Michael: with respect, what the heck does a Hudson hearing on indoor shooting ranges have to do with the shooting Thursday? Had this been a tragic traffic accident, would you have linked to a car show?

Michael, I feel you are so far off base linking a possible indoor gun range to wanton gun violence in Minneapolis. Are you shilling for the anti gun crowd now?

Hi Terry and Ed: This is an old post from just after the Aurora shootings that Twin Cities Patch regional editors decided to bring back to all the Patch home pages because of the recent shooting in Minneapolis. I had nothing to do with it.

Michael

Perhaps the Patchs' editors need to take off their collective liberal tin foil hats and post article comments that actually connect to the real world. The post above has absolutley nothing to with the shootings in Minneapolis.

The Huffington owned Patch already has a rotten reputation for painting the world leftist. The reposted post and article above just confirms it ...again.

Al, believe it or not, I think your contributions and input are a valuable part of our debate. But I do have to wonder why you frequent a site that you seem to abhor. It would be like me watching FoxNews and continually complaining to the producers. It seems a little foolish...

You seem to feel you are in opposition to "the establishment" regarding this site. That is good, as long as you prove the establishment wrong with concise and logical arguments. I, and many others, look forward to the debate. Don't blame the editors, prove your point.

Such a total fallacy; criminals are not deterred by carry and conceal laws, no more than they are afraid of the death penalty or life in prison. Furthermore, the suggestion that every gun-packing idiot makes for a safer community would be downright laughable if it wasn't so insane. Such rhetoric is fear mongering at its best. In response to the question, there are many sensible options available to control manufacturing and distribution/sales of guns. However, as long as organizations like the NRA, and others who misinterpret the 2nd amendment, defend every citizen's desire to buy a gun, little progress can be made to implement fair, logical, and intelligent gun restrictions.

There is no reason to take the guns away. There is also no reason for a law abiding citizen to have fully automatic assault weapons, grenades, etc either. Finally there is no reason for not registering weapons that potentially can be used to kill.

Joes, thanks for coming to an intelligent conversation & bringing nothing but insults & generalities. Take the time to look up some quality stat's then come back & join the grown up converation.

you dont get to keep the first amendment without the second one.

Where do you get those stats?

JOE, how could anybody misinterpret the second amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems pretty somple to me.

Joe, please post your full name and address so I know that if you are being robbed or assaulted, I will know enough to NOT waste my time getting my weapon out and helping you. I will call the police and sit on the sidelines and wait for them to help you!

Statistics can be shown to say anything you want them to say. You could find me Statistics for an armed public and i could show you statistics saying the exact opposite. Statistics are all lies.

Really Joe? that's why every shooting I've ever heard of recently or in the past in the cities area (and across the nation) Every single shooter did not have a permit to carry!

If people REALLY want a gun, they're easily going to get one. The only person dis-armed with these stupid gun bans (not full autos and grenades etc) are law-abiding citizens... Read Lott's Book "More guns, less crime" it's over 300 pages of straight up statistics, studies, and irrefutable proof that the stricter the gun laws... the more crime and violence there is.

An armed society is a polite society;)

Colorado is a conceal and carry state just like Minnesota. If there was signage that stated guns were banned in the theater, and this nut case comes in and does what he did it would be immeasurably difficult to stop it. As a responsible gun owner who like many in MN hunts a bit, it's difficult if not impossible to legislate against insanity. All of these tragic events, Columbine, VA Tech., Tucson, and now Aurora will have this moniker of death over their heads for ever. It's very unfortunate CO is a flash point for some of the largest attacks. But to Matt's point here, it takes a human to pull the trigger and while the saying guns don't kill, people do is probably a cliche (the families of the dead and wounded will argue it otherwise) it does ring to a bigger problem that is not being addressed which legislation and funding can help make a dent in and that is mental health treatment which is the 3rd largest strain on society out there (Heart disease and obesity are 1 and 2). If we want to fix the problem, you have to start with the people who are sick and struggling and are a mess. If not, then you can beef up security and the police and let them manage the problem. It will not surprise me that no matter where we go, malls, churches, theaters, restaurants, we'll all be walking through magnometers to be scanned for weapons just like at the airport.

In the Aurora incident, the shooter was wearing head to toe body armor. Anyone in the theatre that attempted to shoot back would simply have been the next victim...or worse, shot an innocent person by mistake. Conceal and carry may feed a gun toters "OK Corrall" fantasy, but it is ridiculous to consider this some kind of deterrent for this kind of tragedy.

Do you really believe that someone in a dark theater could have shot that man? I'mpretty sure that more people would have been killed or injured had a few "law abiding" gun owners would have started shooting. Are you aware that he wore protective clothing? We have a fully armed militia and they are called "police officers".

Janelle Camp wrote: "Are you aware that he wore protective clothing? We have a fully armed militia and they are called "police officers"."

What do these words mean to you.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

"People kill people" is as valid an argument as any I've heard. How many people die in traffic accidents yearly? As a result of alcohol? By repeat offenders who have been "compassionately" released for whatever "liberal" tolerances that exist? Likewise, how many repeat offenders of ANY crime are set free only to be recaptured revealing their rap sheets longer than a Dostoyevsky epic novel and "Progressives" want to whine about restricting a basic Constitutional right like that is going to stop anything a criminal will do? Criminals break any law they want and WE allow them to walk the streets time and again WITHOUT consequence.

This current AH (figure out the initials on your own because I won't mention his name and give this butt orifice the notoriety he seeks) will plead Not Guilty or claim Insanity. His trial will go on for years. His lawyers will claim the evidence is tainted because lifesavers and survivors were forced to traipse through this idiot's carnage thus messing up crucial evidence. He'll eventually sign a book/interview deal with ABC (and verify he had just joined the Tea Party . . . ?) when he decided to play a "JOKE" and scam the American Progressive Legal System by acting out in jail thus earning his insanity defense and life goes on for us law abiding citizens funding creep after creep's fair trial (which I support wholly in a reasoned manner) until some defense lawyer brings up the failure of some reporting officer to dot an "i" in one of his reports...

this movie theater is a posted gun free site.

When was the last time someone killed 12 people and injured almost 60 others with a bat?

agreed..

Well put. Those signs need to go. It might take a lawsuit by someone with a permit to carry being prevented from doing so in a case such as this.

"guns banned here" = "rob us, don't worry"

You can't regulate crazy...if someone snaps and decides to go off on people, they'll do it anyway they can. He rigged his entire apartment with homemade bombs...I'm pretty sure there's a law against that on the books. Criminals do not blink an eye at these types of restrictions, they only harm those who respect the law.

Susan, I think there is an issue with your use of the terms "unlicensed dealers" and "private dealer". If you are a dealer of firearms you need to be licensed. If you are "Joe Public" at home or a gun show selling your privately owned guns then you don't need to be licensed. They are not the same. I'm not exactly sure where the cut off between the two are but I'm pretty sure if you regularly show up at gun shows with new guns to sell each time, someone will be talking to you about your lack of a dealer license.

Dick, The last I heard, the shooter in Colo. didn't have a machine gun. You speak of "weapons of mass destruction". A single shot .22 rifle can be a weapon of mass destruction when a shooter is confronting a theater full of unarmed citizens. I wonder what the outcome would have been had at least on person in that crowed been legally carrying a hand gun. The chances of me being involved in a home invasion grow greater every day. So, just as a favor to you if it does happen to me, I will leave my gun in the drawer and will hopefully be able to call the police before I am shot or beaten to death with a baseball bat, my wife is raped, all of my posessions are loaded into the back of some losers van so he can sell them to support his drug habit, and then have my home set afire to destroy any evidence. You talk about absurd? Your statments are what is absurd. What are you going to do if it happens to you? Just hold the door open for them?

Israel and Switzerland have a better handle on guns than We do! If there had been ONE CC license with a gun in there it might have been different. With all the flakes in this Country and the ones still coming it's only going to get worse.

A quick question Dick, how is gun control working in Chicago?

http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/date/2012/

An AK15 assault rifle is well-named. The Constitution provides for the right to bear arms. Implied is the right to defend oneself and one's homestead, not the right to commit mass murder. I'm not a gun person, but here responsible gun people have told me, paraphrased: If you're going to own a gun, you must be prepared to use it. I understand that to mean be prepared to shoot (possibly/probably with intent to kill) in self-defense.

I think a single-shot gun does not qualify as a weapon of mass destruction. Am I happy/comfortable, knowing I'm theoretically surrounded by people who are packing? No. But I recognize the current interpretation of our Constitutionalal right to do so.

The conversation here about how different the outcome in Aurora might have been if folks in the audience had been packing seems naive to me. It assumes one shot from one person would have tipped the balance. I'm envisioning Gunfight at Muller Family Theaters, and that's deeply disturbing.

I'm guessing/hoping most of us want balance in this gnarly issue. How do we find that and make it happen? Seriously!

You mention "no need to have weapons of mass destruction in a civilized sociey. We do not have a civilized society as long as there are "crazies" out there who are not civilized, and there are many! That is why citizens who follow the law need guns.

Ed Larson, tight gun control laws in one place do nothing to protect the people there from guns brought in from states with lax gun laws; New York has tight gun control laws, but most of the guns used in crimes there can be traced to Virginia, which has extremely lax laws. The lesson is that we need national gun control laws applicable everywhere.

Joyce said: "tight gun control laws in one place do nothing to protect the people there from guns brought in from states"

As has been pointed out repeatedly.

Criminals do not tend to purchase theirs gun legally.

If you are opposed to the second amendment, work to have it repealed.

Ed Larson wrote: "Joyce said: "tight gun control laws in one place do nothing to protect the people there from guns brought in from states"

As has been pointed out repeatedly.

Criminals do not tend to purchase theirs gun legally.

If you are opposed to the second amendment, work to have it repealed."
Beware the truncated quotation - as I pointed out, guns purchased LEGALLY in states with lax laws, like Virginia, are responsible for crimes committed in other states; what we need are national gun control laws.
I am not calling for a repeal of the second amendment, merely for a rational application of that amendment; no right is absolute, not even the right to own guns.

Joyce, beware of the word tend in my post on the subject.

Criminals will get guns and they would like nothing better than a disarmed public to exploit.

"The "innocents" were killed by the very governments they expected to protect them. Do not think it couldn't happen here."

A bit hysterical don't you think.

Renee -your response is probably just the same as those "Innocents Betrayed" victims in the movie right before they went silent and forgotten.

Rosco,
I'm sure the statistics would also show that more people die from cancer,drunk driving, and many other thing sin the USA than in other countries. Your comment that real hunters use bows shows your lack of knowledge. How many duck hunters have you seen hit a duck with a bow? A bow is one of the many choices of weapons to harvest an animal. The choice of a bow does not make you more of a "real" hunter. It just reduces your chances of harvesting an animal, so it actually makes you more of a watcher of wildlife. Gun laws are not the problem! People who have no regard for the law are the problem . Last I checked, it is illegal to shoot a person or kill someone.Like others have said, if someone at the movie would have had a gun they could have shot back at the criminal saving many lives!

Rosco, I joined the NRA this year for the first time in my life, and I agree with you on that part of your comment. They are nothing more than a SuperPac giving money to the T-GOP Party. I will never again send them any money! If you are not right about the violent mindset now, they will have it in a few years. Look at the videos, games parents let their kids play. War has always been a good way to create jobs. Now down to the laws, I think our laws in Minnesota are just fine. You can't regulate these shootings like what happened in Colorado. The bad guys will always get guns!

Rosco,I'm a member of the NRA. I'm not a nut, or am i brainwashed by the so called "cult' I'm a member of. Are you a member of a local church? Should i insult you by calling you a child molester, due to the fact that some leaders of these churches abuse little boys!? This is a tragic thing that could not be stopped. This person was not sane. NO amount of laws would have prevented this. If not guns, he made some "bombs", he would of used those. Or a car, or whatever he could do to kill people.

Unfortunately, these horrible events are NOT at all rare in this country; I have no problem with sportsmen using firearms - my sister loves shooting competitions and a good friend is an avid hunter - but why would any sportsman need semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, and why should anyone be able to buy guns without background checks (even people on the terror watch list are allowed to buy guns) and why should anyone need to buy more than one gun a month?

Well said

Why? If I want to own one, have fun with it and don't commit a crime with it,

WHY should you care?

I can do a lot of mayhem with my 870 shotgun. Do you want to ban that too.

Why Not?

Renee, Why do you feel this way? I see & hear this comment & always wonder why the AR-15 platform is targeted to be banned. I believe the most common AR-15 sold is a .223 caliber. The hunting rifle credited with harvesting the most deer in the U.S. is the 30-30 lever action, which is based on a .309 caiber bullet. The most common rifle caliber I see when deer hunting is the 30-06, which is based on a .308 caliber bullet. If you look at the bullet size alone, the 30-30 & 30-06 are much larger.

bet you didnt know that "assault weapons" account for less than 3% of violent crime in this nation. you also probably didnt know that only 2 leagally owned fully automatic weapons have ever been used to commit crimes since 1917. oddly both were owned by policemen. more children dir from falling off ladders per year than accidental gun deaths. are you going to start banning ladders?

"harvesting deer"? Assault weapons for hunting? Are there permits for taking down a herd? Still see no reason for assault weapons to be legal.

David Mindeman wrote: ""harvesting deer"? Assault weapons for hunting? Are there permits for taking down a herd? Still see no reason for assault weapons to be legal."

Would you feel better if the shooter in CO had used a pump shot gun instead?

Renee, there is no mechanical or functional difference between an assault rifle and a deer rifle other than one looks scary to the uneducated. Both are semi-automatic rifles.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 to 2004 defined "assault weapons" as having the appearance of military-type weapons subjectively defined as pistol grips, bayonet mounts, folding stocks, etc in order to placate people with the need to believe the government is "doing" something about gun violence.

Gun violence didn't go down after the assault weapon ban started and it didn't go up when it ended. Such superficial and ingenuous legislation is simply ineffective.

I totally agree with Renee on this. Any gun is a lethal weapon in the hand of a child or a a teenager without instruction on the responsibility of using weapons. I need to ask the hard question. With all the video games the teens are playing shooting the worst arsenal at the people (their own friends and family) they are playing with on the screen, and outside with air guns that resemble real guns, as well as so many accidental fatal shootings in homes -Do you really comfortable with guns in your home?

Or they could just want to protect the second amendment so they have a market for their product. How many despotic nations first made registration necessary before they confiscated the weapons?
Your fear is driving your reasoning. A knife, bow and arrow or a piece of glass can "kill people". Should those also be registered too?

Svein,
When have you seen any "fully automatic assault weapons, grenades, rocket launchers" sold in the United States to the general public?

there is also no reason to own a porche, ferrari, lamborghini or $1000 designer handbag. to repeat my comment above, only 2 legally owned fully automatic weapons have ever been used in a crime since 1917, both by policemen. dictator countries have used gun registration to eventually take them away. maybe we should bring eric holder in on this one since he is so good at running guns.

Designer handbags cannot be used for mass murder.

Um, helllloooo, the shooter in CO legally bought these weapons. Canada doesn't have nearly the issue with guns, haven't seen them taken over. What about Great Britain, France, Switzerland, and the list goes on and on. The amendment was written during a time when there was a distinct need to defend against other countries invading. The public WAS the militia. We now have a militia and the public isn't it.

Even people with concealed weapons are not trained for these situations. Someone with a gun probably would have contributed to even more mayhem in the theater. We are a country with a strange obsession with firearms and ironically, the highest rate of death by firearms.

hitler nousilinni, stalin, pol pot and mao all banned guns. granted these are extremes but you cant get to an extreme without getting to the great brittain, france, switzerland stage first. if you look at the 2d amendment, it basically states that even with a well regulated militia, peoples right to keep and bear arms shouldnt be infringed.

Obama has done NOTHING to infringe on your right to carry a gun. Stop using Obama as a discussion point.

Meeche Miller, just where do you get your facts? Obama just said in the news that gun control would not have made a difference in Colorado, and Romney backed him up! You better be careful who you call ignorant, as it just may just turn out that it is you!

"It's called freedom"??? Well, you win for the stupidest comment on this thread, which is saying a lot. Logical reasoning certainly isn't your strong point. Guns have one purpose: TO KILL. Cars, on the other hand, have many other purposes. There are millions of facts that indicate more gun laws would have prevented this tragedy. The stats on people murdered by guns in other countries are just one of them.

allow me to elaborate a little. i understand that "assault weapons" as they are often portrayed can seem scary. but the AR-15 for example, uses the 5.56 x 45 mm bullet. the remington 760 is a hunting rifle that uses a variety of calibers, but primarily a 30-06 bullet. the military went to the smaller bullet for a couple of reasons. first, you could carry more of them for the same weight. and second, the bullet had a tendency of injuring its target rather than killing it. it would then take 2 soldiers to remove that 1 wounded from the battlefield. thus removing 3 enemy from the field of play. when you say that there is no reason for anybody to own an assault weapon (ar-15), then you can look at it from a different perspective. if i wanted a car to go from A to B. i could buy a plain old nothing fancy car or i could buy a ferrari. both do the same thing. one just looks, sounds, smells, etc cooler. you also get what you pay for. if you look at the numbers firearms only accounted for 8% of violent crime (2009) and 28% of robberies (2009). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
i found a study that lists "assault weapon" crime at 1% of all gun crime.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html
so if you look at banning assault weapons because you want to reduce crime, victimization or whatever, then its not going to do a lot of good in the grand scheme of things except keep them from honest citizens.

God I love hearing people use "freedom" as a discussion point. Simple hilarious.

Alas, let's take a look at facts. The countries with the tightest gun regulations: Japan, Singapore, Chile, Hong Kong, England, etc. also have the fewest gun related deaths per 100,000 people (wikipedia.com, today). Thus, if there were better regulations for evaluating the shooters need for a gun. This tragedy may have been prevented.
BLAM! Shot down that argument.

I can't accept the argument that more guns would have prevented this tragedy. In fact, I'd say in the chaos that was happening that night more people would have been killed.

Rich Higgins wrote:"I can't accept the argument that more guns would have prevented this tragedy. In fact, I'd say in the chaos that was happening that night more people would have been killed."

We will never know now will we?

What other freedoms do support taking away?

Please continue to use "freedom" as a reason to let the prevalence of guns permeate this gun-addicted nation.

Wanting more gun regulation has nothing to do with "freedom" and everything to do with protection, which is what the police and trained officers are supposed to do. Not Citizen A that carries a gun because he can.

Rich Higgins rote: "Please continue to use "freedom" as a reason to let the prevalence of guns permeate this gun-addicted nation"

I will. Sad that you can't see it as a freedom issue enshrined in our constitution.

How are gun control laws working out in Chicago BTW?

Gun control laws in Chicago are irrelevant as long as people can bring in weapons they purchase elsewhere.

Joyce, Criminals seldom acquire their guns through legal means.

Yeah it's too bad Trayvon decided to punch out Zimmerman and beat his head against the concrete too.

exept he had george zimmerman on the ground beating his head into the concrete.

Yeah, and maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and waited for police like he was told to.

George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin and provoked him. This lead to a fight. George Zimmerman KILLED him.

Of course, we can't ask Trayvon Martin if he was acting in self defense because he's DEAD.

Tell me again what Trayvon was doing in that neighborhood?

Let's get back to the CO shooting and wrangling with gun control nuts.

I respectfully disagree. Had Trayvon been carrying, I am thinking Zimmerman would be dead. I believe Zimmerman was defending himself. Why anyone doesn't is beyond me. Is he not innocent until proven guilty? I'm writing under the impression that we all understand the original reporting of the 911 calls were edited by the media- right? I believe there is even an eye witness that has testified to the grand jury that Zimmerman was on the ground defending himself from someone attacking him. The "victim" was the aggressor. While I'm sure the Martin family is devastated, I think this was a perfect example of why we need to protect the right to protect ourselves.

Well, since Zimmerman was stalking him and obviously closed the distance between them what was Martin supposed to do? Let Zimmerman execute him? Oh, wait that's what happened.

@Renee: Give up the gun fight and stop being so ignorant. I think there were 3 little girls killed by their dad using a knife about a week ago. If people are crazy, they will find a way to kill. It's sad but true. You're just out to spread hate to everyone, sad to see.

@DJR. Quit with the spreading "hate" crap. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean hating.

This is the wrong thread to be talking about Zimmerman. We live in Minnesota, not Florida. We really only know what the media tells us, and you can't believe all of it. I for one am leaving it to the Florida courts to decide, and am not taking anyone's side on this subject!

Ed Larson asks, "Tell me again what Trayvon was doing in that neighborhood?"
If you'd read the news accounts, Mr. Larson, you would know that Trayvon Martin and his father were staying with a friend who lived there.

Joyce, I was the one who posted that Trayvon's father was visiting hi girlfriend. Please read more post before assuming things. I was not the one who brought up Trayvon in the first place.

Then why, Ed Larson, did you pose the question: "Tell me again what Trayvon was doing in that neighborhood"?

Because Renee brought up Mmartin claiming he could have defended himself if he had gun. Did you not read her post that started this rabbit trail?

Yes, Ed, I read the entire thread, and there was nothing in Renee's comment that would have prompted a question regarding the propriety of Trayvon Martin's presence in the community, which you were the first to pose.

Joyce, Renee comment had nothing to do with what happened in CO. I simply pointed out that Trayvon was known by the neighborhood watcher Zimmerman be a part of that neighborhood and that Zimmerman bore the marks of almost being beaten to death. It was totally unnecessary to advancing the discussion on the current topic. If one throws red meat out don't expect it to be ignored.

Ed Larson says: "Renee comment had nothing to do with what happened in CO. I simply pointed out that Trayvon was known by the neighborhood watcher Zimmerman be a part of that neighborhood and that Zimmerman bore the marks of almost being beaten to death".

The question was about gun restrictions. The Trayvon Martin situation is a perfect example of someone carrying and taking the law into his own hands. After police were contacted he was advised to stay in his car. He decided not to. If Trayvon Martin had been packing perhaps he would have shot Zimmerman. In either case, a gun wasn't warranted.

And your stating that Zimmerman bore the marks of almost being beaten to death? Seriously? I suspect if you or I were almost beaten to death we would be in the hospital, possibly on life support.

Renee wrote: "The Trayvon Martin situation is a perfect example of someone carrying and taking the law into his own hands. After police were contacted he was advised to stay in his car. He decided not to. If Trayvon Martin had been packing perhaps he would have shot Zimmerman. In either case, a gun wasn't warranted."

If I am on the ground with someone on top of me who is pounding my head into the payment and have a gun in my pocket I would use it too. If you feel your life is threatened, acting with whatever means is available seems perfectly logical to me.

Ed, the point, and most important part of this is the Mr. Zimmerman ignored the police - he thought he knew better. He was arrogant and made a stupid decision to ignore the police and continue stalking Trayvon. If he had done what was right...which was to call the police (he did this), and wait for them to get there, both of these people would still be alive, and Mr. Zimmerman would not be charged SECOND DEGREE MURDER. Defined as: a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Susan, no one wanted Trayvon dead including Zimmerman. Please try to find something wrong with Trayvon's actions. We all need to let the evidence speak not our emotions.

Ed, let's see, I am walking along in a neighborhood that I have every right to be in, in fact I am staying there with my dad, watching a game on tv and want to run out to get a snack. On my way back I notice someone stalking me. Do I confront him or do I run away? Here is an except from the 911 call:

"...These assholes, they always get away.

After discussing his location with the dispatcher, Zimmerman exclaimed, "Shit, he's running," and the following sounds suggest he left his vehicle to run after Martin.

"Are you following him?" the dispatcher asked. Zimmerman replied: "Yep."

"Okay, we don't need you to do that," the dispatcher warned."

Susan, Again.Let the evidence speak. You seem to think Zimmerman was the aggressor but much of the evidence does not support that claim.(Zimmerman's broken nose, cuts on the back of the head etc. Zimmerman was not legally bound to follow the 911 operators instructions. Why did Trayvon run?

Why did Trayvon run? I'm sorry Ed, but that is a ridiculous question...
1. Someone was stalking him. 2. Fear. 3. Why can't, or shouldn't he run? I would have done the exact same thing, given the situation....would I have deserved to die because I ran away from someone stalking me?

I have already said that I will let the courts judge the man, but his arrogance in refusing to listen to the dispatcher, and his stupidity of putting himself in that situation, is all I need to know about the man. Read the definition of second degree murder again: a killing caused by DANGEROUS CONDUCT (going against police advice) and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

Susan wrote:"Why did Trayvon run? I'm sorry Ed, but that is a ridiculous question...
1. Someone was stalking him. 2. Fear. 3. Why can't, or shouldn't he run? I would have done the exact same thing, given the situation....would I have deserved to die because I ran away from someone stalking me? "

Stalking? Zimmerman didn't leave his truck until after Trayvon started running. How is that stalking?

You said "After discussing his location with the dispatcher, Zimmerman exclaimed, "Shit, he's running," and the following sounds suggest he left his vehicle to run after Martin."

Please explain.

Ed, how about if I change stalking to watching? I would still have run! And why on earth couldnt Trayvon run? I guess I didn't realize there was a law against that...how about you post that law for me...

My explanation?.....listen to the tapes! And then read the consensus of what the experts have to say.

Your argument is getting weak if you have to pick apart my words, and if you have to question what is on the record as happening.

Ed, on the 911 tape, Zimmerman acknowledged that he was following him....but you left that part out when you quoted me.....why?

Susan, You made the error not me.

"Your argument is getting weak if you have to pick apart my words, and if you have to question what is on the record as happening."

You need to be willing to look at the evidence from both sides. I hope justice is done and I hope you do too.

No more from me as you refuse to accept anything I have said even though it is on the record,

Ed, you have no idea what I refuse to accept. At least I am not questioning what a 911 tape says. Do I wonder what happened when Zimmerman caught up with Trayvon, yes, and that will come out in court. But to question what a 911 call says, or that Zimmerman put himself in a stupid position, seems a bit naive.

Susan, Please do not misrepresent what I said a.k.a. lie

I never questioned the 911 tape.

There is no law against making stupid choices and it appears both parties are equally guilty. Done.

No lie, you asked me to explain what was on the tape...therefore you did "question what a 911 call says". Please don't call me a liar, it is not true.

Ed: "There is no law against making a stupid choices"....yes Ed, when this results in someone's death, it is against the law....AGAIN, read what he is charged with.

This is my whole point of the discussion, he did something (stupid and wreckless) that caused the death of another....that's what he is charged with...period.

Susan, you need to read and understand exactly what it takes to be convicted of second degree murder in Florida.

http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/second-degree-murder.html#Definition

I didn't say convict, that is up to the jury. I said he was charged, based on the information. Go back and read what I have said. My theme (for lack of a better word), is that he has been charged accordingly, and asking why Trayvon was in the neighborhood or why he ran is a typical 'blame the victim' response. Did he do something wrong, we don't know that yet, so questioning why he was in the neighborhood (which we do know) and why he was running is disingenuous....in the least.

I'm no lawyer Susan but I hope you read the law in Florida concerning second degree murder.

IMHO the prosecutor has reached way to far as none of the conditions for second degree murder seem to have been met.

Manslaughter might have been possible but even that is a stretch.

If a jury convicts Zimmerman on 2nd degree it will have to be based on something we are not yet aware of.

"Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."

So is it "depraved mind" that you have an issue with?

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that their case will be that Zimmerman, at a minimum, profiled Tayvon, but more likely was a racist. I am in no way saying he is, only that it is a guess.

Susan, it is going to be hard to prove Zimmerman was a racist when he has mentored black youth and went after the police who were involved in beating a homeless black man.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/zimmerman-demanded-discipline-in-2010-race-related-beating-for-officers-who-investigated-martin-shooting/

I must get back to work. Thanks for the link, I will read it and comment after work.

Ed, I have moved the conversation to the bottom of the comments...

Susan said:" I still believe that Zimmerman acted recklessly, and had a proven pattern of profiling black men. I believe this would then fall into the definition of second degree murder that you supplied." "

How does profiling whether he did it or not constitute depravity of mind?

I can't believe how far you are reaching on this point.

Depravity of mind defined:
Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society.

Oh Ed, why did we have to scroll back up here to search for comments?

"Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society."

I am not reaching, profiling and chasing someone down simply because their skin is black is not honest, good morals, justice, or ethical in my opinion.

Sorry, Ed. I'd check your facts. I don't know many hunters or police officers that use guns to swat flies or to heat up their meals.

Guns are meant to kill, if they were meant to protect people they would look like a bullet-proof vest. If you really want to protect yourself you'd wear kevlar when you went outside. Instead, I'm now less protected because someone is carrying a gun.

Alas, guns don't protect people—regulations, knowledge, tests, checks, training and laws protect people.

@Rich: Guns are not used just to kill. I shoot guns on a regular basis, what do I kill? Nothing. I shoot clays, I shoot targets, and soda cans because I enjoy shooting and the skill involved. Last I checked, shooting is an Olympic sport. So to say guns are only meant to kill is simply ignorant.
"laws protect people." How did laws protect people in this case?

No, Ed Larson, you do win the "stupidest comment" award based on consistency.

You ask, "Tell me again what Trayvon was doing in that neighborhood?"

Read slowly Ed: Trayvon..... Martin..... lived..... in .....that.....neighborhood......because.....he .....lived.....with.....his....father....who had..... a .....condo....in....that....neighborhood. Got....it...now, Ed?

Perhaps you were watching FAUX when they forgot to explain that little detail.

So, the award still stands, Ed.

@MrsPeel: I was trying to stay away from the Trayvon piece. Did you really say Zimmerman was going to execute him? Good lord, think about what you say before you post it. If he was going to "execute" him do you think he would have let him get close enough to take him down and band his head on the ground?

MrsPeel said: "Read slowly Ed: Trayvon..... Martin..... lived..... in .....that.....neighborhood":

Well no he didn't. His Father was visiting his girlfriend in that neighborhood. Calling it home is simply not true as Trayvon and his father lived in Miami. Trayvon went to Michael M Krop Senior High in Miami as was on suspension for drug related issues. He was not known by Zimmermann(neighborhood watchman) to be part of that neighborhood. Hopefully the evidence is what will convict or exonerate Zimmerman and nothing else.

So it wasn't okay for the young man to be walking in that neighborhood after dark? We all know that if this young man's skin was white, Mr. Zimmerman would not have ignored police to stop following him. Zimmerman made an arrogant and idiotic choice to follow Trayvon, and a young man is dead because of it....I will leave it to the courts to pass judgement, but the fact that he chose to ignore the police (and thought he knew better) tells me all I need to know about the man.

"Japan has some of the tightest gun regulations in the world and as a result has the fewest gun-related deaths in the world."

It is also is one of the most mono cultural places on the planet.

Gun laws protect no one except criminals from getting shot by carrying citizens.

Just admit you want the second amendment repealed . Good luck with that.

Have you red the book Rich? Probably not.

Japan's culture is totally different than here in the US. Standing out as an individual and/ or bringing shame to your family is considered worse than the crime committed. Within Japanese society this is strict policy for behavior.

(continued from above)

Should we also outlaw baseball bats now? Guns kill people, Spoons make people fat, Needles cause drug addiction, Matches cause cigarette addiction, Cars cause accidents, Margarine causes heart disease -- where does it end? Rather, where does it start? With PEOPLE and the choices they make.

People kill, people choose to eat and be fat, people shove drugs into their systems. It wasn't the gun, the needle, the car that did it. it was the person who made that decision. If someone wants to kill, they'll use a rolling pin, a bowling ball, a baseball bat, a rock, a scissors - whatever is handy.

Joe was right in his first sentence: "CRIMINALS don't care about conceal carry laws" or gun registration -- except when they see it's likely they won't meet lethal opposition, then they have less fear.

I protect myself two ways: conceal carry and martial arts. You can't take my knowledge of the second away from me, and taking my gun away is unconstitutional. I can take someone out with karate almost as quickly as you can take them out with a gun.

I suppose y'all want to outlaw martial arts now as well?

That was clever Phiddy1, neither side knows who you are talking about.

What is your real name and were do you live?

What is your favorite flavor Rosco?

throwing jim jones references is not a way to win a debate or even have a rational discussion.

Chad,
You're post pretty well explains the situation. The culture is the culprit.

The article about the sheep and sheepdog should be mandatory reading. I too will have it printed for reading on a regular basis.
Thank you

Chad, let me correct you. The male Swiss citizens over 18 don't own the guns they have at home, they just have their military issued guns at home (every male Swiss citizen has to do military service), but the ammunition for these guns is under tight control. It is not very easy to shoot anybody with a gun if the gun has no bullets in it.

Thus, it's not the culture of the Swiss, it's the regulations that keep Switzerland save and make the US a more dangerous place!

seriously? if all guns were outlawed, then only the criminals and police/govt would have them. good luck trying to defend your home/self/family if anything were to happen.

Hello Sean, We decided what kind of society we wanted when we ratified the constitution and bill of right We also created a oath, pledging an allegiance to our flag, one nation, under god, undivided, with liberty (freedom) and justice for all.
Police, military, and individuals prepare and train all the time to shoot people. This is not a bad thing. trained people train to defend against unlawful people. Granted, on occasion a rogue cop, military, or civilian shoots someone for no good cause but, it is reported as rare events. Heres a different way of looking at it, If I was to say, one nation, under multiple gods and/or a lack of in many cases, divided on most issues to the point of total monitary collapse, deep moral/ethical divisions, liberty (freedoms) removed from most and justice (penalty) applied to all for the actions of a few.
Its kinda scary that the above rendition of the oath seems to fit, that our nation seems more deeply divided on all issues then I ever recall. Its the people that vote and decide the makeup of congress and local boards that reaps the outcomes so, it is still the peoples decision at the ballot boxes. Whats better yet? We the people picked our leaders to lead us down these uncharted, dividing, and damaging paths.

When you and your family need protection from a violent criminal in seconds the police are minutes away. If you have time to contact them. I am not a member of the NRA. I am a woman who drove cross-country extensively for work. I carry whenever I travel alone. It is just commonsense to be prepared.

Carol Turnbull wrote: "Mr. Edward. How many more fatalities would there have been if a second person had started shooting?"

That's the wrong question.

How many might have been spared death had someone been there to return fire?

Its not my excitement, its my sadness that so many innocent get killed or hurt because we are not allowed to semi police ourselves past the age of 12 anymore.
I have no idea if a legal handgun in the crowd would have helped or hindered, I do know that multiple guns firing at the same location might have caused him to back out. Maybe 3 or 4 aiming at his muzzle flash would have struck him in the face area where the mask would not stop the bullet? Maybe it would of made it all worse?
making sure nobody can defend themselves or others when in the general public sounds like increased chaos.

Thanks for the reminder. If can happen in Norway it can happen anywhere laws aside.
The only chance these folks had was someone who was carrying to put the thug/mental case/terrorist down where he stood once the shooting started.

BTW-Norway has some of the toughest gun laws.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/24/norway-strict-gun-laws-circumvented

Carol, all the things you mention, purchasing guns, buying ammunition, protective gear, chemicals and materials which are not designed to create bombs and such are all legal to buy in the USA. We are an incredibly open society, can travel from state to state with simply a drivers license, we can read anything, watch anything, work at anything and do anything within the law. There is a place already where they do the tracking you suggest, it's called China. If you restrict basic freedoms, freedom of choice even if they are misguided, then the very fabric of our Country will shred away.

Now, I'll give you this, should we put some controls in place relative to large ammunition purchases, assault rifle purchases and having magazines that hold 60 rounds? Probably, given what has taken place some reasonably well thought out controls are certainly going to be looked at starting tomorrow. The NRA will scream bloody murder but society is just about at the point where enough is enough. I just hope we don't turn the bow of our ship in the direction of China where we "watched" everywhere regarding our personal choices and personal freedoms.

All illegal guns were initially purchased as legal guns! Better control of gun movements (registration or something like it, as they do in Switzerland, Austria and Germany) would go a long way in reducing illegal guns!

Actually, tightening gun laws does make it more difficult for criminals to get firearms. A case in point would be Virginia, which failed to pass a law restricting gun purchases to one per month. People legally buy guns in Virginia which are then sold to criminals on the black market - restricting the number of guns would limit the amount available on the black market. According to NYC police reports, the majority of guns used in crimes there can be traced to legal purchases in Virginia.

It might be that i have better sources than Wikipedia, just believe me!

The ammunition is well controlled and they have to do bookkeeping for every bullet. practice with guns is only done in well regulated shooting clubs. It is the regulations that keep gun violence away from Switzerland.

And if you would read more in the cited Wiki article, you would read about that, and also that the Swiss are basically not allowed to carry any of their guns in public. Their regulations are very similar to those in Germany and Austria (they actually coordinate their different regulations with each other).

Again, it is the regulations that make a difference, not the culture (how could it be anyway, because most people around here have the same ethnicity and brought their culture with them when they emigrated).

Hudsoner, your theory that gun regulations make a difference has been tested. What was found is that right to carry states have more guns at home and in public (fewer regulations) yet they also have the lowest firearms homicide rates. Cities that ban guns like Chicago and Washington DC have the highest firearms homicide rates.

In the 25 years from 1973 to 1997 handgun ownership in the US went up 163 percent yet the murder rate dropped 27 percent. In the early 1990's the serious crime rate in Texas was 38 percent above the national average; after passage of a conceal carry law in 1994 the serious crime rate dropped 50 percent faster than the national average.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

"The determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism. In this connection, recall that the American jurisdictions which have the highest violent crime rates are precisely those with the most stringent gun controls."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Conceal carry does not lower the crime rate:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/

Gun control does not lower the crime rate:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

• During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.

• Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

• Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.

If gun control laws are effective why didn't murder and mayhem ensue after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Washington D.C. in 2008 and Chicago in 2010?

http://www.bestdefensellc.com/more-guns-less-crime-chicago/

You know Chad, there are other people besides Marcus Bachmann, who have two different passports.

Because of the fact that every Swiss male citizen over 18 and living in Switzerland is part of the Swiss militia, there is no difference between militia and the whole!

Perhaps if mental health treatment was as accessible as guns are......... And I never said I wanted all guns outlawed. I said assault weapons - guns that can have many many rounds in them. Thanks for worrying about my safety Gary but I wonder what the odds of you(or anyone) needing to protect me or anyone else are that justifies more and more people walking around with guns? I have several friends that are police officers and they are not in favor of more people packing.

renee, there are so many shrinks out there its unbelieveable. we as a society are so quick now to label something a disease or disorder and medicate it or send it to treatment. when you purchase a firearm, the form has a questionaire to fill out. the questions pertain to mental status, criminal history and so on. unfortunately there is no litmous test for cuckoo. it is relying on the individual to be honest. the gun retailer also has the right not to sell to any suspicious individual. again personal judgement. and as far as banning "assault" weapons, the purchase of a hunting rifle is much easier and often times hold as many rounds. so that cant be the answer either. and what would you like the number of rounds to be limited to? 1, 5, 10, 20? all that would do is teach the criminals is to reload faster. personally, i am all for a mandatory weapon safety class prior to purchase. its a 40 hour (may be different now). upon completion, the individual would get a permit to purchase card. i would also leave the oversight of the class to the local level, not the federal government.

How long does a background check take and how thorough is it before getting a permit and/or buying a gun? I wonder if you answered the question of "why do you want to carry a gun all the time" and you told a Doctor that you were afraid to go out in public without it if you might find yourself on a 72 hour hold in the psych ward??

there is no background check for regular rifles and shotguns. just a form that is filled out at the gun store/show. as for pistols and "assault" weapons, a permit to purchase must be applied for from your county sheriff. they have 30 days to repond with a yes or no. i have seen people get "no'ed" before. then to carry concealed is yet another course. usually a week or two depending on how it is set up. there is also mandatory range time at the end. there are many other courses to take to hone concealed skills as well. i think if you were afraid to go out in public without, you might have some issues. everybody i know that carries refuses to be a victim and wants to be prepared in case something happens.

Renee. I just purchased my first handgun a few months ago. The first background check by the local police took 2.5 weeks. The second background check performed by Scott county to get my conceal and carry took another 3 weeks. There are not any questions asking that I can recall asking why you want to carry at all times. It is everyone's choice as to how often they want to carry. As for your police friends, most cops feel empowered to carry and feel above the rest of us. police also don't want to deal with the extra time it takes to check out a permit. There is no reason a cop should feel nervous because I have a gun on my hip. he should feel nervous about the gangster that has one stuffed in his pants or in his pocket. permit carriers are not allowed to use there gun in anyway on a police officer doing his job. how about you take a walk down lake street or hennipen ave at around 2 am and tell me if you feel safe? Your police friends can't be your personal body guards. at some point in your life you will be in a situation that you feel threatened, wouldn't it be nice to not be afraid in that situation? Oh and just so you understand a permit carrier does not have to conceal there gun. I can walk around all day with it on my hip.

So to everyone who thinks that it would have been worse to have a person shooting back would have been a bad idea, would you just sit there and say shoot me? The guy had over 70 bullets on him and his gun jammed. how hard do you think it is to hit a 6 foot target at close range? I can put 30 rounds in a 2 inch target 25 feet away. its not hard. having just one gun is better than no gun at all. that person could have saved many lives. they teach everyone in the permit classes to assume bad things are going to happen to you while carrying to make you more aware. they teach you to always be
on the look out. as far as forgetting my gun is on me, not a chance. So if your answer is police then you better put on one every street corner, then I might consider not carrying. so renee you are saying that people that are wanting to carry all the time are psychotic? If you can look into your crystal ball and tell me The exact day I will need to defend myself or someone else I will only carry that day. until then not a chance.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEWcoz-QRv0
This video will give you a whole new basic view of conceal and carry. video by Ted Nuegent

Well thank you for your service Joe I truly appreciate it.

but when you say:
" In regards to the 2nd amendment, the constitution is a flexible document with the potential to be wisely interpreted in a manner befitting the complexities of modern society, not an 18th century agrarian nation relying on truly citizen soldiers while building a well regulated militia."

This is the very type of thinking that judges use to write legislation from the bench.

If you want to change the constitution to say something other than "shall not be infringed: please work toward that goal. Good luck.

Joe thanks for a very well thought out statement. You are obviously much more capable than I. And thanks for your service, both in the military and the classroom.

only in panama, iraq, saudi arabia, kosovo, and afghanistan so far.

did you know it was a concealed carry person whom stopped the looney that shot the rep from arizona? and a 40 hour class for each weapon sounds excessive. okay actually is excessive. if a person took the class, bought the weapon, sold the weapon, bought a different weapon (or even traded theirs in), they would have to take the course again. looks like a way for govt to milk money out of concealed carriers.

jim, wrong again - here is how the shooter was stopped: "Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload. Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles. Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Six people died." These people did not have guns.

While 55 people may be killed by guns every day, over 2,000 are able to protect themselves from violence every day because they have a gun in hand.

WIWilcat, I am not questioning your information, but I haven't heard this particular statistic (2000 people defend themselves each day with a gun). Would you mind posting a link with your source?

Seriously? How about we keep religion out of it until we know if it was a part of it?

People are bringing gun control into the conversation. Why not a persons beliefs? He was going to school for science. How about we ban vicodin while we are at it? Even with a doctors prescription. 7 out of 10 school shooting are from people on prescribed drugs.

Timothy, I certainly hope you are posing as someone who is running for office, and not the real thing. Your statements here are not logical or related to the topic, and make a person wonder what your real motivation is...

The plot of the dark night movies is a person who tries to destroy a whole city. The shooter knew how to build bombs. My point is we need to get down to root causes of violence and not blame the guns.

A person with a rational mind will not act out violent fantasies. With your reasoning, we should blame Palin for the Giffords shooting....she had crosshairs on her website over Gifford's face. This is about sickness, not guns, and not violent programming.

oh com on now. somebody would have noticed if he was muslim. thats horrible. Major hassan in ft bliss was muslim and even yelled "allah akbar" while shotting his victims in ft bliss yet NO media org other than fox (i know its an evil word with some people) and bloggers covered that aspect. our own govt labelled it a "workplace violence" shooting. if we you are afraid to upset a certain group and leave details out of the news than that is part of the problem as well.

Alsoi Mr. Hall should get it correct: The title of the movie is not "Dark Night"; it is "Dark Knight". His confusion is reflected by his inability to get even the name of the movie correct. I know that is not the complete title, BTW.

I used to live in the area where he claims to be campaigning. The people of that area are smart enough to ignore him.

jim, you are incorrect in your assessment of the news coverage at Fort Hood. Two of the three major network did not label the shooter at Fort Hood as Muslim the first evening. They waited for confirmation instead of possibly incorrectly reporting the news, as Fox (and CNN and MSNBC) incorrectly reported that Gabby Giffords had died. I think that waiting until you have confirmed a fact vs. incorrectly reporting the "news" is a much better way to inform people of the truth. And BTW, I don't watch Fox, or read op-ed blogs (useless as a reliable source of information), and I knew the man had ties to al Qaeda, so how on earth did I find out?

susan, well then the class i took was wrong. i couldnt remember his name, but i would bet one of those guys that helped disarm him was a concealed carrier. from class, they had said that even though he was a carrier, he didnt draw his weapon and had disarmed mr cuckoomcnuggets while reloading.

jim, how about you do a little research, and confirm your allegations before stating them as fact. My guess (and it's only that because I don't know what's in your head) is the teacher may have misrepresented the facts to promote his own agenda, or more likely, you heard what you wanted to hear, because of your own agenda.

And I am not sure why you posted this here...I corrected you here about Fort Hood news coverage, I corrected you above about your comment relating to a gunman taking out the shooter of Gabby Giffords.

susan, gabrielle giffords was reported dead first by NPR using capitol hill information. who would have guess that incorrect information comes out of capitol hill? then the other major new agencies followed suit.
with the ft hood shooter (and i must apologize i mentioned ft bliss earlier. i was at ft bliss for a while and that got stuck in my head), i was watching that day. since i can only watch 1 network at 1 time, i can only account for Fox when the news broke. they referred to witness statements from what he had said while shooting. the next day at work from CNN, there was no mention of that at all.
and if you knew the man had ties to al quaeda, then why didnt you say something sooner? kidding. i know what you were getting at. there are a few bloggers out there that get things right. granted they are usually just reposts of dropped stories, but at least the get out there.
case in point. while in afghanistan south of shindand (zirco valley), the AP broke a story that we were shooting at a school. no mention of it being abandoned, taliban hiding out there shooting at us, or that was a school for taliban in the first place. that is why now i usually have to match stories with other aciencies before i belive them.

So, reporting the news is actually just repeating what someone else says, whether it is accurate or not? Just because someone else does it, does not make it right or okay. I do not need to have my news the second it happens, I would prefer to hear an accurate story. My point in all this was that you said only FOX talked of the shooter at Fort Hood being a Muslim, which was incorrect. Most all news organizations covered this once it was a proven fact.

because by the rules of engagement you arent allowed to fire unless fired upon. desert storm 1.

Thank you Jerry W. Smith. And thank you for your service of protecting me!

then somebody should have told the iraqis. they decided to open fire on us just before we crossed the border. and from being there, an international border in the middle of the desert is a bit difficult to determine. i figured my GPS was a bit better than the iraqis guess

It has been reported that that theater banned guns. We don't know now if that would have been a deterrent. Guess someone could ask him...

Right on, Cynthia! and don't forget trampolines, climbing ropes, cheeseburgers, stairs, marathons, chairs, mosquitoes, boats, steak, cars, dads with daughters... Where are all the padded cells when you need one?

rob, i agree with some of that. limiting "assault" weapons only get bad guys to use a different weapon. limiting magazine size only encourages either faster reloads or to carry more weapons. after reading most of the reports from colorado, the 100rd (im guessing beta mag) jammed and he switched to the glock .40. imho if you have to take behind the wheel classes, pass a written test and behind the wheel test to drive a car legally, i have no objection in doing the same with firearms. other than that, there is no stopping whackjobs. if they are that messed up, they will find a way.

It's an interesting article, but a bit misleading.

"In a 25-year period, New York City has had more than 15,000 murders – 2245 in 1990 alone – while Kennesaw, Georgia, had 1."

The author leaves out the population numbers. Kennesaw, Georgia has about 30,000 people whereas New York City has over 8,000,000.

He also says that gun ownership is mandatory in this small city, but the ordinance also says: "Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony." So anyone opposed to owning a gun can opt out....I would guess that a lot of people chose not to buy a gun, therefore the entire city is not armed, as the author wants the reader to infer.

maybe not protect the flock, but i would not deny them the ability to defend themselves.

here is a PHD that put several studies together: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

In the Giffords shooting the key to the take-down was that the guy was grabbed while changing magazines (he actually dropped it) which is one reason why while I support gun ownership I do believe that magazine size should be limited - at least it gives someone a change to do something while there is a pause - and these crazy shooters my well drop a magazine, have trouble reloading, etc... in the heat of their assault so a 25 round magazine is much better than a 100 round magazine in this respect.

As for other shooters - I think people watch a lot of movies and believe that if they are simply armed that they will be able to swing into action and take down the bad guy but unless they are well trained they may well freeze, be so scared that they simply duck and run like everyone else, or yes, they may get into a gun fight and may take out the bad guy or end up shot themselves.

Susan, do yo see now that the charge of racisim leveled against Zimmerman is unfounded?

He may be cop wanna be but he but i don't see how that changes anything.

If he defended himself from an attacker it was a justified shoot.

Ed, you commented before I was done... :)
To answer your question, no I don't think it is unfounded. He may or may not be a racist (I am sure more will come out in court), but he followed Trayvon because he was black, which I believe is profiling....I'm not an expert, I don't know if profiling would be considered "depraved mind" in the law's eyes.

You said you moved and now you are back here.
Susan said:
" I am not reaching, profiling and chasing someone down simply because their skin is black is not honest, good morals, justice, or ethical in my opinion."

But it is your opinion and in my opinion the law does not support your wish. a.k.a reaching.

The neighborhood had had a problem with burglary by guess what "black youths"

Sounds perfectly reasonable to have you guard up when you see someone in a hoodie walking around that you do not know has any business there.

Here is why:

http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-neighbor-says-8-prior-burglaries-were-by-young-black-males

It is just as possible Trayvon is dead because he attacked Zimmermann.

The evidence is the only thing that should be relied on. Period.

The Prosecutor has been called out as irresponsible by Alan Dershowitz.

"The prosecutor has acted irresponsibly by charging second-degree murder in a case where the evidence just doesn’t seem to support that verdict"

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Trayvon-Martin-fire/2012/05/04/id/438098

IF, and I say only IF Trayvon is dead because he attacked Zimmerman, then this still would have been avoided if Zimmerman would have listened to the police. He wanted to be a police officer, but didn't listen to them? I mean how important is it to chase someone you may, or may not suspect of wrong doing? How stupid is it? Would you do it? Keep in mind, you only have a SUSPICION of wrong doing, based on the way the young man looks. BTW, because Zimmerman had a past record of chasing suspects, he was told in September of 2011, by a police officer, "If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out. . . Observe from a safe location. There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”

I don't believe Mr. Dershowitz is privy to the same information as Ms. Corey, so while his comments should be taken seriously, given his profession and experience, they should not be taken as fact. He does go on, however, to say that "Stand Your Ground" is "far too broad", and "There is a right under the Constitution, under the Second Amendment, to have guns for self-defense and for family protection and presumably for hunting, but reasonable regulations of such guns are the essence of a free society.”

Dershowitz also defended OJ Simpson so I think we should look at whatever he says about DA's and charges with a bit of skepticism.

We could play what if all day:

What if Trayvon had't had a craving for skittles?
What if Trayvon hadn't been kicked out of school for drug evidence in Miami?
What if Trayvon's dad had stayed married to his first wife?
What if George didn't care about his neighborhood?

What we are left with is the evidence. Trayvon's death was tragic but Zimmerman was lawfully carrying his weapon and trying to protect his neighbors. He was under no obligation to stay put in his truck. The jury will decide if he was wrong to use his weapon. The prosecutor better not be privy to additional information.

"The purpose of discovery in criminal cases is "to avail the defense of evidence known to the state so that convictions [will] not be obtained by the suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant, or by surprise tactics in the courtroom." Cooper v. State, 336 So.2d 1133, 1138 (Fla. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 925 (1977)."

Now who is reaching?

The BIG difference between your scenarios and mine is that Zimmerman was TOLD NOT TO DO IT by the profession he most admires - he thought he knew better. It is basically common sense and common knowledge that we do not follow "suspects" (even if that person has done nothing wrong), never mind that it is stupid and dangerous. This exact case is why we are told not to follow people, especially with a gun....someone is going to end up hurt or dead. Zimmerman was not properly trained, or even protected, for that matter.

"The prosecutor better not be privy to additional information." And who says the defense would have released the evidence to the press?

Ed says: "Trayvon's death was tragic but Zimmerman was lawfully carrying his weapon and trying to protect his neighbors."

How is chasing a young man, who you have no knowledge of wrong doing, 'protecting the neighbors'?

Ed says: "Put yourself in Zimmerman shoes at this point and decide what you would do". I would call the police, give a description if I could see it, and follow instructions by staying put in my locked car, which was (I am assuming) a safe distance away.

No, let the police handle it. Running after him is not stopping a burglary. Flash your lights, call the police, get a description....he was trying to be some kind of vigilante hero.

Exactly my point! I would not have been stupid enough to go against police advice and chase him.

On your second point, we can agree. :)

I know his choice to chase was not illegal, I am only speculating that the choice (and reason) to chase, may be why it is 2nd degree murder. (and of-course that the kid would probably still be alive if Zimmerman hadn't chased him).

I think it would depend on who threw the first punch, or who attacked who, but with one party dead, we only have the word of the other party, and what do you think he is going to say?

I will admit that your Dershowitz link scares me. To find out that this is the exact type of charge as the Casey Anthony case, and considering the outcome, I am a bit uneasy about the whole thing.

Everyone wants to make this a racist thing (Zimmerman is a minority, too). Instead it was a neighbor standing up for his community and speaking up, trying to keep things safe after houses in his neighborhood had been broken into. You or I could be next on the list of those defending our selves and our community. Martin was not where he should have been that night and when he was, essentially, called out for it, he reacted like a criminal, not what you or I would have done.

He wasn't following Martin, he got out to look at the street sign and to see where Martin went after Martin circled his vehicle. He didn't call 911, he called a non-emergency number to report a suspicious person. He wasn't driving around looking for lowlifes, he was on his way to the grocery store.

WIWildcat, your comment is so full of generalization, guesses and stereotypes that the majority is not even worth the time to comment. I will say that, with Zimmerman being the only remaining survivor of this altercation, it will be difficult to prove his statement wrong....or right. So the small portion of your statement that is factually correct is: "prosecution is going to have a hard time proving he is guilty of anything."

Beyond that, I have no interest in taking the time to point out the flaws of your argument. Ed stated facts, posted credible sources and made logical arguments without broad, sweeping and vague statements. I find your comments to be a little inflammatory, and should probably pass on the rebuttal.

I am a "tryrant" because I choose not to argue parts of your comment that I find too general? That's an interesting way to look at it I guess, but I have asked you here on the same thread to give a source for a wild claim, and you have yet to do so, so I assumed you would do the same here, and it wouldn't be worth the time.

"Everyone wants to make this a racist thing": No, EVERYONE doesn't.

Zimmerman said "I just felt that something was off about him" Well, that's a nice concept, but I have also been in the situation walking at night and a "suspicious" vehicle has slowed or been parked with someone in it. It's a very scary situation, one that makes you want to run or hide....what would you have done? We don't really know what happened, but my point in all of this is that Zimmerman should have stayed in the truck!

"Instead it was a neighbor standing up for his community and speaking up, trying to keep things safe after houses in his neighborhood had been broken into." Zimmerman wasn't 'standing up' for his community, he was an armed vigilante going against police advice, who profiled a young man who had done nothing wrong.

Your own source says that the Trayvon's knuckles say NOTHING about how the fight began, which is THE important piece of information that you are missing. Too bad we won't get Trayvon's statement on video...

"There's your story of what happened; Martin attacked while Zimmerman was heading back to his car." You don't know that.

cont.

"Trayvon Martin is not the innocent little boy they showed the pictures of at first; he was a SEXIST, DRUG-PUSHING and/or USING THUG well over 6 feet tall CASING A HOUSE that didn't belong to him, and he attacked Zimmerman for simply watching out for his neighborhood." This one is so insulting, it's not even worth commenting on...

I thought I was done here but perhaps Susan could at least admit that the media portrayed Trayvon as some innocent kid when in fact they could just as easily and with photo and school evidence have shown him to be a teen involved with drugs and using nasty gestures and gang clothing.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/second-trayvon-martin-twitter-feed-identified/

We have not been served well by either our leaders or the press when they chose to pick sides with the race baiters.

Ed, I do agree that the media seemed to pick a side early and continually. I will also admit that some of YOUR arguments are compelling, and the discussion yesterday made me dig deeper and do more research. I have not changed my "opinion" as to why he was charged with 2nd degree murder, or that the Zimmerman was arrogant and stupid in the night in question. If he would have drove on to the store or waited in his car for the police, I believe Trayvon would be alive and Zimmerman would not be charged with a crime. One last note, and them I am out, Zimmerman was a ticking time bomb, it was only a matter of time before someone (maybe even him) was hurt or killed. Is he charged accordingly?....we wont' know until the trial. Thanks for the informative discussion.

Carol, I know Wi Wildcat personally, and I would trust him with a gun anywhere.

I believe the "not where he should have been" remark referred to Trevon cutting through back yards to reach his destination. Not normally a big issue, but since that community had been subject to frequent break-ins, it was felt to be suspicious activity.

And sitting in a parked car at night, and then following someone through the neighborhood isn't suspicious behavior? It's a good thing for Mr. Zimmerman that there wasn't anyone else walking in the neighborhood with a gun.

Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle to wait for police to show up when he was attacked by Martin. He pulled his gun out when Martin was on top of him, reaching for the gun, and had said "You're going to die tonight".

Carbon, we don't need to debate it again, but it will be up to the jury to decide if his statement is true in its entirety. Since he is the lone survivor, and there are no eyewitnesses, he could say just about anything he wants. I will wait until he is under oath and the prosecution presents his case, to decide whether I believe his current story.

Susan, just for you. Follow the links, watch the video. You seemed to want more references. Well, there you go.

http://www.liberalsarehypocrites.org/Default.aspx?blogid=12874

OMG! Since some people are just NOT GETTING IT, I will type it again:
1. I never said Zimmerman was a racist, only speculated that his disregard for the police's advice and his vigilante tendencies, may be why he was charged with second degree murder.
2. I never said Zimmerman (or Trayvon) started the fight, I said we don't know for sure, and since Trayvon is not here to defend himself(please keep this in mind when judging him so harshly), we only have Zimmerman's side of the story and I am not sure I believe him.
3. I have never said Trayvon did not have a drugs in his system, marks on his knuckles, or pictures on the Internet.
3. I have said, and still stick by my opinion that Zimmerman was arrogant, stupid, and wreckless that night, and if he had stayed in his car, or gone on to the store (with his gun), then Trayvon would probably still be alive and Zimmerman wouldn't be facing a charge of second degree murder.
4. A JURY will decide if he is guilty, not you, not me, not right or left wing blogs, and not the media.

Wow, so I see how this works with you, Susan.

First, you make up assumptions about what someone (me) is thinking, then you redress them (me) for those assumptions that you made.

Next you call me out for not providing references (even though I had), and when I provide references, you get all bent out of shape and attack me for things I did not mention and never accused you of.

Okay, I get it now. You are psychotic. Leaving this thread now before innocent bystanders get hurt...

Haha, bent out of shape, a tyrant, PSYCHOTIC! The accusations and name calling are never ending with you, WiWildcat. It seems that you are the one with your undies in a bunch, not me.

And BTW, I am not bent out of shape, I stand perfectly erect - although , now that you mention it, I have to wonder if you do, given how you speak (write) to people who disagree with you.

No one knows what all happened.

Martin's dead so he can't tell us his version of events.

Zimmerman is alive and can tell us his side - but he isn't exactly an impartial observer with nothing on the outcome of the trial. I don't know if he is lying or telling the truth - or bending the truth - but I typically don't take the word at face value of the only guy who walks away alive from an incident.

There is likely evidence we don't know about - and what we do know about has room for interpretation for either side.

So in other words as a society we should just be quiet and accept these occasional mass shootings a cost of gun freedom?

IMHO - since I am ok with gun ownership (I think we should limit clip and magazine sizes) but I pretty much accept these mass killings as "just the way it is".

I think that the NRA and everyone who backs the 2nd Amendment like I do should also fess up and level with the American people that these shootings will happen and we just have to accept them and move on.

Rob_h78,

No, there is no reason to ever be quiet and accept occasional mass murder!

Outlawing guns, though, is not the answer. As noted on this forum earlier, there was a guy that plowed his car into a crowd, killing a few. That's not the first time a vehicle has been used to kill (many woman have killed their cheating spouses that way), but there's no hue and cry to remove automobiles or the bigger semi-trucks from the road.

Jim Jones used Kool-Aid (poisoned, yes) but we still have Kool-Aid around because people realize it was the PERSON that caused the problem (it is kind of funny to say 'If Kool-Aid was outlawed only outlaws would have Kool-Aid, but I digress). We don't abhor all Africans because of what Idi Amin Dada did, or all Germans, all Arabs, etc for what their rulers have done. Same with fire (arson) - that's been used to kill tons of people over the centuries, but we still have fire.

"Fessing up" that PEOPLE will sometimes commit atrocious acts is base level thinking (e.g. start there and grow). I wonder what could be accomplished if anti-gun zealots would focus on fixing and diagnosing "unstable persons" rather than the vehicles they use to commit their outrageous behavior?

WIWildcat,

Then what specific steps would you implement to do something about people who commit mass murder with guns?

WIWildcat, no one here is talking about outlawing guns, what we are talking about it regulating ownership in the interest of public safety. The First Amendment guarantees you the right of peaceable assembly, yet you are required by most municipalities to get a license to stage a parade or a demonstration and to get the venue or the parade route pre-approved; why, then, should gun ownership be an absolute right without sensible restrictions?

No, I do not know a whole lot about guns - change "semi-automatic" to assault rifle then. My sister is a avid sporting clay and fitasc competitor; I would not want to limit her ability to compete in those sports.
Can you offer any reason not to limit ownership of assault rifles like the military-style AR-15 with the 100-shot magazine feeding it used by Holmes?

Joyce said "Can you offer any reason not to limit ownership of assault rifles like the military-style AR-15 with the 100-shot magazine feeding it used by Holmes?"

No more than I can for a 12 gauge pump. both can do an awful lot of damage in the wrong hands. Nothing is gained by limiting them. "Assault weapon" is a silly political term meant to get the public excited. Apparently it works. :-(

Hi Joyce,

A semi-automatic essentially means that when you pull the trigger the bullet is fired - so in practice you will be able to fire a new round as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

All Assault Rifles sold to civilians semi-automatic - civilians are not allowed to own fully automatic weapons (with some exceptions) which means you pull the trigger and bullets continue to be fired until you release the trigger or you run out of bullets.

Assault Rifles are really supposed to be able to be fired fully automatic - however, when they sell them to Civilians they are no longer fully automatic and IMHO are typically purchased because they look like a military weapon and some folks get off on that (yes, I know others will say not at all and will list plenty of reasons why they want an AR-15 over something else that looks less macho).

However, I do agree with the limiting of the size of the magazines - simply because the only chance folks are going to have against a shooter who wants to mow down folks is when he has to stop to change the magazine.

The Gabby Gifford's shooter was stopped when he had to reload and he fumbled the magazine change and someone grabbed him.

I would rather have someone have to reload every 20 rounds than be able to get off 50 to 100 rounds before reloading.

We should at least give victims a little chance sooner rather than later...

Carol, not to be unkind but when you figure out a way to keep us all safe from those intent on doing harm you will get a noble prize.

Recent court cases have laid waste your militia argument.

"Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

rob said "So we have mass shootings and we don't do anything."

We arrest them guilty try them and put them to death as needed.

That is not doing nothing.

There will always be evil.

You could be walking down the street and a crazy motorist decide to run you down or into a crowd.

How much freedom do you want to give up for security?

I am asking you this very seriously.

Ed asks, "How much freedom do you want to give up for security?"
There is an old saying generally attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
Your libertarian ideology is demanding the right to swing your fist and break my nose; sensible restrictions on gun and ammo ownership protect the rights of others.

Joyce said, "Your libertarian ideology is demanding the right to swing your fist and break my nose; sensible restrictions on gun and ammo ownership protect the rights of others."

It DEMANDS no such thing.

It demands that you cannot take away my freedom or anyone elses without cause.

Possessing a firearm is not enough.

Ed - so you have no options for pro-actively doing anything about mass killings with firearms?

Sure we can arrest them - kill em - torture em - tattoo an image of Muhammad on their foreheads and drop them off in Afghanistan in a radical Muslim village so they can have fun with them...

As for giving up Freedom - I don't believe that limiting folks to a 20 round magazine for an AR-15 (for example) infringes on our Freedoms at all and still leaves me able to protect my security just fine. Likewise only allowing a standard size clip for a handgun.

You have a right to a gun - but there is no Constitutional right to a large capacity magazine - and while I don't agree with the next part - perhaps we need to look at the types of guns available when the Constitution was written and limit ourselves to similar capabilities?

And perhaps if someone is stocking up on thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo - perhaps yes, this could be tracked.

If the answer to "risk" is to keep every possible "Freedom" then we have a lot of work to do because we limit Freedoms every day in our society to help increase security.

If its not worth even one sliver of Freedom then we need to scrap pretty much our entire criminal justice system and just open the gates and get ready to rock - of course then I will be buying and keeping guns again...

rob said "As for giving up Freedom - I don't believe that limiting folks to a 20 round magazine for an AR-15 (for example) infringes on our Freedoms at all and still leaves me able to protect my security just fine. Likewise only allowing a standard size clip for a handgun.

You have a right to a gun ...."

Please explain what would be gained by getting rid of high capacity drums or clips.

Everyone want to be safe but pretending that your suggestion makes us safer is has no basis in fact.

Tim McVeigh used no guns.

The 911 hijackers used no guns.

The nut job that drove his car into a crowd used no guns.

Those that released serin gas into a Japanese subway, used no guns.

The train bombers in Spain used no guns.

These are just off the top of my head.

The gun control crowd has demonized certain weapons and made some believe that if only we controlled those we would all be safe.

When have gun controllers ever stopped trying to expand the list or unsafe weapons?

Ed, you can cite all the different causes of deaths everywhere in the world (ebola! dengue fever! - maybe we should stop vaccinating kids because there are still other diseases out there for which we have no vaccinations) but that will not change the fact that assault rifles and high capacity magazines (forgive me if my terminology is not entirely correct - I don't have guns) increase the likelihood of more deaths, and have no real purpose other than killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
An a related note, there is a correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer deaths from firearms:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

Carol said: "The "well regulated" part of the Amendment is where government is not doing its job."

That part is not up to the government. It's up to the individual gun owner to practice with their weapon and become well-practiced (which is what the term "well regulated" means).

Joyce said, "high capacity magazines (forgive me if my terminology is not entirely correct - I don't have guns) increase the likelihood of more deaths, and have no real purpose other than killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. "

I know that is what you believe but the burden of proof is on you. I have already shown that limiting those inanimate objects would make no difference. Other options are available to those who would do us harm.

The proposed ban is nothing more than feel good law that has not effect. Politicians are masters at feel good law.

As to that study. Not so fast. You should read the comments. It propaganda and massaged data to serve a purpose.

These stats from the CDC speak volumes. You will notice that many of the areas that have the toughest guns law also have the highest gun death rates.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6018a1.htm

Please explain the lack of effectiveness of strict guns laws in Chicago an Washington D.C., and NYC

Rob, I'd have to answer your question with a question: What do you propose we do, proactively, to stop people from veering off the streets and into a crowd with their car? You can't catch every mental case and stop them before they hurt someone but at least in the case of an attacker who has a knife, a gun, a fist, a bat - if I have a gun, I can stop them from doing more harm. Take that away and I'm just one of the sheep.

As I have pointed out before, Ed, most of the guns used in crimes in NYC (and very likely DC as well) can be traced to Virginia, which has extremely lax gun laws.

"As I have pointed out before, Ed, most of the guns used in crimes in NYC (and very likely DC as well) can be traced to Virginia, which has extremely lax gun laws."

Yes Joyce we are repeating ourselves here.

Here is what we are left with.

You are perfectly willing to take freedoms away in the hope that the criminals will stop finding ways to kill people.

I am not.

Disclosure: I do not own anything but hunting weapons but am not willing to constrict the freedom of others to bear arms of their choosing.

The Nanny state has always done a very poor job of getting anything right.

Let freedom ring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAGfKR8ea-o

Ed - so you have no proactive ideas to stop mass killings with firearms?

I have stated many times on this thread by reasoning for limiting the size of magazines and clips.

And I ask you again - how does limiting the size of magazines and clips infringe on your Freedom to own a gun?

As for the other examples you noted:
* Tim McVeigh: - the gov't now more closely tracks the types of materials he used and we haven't had a repeat yet.
* The 911 hijackers: - we have much stricter security to get on planes - and we have not had a repeat.
* Cars into crowds: - cars are not primarily designed to kill people - that is the primary if no only function of most guns that people carry around when they commit mass murders.
* serin gas: - how often is gas used to commit mass murder compared to guns in the United States?
* train bombers: - again we track bomb materials and how many trains have been blown up in the United States?

Do you support scrapping all security at airports?

Should we stop tracking bomb materials?
When can I purchase 100 pounds of C4 with a simple background check?

Will you start fighting for the ability to purchase large quantities of serin gas with no tracking?

After all - we can't have perfect security - so I presume that you are as offended by the lack of ability to do all of the above as you would be to not buy a large capacity clip or magazine.

I don't agree with all SCOTUS decisions but it is the law of the land.

I am disheartened than some people think the government is there to protect us.

Beyond offering a common defense. there responsibilities are only the ones the Constitution and we the people grant them.

Their chief role is to protect our freedoms.

So we have mass shootings and we don't do anything.

But we have one dude who believes he can take down a plane with a "shoe bomb" and now we all have to take off our shoes to get on a plane...

Part 1

Matt, there may be some elements of truth in what you posted. But quoting "author unknown" doesn't really seem to add much to this discussion.

I would submit that one of our problems, exemplified by this thread, it that we have a group of "armchair constitutional lawyers" who are parsing a flawed document written over two hundred years ago, with the attempt to govern fewer people than live in the Twin Cities Metro area.

When they spoke of "arms", they knew only muskets and pistols. They had no comprehension of weapons that fired hundreds of rounds per minute. When they wrote about freedom of speech, they did not comprehend that some lunatics would equate the spending of "money" with "freedom of speech".

To parse every word of this flawed document is of the same level of mental masturbation that many people do when they parse each and every word of the bible (whichever edition of it they have at hand).

Part 2

The Founders were students of the Enlightenment, not of the Confederacy. They were wise enough to know that things would change.

In this thread alone there is the "learned" discussion about what a "regulated" militia meant. That discussion was laughable, at best. What did those who wrote the Constitution mean by "militia":? Why were they concerned?" No, they were not so much concerned about the British as they were about each other.

One of the main reasons for calling the Constitutional Convention was to strengthen the powers of the Federal Government, not to weaken them.

The United States today is a continental country with over 300,000,000 people. it cannot function with the mindset of people who lived in the 18th century.

As an idea to contemplate, do we realize that when Franklin and Jefferson and others went to Paris and London it was the first time that they had seen a building more than 100 ft tall? They brought back ideas which the incorporated into the Constitution and Bill of Rights from their European experiences.

I believe that we would all be much better off if we worked on problems and issues that we experience today using contemporary data and thoughts, and not try and parse words written hundreds of years ago.

maybe people dont wish to share personal self defense stories online? I was forced to defend my wife and kids, I wont share the story online.

The problem I have with those that are willing to chip away at freedoms is that there will always be someone else that want ts take even more freedoms away.

The founders of this country recognized tyranny for what it is and crafted a document that protects us from those who would rule over us.

We are a much less free people today than even 50 years ago.

What you consider reasonable restrictions are just more shipping away at freedom.

Eventually those that promote state tyranny will get to something you care about and who will be left to defend your rights.

Ed,

Does it bother you that you have to take your friggin' shoes off to get on a plane because of one jerk who could not have taken down the plane? Owww, turrists.

Does it bother you that every email that you post here or anywhere on the Internet is subject to scrutiny by our Goverment? The wretched Patriot Act that surely the Founders would have burned.,

Does it bother you that you can't take a bottle of water on board a plane that you purchased outside of the "security zone"? Again because a couple of half-wits tried to do something that failed.

I guess none of these limitations on your "freedoms" bother you.

Let's just let everyone buy as much firepower as they choose. Walmart would love that because it is the largest gun seller in the US. I would also wager that Walmart is a major contributor to the NRA, whose sole purpose is to lobby for more gun sales.

Does it bother you that every damned credit card transaction that you make is subject to being accessed by government "officials"?

Does it bother you that your bank accounts are subject to scrutiny by government officials because of "terrorist threats"?

Mrs. Peel, thank you for that wonderful list.

Yes everyone of those item "bothers" me.

You seem conflicted.

You recognize the loss of freedom by the items in your list but some how imagine that loosing even more freedom will somehow make us more secure or more happy, more free or something.

Please help me understand your confusion.

@ITPro.... good luck on that when the US Airforce (which is pretty much an Evangelical arm of the military) fires a Hellfire missile up your butt while you are holding your pathetic AR-15.

Seriously you think you and your buddies can take out the largest military machine that the world has ever known?

What a moronic thought.

agreed

@matt lehman - are you agreeing with MrsPeel or me?

@ MrsPeel - Whereas you will gladly bend over, grab your ankles and take it, I will fight to the death against a tyrannical government.

You said, "Seriously you think you and your buddies can take out the largest military machine that the world has ever known?" At the time of the American Revolution, the British military was auguably the "largest military machine the world had ever known." They were defeated and Great Britain has never been the same! You, ma'am, would be considered a "loyalist". FYI… I don't own any AR-15s, I am strictly an AK-47 owner.

Exactly what tyrannical practices are you so worried about?

I think we have already seen plenty of tyrannical practices and yet no one has picked up their guns to fight...

How about we start with major international companies who make huge bets and when they win they keep the profits - but when they lose they have rigged the system and bought off our politicians so that the taxpayers end up having to bail them out so they won't suffer the consequences of what little Free Market they actually are subject to...

There won't be any "government takeover" by arms or anything - that's way old school - they have now setup the financial system where they can just slowly bleed you dry and you end up powerless because you have no say in the election other than a silly vote that in the end doesn't matter because the system is fully rigged with both parties...

Your AK-47 is fun to shoot (I've always enjoyed shooting the different variants of the AK-47) but you'll never engage anything related to the government with it - unless you go on my some shooting spree...

Susan, I thought we had covered this ground.

Let me answer by way of two questions.

1. Do you think the founders were smart enough to realize that weapons would continue to advance?

They may not have imagine where we are today but they also made no attempt to limit or infringe the right to bear arms as they could have.

2. Given the proclivity of the anti gun point of view to ever expand what they consider "acceptable" how can you assure us that this and no further will be a reality?

As has been pointed out earlier the shooter in CO could have killed even more with nothing more than a few gallons of gasoline and a match.

Personally I think there is to much focus on the wrong problem.

It is hard to imagine that the people around the shooter did not perceive there to be something terribly wrong with his mental state.

I don't have answers for that.

The world can be an evil place.

I am thankful for living in this country.

Thanks, Ed. To be clear, many of the issues were addressed above, but my question is very specifically: How does regulating the sale and tracking of bullets, or a more rigorous background check and waiting period infringe on my "right to bear arms"?

Saying that people will find a way to hurt us, no matter what, in my opinion is no reason not to try and make it harder for them to do so. Is there a line that needs to be drawn in the sand for regulation? Yes, but I don't believe limiting how much ammunition one can buy, or a longer waiting period, etc. infringes on my right to bear arms, so in these examples, the second amendment argument vanishes.

Ed says: 2. Given the proclivity of the anti gun point of view to ever expand what they consider "acceptable" how can you assure us that this and no further will be a reality?"

I think you are right to ask this question every time a new regulation is up for debate, but using it as an argument to shut down every possible regulation is more of a talking point than a solution.

Ed says: "It is hard to imagine that the people around the shooter did not perceive there to be something terribly wrong with his mental state. I don't have answers for that."

I agree that someone should have noticed something, but what is one able to do if they know a 22 year-old man might be unstable? Do you want the government or the family to be able to lock this person up (easier than the system currently allows)? Or do we have to wait until this person hurts someone?

Do you want to make it easier to commit someone who may show signs of mental instability? This seems to be against the freedom and personal responsibility argument that many here are using.

I have seen the "tyranny" argument used frequently. "The seeds of tyranny" is one that I find a bit humorous, but that is another subject. Regardless of what another has posted here on this thread, I do know what the definition of tyranny is, here are a few from the web:
- Cruel and oppressive government or rule.
- A nation under such cruel and oppressive government.
- Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
- Oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
- A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.

I have never heard or read the word 'tyranny' used more often than with this president, which leads me to believe the argument is more political than reality. After reading through the definitions, I would have to say that I would NOT find a restriction on the number of rounds in a clip to be a cruel, oppressive, an abuse of power, or unjust. Applying the tyranny argument seems a bit silly.

I ask, and not to argue, but to learn: What would be the burden of proof? Using Colorado as an example, how could we prove that the shooter would have harmed less people if his clip had held only 10 rounds?

Also, I am sincerely interested in what the Libertarians think about the following: "Do you want to make it easier to commit someone who may show signs of mental instability? This seems to be against the freedom and personal responsibility argument that many here are using."

Thanks, Ed. I was typing my last post and did not see your response.

From The National Alliance on Metal Illness:
"- One in four adults—approximately 57.7 million Americans experience a mental health disorder in a given year. One in 17 lives with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, major depression or bipolar disorder and about one in 10 children live with a serious mental or emotional disorder."

A psychologist or psychiatrist may have found some of this man's thoughts very troubling, but if he (the shooter) told them that he was going to do this, the psychologist would have been bound by law to notify authorities. If he did not tell the psychologist his specific plans (that he intended to harm someone), there would have been nothing the psychologist could have done. Given that information, I again ask, what else could have been done to stop this tragedy from happening?

Susan said: "After reading through the definitions, I would have to say that I would NOT find a restriction on the number of rounds in a clip to be a cruel, oppressive, an abuse of power, or unjust. "

But I want you to consider this: that is only because you think it does not affects you.

What about the law abiding citizens it would affect?

The burden of proof is on the restrictions to demonstrated that the restrictions they propose would result in fewer deaths by crazies bent on mayhem.

I simply see no way for that to happen as ample examples have been given on mayhem, murder and tragedy that had nothing to do with what is being proposed.

Ed said: "What about the law abiding citizens it would affect?"

True, this does not affect me - who would it affect, and how? Just as an example, let's use a 10 round clip vs. a 100 round clip. Again, not an argument, only trying to understand the opposition.

I absolutely agree that people will find a way (as in all the examples above), but I don't understand why we can't try and make it harder for them to do so. Please don't go to the extreme here, I am still sticking to the size of the clip in this analogy. My apologies if I have the gun terminology wrong.

Susan said: "I don't understand why we can't try and make it harder for them to do so."

But there is no evidence it would do anything useful and is definitely another example of chipping away at our freedoms.

An Aside: I made the decision a few year back that I would not longer fly because of the Patriot act/TSA rules that have not stopped a single terrorist anywhere and have added greatly to the cost and ease of flying. No thanks.

If people would stop being sheep the TSA would be gone in a heartbeat. It has become beyond ridiculous when young children, nursing moms and old ladies are groped by blue gloved government union hacks.

I can see no good that the TSA has done. None. I will not participate.

I agree with you on this one, Ed. I find it ridiculous that the TSA is playing catch-up to the terrorists, but I do still fly, and will continue to take my shoes off, keep my liquids under 3 ounces, etc. It seems a minor inconvenience to dissuade the bad guys from bringing a shoe or liquid bomb on plane. I wonder though, do they scan every bag that goes in the cargo hold?

I'm not sure of all the answers, but I don't agree with 'no regulations' just for the argument that regulations are bad, or that if we allow them to regulate this, then what stops them from regulating that? Honestly, I would not feel safe in a society that doesn't regulate some things that are inherently dangerous.

Ed said: "In the months ahead, I expect to see legislation or insurer requirements that theaters effectively monitor their exits so that when one is left open for too long an alarm will sound and all the lights in the theater will come on automatically."

Now this is an interesting point, and I can understand your position a little better. Was this 'legislated' in schools after any of the school shootings? I honestly don't know this, but I clearly remember being annoyed when my son was in junior high (about 6-7 years ago), and I could walk right in the front door without anyone questioning me.

I really do understand the anti-regulation position, but I think we must apply some common sense....the problem of-course, is that 'common sense' will be defined differently by different political parties, groups, and/or individuals. As I have said before, I think extremes on any issue (to regulate or not) are bad for this country. There truly is a middle ground on most issues, and I think intelligent, compassionate, articulate people form both sides of almost any issue can come together and find solutions. Unfortunately, most of these people are too smart to get into politics and our entire system is now so polarized, and fueled by special interest money, that almost nothing gets done for the betterment (even safety) of society.

IMHO most airline safety responsibility should be up to the airlines. They have the most to lose and are would be highly motivated to get it right with minimum inconvenience.

Of course that would involve necessary measures like profiling. That it is not currently "allowed" is beyond stupid.

Things would sort themselves rather quickly. Call me a dreamer. ;-)

So it's better to stop and/or detain those who 'look like' previous bombers, than to ask us all to take our shoes off?

Is that fair to those who look like previous bombers? Or is that taking away their freedom to quickly get through the line and to their gate? In other words, everyone should be free to get on the plane quickly except those that look like Khalid al-Mihdhar?

Ah yes, Ed... it is of course the fault of the "union hacks" that man the security posts for TSA.

I'm sure these "Union Hacks" as ;you call them wrote the Patriot Act, set the policies, wrote the rules, etc. I'm sure that the Bush Administration had nothing to do with how this works. I'm sure that the low level "Union Hacks" were the ones who ordered the Porno X-ray machines sold by Skeletor.

You give yourself away with such comments.

First, I detest when people bring racism into any discussion, unless the conversation is about race, or unless someone's comment is a truly racist comment. It was not my intention to make this a race issue, I only said "look like" because how a person looks IS the first step in profiling.

I think those who want to cause harm to others come in all different colors and religions. What I fear in slowing down Muslims or those who look to be from the Middle East, is that those people are unfairly being targeted because of what someone else has done. Do we treat everyone equally, giving everyone the same freedoms, or do we take away some people's freedoms because they look like (or have the same religion, or come from the same country) as someone who has already committed a crime?

With respect to George Zimmerman, I think it really does boil down to race and gun rights. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the trial.

http://longwelllawyers.com/2012/05/the-george-zimmerman-case

I believe profiling is an effective law enforcement tool to find criminals.

It has proven effective over and over.

Subjecting granny to a grope search at the airport is the height of absurdity.

This is from an opinion piece, but I think it's got some good points about profiling:

"Terrorists don’t fit a profile and cannot be plucked out of crowds by computers. They’re European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American. So was the Unabomber. The Chechen terrorists who blew up two Russian planes in 2004 were female. Palestinian terrorists routinely recruit “clean” suicide bombers, and have used unsuspecting Westerners as bomb carriers."

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/will-profiling-make-a-difference/

From and article about Israeli profiling techniques:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/israeli-airport-security-inspects-some-travelers-email-too-far-or-within-govt-rights/

"Airports in the U.S. have even begun asking more detailed questions of its travelers. In August 2011, Boston’s Logan International Airport was one such airport beginning to use “Israeli-style behavior detection.”

And it's okay if the innocent are detained, strip searched, and shipped home because they seem to fit a profile (but have not broken any laws)? For one who advocates freedoms, I think this is a bit of a contradiction.

Susan said: "And it's okay if the innocent are detained, strip searched, and shipped home because they seem to fit a profile (but have not broken any laws)? For one who advocates freedoms, I think this is a bit of a contradiction."

I don't think you understand profiling.

Profiling: The recording and analysis of a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people.

"so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere" The key word is "capabilities"....this does not mean they will do something bad. Just because someone may be a Muslim (just to use an example), and may be very active in their church, even recruiting others to the faith, does not mean this person will blow up a plane.

You are advocating for taking away a person's freedoms (even if only temporary) based on an assessment of whether they “could break the law or be involved in violence.” (A quote from your link). These women (although the writer did try to later condemn them), had done nothing wrong, had no bomb, and were still detained, strip searched and sent home. That is Israel, I would not want it to happen in America, unless someone is actually doing something wrong, or is confirmed to be part of a terrorist organization.

@ Carol.... good idea, cause we all know those angry white guys all look alike.
Yes, our friend Ed likes profiling; so I will provide with a little information.

Israel has one major airport, Ben Gurion, which annually has the awesome passenger traffic of (drum roll, please) of 11,5 million passengers.

Here in the US, just to pull three examples of the medium traffic airports:

Minneapolis/St Paul -- 33 million passengers
Detroit -- 32 million passengers
Seattle/Tacoma -- 33 million passengers

These three airports alone have ten times the passenger traffic of Isael in one year.
I wonder how many "Union Hacks" it would take to profile this number of passengers?

We already do profiling in the US... it's called "Driving While Black".

There are approximately 2.1 people in US prisons. 66 percent of these prisoners are non-white. Just doing the basic math here, one should conclude the non-whites should be profiled becuased they take up the most space in prisons.

No wonder the white guys a worried and have to be so heavily armed. They are surrounded by some many non-white criminals.

Why Carol, do only white guys commit crimes?

Please try to learn what profiling actually is before you make another inflammatory comment.

I'm not sure the Founding Fathers wanted non-whites to own guns. Since they didn't want them to vote and considered slave be be private property and less than human, my guess is they wouldn't have wanted a bunch of less-than-humans running around with guns. That could lead to revoultion.

OK Carol. I guess I took that wrong. ;-)

That fairness word is often used to garner an emotional response.

If 90%(totally made up stat) of poisonous mushrooms have a certain "profile" it seems like an efficient use of resources to to look for those identifiers rather than be "fair" to all the mushrooms.

Susan, something went seriously wrong.

I want to know what the psychiatrist knew and when she knew it.

The right to own a gun should be revoked if necessary to protect the public in certain cases .

That is something that would require a change in law and I would support it.

Felons lose their rights in this matter already.

Ed, you may have missed my point, which was to show an example of how profiling can, and will end up targeting the wrong, and most often innocent people.

Regarding your comment, I agree that someone had to know something about this man. I did see that Fox seems to be trying to point to the psychiatrist, but as I mentioned before, I think her hands were tied unless he told her specific plans to hurt or kill someone. We will see...

Susan I agree if we profile people buying a lot of bullets innocent people will be targeted. When bullets go on sale hunters buy them buy the case. Our Federal Government already tried to blame gun shops for selling guns to drug dealers when our Federal Government made them sell the guns for a failed sting operation. We never know how elected officials will use info when they mess up.

Interesting point, Timothy, but why would a hunter care if he has to 'register' a large ammo purchase? If he has nothing to hide, why the fuss to have it recorded?

It come down to a person having to prove their innocents. It isn't like innocent people never go to jail.

The burden of guilt is on the accuser, not on the accused. One would not have to PROVE innocence, if one is not guilty.

A police officer once asked if he could look in my car. I said sure I had nothing to hide. Well I had two prescriptions for bronchitis that I had put into one bottle. So I was transporting a controlled substance illegally. Had my car towed and spent the night in jail. Then I had to go to court. Innocent people can get caught in the cross fire of laws we pass.

But Timothy, you weren't innocent. Was it stupid and ridiculous that the police officer did this? Yes, but technically you violated the law.

Yes, innocent people do get sent to jail, that is a problem with our judicial system, not a problem with our laws and regulations.

How our judicial system works has to be taken into account when making laws. It isn't much of a leader that doesn't. Saying I am right. They are wrong. When the law started with legislators.

My apologies, what I meant by "judicial system" is what happens to a person (in court) AFTER they have been charged with a crime....that is where innocent people are found guilty.

Grant,
I respect and appreciate what you are teaching in your classes. Do you get any response from former students that they have actually used a weapon in self-defense?

You raise a point I have thought about regarding the argument that if we only had more people armed then they could stop someone else.

As you noted if someone pulls out a gun to engage a shooter - yes, they better hope that they are a better shooter because they may get off a shot but then it will be a gun battle if they don't take the guy down (and hitting a moving target in a pressure situation isn't as easy as it looks on TV - which is why the pro's practice it a lot).

And of course if they hit an innocent person - even if there aren't criminal charges (which there might be) there will certainly be Civil Charges.

They always seem to leave out the very real possibility that in the heat of a gun battle they could hit an innocent person and watch as their personal finances get wiped out in a Civil Lawsuit and may well end up in a criminal trial if the DA finds that they did something wrong, etc...

Mre Peel, compared with the Roman Empire, where do you think the US is in its stage of decline?

In 753 BC, Romulous found Rome.

In 64 AD, Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned.

In 1461, the Roman Empire came to an end when the Ottomans capture the empire of Trebizond - the last Greek state.

The Roman Empire covered a time spand of roughly 2200 years. The US has been around for 236 years.

The latest, big argument I heard between to local conservatives in line a the convenience store lately was that the hot weather made there swimming pools too hot. The next day I heard two people in line excited about the free healthcare Obama has given us.

I don't believe the US is an empire nor is it rapid decline.

I think that too many Americans look back at the Post-WWII decades and think that that was what America should be like - but lets not forget that prior to WWII America really wasn't an economic powerhouse nor was it the big dog on the world stage.

Post-WWII, Europe was a disaster, Japan and China was toast and the US was not only giving money out to other countries to rebuild but the American industrial economy was the only major one left undamaged by WWII and American workers found themselves in a position where they were supplying the world with goods and were not facing much competition - this was certainly not a real world scenario that was going to last for very long.

It was inevitable that not only would Europe and Asia rebuild but that other countries would become competitive and America would simply fall back into a more realistic economy.

However, I would agree that in some ways the US will have to get its act together because other countries are combining the best of the Free Market with the Government to compete on a larger scope than the United States is doing in many areas and they are starting to eat our lunch on technologies that will be important in the coming decades.

I believe he found Rome in Italy. Found Italy the roman Empire spread West and eventually ended up in North Hudson. Perhaps the last standing evidence of the Roman Empire is Pepper Fest.

I suppose then since we know that "People Kill People" maybe we should avoid giving them weapons that will kill at a distance - and force them to get "Up Close and Personal" to do their killing - I bet that there would be a lot less killing if the guy had to wade into a crowd of 100 people with a knife and bat to try and kill folks...

I agree, rob, and let's not forget that someone who's magazine holds 100 rounds instead of, say 10 rounds, may kill 90 people much faster than if they had to change the magazine nine more times. Gabby Gifford's shooter has brought down (by a 60-ish year old woman) while he was changing the magazine.

Susan - that is why although I am find with guns being around I would like to see the high capacity clips and magazines eliminated.

Even if I had my former H&K .45 at that theater to be honest I am not sure I would have wanted to get into a shoot out with a guy who had an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine - first - I don't practice enough to ensure that I would hit the guy at much distance, particularly in a crowded theater under huge pressure and in the dark.

And regarding having people carrying concealed guns what if 10 guys had been armed and they all pulled their guns and started shooting - how exactly would they identify friend from foe in that situation? I suspect that we may well have had a much larger bloodbath had there been more than one or two other people with a gun.

And if there had been a shoot out and innocent people were hit by the folks carrying the concealed weapons what happens once the civil lawsuits are filed against those shooters for medical costs?

How about if we just get rid of all laws that are designed to protect us? Would America then be a safer place to live? Well, at least we would be free....or would we?

Can you provide some specifics on the Freedoms we no longer have and who took them away?

And here is the problem with your argument....waiting for a gun, or going through a tougher background check for a larger magazine is NOT giving away a freedom (or liberty). Just because someone makes a product before the product has been deemed safe, does not mean that everyone should be able to have all they want, whenever they want, of that product.

You can quote as many people as you want. You say buying a 100 round magazine is a freedom, I say it's a privilege that should be earned. If someone wants to say that you can not have your drivers license anymore, are they taking away a freedom or a privilege?

I choose to live my life not surrounded by a bunch of people with guns that have the capacity to shoot 100 bullets in less than a minute.

Yawn....do you (yourself) have anything to say, or is this about what dead men have said? They were smart, possibly even brilliant in their time, but they don't live in 2012.

Ed using a quote to call Susan a miserable creature is uncalled for. She is fighting not to fight.

I want safety to spare people's lives. You want to claim freedom for all, on something that should be an earned privilege.

I knew what the quote meant, but thanks all the same, Timothy.

Ed, I really do understand what you are saying. My point, however, is that the specific things I listed are not 'rights' or 'freedoms' to be taken away, they should be privileges to be earned.

Once again, I will thank you for the debate, it's always a learning experience with you. Have a great night.

I am not "left wing", but lean left on most social issues (more right on fiscal issues)...I would NOT give up my position on evolution, abortion, gay marriage, or the legalization of some drugs to "not have gun regulations and vote Republican" (did you mean this, how it was written?). I will not give up my position on anything until I debate with a well informed and persuasive individual who can make a compelling enough argument to make me rethink my position...as Ed did with the Zimmerman case. Although I still hold my initial position on who is at fault, I have changed my mind as to whether Zimmerman should be found guilty as charged (manslaughter would have been much better, and I do believe him guilty of that)....but I don't want to get in that debate again.

Carol, our views differ. Currently our country (obama admin) is assisting the syrian rebels overthrow their government, we are equiping them with guns that shoot rapidly and have large magazines. We say freedom for the rebels against the oppressive government assad. Surely if we are going to equip and fund foreign rebels in the name of freedom and democracy, we would do the same for our own freedom and democracy. I believe the intent of the second ammendment (federalist writings) was to make sure our own free people had the means (right to bear arms) and organization (well regulated militias) to over throw our own government if the need ever arose. we have non violent processes first but, the last resort is Syria type rebeling. Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afgahnistan, and many others had the support of the USA. How can so many different US Presidents all have the same policies yet suddenly these same policies do not apply at home? Are we not the free in comparison? When you know you are forced into a war, you try to disarm your enemy first. We the people are not the enemy. We want our government to be of, for, and by the people with the elected doing as we say, not the elected telling us what we must do. We cannot protect people from people, its simply a factual impossibility.

matt, do you really believe the people in America would be able to rise up against the government (the massive DOD), as was the intention of the second amendment? If so, I will borrow a post from MrsPeel, above:

" good luck on that when the US Airforce (which is pretty much an Evangelical arm of the military) fires a Hellfire missile up your butt while you are holding your pathetic AR-15.

Seriously you think you and your buddies can take out the largest military machine that the world has ever known?"

Ed, at some point you are going have to stop beating the generic freedom drum, and tell us exactly what freedoms you think I want to take away from you....otherwise your comments become nothing more than a talking point, not a logical and persuasive argument.

Joyce, I have a quick question. Above we discussed the Colrado shooter and his trips to see a psychiatrist. Fox seems to already be pointing their fingers at this psychiatrist. We don't know yet what happened there, but is my assessment that the shooter would have had to tell the psychiatrist very specifically that he was going to harm himself or someone else, before she could have done anything? More specifically, that her hands were completely tied unless he said those exact words?

Susan, laws regarding involuntary commitment vary from state to state, but in the two states in which I have worked in health care an adult cannot be involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility unless that adult is a threat either to himself or to others. In the absence of overt threatening behavior, there is nothing a health care professional can do.

Joyce, but could she have notified authorities that this man seemed disturbed, or that she was worried, if he did not specifically say that he wanted to harm others? Where does doctor patient confidentiality stop in respect to the safety of others? Thanks.

Again, Susan, I am not familiar with the laws in Colorado, only with those in New York and Minnesota - a health care worker can violate confidentiality and have a person involuntarily committed ONLY if there is overt evidence (like a direct threat) that the person is a danger to himself or to others. Reporting the person to the authorities under any other circumstances would be a violation of the privacy rules.

You are correct that "rights are limited by the harm they can do to others." One's right to consume what they wish does not include consuming excessive amounts of alcohol and proceed to get behind the wheel of a car, for instance. Consuming excessive amounts of alcohol while on the couch at home or in the bar with a plan for a friend or cab to take you home is perfectly legal on the other hand.

Personal freedom stops becoming freedom when one infringes upon the freedoms of another.

The second amendment protects the right to defend oneself, as everyone has a right to life; guns exist in reality and people need them to defend themselves against others with guns. Individual property rights protect the right of property owners to allow or ban things on their property (like schools or hospitals ban guns from their premises), as everyone has the right to conduct their property in the way that they choose so long as no one else's freedoms are infringed upon in the process. Gun owners infringe upon the rights of others when they take their guns into establishments that do not want them there or, God forbid, use them on people who are not threatening their life - this is a misuse of their freedoms. In the same way, the rights of all gun owners to own guns to defend his or herself are also infringed upon when some try to use the force of government, which exists to protect the liberty of all, to restrict gun ownership because one person or group of persons misused the right.

Actually, Ed, freedom in this country comes from a thoroughly secular document, the Constitution of the United States, not from any creator. The rights you enjoy are guaranteed by that Constitution, as well as the rights others enjoy, including the right to be safe from others. When ordinary Americans have to fear going to public places because of other people who feel they need to be armed to the teeth to feel free, those ordinary Americans have their rights infringed.

And this is my point....you call owning these things a freedom, maybe a God given freedom, whereas I call owning them a privilege. Where in the bible or the constitution does it say that a 100 round magazine is an absolute freedom given to you at birth?

Ed wrote: "According to whom?"

The state, just as with a drivers license, an analogy that you ignored above.

There is no way to guess where the line is, so it's a question that simply can not be answered. Staying involved, educating yourself on the issues, and voting are ways we can help decide what powers the government will have. unfortunately it seems that lobbyists have more power to sway those in the law making business than the voters do.

Ed, our founding document, the blueprint for our form of government, is not the Declaration of Independence, it is the Constitution of the United States, composed years later, by different men for a different purpose.