Mouse Mouse Mouse, I have never wrote of any service , tours or action i may or may not of been in and i sure dont think that is the issue at all .

But hey what do i know......It may be a coincidence but look , Record Sales are already Happening ......Tell em they cant have it and they will go get it !

Gun store in Wisconsin are featured in this video from USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nati...

Gandalf how can you have a reasonable discussion on gun laws without looking at the laws currently in place and their effectiveness? Your outright refusal to look at the failures in Chicago in context with current gun laws proves you have no desire for an effective solution for this insidious violence.

Everyone wants to provide an answer, a human trait for ever tragic event, when confronted with terrible events. A quick feel good response of removing the tool used might sound good, but in real life has proven ineffective. Only law abiding people follow laws, criminals don't, and murder has been a crime since the founding of our nation. Adding another law will make some feel better but to a criminal willing to break the law, murder, it does nothing.

mooshoo make up your little mind you have provided both comments;

" please tell, what is the root of the problem? Share with us your approach to putting a stop to the mass murder sprees in public places. This is a sincere request and not a set-up for a slam "

AND

"...RAF, the dialog is about gun policy. Keep it up, the blood is on your party's hands as long as it maintains the undying support for the NRA position and unrestricted 2nd Amendment rights"

You have already "claimed" the blood is on my hands yet you now want a civil discussion?

I think truth has added more to this conversation in one post than some could in 10 years.
-
Everybody needs to quit knee jerking about things and actually think, if they are capable of thought. Focus needs to be in a lot of other places and not so much on guns.
-
if society wasn't failing on so many other levels, this wouldn't be an issue. But it is. and still with all our shortcomings, we're still thousands of times more likely to die or have our children killed by our own stupid actions, than those of another with a gun. Yet your focus lies where?

I find it disturbing that sales of these weapons of mass destruction have actually increased in the wake of the CT massacre. Lord help us all.

@thetruth724 EXCELLENT!

Mouse i see you trying to control or limit others that have been law abiding gun enthusiasts there entire life , for the simple reason you dont disagree with them . Then you go on to make personal attacks , call people names because you cant seem to frame a reasonable argument against , so who is acting like the child ?

If my comment bothers you just wait till a bill is presented to congress and see the Gun Sales Soar . More Semi autos will be bought in the weeks before a vote then you have ever dreamed possible ! Thats Just a Simple Fact !

For those that think gun control is the answer, I ask that you put your eyes towards Illinois. This is the number one state with the most strict gun laws of the land, where you must pay to have a card so you can legally own a firearm. This is also a state in the last year, has had more murders by fire arms then the amount of soldiers that have died for their country in Afganastan in the last year at war.
Thinking more gun control will solve the problem is the same thing as sitting in an aluminum fishing boat with a hole in the bottom where you think the fix is just put your finger in the hole and the problem is solved.
We as American's have changed society to accept everything.. We've become a society that continues to forgive kids who continue to commit crimes, hoping they will change but are afraid to hurt their feelings because after all, their just a kid. We've become a society that allows vidoe games and cell phones to babysit our kids to give us free time so we don't have to deal with them. We've become a society that blames their teachers for why they act up or are not willing to do their work and become a productive member of society. We've become a society that doesn't see anything wrong with kids having kids and see planned parenthood as contraception and abortion instead of planned parenting meaning, If you are not willing to put everything on the line to support your child and teach them right from wrong through their entire upbringing, then either get an education to get a good job to support your child, get fixed or keep it in your pants or your legs closed. We as a society have allowed the media to sensationalize anything bad that happens becuase we are glued to the TV/radio to hear every detail about what happened. We as a society have become a people that wants everything for free and feel we are owed something. These are only a few things I see wrong and have been going wrong for a long time that is making society crash and burn. At some point if we don't get back to the basics where everything starts in the home and stay fully engaged in our childs/children's upbringing the entire way through, knowing who they are hanging around, nothing will change. There is no quick fix to stop this and anyone who thinks differntly is living a pipe dream. Creating tough gun control may make the idiots in Washington get the warm and fuzzies because they did something, but it won't stop any violence from happening and the pipe dream will continue.

None of the knee jerk 'solutions' would have saved these poor people from the guy that killed them:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/U...

I get a nice little x-mas bonus on Fri , looks like im gonna have to spend it on a another AK or AR and some hi cap mags in case the nut jobs make it illegal to buy one . I didnt want one until you told me i couldnt have one .

Have to watch all the way through then tell me all about it .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p8bbO8o...

26 deaths is not considered "hard evidence". ?

The Bushmaster 223 was not a rapid fire weapon. It is a 1 for 1. One pull of the trigger produces one bullet. Most of the senators who are requesting a ban have never even fired this particular weapon or any for that matter. They have no knowledge of weapons for the most part. People are afraid of things they are not familiar with. Am I saddened by this? Yes. Could this have been prevented by banning guns? The answer is no. He would have found other means to make this happen. Dicks Sporting Goods denied Adam Lanza a rifle purchase. They did their job. He killed his mom with her guns. Who is to say that the guns weren't locked up. At 12 I knew where all the keys were in the house. My dad instilled responsibility and a little fear about keeping out of grown up areas. I respected that. It should be our job as citizens to help other citizens and I do not mean passing more laws we cannot enforce. A person with a weapon is called a citizen and a person without is called a subject.

Attorney General Van Hollen has given the most reasonable response I have heard. Most others are liberal political statements.

The Supreme court has twice struck down complete bans on firearms. If any new ban is passed it will without a doubt be decided in our court system where we may finally have some rational decision making. Its highly unlikely that the SCOTUS will allow an entire class of small arms to be wiped out by libtard Feinstein's gun grab fantasy.

In my opinion it is not the weapon that kills it's the idiot pulling the trigger that kills. A gun is nothing more than a shaped piece of metal. But in the hands of the wrong person then it becomes a dangerous weapon. See no matter what gets done here the problem is those weapons will still make it on the street because of the black market and the criminals that sell those guns illegally. until that gets addressed legislation would be useless because we can't enforce it so what can you do other than level the playing field.

wonders brings up a great point, we had guns in school all the time for hunter safety courses, we even had kids give demonstration speeches on cleaning guns. No big deal. My grandparents had guns sitting in the open of the mud room, we never touched them as kids or even thought of it unless we were given permission. The first lesson I learned when I picked up a gun I was told,"if you aim a gun at a person you better intend on pulling the trigger and suffering the consequences" that stuck big time.

Guns are not more available, there is something else, is it as simple as saying people are crazier? Possibly, we have destroyed the mental health safety net in this country for reasons such as financial and political correctness, but there are other factors to the increase in high profile shootings.

The impact of such events is maximized by the 24 hour news cycle, the technology based info stream which all lead to knee-jerk reactions and calls for knee-jerk 'solutions'. What's the answer looking a the country as a whole I don't know but I do know that with the proper planning and security in place many of these could have been avoided at least on the scale they ended up being, the proof of that was on display at a theater in San Antonio on Monday night and a church in Colorado a few years back where a gunman was stopped by armed people.

I need to pose this question, if guns are the problem why is there never a mass shooting at a police station? I think if we look at things on an individual basis rather than looking for blanket solutions we will be better off, that concept doesn't just apply to guns, but most of life.

I said, "A law that had banned ownership of the weapon in your #1 would have prevented the children and teachers from having been killed with that weapon."

RetiredAirForce replied, "Again logic escapes the left fringe. How? You are making the assumption that he couldn't aquire one if THAT law was followed. Assumptions based on fantasy laws leave you in fantasy land...unable to to talk about the root of the problem instead of falling aback on emotional driven REaction."

It seems it isn't the "left fringe" that logic has escaped. As I said, the children and teachers wouldn't have been killed with THAT gun. If he had acquired another gun, which he had TRIED AND FAILED TO DO according to police investigators, the children and teachers still.would have been killed with a gun OTHER than THAT gun.

Before the seemingly obligatory response, you may want to take some time to ponder that logic.

40
Is Right

40
Is Right

Surprisingly a broad context comment by a conservative, like Van Hollen...“If there were simple solutions we would have come up with them then.”
.
Why isn't this same logic used in addressing poverty, education, healthcare, environmental concerns, and inequity?
.
Now will this broader logic be used simply to rebuff all violence reform as too complicated or will a comprehensive plan be considered that includes healthcare, gun limitations and enforcement, equity, security, ongoing education, and improved equity?

It is NOT the lack of gun laws; it is the lack of society as a whole. When I was in high school there was a shotgun in the trunk of my car almost all fall. I went hunting right after school, no one though ANYTHING of that then. How many others did the same thing? It has NOTHING to do with the guns and EVERYTHING to do with what our society has turned into. My guns have never killed anyone, they have never hurt anyone, they have never had to be fired in self-protection and I hope they never have to be.
One thing to remember no is responsible for your self protection but you. The police are not there to protect an individual and they cannot be called to do that. You are the only one that can protect yourself.

Again logic escapes the left fringe, "A law that had banned ownership of the weapon in your #1 would have prevented the children and teachers from having been killed with that weapon."

How? You are making the assumption that he couldn't aquire one if THAT law was followed. Assumptions based on fantasy laws leave you in fantasy land...unable to to talk about the root of the problem instead of falling aback on emotional driven REaction.

janesvillecomments said, "There's never been a mass murder at a gun show, but there have been 19 incidents of murderous rage at Post Offices."

How many of those 19 murderous rages at Post Offices were carried out with weapons purchased at gun shows?

RetiredAirForce said, "Another law would not have prevented anything."

A law that had banned ownership of the weapon in your #1 would have prevented the children and teachers from having been killed with that weapon.

Connecticut law differs from Wisconsin law in that school employees with concealed carry permit holders in Connecticut can carry firearms in schools IF the school administration OKs it. It would be interesting to know how many, if any, of the staff at Sandy Hook had permits and if they had ever requested permission to carry in the building.

"Gun Free Zones" are bait for the mentally disturbed with violent tendencies - tragedies in waiting. There's never been a mass murder at a gun show, but there have been 19 incidents of murderous rage at Post Offices (gun free by Federal Law) since 1983:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pos...

Chicago, which has virtually disarmed the law-abiding public within it's city limits for decades has had 490 murders so far this year. They had 445 last year and 449 in 2010.

The link below relates stories of what happens when mass killers meat armed resistance:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04...

We need to go back to institutionalizing and more strictly monitoring the mentally ill in this country.

The unhinged left fringe are incapable of debating the facts. Claims of banning something will prevent use is asinine, how has that worked during prohibition and the current war on drugs. By refusing to fix the root cause of these acts of destruction by instead deflecting toward a type of instrument used by no means is a fix...it is only a feel good measure used often by the emotionally charged left wing of our society.

LAWS WERE ALREADY IN PLACE AND BROKEN BY THIS PERSON.
1. He stole a weapon.
2. He was not legally old enough to be in possession of the weapon in that state.
3. He planned his actions.
4. He killed his mother.
5. He drove a vehicle with loaded weapons.
6. He carried weapons into a gun free zone.
7. He fired weapons at a government building.

---All this before he got to any employee or student of the school.

Another law would not have prevented anything...

Guns do kill and this is fact. Without that type of GUN he could not have done what he did. He did not do it with his bare hands he had a gun, there fore the point is GUNS kill.

There is absolutely no reason a civilian possess an assault weapon If you need to protect your home and need a weapon of this kind I suggest you find a new neighborhood. To those that think people who own guns are all of sound mind you need to think again. People can at any moment lose their rational and do this type of thing. Van Hollen has never made any real sense and on this one he is way off base and a majority of his political party is of the same IMO. I am for gun rights and some seem to think Think they will lose their rights, and this is not the case. Also those that already have the guns legally registered will not lose them under what has been proposed on the new ban of assault rifles and limited ammo clips. Some have said it could have been done with bombs and other weapons Well it wasn't it was done with GUNS and that is what all need to realize. To make some changes to what is allowed in the hands of civilians, that would possibly prevent something like this is a start. I personally am sick of people saying to make safer laws would not have changed this tragedy How the Hell do they really know? No one really knows what mental problems this kid had nor the other ones had that did these crimes, they are not here to prove anything or disprove anything. He said this, she said that and no one can confirm any of it, most of it has been said after the fact. 20 children ages 5 and 6 years old are dead and 6 adults that doted their lives to teaching them. The 2nd amendment is not being taken It is just being made safer for all people. The right to bear arms is just that and the Rights for these children to live into adulthood was taken and some people do not believe that RIGHT was violated. Well it was. Those that are angry and think they are entitled to have their Rights Need to realize those children were robbed of that RIGHT to be safe and protected. Please in the 2nd amendment tell me where it says The right to Bear arms include the right to take another HUMAN BEING for no reason at all. To justify it and not want solutions to this is as disgusting as it gets. No person is exempt from crossing the line of rational thinking and losing control NO ONE. one thing i would like to say is that when many agreed that teachers were not worth their wages and as I said then and will say it again, Teachers, Firemen, and Police officers never really know if when their day at work ends if they will be coming home and IMO they are worth every dime they earn.

And - by the way- I am a " concealed carry" advocate.

Regardless of Adam Lanza's mental state, Friday would not have happened if those rapid-fire guns were not legally available.

The fact that the guns can so easily fall into the wrong hands is an even stronger argument for gun control. The kinds of weapons used Friday don't need to be in society. If they were not legal, Adam Lanza's mom would not have had them and Adam Lanza would not have gotten his hands on them. And I'm sorry, but if you think your AR15 is just fine and dandy as a hunting rifle, you're on the wrong side of this. ... Now is very much the time to be talking about this. According to the gun lobby, there is no time ever to be talking about it anyway.

The FBI's own UCR shows violent crime in areas with concealed carry go down while cities and areas that outlaw weapons have increases in the rates of violent crime.

The city of Chicago is a gleaming example of liberal utopia; Run by democrats, union heavy, high taxes, taxes on bullets, and a gun ban. The results from this utopia...more murders this year than combat kills in Afghanistan.

This is the picture the dems want for the whole country.

Then there are the anti-gun nuts that want to retrict everything regardless of the majority of gun owners that use their guns responsibly for the sake of the actual nuts who use their weapons for evil.

Perhaps we should leave questions about placing restrictions on the Second Amendment to much more qualified constitutional legal minds, such as conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who also happens to have a record of being one of the most staunch proponents on the Court of the right to bear arms. The following is from the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia in D.C v. Heller.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [...] For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [...] Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [...] It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." [ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07p... ]

It is simply false to assert that "All the laws in the land and all the new laws proposed will not stop a person from aquiring a weapon and go on a killing spree if that person wants to do that". If there had been an assault weapons ban in place then the Mom would not have had the weapon in the first instance. If we do nothing then nothing will be done. If our actions can prevent the death of even one child it is worth the effort.

All the laws in the land and all the new laws proposed will not stop a person from aquiring a weapon and go on a killing spree if that person wants to do that. Snide remarks by some do nothing to alleviate the problem. Do you have the answer that works or do you just like to flap the fingers?

Fear, because you were the last poster when I wrote this I am going to sue your lines as quotes, nothing against you, just that you were last.

Wonder if the founding fathers that authored the second amendment saw the automatic weapons in society today they might re-write the second amendment.

What do you think constitutes an “automatic” weapon? Automatic in its term means just that, to own an “automatic weapon” you have to have a very specialized permit. A machine gun is an automatic weapon, not the guns used in almost every killing. They are called “semi-automatic” weapons because you have to pull the trigger each time a round is fired. So please get the terminology correct when referring to something in the future.

You want an opinion about the impact of firearms on society? Ask a cop, they are the ones that we should listen to.

Most of them are opposed to CC and are opposed to these regulation free gun culture that we live in.
So “most” cops are against the CC laws? That is very odd because the ones I talk to were all for it. The age old “there will be more in danger at a traffic stop” does not work either. Every cop approaches a stopped vehicle as if the person is armed and going to use a weapon on them. Having a legal one in a vehicle is no more a threat than a water balloon.

Now lest talk about “assault rifles” what makes an assault rifle? Is it the shape, the color, how many rounds it can shoot? Just what is an assault rifle?
AR style rifles are NOT assault rifles, every assault rifle I know of is a fully automatic weapon. The military and some police have assault rifles, not the average guy on the street. As far as AR style weapons not a good hunting weapon, they are GREAT to hunt with. The .308 version I have is a wonderful hunting weapon and very accurate for what I hunt. It is light and easy to carry. So yes they are very legitimate weapons to hunt with and NO they are not assault weapons.

Now let’s talk a little about the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment. Do you think the founding fathers would have changed that had they known about the new version printing press, radios or TV’s? To compare one amendment you have to look at them all, you can’t pick and choose as you want.

Ok I am done thanks for reading

Substantively Van Hollen is saying that nothing will be done and this is simply not acceptable. The concealed weapons law was a mistake. It must be repealed. Banning all assault weapons is a necessary step. Banning ammunition clips of 10 or more bullets is necessary. There are no doubt more steps can be taken. It is irresponsible to suggest that "some things can't be prevented" when the blood of innocent children has been spilled. Does AG Van Hollen love his guns more than the lives of children?

Fear that's the most preposperous argument I've ever heard. The founders wrote the first amendment when when speaking to people meant no amplifiers and no way to reach millions through mass printing, the internet, or mass media. So based upon your logic we should only be allowed to practice freedom of speach in the ways common in the founders days? The same for freedom of press. I mean press was really just fountain pen on parchment, and the occassional extremely slow press. Now we have high speed press, the internet, and satellites that allow news to be spread all over the globe. Could the founders only have imagined press in those days and now would only allow press to reach the small scale it could then? Any religions that may have come along since the founders were around probably shouldn't be acknolwdged right? I'm sure the founders were intelligent enough to realize that technology changes things over time. I'm sure that the reason that the rights are very general and ambuguous doesn't have any thing to do with the fact that they purposefuly wrote them that way to make them open to future technology and NOT limited to the days tech.

and yet NONE of the weapons used in the tragedy on Friday were considered "assault weapons" under current proposals, or former laws banning them.
-
People want to do something to do something. I don't care for wasting lots of time and money. I find it rather disgusting that people are all to ready to use dead children to push their political agenda and the public is all to eager to knee jerk all over and react to things they have little understanding of.

Wonder if the founding fathers that authored the second amendment saw the automatic weapons in society today they might re-write the second amendment. Since when the amendment was written the only firearms that were significant were Muskats. 1 shot per minute if you are good.My bet is things would have been different had they known about this insanity.

This is the opinion of an ideologue, nothing more. Like with ever issue JB Van Hollen has no interest about the law, he wants the law to follow his beliefs, thats it. The man is an absolute partisan, nothing more nothing less.
You want an opinion about the impact of firearms on society? Ask a cop, they are the ones that we should listen to. Most of them are opposed to CC and are opposed to these regulation free gun culture that we live in.

I see the RWTPs are that assault weapons are now determined by whether they are semi-automatic (legal) or full automatic (not legal). Clip size makes no difference from what I am hearing. It may be the difference as to whether you can take out 1 person every 2 seconds with a semi-automate "non-assault" weapon vs. 3 people very 2 seconds with an "assault" weapon. I guess for JB and the gov, the first is OK but not the second?

Shoeboy....please read the paragraph following the one you pulled the quote from. Van Hollen elaborates on his statement........

Gandalf.....where has it been reported that the mother's guns were not locked up??

The truth of the situation is that the shooting went on until authorities entered the building, at which point he turned a gun on himself (as is frequently the case in these situations).

So the question is how best to slow the damage.

There is no reasonable person that can argue an assault weapon with an insane clip size has any remotely legitimate purpose - it only serves to maximize damage in a minimal period of time. If he had much more limited clip sizes, the time required to change clips and the potential for problems during that exchange would have not only created opportunity for intervention or escape, but it would have certainly reduced the number of bullets prior to intervention by authorities.

The Constitution makes no guarantee of free access to military grade equipment (hint: you don't get to buy mortars down at the sporting goods store). Sensible people can make sensible restrictions.

I think the gun laws are fine the way they are. No felons can legally have guns. I think if you have a domestic violence also you are not aloud to have guns. So that being said....drugs are also illegal and people do them. If we cant enforce the current laws... how does anyone think that imposing any more will have any affect at all? It will just penalize the responsible people. This argument is like beating a dead horse.

Good for Van Hollen. He is a voice of reason in the mass of shrill, shrieking reactionaries.

What a shame that the AG can't contribute to the conversation without smart alecks heaving personal insults his way.

By the way J.B. is right. None of the gun restrictions being touted about right now would have done anything to stop the Newtown massacre. The guy wan't old enough to own a gun, so he didn't. He stole the legally owned guns he used. Guns that could still be bought and owned by his mother under all the recently proposed new laws.

Rahm Emanuel said "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste". They should let this latest one pass, but they won't. It's too appealing to folks like Mr. Emanuel and a handful of Gazette posters to beat their political opponents over the head with the dead bodies of all those murdered children.

What a country have made for ourselves.

And I would like to add,Mouse you need to get off of your pony,the show is getting really old !

Woodsman, I agree 1000% .People need to wake up ! Even if they ban assault weapons there are millions of them out there and very accessible via gun shows , private dealers and, so on. Actually there are more gun related deaths with the use of handguns and shotguns,than assault weapons in the country, that being said. We as a Nation WILL never control the human mind and, the directions they will go. Nuff Said !!!!!!!! Think about people,seriously think about it.

Guns do not KILL,cars do not KILL,knives do not KILL,drugs do not KILL,the nuts that abuse these things do!!
The NUTS that think otherwise,should be on a watch,they live in a fantasy world to think there way...

I'm no fan of JB that is certain, but I happen to agree with him. So many are reacting in ways just to react. What they're proposing will have little to no effect on anything.