“Connecticut slaughter sparks public outcry for gun control across US”

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

72 Responses to “Connecticut slaughter sparks public outcry for gun control across US”

  1. avatarjwm says:

    The public can demand. The constitution and the rule of law puts limits on the intrusion into the rights of the individual.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      Well we have seen how the current administration treats the constitution now don’t we…

    • avatarfred says:

      RT is Putins propaganda press purportedly independent but stirs up trouble…put Assange on air interviewing Hezbollah. Anything to help weaken individual freedom in US would be good for the kgb mafia AND ISLAMOFASCISTS and EU wannabes in dc along w corruptocrats in UN.

    • avatarpat says:

      jwm, as you well know and agree with, it it the guns that give the public the ability to demand the rule of law that puts limits on the intrusion into the rights of the individual via the constitution.

  2. Most Americans are “sheep” and they are only echoing what the media is telling them.

    If the media was saying “Perhaps its time to let the teachers arm themselves”, that American Sheep would say “bahh, bahhh, Arm the Teachers”.

    Only one of two thing happens to sheep… they are either eaten by wolves… or they end up on the farmers dinner table.

    • avatarMike says:

      The old fallacy about the media power. The media is not homogeneous. This website is part of it, NBC is part, Talk radio pis part, Fox News is part. There are many voices out there.
      I do not advocate gun control, but please at least accept other people have a different view. Just as strongly held as your own. They are entitled to that.

      • avatargloomhound says:

        To hell with em.

        If you are wrong you are wrong and they are.

        • avatarGA Koenig says:

          Yes, that is the attitude that will lead to the long term health of the 2nd Amendment!

        • avatargloomhound says:

          Just because you hold a opinion does no mean that I have to respect it.

          The Nazi’s had some very deeply held views didn’t they?

          If some are advocating for stripping me of my rights then the time for understanding and “lets all just get along” is over.

        • avatarGA Koenig says:

          You are absolutely entitled to your opinion. In general, I happen to agree with it!

          The problem is that our Constitution is, in fact, a living document. Like it or not, enumerated rights can be nibbled away at the edges by legislature and the courts (look at the 5th). Those rights are generally curtailed when public opinion becomes overwhelming towards change.

          Brass tacks – the 2nd Amendment is absolutely NOT the hard cover we wish it was. If the attitude of gun owners in response to the cavalcade of terrible legislation that will be hitting the pipeline soon is to tell the opposition to go stuff themselves, we will lose this battle very very quickly.

        • avatarRalph says:

          GA Koenig, the “our Constitution is a living document” theory is dead. The meaning of the Constitution does not depend on whether Elena Kagan has the cramps on any particular day. The Constitution means what it says, not what somebody wants it to mean.

          Yes, that’s a big change from the Warren Court, when they made up stuff that was more fanciful than anything from the mouth of a six year old girl. Remember “penumbras and emanations”? That’s the “living Constitution” at work. The Court’s examination today is historical in nature, and even the most liberal judges are adopting it. As they should.

      • avatardaveR says:

        Talking about “the media” and “the sheep” shows a depth of thought that is inaccessible to most of us. Most of us are simple minded and can’t generalize. Most of us simple-minded folks need to take the news stories and evaluate them on their own merits and come up with conclusions for ourselves. This makes us “the sheep” because those very wise people who call us “sheep” are better able to see the “wolves” and the “farmer”. These very wise people are lucky because they can’t simply be “the sheep” of yet another farmer. Nope.

      • avatarDave says:

        Amem @Mike. The name-calling on both sides of this “debate” is depressing and unhelpful. But shouldn’t gun rights advocates ought to hold themselves to a higher standard? I think so.

        Pocono Shooting writes that “Most Americans are ‘sheep’.” Since most studies show that nearly half of Americans own guns, does that mean that every non-gun owner is a sheep? Or that a sizable proportion of gun owners are sheep? What does Pocono Shooting know about “most Americans” that gives him/her the ability to make such an arrogant and dismissive comment?

        P.S. also writes, “they are only echoing what the media is telling them”? What is the basis for this claim? Does P.S. know something about how the media influences individuals’ thoughts? Does this only apply to those who favor some restrictions on guns? Are gun rights advocates completely free thinking and immune to the influence of the media they consume?

        I hope that “The Truth About Guns” will stay in the realm of truth rather than dismissive name-calling.

        • avatarRalph says:

          If people hear an easy lie long enough, and if it’s told to them by their government and most “reliable” sources, the people will prefer to believe it rather than a hard truth.

          Anyone who doesn’t understand how the left dominates the media is living in a dreamworld.

        • avatarDave says:

          @Ralph : I don’t understand the basis for your claim about people hearing lies and preferring to believe them rather than hard truths. What, specifically, are the lies, and what, specifically, are the truths? And what data do you have on “the people” to document what they believe and why? I thought this blog was the “truth” about guns not people’s opinions about guns. Without data to support your argument, it seems yours is just an opinion. You are entitled to that opinion, but it is worth what it is as opinion.

          Regarding the statement, “Anyone who doesn’t understand how the left dominates the media is living in a dreamworld.” How do you define “the media”? Media are ways of communicating information. They include print media, radio, television, and electronic media (such as this blog). If you look at the most influential talk radio hosts, they are certainly not part of “the left.” See http://w3.newsmax.com/radio_hosts.cfm

          I would bet that more people listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio on any given day than read the New York Times or the Huffington Post.

          The rhetoric of “the left” dominating the media seems to me part of a rhetorical dreamworld that doesn’t help to bring insight to this important issue.

      • avatarpat says:

        Mike, most of the media sphere is indeed liberal dominated. Talk radio, Fox, a few other outlets are…….NOTHING compared to everything else. On prime time Saturday night at 9pm wst NBC had some obscure antigun movie that was over 10yrs old featuring Wesley Snipes. Coincidence?
        “Bring back Patriotism and God to the classroom”.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      My mom is a teacher and after the Aurora shooting, I tried explaining that Holmes didn’t have a machine gun and that there’s no such thing as an “assault weapon” etc. I spent a good 10 minutes trying to explain it and she obviously didn’t listen because Saturday she was ranting about how we need to ban scary looking weapons and “Normal guns are OK, but no one needs an assault weapon where they just hold the trigger and spray…”.

      So I took an hour last night and wrote up a quick 5-6 page report explaining where the term “assault weapon” came from (manufactured by Josh Sugarmann to confuse the masses), the details of the ’94 ban and how it was deemed completely ineffective by law enforcement / FBI, data on crime rates and how we’ve seen a huge decrease in all crimes after liberalizing gun laws in the past decade, details on the NFA, and data from multiple other countries with gun bans showing how their crime rates increased after their gun bans. Hopefully she’ll read it (I think she will)…if I can convince her, then she’ll try to educate her friends / coworkers as well…..hopefully it’ll have a ripple effect.

      • avatarDave says:

        Can you make this report available? I am very interested!

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          It’s not fully scientific (I didn’t give full citations of sources) since I was just writing it for her, but most of the sources could be easily found via Wikipedia or Gunfacts.org.

          I’ll try seeing if I can get the download link to work via Dropbox and post it on here.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Here’s the link to my quick and dirty AWB report I wrote.

          https://www.dropbox.com/s/pe23gdnu9fjj4p1/AWB%20facts.docx

          Let me know if it doesn’t work right. Feedback is appreciated too.

        • avatarDave says:

          Thanks for providing access to the document. I will have a look and let you know my thoughts, for what they’re worth.

      • avatarpat says:

        Totenglocke, If your ma is a teacher (of the non hard sciences, mainly) then you’ve (and you probably know it) a few strikes against you from the git go in having her see the light. Antigunner fangs have sunk DEEP into the ‘education’ system these last several decades.

  3. avatarHanover Fiste says:

    I am afraid we are in for a rough ride. Many people are very emotional right now and reacting out of fear. This is the sort of reaction that lead to the Pariot Act, Constitution be damned. Not to mention the legions of Constitution shredding laws and EOs put forward by both political parties since 9/11.

    Damn, and I was hoping to get my first AR this next year. I am still hoping reason will prevail.

    • avatardaveR says:

      Sorry that I can’t ease your fears as I am rapidly changing my views (and I don’t think I’m over reacting). No, I don’t think our gun rights are ALL in danger of being challenged. However I **do** now question how important my shooting hobby is when challenged with how its items can be abused. This abuse of freedom by a single deranged 20 year old damaged no only those who he killed, but destroyed a part of the lives of every child who was in that school. So right now I no longer believe that whatever joy/fun/security my AR15 brings me outweighs the consequences of its potential abuse. Yes, these gun abuse situations are very very rare, but I’m having an especially hard time ignoring this one.

      • avatarRobert Farago says:

        No one’s asking you to ignore anything.

        • avatarDave says:

          @Robert – I think that Pocono Shooting’s comment above — calling most Americans sheep and unable to think independently of the media — is in fact a way of asking people to ignore the implications of this shooting for restrictions on guns. If we choose not to ignore it, we are sheep brainwashed by the media.

          I beg to differ. The major of Americans — the broad and deep middle of our country, our fellow citizens — favor BOTH the right to keep and bear arms AND reasonable restrictions on what, where, when, and how arms can be kept and borne.

          This tragedy could be a time for us all to move toward one another, to the middle, rather than away from one another, to either extreme. I doubt it will, but I wish gun people would at least try.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          @Dave

          Your “to the middle” argument A) falsely blames guns for this when there have been plenty of mass murders that didn’t involve guns and B) expects only gun owners to give anything up, while the anti’s gain.

        • avatarDave says:

          @totenglocke

          (A) I do not see where my post blames anything for anything. My response was to Robert on a separate point. Not sure where you see me blaming.

          (B) In terms of giving up things, in the move to the center scenario, those who are anti-gun do give up something: they give up the idea that guns can be banned entirely. They concede that.

          It is also the case that in debates over guns, I hold gun owners — including myself — to a higher standard in terms of the quality of debate. To that extent, I do expect more from gun owners.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          @Dave

          By saying that banning any sort of gun would change mass murder situations, you’re blaming guns. Plenty of other countries ban guns and still have mass murders and the worst school killing / mass murder in the US was done without a single gun – just homemade bombs and a club.

          The anti’s aren’t giving up anything in your idea of a “compromise”, they’ll just do what they’ve always done in every country and come back in a few months or a few years and push to ban yet more guns. First they’ll ban “assault weapons”, then they’ll push for semi-autos, then they’ll push for 12 gauge shotguns, etc. We’ve seen it happen before and we’ve witnessed similar behavior in the US (first they restricted machine guns / sbs / shotguns, then they wanted to restrict who can buy guns, then they wanted to ban cheap guns…. Or places like CA that banned scary looking guns, then guns that hold more than 10 rounds, then guns that aren’t ‘approved’, then they banned guns with certain calibers…). There is no compromising with someone who wants to violate your rights – you will lose and they will win….that’s not the definition of a “compromise”.

        • avatarDave says:

          @Totenglocke

          I appreciate your thoughts. I don’t see the argument you attribute to me in what I wrote, but I will meditate more on it. I did say that the majority of the American population favors “reasonable restrictions on what, where, when, and how arms can be kept and borne.” I think that is true, and I think that includes a large segment of the gun owning population. So, if gun owners move toward the middle perhaps the other side will as well? I don’t know that the move to the middle necessarily entails the outright gun bans you mention.

          I accept that there will always be those on both sides who take absolutist positions: that there is no individual right to own guns on one hand, and opposition to any limitation on what/when/where/how guns can be kept/borne on the other hand. I just think the absolutists on both sides are in the minority and trying to pull the middle to their extremes is not the most productive direction for us to take as a society.

          Full disclosure: I do think that we are a society — “We the People” — and not simply a collection of individuals inhabiting the same geographical space.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          I did say that the majority of the American population favors “reasonable restrictions on what, where, when, and how arms can be kept and borne.” I think that is true, and I think that includes a large segment of the gun owning population.

          Sorry, but your feelings aren’t correct.

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

          Gallup’s latest gun poll (they don’t do the same polls every single year, so this one is from fall of 2011. It shows that 73% are against a handgun ban, 53% are against a scary looking weapons ban, 43% want gun laws kept the same and 11% want then relaxed (so 54% want the same or fewer restrictions), 60% want to enforce current laws over enacting new laws, and all of these are record high numbers for support that have been increasing year after year for awhile now.

          Another poll regarding gun ownership (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx) shows that 47% of households own at least one gun, 46% of men own at least one gun, and 23% of women own at least one gun (again, highest numbers in a long time).

          Your thoughts on other American’s opinions are either based off of where you live or from hearing the very vocal anti-gun minority.

        • avatarDave says:

          @Totenglocke

          Thank you for the links to the Gallup Poll data. I think these are very helpful and relevant, and they ought to be considered by everyone trying to understand public opinion on gun laws.

          I don’t think they undermine my point that the majority of the American population favors reasonable restrictions on what, where, when, and how arms can be kept and borne.

          I think we will both agree that there are many restrictions currently on that what/where/when/how of keeping and bearing arms. Do the majority of Americans favor current restrictions, want more restrictions, or want less? I would argue that the majority fall into the first two categories. Of course, there is no question that addresses this point specifically, but the Gallup Poll data suggests that 87% of Americans think laws concerning the sale of handguns should be kept the same or made more strict.

          There is also some data from a CNN poll that paint a slightly different picture than the Gallup poll, and should be considered as part of the broader mosaic.

          http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

          We do well to remember that there is always a “margin of error” in these polls as well that can account for some of the difference. The surveys are not perfect, but they are suggestive.

          Also, I admit that I am speaking to the POLITICS of guns, not LEGAL rights. I am talking about how we should engage our fellow citizens in a conversation about our common destiny.

      • avatarHal says:

        Gun free, target rich envirobments created this. Not you, DaveR. Don’t be duped into believing that we have a collective responsibility here. As horrible as this is, a reduction in liberty is rarely, if EVER the answer.

      • avatarRalph says:

        daveR, if you’re worried that your hobby is dangerous to others, give ‘em up. Just keep away from mine.

      • avatarKeith says:

        @daveR, the key point there is abuse. Are we to give up all means of enjoyment in order to prevent all abuse of same? By that measure, if we really want to make some progress we all better forego alcohol, which nation-wide has more tragic effect by far.

        You sound like your are sharing the blame for this event. That is not a burden you should feel.

      • avatarGS650G says:

        DaveR has successfully been convinced of the anti gun viewpoint. That’s a shame because now he is prepared to accept new limits on freedom, his and mine.

      • avatarTotenglocke says:

        And why do you think him using another weapon would have been better? The Bath School Disaster (biggest mass murder in US history by an American and the biggest mass murder at a school) didn’t involve any guns at all, yet he wounded 58 people, killed two teachers, four other adults, and killed 38 elementary school kids. Again – no evil guns involved, just home made bombs, fire, and a club.

        I’m not telling you not to feel bad for what happened, merely pointing out that even if we banned every gun off the face of the planet, it won’t stop things like this from happening.

      • avatarpat says:

        DaveR, leaving out joy/fun and knowing that there are many fine options for home security, you left out the biggest reason of all for keeping high capacity semiauto firearms legal…………YOUR FREEDOM. Their ability to snipe and suppress future (maybe not so distant) corrupt ‘Big Gov’ cannot be underestimated. Gorilla asymetrical warfare has been proven to be quite effective and ‘Big Gov’ wont (poop where it eats) by dropping nukes on its own cities while their solders kill their brothers. Sniping from behind a tree with an M1A can do a nasty job, if millions of patriots have the proper tools at hand.

      • avatarpat says:

        DaveR, on second thought, your right. Please send your guns to me so you will no longer have a part personally in any future abuses regarding firearms.

  4. avatarborekfk says:

    It’s rt.com anyways, only good for pictures of Russian girls.

    • avatar16V says:

      Well it isn’t Al Jezeera or the Beeb, but it’s not the Enquirer either.

      You do have to filter, but they are one of few sources for libertarian views and discussion. Which is an interesting counterpoint to the normal nonsense on 99% of big corporate media these days.

    • avatarNWGlocker says:

      +1 to borekfk. Under RT.com’s legal disclaimer, the website says they’re published by “Autonomous Non-Profit Organisation (ANO)”. Whatever that means.

    • avatarAharon says:

      RT provides outstanding coverage of financial and economic news that the American mass media wants you to be unaware of. They were interviewing Austrian and Free Market investment advisors and economists years before the 2008 Crash who warned about the false bubble economy crashing. The American mass media focused on parroting what the White House, Wall Street, and Federal Reserve wanted ignorant people to believe to keep investing in the market back then.

  5. avatarMark says:

    Morons. Singing Kum Bah Yah and pretending it can’t happen hasn’t worked. Prohibiting firearms within a thousand feet of a school hasn’t worked. The way to stop a crazy person with a firearm is a sane person with a firearm. You fight fire with return fire.

  6. avatarChris says:

    Gun flow control? Really? Guns are not like water coming out of the tap, you can’t just change a piece and plumbing and fix what ever problem they perceive. Guns change hands, same as any other piece of property.

    It’s not just that there should not be more restriction of gun flow, but that there cannot be more restriction. There is no way to do it without creating the sort of bureaucratic oppression that the Bill of Rights was rightfully written to guard against.

    Such restrictions would have to violate not only the 2nd Amendment, but also the 3rd (quartering soldiers or government agents), 4th (search and seizure), 5th (no deprivation of property or liberty without due process), 9th and 10th (powers and rights not listed are retained by the people or their States) Amendments.

  7. avatarGaryinVT says:

    I channelled my emotions into a huge online ammo purchase which I do not regret.

  8. avatarLeon says:

    Just donated money to the NRA.

  9. avatarHank says:

    Something to consider. Could they pull together enough “political capital” to actually repeal 2A? If BHO can get re-elected, why not push for this? Of course if they could pull that off, then its Katie bar the door.

    • avatarGA Koenig says:

      They don’t need to repeal the 2nd.

      They just need to sell a new “Assault weapon” ban as “Reasonable.” In every poll I’ve seen, assault weapons only have about 40% support amongst most Americans. Unfortunately, SCOTUs barely managed to say that the 2nd was an individual right; I think even the conservative wing of the court would – if pressed – draw the line at “high cap” mags.

      Our best strategy – shift the debate away from technical bans of firearms and onto mental health, safe storage and firearm owner education. With that strategy, gun owners have an opportunity to show movement on the issue without actually restricting the ability of good citizens to own whatever they want.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Our best strategy – shift the debate away from technical bans of firearms and onto mental health, safe storage and firearm owner education.

        Now that is common sense at its best. However, it will never satisfy the gungrabbers, no matter how reasonable. They prefer us to be helpless.

      • avatarAharon says:

        “Our best strategy – shift the debate away from technical bans of firearms and onto mental health, safe storage and firearm owner education. With that strategy, gun owners have an opportunity to show movement on the issue without actually restricting the ability of good citizens to own whatever they want.”

        Outstanding. I agree with Ralph’s comment that it will not satisfy the gun-grabbers. However, the strategy you suggest will I believe work very well with the general public.

        • avatarfred says:

          U+1.
          And dont get sucked into the typical false logic of the left that many believe prove them right and morally superior.
          Is it just me or does it smell like kos kids or huffpo nitwits have found ttag. It wouldnt surprise me to see the liars and msm journolisters and soros buttboys at
          mediamatters have gotten the memo…

  10. avatarST says:

    A constitutional Amendment wouldn’t fly. Much too risky politically , and entirely unnecessary.

    A targeted piece of legislation banning semi-auto rifles will garner much more public support. Even some gun owners think AKs and ARs should be banned for civil consumption.

  11. avatarCellude says:

    I reacted like any sane and good American should…. finally signed up for the next available CCW license class. You would think the next step would be to, if firearms are too much, at least arm all teachers with police Tasers. Sure bets a book on a gun fight even if limited.

  12. avatarRoss says:

    Treason is defind as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy” For the govenement to ban the most effective tool we the people have for resistance against Tyranny and Oppression is to give Aid and Comfort to themselves and to criminal elements that will always prey on the innocent regardless of the law.

  13. avatar6 gunner says:

    Or just tax ammo into the unobtainable realm like Chicago tried to do. They don’t have to deny us guns to achieve their agenda.

  14. avatarBud says:

    We have allowed the progressives to turn vast areas into target rich zones which they have named “gun free zones” They expect crimibnals to respect thos laws. The entire US Congress is at fault for passing a law naming schools as gun free zones.

    Now it comes out that the shooter in CT killed himself when the policew arrived, that the shooter in the Oregan mall killed himnself when a civilian permit holder drrew his weapon, the NIU shooter killed himself when the campus police rushed him as did the VA tech shooter and the two columbine shooters.

    Deranged muredreers are cowards and will only attack the defenseless. the only progressive way to stop this would be to seize every gun in America which would not only leave us open to a dictzatorship but it would probably start a civil war.

    We have the right to self defense. It is given to us by God and guaranteed by the Constitution. If we continue to allow the progressives to destroy our rights than we will lose all of the freedoms that we enjoy.

    May God bless and keep the all the victims of violence who have had their safety and security taken from them by the progressive leaders of our country and media.

  15. avatarsurlycmd says:

    ….Possible rambling rant warning….

    Obviously it wasn’t the gun that made him murder. Others have mentioned that back in the day guns were left in trucks and cars on school grounds. There was no school murders.

    So what has changed in the last 40-50 years? More guns or types of guns isn’t the problem. What influences lonely despondent people to murder others? Could it be the violence in Movies, TV and games? Children who are left alone most of the time with little parental interaction? Could it be the 24/7 sensationalist media coverage that inspires a lonely and disturbed person to do something that the world will remember them for?

    I grew up watching all of the violence on TV and in movies. I played the first person shooter games. I’m not much of a gamer now but I still enjoy a good violent action movie. I have no urge to murder anyone. Neither does 99.999999% (estimate) of the country.

    What is the problem? What actually influences people to murder others? IMHO it is all of the liberal Hollywood elitists who cry about their 1st Amendment rights when someone blasts them for the violent drivel (which I do so enjoy) they churn out. The same fools who are riding the anti-gun wagon. It is the constant media coverage that causes the killer to be immortalized. The killer made the decision to commit this crime long before he put his hands on the gun(s).

    It seems to me that a misused 1st Amendment is the cause of an abused 2nd Amendment. Just because you have a right to say something doesn’t mean you should.

  16. avatarAharon says:

    I agree with the demonstrators that the mass murderer should not have been able to gain access to his mother’s weapons.

    • avatarKeith says:

      Think this through. The kid (I’m old enough to call twenty year olds kids) was sick enough to murder his mother. What are the odds that he would not simply hold a knife to her throat and demand the combo to the safe?

      What means of securing a weapon could possibly prevent mass murder, *and* still allow keeping and bearing?

      The bottom line is the cost of liberty is high. We can’t just talk about the high cost of gaining it, ala the American Revolution; we have to talk about the high cost of having it.

  17. avatarPeter says:

    So, you think Gun Control is a good idea?
    Let’s assume that your wet dream comes true and firearms are banned, maybe only the scary ones and maybe all of them.
    Where do we start? Obviously the NRA members are a good place to start, send in the agents and get those membership lists, by force if needed, because those NRA members are evil, like the Nazis and the KKK.
    After all you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
    But the NRA has maybe 5 million members and we know there are at least 70 million gun owners.
    Well, Republicans are evil and greedy Capitalist bastards who love guns and religion so get those voter registration records, use force if necessary!
    A few more broken eggs, but it is all in a good cause.
    But what about those Southern Democrats and Independents and unregistered voters?
    The only real answer is house to house sweeps to round “em all up, as the famous lady said.
    Because it is truly a noble cause.

    So, when the SWAT team kicks in your door at 2 A.M. and kills the family dog and wounds your 13 year old daughter, remember, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and it is truly a noble cause.
    Because, when you think about it, you really can’t put a price on safety.

  18. avatarMr Pierogie says:

    I’m just gonna leave this here (I’m not endorsing any links which may be posted there, simply watch the video):

  19. avatarJSIII says:

    Our friend DF from Cali is going to bring out her awb with confiscation in Jan it was just reported in CNN. Thank god for the house or we would be screwed right now.

  20. avatarsupton says:

    hmm, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if they aren’t bare already, shelves in your local gun store will be tomorrow.

    Question: just what can they ban anyhow? Lots of them out there (them being evil black rifles, assault weapons, high capacity, semi auto, large caliber–name the particular evil one you want, it doesn’t matter) already. IIRC, the AWB just prohibited sale of new EBR’s, and some states took that to ban them; but for the most part, what existed before the ban was allowed to exist afterwards. Correct me if I’m wrong, but about the only thing that became “banned” on a federal level is sawed off shotguns, most everything pre-existing was grandfathered. I find it hard to believe that semi-auto could be “banned” overnight; best I figure is manufacture of new EBR’s, and maybe a capacity limit, again.

    Been meaning to stock up, guess I waited too long. Great, now I should go buy pre-ban mags while I’m at it (for all the things I don’t own).

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      The ban they are going to try to push through is an outright ban, not a grandfathered ban(feinstein) doesn’t mean they will get it. Real soon its time for the NRA to speak.

      • avatarGS650G says:

        Yeah, next one is going to be a round up and turn in. You’ll get 100 bucks for the AR to compensate you for your property and time.

  21. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    The anti’s killed these kids, just so everyone knows. Furthermore they don’t care about these kids, they care about a lifesyle & an altered reality. The shooter wasn’t the only one that was mentally ill in my book. What a pisser, living with a bunch of people that have the reasoning of 2 year olds. Randy

  22. ‘across the US’

    I saw a bunch of interviews with people in Washington DC, which is not even one of the 50 united states. Tag this as inaccurate hyperbole.

  23. avatarJustice06RR says:

    More Gun Control? NO. That is not the solution. Not even by a longshot.

    The shooter in CT did not own those firearms, it was his mom’s. I’m sure the mother was probably a law-abiding adult and obtained those weapons legally. Gun control will not solve the issue of BG’s stealing weapons or obtaining them in the black market.

    As I’ve commented in one of the other TTAG articles, a possible solution can be to beef up security in schools and public places like malls and theaters — not banning guns themselves.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.