Notice how people who dissent against the government are painted as crazy, stupid, dangerous, don't care about kids.

That is by design.

If these posters aren't shills to the agenda, then they are responding that way due to programming, subconsciously.

They've been trained to attack like mindless pit bulls.

Guns aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.
Get used to it.

I present Exhibit A: Hobo Floto Voto.

As an extremist, he uses "extremes" to justify his stance. As you can see, ladies and gentlemen, he goes on the offensive, attacking the opposite view point and uses code words in his discourse such as "agenda" and "programming," hinting that somehow those on the other side of his viewpoint are somehow brainwashed. Other popular terms used by extremists are "sheep" and "sheeple."

Further evidence in his use of extremes, he also supposes that those on the other side don't believe in the constitution or the fact that guns are deeply embedded within American society. He attacks those who differ from him yet offers no solutions to the current topic/problem.

As an extremist, he believes that only he and others that share his viewpoint are in touch with reality when the exact opposite is true.

I'm an extremest because I believe in the US Constitution?
Huh?
I don't get it.

daxtremesolja are you even an American?
Because you sound like a commie pinko.

And you just further proved my point. Keep it up.

Commie pinko? What year is it, 1959?

-daxtremes..., I recommend you keep your straw man away when you do your flaming. You don't want to have an accidental fire.

These protestors are typical subhuman gun freaks, like many of the posters here. Zombie eyed cult members.

The constitution does not prohibit regulation of guns- in fact it demands it.

You're probably right. Guns aren't going anywhere. Another reason why this country is doomed- guns and people like you.

This comment has been deleted.

Anyone else notice how "professor/taxman/obamasmomma always responds to the first few posts of every article?

Me thinks this man is really attention starved.

@ Woky - See again, no facts...just slander, lol!

After years spent as the smartest moron in the room, the little professor fancies himself quite the quite the authority on tyranny and matters of defense. But honestly, dude, to the caual observer, it looks more like another paranoid case pooping in his pants over black helicopters and scary, more densely-pigmented "thugs" invading his suburban home.

Want to know who Professor1982 is....just check it out:

http://johndallasbowers.com/home.html

Floto, you want to ran against the government and take up arms because you "hate" the government....but if not for that government you wouldn't have the freedoms you do. You don't like it? Then get out.....or shut up.

Right...the constant comments calling 2nd amendment supporters ignorant rednecks with manhood problems are SO much classier.

This comment has been deleted.

@ Red Sonja - I applaud your initiative and respect for the Constitution. I further applaud your sense of responsibility to that of yourself, family and loved ones and friends (something the Left could/should learn about).

While I may not know your particular political or sociological positions, that doesn't matter. You are an American and you have certain unalienable rights that no Govt or liberal moron should take away.

DeltaV, you sound like a frightened little suburbanite, clutching your guns just waiting for the chance to shoot one. Pretty pathetic. Real men don't need to cling to guns. Were you too scared to join the military but now you want to play Rambo? LOL.

Since when does having a dissenting point of view make you a heckler? The left are trotting this guy out there and playing up his victim status and people that believe in freedom and the constitution are not allowed to challenge him on what he says? If he wants to play the game he better expect to be challenged. After all it's not like the people were saying they were glad his kids are dead, they just have an opposing point of view on "resonable gun control".

"Heckling" is when you shout out at a person who is testifying and you are sitting in the audience. And for you to refer to him as "playing the game" when his 7 year old child was SHOT in the HEAD last month, well you have a sick idea of games and playing.

If you see the whole unedited video you'll see that he was answering the questions and not "heckling".

This comment has been deleted.

Oh here we go. We're Nazis because we want some kind of reason in this debate. You're referring to someone as the "biggest hate spewing inbred", yet you don't see the irony in that statement.

You're not a very bright individual, we all get that. But, don't accuse someone else of something you do yourself. That's hypocrisy.

He Peaty....I am not the one claiming to be "civilized" as Dax is...but dont let more facts get in your way.

Professor, I'll refer you to my post on extremism and my response to Hobo Floto Voto.

You're Exhibit B.

Guns and bullets aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.

Get used to it.

Are you sure? What about that tyrannical king you keep warning us about? That's another misconception you yahoo's keep perpetuating. The American Revolution was won with well regualted troops, trained by a homosexual at Valley Forge(Von Steuben). Not by weekend warriors shooting beer cans. If the overthrow of the government happens you're more likely to be starved out than shot at. You all get to keep one gun. Now shut the F up.

The leftist media sensationalizing yet another "non-event".

Meanwhile Obama parades children around his illegal Executive Orders, lol....

Talk about hypocrisy!

Professor Bowers,

Obama is your President, get used to it. LOL.

http://johndallasbowers.com/home.html

"With all due respect for his loss, it does not make him qualified to speak on this issue."

Doesn't this statement just say it all about rabid gun nuts. But Larry Cheswald and Wayne LaPierre are!!

Larry Cheswald tosses out comments about stereotypes while ridiculing a guy that lost his baby boy in a hail of bullets from an assault rifle. Now that's class. Typical gun fruitcake.

Get your facts right...the shooter used handguns, not an assault rifle.

proof = http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

The medical examiner has already confirmed that the children were shot multiple times by a .223 bushmaster rifle.

Stop spreading disinformation.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/newtown-massacre-bushmaster-223/story?id=18000884

Two things: One, "daxtremesolja" should have his own talk show because he makes sense and speaks passionately without extremes.

And "Hobo Floto Voto" continues to display with immature, self-obsessed, frighteningly uninformed self by repeating the same mantra time and again, and I have little doubt that he will do so again after reading this message. It's like the kid in second grade who simply needed attention so he alienated the rest of the class because it was all about "him." I'll keep you in my prayers, Hobo Floto Voto. Hang in there. Things will get better. Shhhh . . . shhhh . . . shhhh . . .

Disinformation? Let me rock your world...

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83021131/

"...the shooter used handguns, not an assault rifle"

This is a common lie perpetuated by gun nuts.

Adam Lanza killed 27, including 20 elementary school kids, using a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a Glock 10mm and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm. An Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun was taken from the trunk of Lanza's car.

At about 9:35 AM, using his mother's Bushmaster, Lanza shot his way through a locked glass door at the front of the school. He was wearing black clothing, earplugs and an olive green utility vest carrying magazines for the Bushmaster.

"...the shooter used handguns, not an assault rifle"This is a common lie perpetuated by gun nuts.Adam Lanza killed 27, including 20 elementary school kids, using a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle, a Glock 10mm and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm. An Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun was taken from the trunk of Lanza's car.At about 9:35 AM, using his mother's Bushmaster, Lanza shot his way through a locked glass door at the front of the school. He was wearing black clothing, earplugs and an olive green utility vest carrying magazines for the Bushmaster. (HTML deleted)

These are the kinds of people who think this is all a conspiracy and Sandy Hook didn't actually happen. What can you expect from people who think that discussion about reason surrounding guns immediately means that the point is that all guns should be banned?

The NRA has successfully wound these nuts tight. They'll believe anything.

The state police confirmed use of the bushmaster in killing the kids and teachers.

So you are either lying or misinformed. Either option makes your posts equally worthless.

It's funny that you say this. There was an article last week in the NY times from the first responders and policemen. They clearly heard gunshots from a rifle. not a hand gun a rifle. It also said he had more rifle ammo than handgun ammo. I agree with Dax stop spreading your Alex jones propaganda around.

If emotional arguments do not qualify one to speak on an issue, then this has to be true across all topics. For example, using this logic then you would have to be an expert in being a homosexual to speak on the topic of gay marriage, correct?

This type of respone has no validity.

Guns aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.
Get used to it.

If you deny people the right to defend themselves, you will see many more lives lost.

Estimates from various sources (CNN and the FBI) put defensive uses of firearms in the 100,000 to million times per year.

You need a lesson in history because you're clueless.

and...Guns aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.
So get used to it.

1) That is not an 'assault rifle'. Functionally a Bushmaster is no different than the large majority of firearms in existence and common use by hunters and competitive target shooters.
2) The second amendment is not about hunting. Take a look at the PA state constitution's version (written about the same time); it specifically calls out personal defense.
3) AR style rifles are basically the best weapon for home defense. A longer sight radius leads to greater accuracy, the design means it can easily have things such as flashlights added for target identification, and the small caliber, low recoil cartridge means it can easily be used by young and old, male and female.

Guns aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.
Get used to it.

Ok Mr. 3/5's Clause.

What makes you believe that you are more "qualified" on this issue than someone who lost their child as a consequence of the law? I'm not even sure you're "qualified" to comment on philly.com, let alone a subject of this importance.

"assault rifles did not exist when the second amendment was made"

The 2nd amendment protected the right to own state of the art weapons. Otherwise, it would protect the right to own swords and bows.

Cheswald: So, you don't consider Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to be facts? You don't consider a seminal 2004 study, showing that there are more homicides and suicides in homes with guns, to be a fact? (Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.) You don't consider it to be a fact that the United States, a country that is engaged in no internal wars and isn;t threatened by any invader, possesses nearly 90 guns per 100 residents, double the rate of the next country on the list, Yemen (Small Arms Survey)? You don't consider it to be a fact that the United States has the highest per capita rate of murder by firearm of any developed country. 3.2 per 100,000 residents (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Homicide Statistics)? You don't consider it to be a fact that there have been 62 mass shootings in the U.S. in the past 30 years, with most of the guns used having been legally obtained (A Guide to Mass Shootings in America, Mother Jones)? So much for facts. I was going to close by insulting you, too, but I decided that your own posts do a fine job of that.

Statistically, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners.

Between 1974 and 2012, the total number of privately owned firearms in America increased by 85 percent, to 300 million. During the same period, national homicide and robbery rates did NOT significantly increase.

Less than 1 percent of all guns are involved in any type of crime, which means that 99 percent of all guns are NOT used to commit any crime.

Why are you adducing statistics about doctors? Are you saying that because doctors aren't as skilled as they should be, we should pay no attention to gun violence? I leave it to others to judge how much sense that makes. And your statistics about national homicide and robbery rates don't move me. The fact that our already sky-high murder rate -- WAY higher than that of other comparable countries -- didn't rise is not a cause for celebration. Finally, would you agree with the proposition that it's OK to drive drunk if I could prove that only 1 percent of drunk drivers actually succeed in killing someone?

"So, you don't consider Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris to be facts"

What about them? The fact that they showed that banning guns has no impact on criminal behavior (school shootings occur in 'gun free zones').

How about the hundreds of thousands of times per year that firearms are used for defense?

Maybe we should be more worried about the violent (and over medicated) tendencies of our culture, instead of focusing on the tools used.

What about Lanza et al? How about the fact that they give the lie to the gun-lovers' argument that criminals using illegally obtained guns are somehow different and more dangerous than legal gun owners? The weapons used by Lanza and Holmes were legally obtained. At least some of the weapons used by Klebold and Harris were apparently legally obtained. (http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0427a.htm) What this proves is that it's way too easy to legally obtain a weapon of mass slaughter. That's a pretty important point.
As far as "defensive uses" of firearms are concerned, the statistics that you and other gun lovers cite come from a single, seriously flawed survey of 5,000 people conducted by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz at Florida State University in 1995. For a critique of that study, see http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf
Finally, it's useless from a practical standpoint to separate the violent tendencies of our culture from the tools used to implement the violence. Violence isn't violence until it's enacted by some tool. The motivation/psychology of violent people and the means they use are equally important in understanding -- and possibly controlling -- the violence that we suffer way too much of.

The 100,000 number was from CNN, not the earlier study.

And taking away one tool isn't going to stop violent people from being violent. All it will do is take away the ability of the law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Prohibition and bans don't work: just see the drug war, alcohol prohibition, Chicago's gun laws...

You didn't say 100,000 times. You said "hundreds of thousands of times." Which could be read as the same order of magnitude as Kleck/Gertz's inflated estimate of 2.5 million instances per year. I didn't see the CNN story, but it may have been based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, "which yields estimates in the neighborhood of 100,000 defensive gun uses per year," according to BusinessWeek.

The trouble, though, with any estimate of defensive gun use is that much of the data is self-reported, and -- again according to BusinessWeek -- there are many "respondents who claim they’ve chased off burglars or rapists with guns but probably are boasting or, worse, categorizing unlawful aggressive conduct as legitimate DGU."

I'm not going to claim that Americans never, ever need a gun to protect themselves. But based on my experience and that of many people I know -- both in Philadelphia and the suburbs -- I do believe that those who like to possess firearms often exaggerate the self-defense argument as a justification. (In that connection, I'll point out that I have been mugged by armed men, and my daughter has been, too. In both cases, we were glad we didn't have firearms on us, because the muggers surprised us and we would not have been able to use a weapon. A weapon could only have made matters worse.) I also believe that, on balance, the danger to public health posed by unchecked firearm possession is greater than the danger that would be posed to individuals if we had some reasonable firearm control in place. And I certainly consider an assault rifle/high-capacity magazine ban reasonable.

Finally, it is true that prohibitions and bans sometimes don't work. But sometimes they do. See the recent bans on cigarette smoking in various places. I think the key point is this: Does a sufficiently large portion of the public support the ban, or not? If so, it will be respected. If not, it will be subverted.

"we were glad we didn't have firearms on us"

And here we get to the root of your problem; you don't feel you can handle a firearm properly, so you don't believe anyone can. You believe because you were surprised, everyone will be surprised by an assailant. The problem people like me have with people like you is that you seek to impose your decision not to arm yourselves on us. I have no desire to force you to own a gun; that is your decision. All I want is to be able to make my own decision myself.

As for 'reasonable firearm control', we already have it. Criminals are already forbidden from owning guns, as is straw purchasing. So-called assault rifles have only been responsible for something like 350 deaths since the first ban ended; if this is a public health vendetta, there are many more places you could start. And a magazine ban? Reports said that Lanza frequently changed magazines, I think it said he only fired ~15 rounds before changing. 10 round magazines would have made very little difference, as he was obviously prepared.

The ban on smoking seems to work, once again, only among the law abiding. Plenty of smoking in schools, in SEPTA subway stations; and a criminal isn't going to desire a cigarette to hold up a store.

Here is the video...http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

I watched the video. In all honesty, what they pulled out of that car was not a Bushmaster rifle. It looked more like a pump-action shotgun with a pistol grip. Look at how they cleared the action.

Guns aren't going anywhere, nether is the Constitution.
Get used to it.

Jon: Thanks for bringing some light to this debate. The so-called individual right to bear arms was a creation of extreme right-wingers on the Supreme Court, starting with the Rehnquist court in the '80s. Former chief justice Warren Burger, who was appointed by Nixon, said the idea that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms was a “fraud” perpetrated “on the American public by special interest groups.” He and generations of Supreme Court justices before him considered the right to bear arms a collective right vested in the states. For those who mistakenly see the current position of the court on gun rights as uniquely in harmony with the ideas of the Founders, I put forward another Supreme Court case: Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which held that legally imposed racial segregation was constitutional. I hope even our hard-core gun lover friends wouldn't claim that the court correctly distilled the ideas of the Founders on that one. My point: Supreme Court decisions do not reflect some unalterable truth written in stone. They reflect the political views of the justices and the spirit of the times as much as they do the underlying Constitution. Change the court and you change the law. I hope President Obama will be able to do just that.

No, a crazy person with a Bushmaster AR-15 killed these children. I have no doubt there are a number of crazy people in and around Newtown, CT, but fortunately not all of them had access to military-caliber weaponry. And I most definitely DO put the blame on "people who believe in the constitution and the right to bear arms," because they -- you -- are the ones who have blocked and are trying to block reasonable controls on things like semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines. You would rather have children shot than reconsider your knee-jerk -- and I believe erroneous -- interpretation of words written more than 200 years ago in a vastly different social and military context.

You're wrong!

The shooter didn't use an assault rifle.
They found his mom's AR-15 in the trunk of his car!!

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

Sorry, it's you who are wrong. You chose to cite a news source from the morning after the killings, when there was still confusion about which weapon was actually used. By the following day, Dec. 16, it was clear that the Bushmaster was in fact the weapon that Lanza used to shoot the children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If that source isn't enough for you, try this one, too:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushmaster-223-weapon-used-in-newtown-shooting-a-lightning-rod-in-gun-debate/

I am proud...and you're welcome.

Now..If you want gun control so bad would you be willing to put a sign on your home announcing that no guns are inside?

I doubt it.

The truth is:
Less than 1 percent of all guns are involved in any type of crime, which means that 99 percent of all guns are NOT used to commit any crime.

Statistically, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners.

Obama and friends will not stop they will not yield until only the government and police have all the guns the current regime in power is the antithesis of liberalism and it is the epitome of totalitarianism.

Funny you mention that...a week or so ago Philly.com ran a story about a woman (the reporter) who hated guns, going to a local range and taking a lesson.

Guess what: she kinda liked it, and recognized that maybe firearms weren't that bad after all!

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Notice how people who dissent against the government are painted as crazy, stupid, dangerous, don't care about kids. That is by design. If these posters aren't shills to the agenda, then they are responding that way due to programming, subconsciously. They've been trained to attack like pit bulls.

If you want gun control so bad would you be willing to put a sign on your home announcing that no guns are inside?

Doubt it tough guy.

Excellent point:

Its because armed citizens who can protect themselves and their property, whether that ability is exercised or not, also serves as a major deterrent to violent crime.

No, carl -- and I -- are all for your right to free speech. It allows you to expose the quality of your thought and the beauty of your personality.

Dave it seems only "free" when it suits you and Carl's agenda. Otherwise, you and your ilk label anyone with another opinion "nutjob". The liberals have market cornered on fear mongering. You are so bent on making sure that your 1st Amendment rights are heard, you gladly trample on other people's rights & the remaining parts of the constitution. Keep it classy!

Kindly point out how my post above tramples on anyone's rights.

Well regulated, using the way the word was used at the time, meant well supplied and well trained.

In the words of our time, that means the 2nd says that 'a well supplied and trained militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...'.

I did the research a few days ago and posted a response to this nonsense. When I first read this post I figured you were misinformed. Now it's clear you are lying.

wok...the media reported several times that the AR was in his trunk...it actually showed the video of the cops unloading it.

Then the story changed.

Nobody is lying.
Look it up.

"Then the story changed."

Oh, you mean as the facts came out?

The newscast you use to site was from the morning after. You don't see why this is laughable when I am posting sources updated a few days ago?

The weapon in the car was a shotgun. It was erroneously reported immediately after the shooting that it was a rifle. The video that you and others are pushing was part of these erroneous reports. Once the dust settled, the cops and everyone else involved agreed that the Bushmaster was used in the shootings while the shotgun stayed in the car. You cited CNN and CBS as reporting the Bushmaster was in the car, but here is what CNN actually reported:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html

And here is what CBS reported:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57559416/assault-rifle-used-during-sandy-hook-massacre/

Both of those outlets said Lanza used the Bushmaster, as did the New York Times and Time Magazine. You can have your alternate reality if you want, but don't call those of us who prefer real reality liars.

"What's scary is that HFV could obtain Lanzaesque firepower -- in, what, 24 hours? Less?"

Exactly. And this, folkes, is why we need to fight the NRA and their useful idiots at every turn.

Or.. the fact that the fathers of BOTH Lanza and Holmes were due to testify regarding the Libor Scandal (perhaps the biggest financial scandal of all time).

Ladies and gentlemen, we have 2 members of the "Sandy Hook Hoaxers" gracing us with their NUTTY conspiracy theories.

I don't believe there was a conspiracy...

I just question things, especially when logic dictates that I do. Enough if the conspiracy theorist NUTTY baloney.

The most despicable part of this is that you and others like you; are using this tragic event turned into political opportunity to change the US Constitution.

Take a deep breath, dude. You are contradicting yourself every other post.

First: "It is quite convenient that a horrific massacre occurs days before the U.N. Small Arms Treaty is up for voting. Sorry if I don’t blindly believe everything I see and read…especially with conflicting, changing and different information."

Then: "I don't believe there was a conspiracy...".

Huh??