THE DEATH of 20 little children and six courageous adults at Newtown, Conn., has managed to do what no other killing spree could - it has caused heretofore wuss politicians to take a stand and speak out about the need for sensible laws controlling the access to assault weapons and mega-capacity ammunition clips, and it has galvanized national public opinion in support of these efforts.
»Read story: Ed Rendell: Listen, wusses, it's time for new gun laws
»Read story: Ed Rendell: Listen, wusses, it's time for new gun laws
Comments (125)
Stop being a wuss and recognize that the constitution does not let you just willy nilly infringe the rights of the public to defend themselves.
I don't care HOW lethal a gun can be (it's what they are made for).
The fault is not in the GUN, but the whose hands they are in.
If NO GUNS EXISTED ANYWHERE... This killer would have still killed... body count might have been lower, but the tragedy would not have been stopped.
It's not the GUNS you WUSSE.. It's the operator.— turkytom- Your right to own a gun is not being taken away.
But we can limit which gun is available to own.
And limit its ability to fire so much ammo.— gibby58 - Gibby, it is impossible. Drugs are illegal as well as the guns the dealers carry, yet they are still there. Clip size does not matter. You could have 5 round clips, but it only takes a second or 2 to switch clips. In the 20 minutes that the shooter had free reign in the school, clip size would not have made any difference. — chris_r
- The second amendment guarantees that I may obtain weapons equivalent to what a tyrannical government may obtain and use against me unlawfully. Back when the second amendment was written, the musket was a "weapon of war". The British army used them and so did the Colonists. There is NO requirement to demonstrate "need". — HemiR6
- "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Scalia's decision, Supreme Court v. Heller. The 2nd amendment guarantees you no such thing.— carl and sons - I said "I may obtain". I am not a felon, not mentally ill and don't wish to carry in sensitive places. I also did not say it gave me the right "to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". Fail. — HemiR6
- But your statement :"The second amendment guarantees that I may obtain weapons equivalent to what a tyrannical government may obtain..." does indeed say that, in so many words. Are you going to purchase a drone, or a tank, or a submarine, just because the "tyrannical" govt might use it against you? You need to call Tin-Foil-Hats-Anonymous. — TheLowDown
- Tin-foil-hats-anonymous, I actually laughed out loud. But I digress, tin foil hats aside, I never said "the" tyrannical government, as in right now. I said "a" tyrannical government, as in what was the basis for the second amendment. Did I miss the new amendment that said once the country is lazy and complacent and has a standing army we can do away with the second amendment or start chipping away at it? By the way, I wouldn't mind owning a couple drones and an Apache helicopter. But alas, way too expensive for my checkbook. — HemiR6
- "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...commentators and courts routinely explained that THE RIGHT WAS NOT A RIGHT TO KEEP AND CARRY ANY WEAPON WHATSOEVER in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Sorry for the caps it's the only way to emphasize things here. Check it again.
— carl and sons - Carl, I agree that it is not unlimited. Of course I can not cruise down the boulevard with a tank or shoot at birds with an apache. However, if the police and swat have access to a Colt LE6920MP-FDE, I should as well. One more from Heller:
"...the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."— HemiR6 - Again, No. You do not have a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever. Scalia's words (and believe me, quoting that fount of corruption is going to make me take a shower in a second).
There is no definition in the decision of the word "whatever", no mention of a Red Ryder BB Gun, a Colt ABC123-LMNOP, or a H bomb. Just the confirmation that guns can be owned by private citizens, and that the government may impose restrictions on that ownership.— carl and sons - Sir, you can stop saying "...and carry weapon whatsoever". I never said it and I already agreed with you that it is not unlimited. We can both cherry-pic parts of the decision that fit our beliefs. But what do you think of the decision as a whole, commentary included? Especially the historical context of the 2nd amendment.
Also, please give me a plausible scenario how implementing ALL of fast eddie's "recommendations" could have prevented this mad man from perpetrating this crime with hand guns his mom owned and may have carelessly left accessible. You know you can't so you will either:
a. not answer, or
b. be sarcasti— HemiR6 - Sir, you can stop saying "...and carry weapon whatsoever". I never said it and I already agreed with you that it is not unlimited. We can both cherry-pic parts of the decision that fit our beliefs. But what do you think of the decision as a whole, commentary included? Especially the historical context of the 2nd amendment. Also, please give me a plausible scenario how implementing ALL of fast eddie's "recommendations" could have prevented this mad man from perpetrating this crime with hand guns his mom owned and may have carelessly left accessible. You know you can't so you will either: a. not answer, orb. be sarcasti (HTML deleted) — HemiR6
- Carl and sons...you again? Hey genius, how did your laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools work out in Newton? Keep trolling and tryin and remember, never let a fact get in your way — Mottz
- And how exactly would any of the proposals in this article infringe on your right and ability to "protect yourself?"
The school knife attack in China injured 22 but killed no one. Tell the Sandy Hook parents your theory about how that is an equal tragedy to theirs. You may need to carry your gun when you do, to protect yourself.
The point is to keep the guns out of the hands of idiots and sociopaths and selfish creeps with no empathy for others. (check the mirror for more details).— carl and sons
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: