the unprotected/defenseless populace.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (10 votes cast)
    • norditeComment by nordite
      December 18, 2012 @ 5:37 pm

      Putting armed guards in schools would be fine but the GOP would then cut the funding for it. Or maybe they wouldn’t since it helps their friends in the NRA and the gun makers in the money. They would just cut the mental health portion to pay for the guards.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.6/5 (18 votes cast)
  19. MichaelComment by Michael
    December 18, 2012 @ 5:54 pm

    The main problem in this case was the mother. Her son has a mental condition where he does not have emotion, and then she trains him to use firearms? How do you stop that?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)
  20. xjandinComment by xjandin
    December 18, 2012 @ 6:36 pm

    The ‘mainstream media’ is dishonest in their push for gun control. Check the FBI statistics: Only about 1/3 of violent crimes are committed with guns – so the vast majority of crimes are committed without them. When criminals decided not to commit an intended crime, in about 80% of the cases, it was because they were afraid the intended victim might be armed.

    When Florida passed their concealed carry laws, the crime rate dropped nearly 90% in a little over 6 months. The truth is that armed citizens prevent crimes, they kill more criminals per year than the police (a no brainer, they’re first on the spot.) Google ‘citizen kills robber’ and you’ll see hundreds of links.

    Anyone who supports gun control is either uneducated or dishonest.

    Contrary to media claims, the 2nd amendment guaranteed the right of the people to keep and bear military weapons. It had nothing to do with hunting. Banning so-called ‘assault’ weapons (semi-automatic rifles) is nothing more than a tactic to get their foot in the door for even more gun control (population control – Hitler didn’t start exterminating the Jews until after he had disarmed them.). It also astonishes me that people want to ban ‘cheap’ handguns – I guess it’s ok to have a gun if you’re rich, but not if you’re poor. Why do people believe this garbage?

    If our politicians were honest, they would immediately pass legislation to protect principals and teachers who are willing to carry concealed to protect our children.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (13 votes cast)
  21. ullungdoComment by ullungdo
    December 18, 2012 @ 7:30 pm

    You’re so right! We should all be armed, so in case another Adam Lanza shows up, we’ll be ready. If only his mother had had guns she could have…What? She did? He used HER GUNS against her? And then used the same guns at the school? Oh, all right, never mind.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.1/5 (11 votes cast)
    • dynamicdaveComment by dynamicdave
      December 18, 2012 @ 7:55 pm

      That is the most ignorant comment I have heard yet. So you blame the GUN? No, wait, do you blame the mother? No, you are ignorant to those who carry a gun responsibly. You would rather see to it that the ONLY civilians who have guns are the criminals… Yeah, your logic makes me laugh. When you are out on the street and someone robs you at gunpoint and I show up, save your pacifist butt, will you be thanking me, or will you be telling me I shouldn’t own a gun? If that is the case, you won’t be saying ANYTHING because the robber already shot your ignorant self. Think on that for awhile.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 18, 2012 @ 8:29 pm

      “If only his mother had had guns she could have…What? She did?” – ullungdo

      Wow!

      Killed his own mother, then went to an elementary school, to two classrooms, methodically killed twenty first graders and you think if ONLY she had no guns in the house no harm done

      So the mental barriers he needed to cross to do the deed are not as important as whether he had a gun in the house or not

      Wow!

      Who said being a liberal does not take a leap of faith

      I am of the opinion, as sad as it might be, if he had not had access to a gun he would have put poison in the town’s drinking water, or used some biological agent

      But let’s blame the gun

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
    • ullungdoComment by ullungdo
      December 18, 2012 @ 9:19 pm

      Jota: At almost the same time as Lanza’s rage, an almost identical episode happened in China. A man attacked a woman in her 80s in her home, then went to an elementary school and attacked 20 students. Just one difference: no one died in China because the assailant had no gun, only a knife. So you are absolutely right: let’s blame the gun.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.7/5 (7 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 18, 2012 @ 9:45 pm

      “So you are absolutely right: let’s blame the gun.” – ullungdo

      Wow!

      What a deal!

      If we starved 30 million of our population we too could enjoy the opportunity of having crazy people just stabbing our children

      Am sure that is not as horrid as it sounds!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • dynamicdaveComment by dynamicdave
      December 18, 2012 @ 9:47 pm

      You keep blaming the gun? You are a humorous person. You are running around with blinders on to the real reason those children are dead. It is because a whack-job idiot decided he would kill them. The gun was a tool. Efficient? yes, but still a tool. The man would have found a way to kill them. He would have either got a different weapon or gotten hold of a gun or rifle by other means. Don’t fool yourself. Oh, and please stop pissing down our backs and tell us it’s raining. I swear, if I were to walk upon you in the night, knowing who you are and what you represent and saw you being robbed at gunpoint, I would STILL save your worthless, pacifist, Liberal butt. Feel lucky there are still men and women in the world who would not laugh at you for being the blind, uneducated human being that you project. Believe me, your tune would change and you would be proven a hypocrite if you EVER were put in that position and SAVED by a registered, law-abiding, civilian gun owner.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
    • freedomfighterComment by freedomfighter
      December 18, 2012 @ 10:54 pm

      To ullungdo and all sympathizers/Liberals.
      I would like to know just how many who speak of gun control actually, themselves, own weapons. I can almost bet that most all, if not all, of them tote or own guns.
      It is so very easy to see this type of tragedy, and shout on the mountain tops that guns are killers, but when it comes down to reality, self protection/preservation is a built in trait to all human beings. some are really pacifists, and many will not have weapons in their homes, or on their persons. This is fine, if they actually feel safe in the world of today, but to most, they can see much coming our way, and much of it is bad.
      A scenario.
      You and your Family are having a very rare stay at home dinner, and watch a movie evening. You are a pacifist, and have no weapons in your home. All of a sudden, you hear someone breaking in a window, or trying to kick down your door. Which would you rather have as protection, a neighborhood watch program, a cell phone to dial 911, or a loaded hand gun?.
      Police response could take up to 10 minutes to arrive on scene, if your neighbors are really on the ball, and call police for you, just about the same response time could be expected. A loaded handgun is easily accessible, to help protect your family immediately.
      Your commitment to refrain from self protection could get you, and your whole family killed without a chance.
      Your Wife, Kids, Girls, and even son are about to fall into a very bad situation, so tell me, wouldn’t you like to rethink your commitment to not have protection?. Of course, you can let the cards fall as they may, possibly all die, while you crow about your confidence in being able to calm these intruders into surrendering to you, and wait for Police to show up and arrest them.
      Imagine what these intruders could do to your Family and you, if no one saw them break in, or you did not have time to dial 911. You risk it
      all just so that you can say you did the right thing by not owning or carrying a gun.
      If this last statement is your stance, then you are one of the sheep that people like this like to have the addresses of, knowing that you have NO protection against them. They would not likely even take the chance if they knew that you are a armed, and a capable defender of home and Family.
      Many people are critically wounded or killed in their homes, and on the streets of today’s society, simply because they were not able to defend themselves.
      Saying you want to be a victim is way different than actually being one. Owning or carrying a gun does not make you a killer, but it surely could keep you from being a victim of one. I cannot even fathom my Wife, and or Girls being subjected to the things they might, while I sat uselessly by, or dead, without even trying to protect either.
      The gun is not evil, it is merely the weapon of one who is.
      A car is not a murderer, but the one who drives drunk behind the wheel is, so do we ban vehicles because thousands of people fall victim to auto accidents each year, or do we make a massive attempt to keep these people from getting behind the wheel of a automobile?.
      Food for thought, you can be a unarmed victim, or a armed hero to your family, as you protected them valiantly. Any animal born with no means of self protection is a born victim to those that are.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
    • jb12Comment by jb12
      December 19, 2012 @ 5:14 am

      Freedom fighter, you almost wrote my story but it is worse. I was a young mother with two small children. One night my son woke me up because he heard a commotion—someone was trying to come through our back door. My dog ran out the dog door on the side of the house and attacked the man. I called 911. I called 911 3 times. The last time the 911 operator told me that a police car had driven around the front of the house and everything was fine. Really? When the police finally showed up 7 hours later the officer told me that he was shocked that as a single woman with children I was not armed. I went out that day and bought a saw off shotgun (legal limit). I also now have a concealed handgun permit and I carry. Would I want to kill someone? No. Would I kill someone to protect myself, my loved ones or anyone else? Yes, I would. If guns were outlawed in my state I do not think I could have ever had another peaceful nights sleep.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  22. dynamicdaveComment by dynamicdave
    December 18, 2012 @ 7:47 pm

    As a responsible gun owner, I am outraged at the senseless killing of children in CT. However, I am also outraged at the senseless blame of ignorant Liberals who want to force their pacifist beliefs on those who wish to do nothing more than to protect not only their homes and families, but their 2nd Amendment rights. In the service, war was part of my life, but as a civilian, I can happily say I have never had to use my gun to harm or kill anyone. I am in an “open carry state” and wear my sidearm without fear. I can walk the streets at night and not be bothered or made a victim. Guns are a great deterrent just by visual display alone. I don’t flaunt it, I don’t bring it into places that don’t allow it (libraries, banks, Government regulated facilities, Casino’s, etc.), but I DO carry it when I go late night shopping, etc.. The fact remains that all the hysteria is fresh and alive. I understand the concern for senseless death, but don’t put it on the blame of people like myself, who fought for this country, and carry a weapon now, responsibly. Soon, only criminals will have guns and than what? Who will protect you if you are being robbed, beaten, or worse, and I happen along, without my weapon? Think about that. You may be a victim of home invasion and cannot do anything as you watch your family being butchered because, oh yeah, you don’t believe in guns. Big help that did for your family. Pacifists are humorous, strange little people. They think that if everyone were like them, there would be no need for guns? Maybe, but guess what? This ISN’T Walton’s Mountain and there IS hate in this world. The sooner you learn to except that fact the sooner you may realize that sometimes you have to stand up for your rights and protect your family. Putting your head in the sand won’t get it done.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (10 votes cast)
  23. hdmaniaComment by hdmania
    December 18, 2012 @ 8:40 pm

    You libs wanna know why your teenagers are out killing people?..start with the flouride in the water..then when kids are little and act up a bit the docs wanna prescribe pills for the kids so their all doped up on pills..then throw in the disease Obummer and I think I would be depressed too..no hope of school or jobs..it doesnt take much for water or pills to tip the scales of a mental teenager out to do harm..you libs who wanna give up your guns thats ok but I am a law abiding citizen and I am not giving up my guns..now if someone tries to break in your house or shoot you then dont come to me to save you..you libs can take your chances with your local police..if your lucky they might be there to write your death report and pick up the pieces..libs dont be so lazy and deal with the causes of this problem and stop hassling us law abiding citizens..

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  24. Pingback: Gun Control is Genocide - documentary by Mike Adams - Page 5 - ALIPAC

  25. stickmanComment by stickman
    December 18, 2012 @ 9:32 pm

    In 1989 a gunman in highly gun controlled Canada shot and killed 14-victims at École Polytechnique in Montreal. The Norway shooter in July 2011 took out 69-people…again, another strict gun law country.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.5/5 (6 votes cast)
    • PatComment by Pat
      December 19, 2012 @ 7:38 am

      You understand, libs do not look at the facts. Why do you think Obama wants everyone to move on this while emotions are still high? He knows those who have even a pinch of common sense will begin looking at the facts when things settle out a little. I do personally take huge offense in the way our founding fathers are being portrayed by these over the hill loonie liberals in public and in our schools (we are teaching children to be ashamed of their country instead of have pride in the best country in the world to live in……at least it was before this guy took over). The man in the white house is just as responsible as we have had 4 years of class warfare and constant apologies about our country (and here we go again about how violent we are ……….. like he would know), then, there are the constant class warfare remarks and the “evil” millionaires and billionaires constantly when he is really admonishing those in our society who worked their tails off and are successful and on and on repeated over and over and over so those who are not bright enough to think for themselves have internalized his comments. Violent videos that children sit around playing instead of going outside and playing ball or climbing a tree or going for a walk or just playing like we did when we were kids. We also have all his buds out in California making violent movies (and one the other day who said something about the movie ended well because as soon as he got loose he killed all the white folks; one wonders how many young blacks will see that and think it is “the thing” to do cause this guy did it), then, there are the threats on the Michigan governor by Obama’s friends the unions, all the amoral **** they are teaching kids in school, God is being removed from everything, capitalism is being vilified by the leftists, Occupy Wall Street (Obama favorites) raped, murdered, and did countless other horrid illegal things and Obama supported them, Fast and Furious was done specifically to hang it on the American people in an effort to get gun control only it backfired, Obama allows the violence along our border and allows American citizens to be killed, Obama started his own personal Army of people between 18 and 24 and one wonders why the government bought all those hollow point bullets that can’t be used anywhere but in this country, because they are so horrid and such a cruel way to kill someone, the media NEVER reports any instances where a person with a gun has stopped a criminal from killed others, as pointed out in the commentary, Obumbler has pushed abortion including late term abortion and he and his charming queen now want partial birth abortion and he has repeatedly voted to allow a surviver of a botched abortion to be left to die without any medical help (does this sound like someone who values human life or children?). This whole situation, for Obama at least, is nothing more than a crisis for him to use. Barely an hour after the horrific events, he was calling for gun control when a really concerned person would have been thinking about the families and being sure they got anything they needed. There is so much that makes this move for gun control a huge joke on us.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "Apparently democrats and 40% of the SCOTUS do. Democrats have been pandering to Blacks since the LBJ's "War on Poverty"..." Comment by Eagle525
    Posted in Do Blacks Need Favors?
  • "First off, I am 100% pro death penalty for some heinous crimes. Woods is certainly one of those who more..." Comment by bethcz8
    Posted in Misplaced Mercy in Arizona Execution Drama
  • "You Posted,"Sorry but, based on Obama’s results I consider the Donors who kept him in the WH, milking the country..." Comment by sotheseedsofliberty2
    Posted in Obama's Utopian Statism and the Lapdog Media

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer