Is there a specific gun law that would have prevented Newtown? That's the only real question. The laws currently being pushed by Dems would not have stopped it (being able to shoot less rounds per minute wouldn't stop someone in that situation).

Guns exist. All the current hysteria by Democrats will do is restrict law abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. So law abiding citizens who wish to excercise those rights have every right to be alarmed.

If you want to talk about facts, virtually all mass shootings end at the first sign of resistance (police, someone else with a gun). All you brainwashed liberals SHOULD wonder why the politicians who are advocating the restriction of all guns send their kids to schools with armed security.

And there's also this: The worst US school massacre in history was done with bombs, not guns.

PS. The 2nd amendment wasn't and isn't for hunting.

So the answer is to do nothing? WHere do you people come from? Those pols kids are with highly trained specialists. Not teachers with a little bit of training. Did you know Columbine had an armed guard? What if a good guy with a gun gets shot? What if he misses and hits a kid? Always more guns with you people.

Kev - Glad you agree that our kids should also go to schools with highly trained specialists protecting them with fire arms. You unwittingly have agreed with my point. Thanks! If more guns WERE NOT the answer, I'm sure Barack would ask that they be removed from his kids' school.

Remember when it was wrong to discuss the value of enhanced interrogations when the memory of 9/11 was still raw in the American psyche? But now, quick, let's do "something". What that something is matters less than taking the heroic position of "protecting the children."

In other news, an intruder broke into a house and the terrified mother gathered up her twins and hid in a closet as the man ransacked the home. Then he got to the closet and the mother emptied her 0.38 into him.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/

I wonder if this will be a game-changer for some people.

Oh k. Are you in favor of the gov't training all these people to the level of secret service agents? It would take thousands. Might get expensive and it would be big gov't, the bugaboo of you folks. Oh and whiule we're at it, let's train more of them for malls, grocery stores, movie theaters, plays, concerts, and sporting events. Maybe if we all had guns no one would ever get drunk or mad and use them. Maybe we should just deploy the military everywhere.

Yes sometimes people use guns for self-defense. That doesn't mean they need ar15's. Don't see anybody saying nobody has the right to own a gun at all. You guys dream up that part.

Kev - It really comes down to this question. Why does Barack Obama's family (along with David Gregory's and other DC elites) deserve to send their kids to a guarded school but you do not? You are arguing with an army of straw men instead of answering my points. It's OK if it takes thousands of armed guards and they wouldn't have to be trained to the level of secret service.

Again... the one unrefutable point to all of this is that mass shooters stop and/or kill themselves at the first sign of resistance. So that would mean the answer is more resistance, not less. Sorry to use logic in what you and your ilk have made a purely emotional issue.

Still haven't heard anyone list a law that would have prevented Newtown.

You nor anyone else knows what would have prevented Newtown. Show us how it's unrefutable and actually the word is irrefutable that these people stop and kill themselves at the first sign of resistance. That didn't happen at Columbine, for starters. People are different, even crazy people. YOu can't know what would stop anybody and every body who would do this.

You can't know that some of those thousands of armed guards trained by big gov't wouldn't sometimes go crazy too. What is irrefutable is that making it harder to get the most efficient weapons can only help. It won't solve the whole thing, but it's part of a solution. Only in your crayon world is everything all or nothing. The adult part of the population knows it takes more than any one thing to address a big problem like this. But you and your ilk can't stop screaming about people who want to take all your guns even though nobody I have heard is actually saying that.

Making more people have the chance to use guns will end up with more people dead unless everybody agrees to declare themselves good guys or bad guys and stick to it, not to mention have perfect aim and keep up some intense training. I don't personally want to live in a world where more and more people are hanging around with their guns at ready and I have to trust that they won't aim them in the wrong direction or turn into bad guys themselves. That's a stupid solution unless you want the wild west. Which most of us don't.

<p>Oh and lastly, "deserve" to send their kids to a guarded school? That assumes it's a good thing, so how could it be answered by somebody who disagrees with you?&nbsp; Their kids are targets because of whose kids they are.&nbsp; Ours aren't.&nbsp; Their kids are what's guarded, not the entire school or movie theater or sporting event or wherever they go.&nbsp; Put that in your pile of straw, John Wayne.<br mce_bogus="1"></p>

David Gregory's kid goes to the same school as Obama's and they enjoy the same protection.You're wrong. And if their kids are targets but ours are not, how do you explain Newtown?

Set and match.

"I don't personally want to live in a world where more and more people are hanging around with their guns at ready" (Pure emotion, no logic or reason - as defines the left's argument on this issue.)

Kev - What don't you understand about the danger of your argument's logic? If more guns equal more danger....l and less guns equal less danger.... then banning all guns makes us the safest. It's not true... but that's where your emotional reaction leads us.And we all know banning guns does nothing as evidenced by DC and other areas who "ban" them.

Guns exist.

The US has higher crime rates than UK in many things so it's unfair to only look at gun violence... it's also difficult to compare since the reporting is different.

One thing to note however is that they have a high number of home invasions which you could attribute to the fact that burglers know homeowners are unlikely to defend themselves with lethal force.

But you prove your bias.... it "must" be their gun laws. Well there you have it. :)

In all seriousness though ... it sucks that you and I can't even have a meaningful discussion on this because you refuse to acknowledge (or more sadly, legitimately don't understand) the point that guns exist. I guess I'll break it down for you in good faith: Guns exist therefore we can't pass any laws to cause them to not exist, therefore bad guys who want to do bad things will get them (or carry out their destruction in other ways like bombs, etc) regardless of any new law we pass. Since no law will prevent bad guys from getting guns (bad people who intend to murder which is against the law will also disregard the law saying they can't use a gun for said murder) all the ever increasing gun laws do is prevent good citizens from getting guns to protect themselves.

The fact is mass shooters are unly unsuccessful (or less successful) and/or stopped when they encounter resistance, which means MORE resistance is the answer - not less. That's what Obama and other DC elites have the priveledge of sending their kids to a school with armed security. So far I'm not aware that they have asked them to leave in order to make the school safer. So it's good enough for them but not for the little people I guess? Such hypocrisy.

You, TG, and your ilk keep saying you don't want to ban all guns. That may be true of you, however many on your side openly admit they would like to ban guns altogether... they've already tried it in cities with horrible results. So stop saying no one wants to take away all of our guns - they absolutely do. Therefore every small step is toward that goal, hence the resistance every step of the way. They openly state in so many words that the 2nd amendment is outdated and at best we should just allow hunting rifles. The majority of the left in this country wants to ban all guns. That's a fact. So we can keep talking about it but don't say no one wants to take all the guns away because they do.

Sadly it wouldn't work even if they did (see 'guns exist'). Violence would continue in other forms and as a side effect we would lose our second amendment right and take the step that every nation must take before it can become a dictatorship: disarming citizens. Read history and learn from it.

Eric Holder: Gun Owners Should 'Cower' in Shame Like Smokers

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/01/10/eric-holder-gun-owners-should-cower-shame-smokers

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

"When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly .... When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it."
- Bill Clinton

"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."
- Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns..." Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998.

"The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements .... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."
- Benito Mussolini

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."
- Adolf Hitler

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
- Mao Tse Tung

As for the original intent of the 2nd amendment.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -- Thomas Jefferson

”A free people ought to be armed.”
~George Washington

Posted by k on 1.10.13 at 12:59

Is your right to own certain types of guns worth repeated shootings with high numbers of victims, even children?

Is your right to free speech worth those whose hate speech incites violence and unrest?

It's really about the real purpose of the 2nd amendment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs