Question of the Day: What Happens After the Next Newtown?

Newtown CT school bus (courtesy globalpost.com)

At a recent Connecticut pre-gun ban bill public hearing, Marine Derek Greaves warned the state legislators “this will happen again.” There will be another spree killing like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. Chances are it won’t be exactly the same. It’s hard to imagine another slaughter that takes the lives of 20 children. But not impossible. For those who cherish their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, that’s a worst case scenario: another spree killer (or killers) armed with an “assault rifle” attacks defenseless children. What if that happens today? Or sometime before Senator Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 bill hits the skids? Firearms freedom is under the gun like never before. It could get worse. Not to put too fine a point on it, could gun rights survive another Sandy Hook?

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.

87 Responses to Question of the Day: What Happens After the Next Newtown?

  1. avatarBrandon says:

    No, gun rights won’t survive. Not if it happens soon. We are one psycho with a rifle (or any gun) from losing it all.

  2. avatarRoss says:

    God forbid, but if it does happen the other side will push for everything… then all bets are off.

  3. avatarDavid W. says:

    Gun rights can survive another Sandy Hook.

    The thing I’m worried about is whats going to happen if the shooters don’t have access to guns and use something more effective? It doesn’t take much to build a giant bomb these days, and gas is always available. Add in all sorts of gas attacks through ventilation systems and stuff along those lines and the body count at Sandy Hook is tiny. I think we really need to harden security as a whole to prevent as much of the obvious things as we can. Car bombs and truck bombs can be stopped just by adding reinforced concrete pillars outside the buildings. Ventilation systems need to be protected.

    Fire suppressing systems probably need to be upgraded too, it doesn’t take anything more than a super soaker with gasoline in it to burn down a building with a few chains to stop an escape…

    Really when you think about it there is no way to stop the next nutjob from killing tons of people as long as we refuse to lock up said nutjobs. Guns are just an ineffective way of getting the body count that makes you famous.

    Sorry if it sounds harsh, I’m starting to realize I was safer at home with my mom and dad than at my elementary/middle/high schools. We really need to start locking up bad and super crazy people until they are no longer bad and/or crazy.

    • avatarcyrano says:

      Bath, MI slaughter was all dynamite. Columbine was mostly gun and was stopped before the propane bombs went off. If the Columbine killers knew what they were doing, their pipe bombs would have killed people instead of just bruising them. This is what is lost. Guns were part of their arsenal and could have only been a minor player if they had done things differently.

      If some among you fear taking a stand because of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile, hoping he’ll eat you last. Ronald Reagan 1964

      • avatarDavid says:

        The Aurora shooter had his apartment rigged to blow in several different ways as well.

        But that doesn’t fit the angle, so we don’t hear about it any more.

      • avatarWilliam Burke says:

        I’d like someone to explain to me how those two weak, creepy kids got (what was it, 29?) hundred-pound propane canisters into the Columbine school CAFETERIA without being seen?

        If that doesn’t make you doubt the official story – and there are DOZENS of facts more disturbing than that, such as NATO vehicles in the area – then what WILL?

        And the next school shooter is out there, waiting to be triggered by a whispered key word. COUNT ON IT.

  4. avatarJoshinGA says:

    The next mass shooting could be our very own Dunblane. Especially if it happens soon. Despite what facts and logic tell US, many people would fall victim to the emotions of such an event, at a time when the emotional outcry against guns is already at its tipping point.

  5. avatarHal J. says:

    It depends on the scale; if more than half a dozen children are killed by some nut with a modern sporting rifle anytime in the next few months, I will not be surprised to see something along the line of Feinstein’s AWB passing.

  6. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    No one can take away another individual’s inherent rights. Someone could violate your rights by passing “laws” or forcing you to forfeit your property, but you still have your rights. It doesn’t matter what the “law” says or even what the Constitution says… human rights are inherent!

    Now, do I think we could avoid violations of our rights after another Sandy Hook? No way!

    • avatarOutlaw says:

      This, a thousand times this.

      We should not be punished for the actions of a murderer. That is bull****. Collective punishment is not acceptable.

    • avatarHal J. says:

      I respectfully disagree. The universe enforces things such as the speed of light (186, 282 miles per second…it not just a good idea, it’s the LAW!). There is no such enforcement mechanism for “rights”. Rights are an invented concept, no different in this respect than justice, beauty, etc.

      Such things are not inherent in the structure of the universe. Quoting someone far wiser than I on the subject: “Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.”
      —Robert A. Heinlein, “Starship Troopers”

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        Rights exist in spite of any enforcement mechanism. You exist, and in the absense of other human interference, you’d continue to exist until you naturally die. Based on that, human interference with your existence would be a violation of your person, your “right” to exist, your “right” to life. If you have a right to life, then you own your own body, your personhood. If you own your body, then you own your labor. If you own your labor, then you own the product of your labor… your property. Rights are inherent based on the fact that we exist. Interfering with another person’s existence is a violation of their rights.

        I’m not saying we don’t have to fight for our rights or liberty, I’m saying that they exist regardless of whether or not someone else successfully interfers with them. That is the Natural Law.

        Incidentally, there is evidence to suggest that the speed of light may not be so constant after all… so much for LAWs of Physics.
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html

        • avatarHal J. says:

          Saying that rights exist outside of enforcement mechanisms is like saying that laws exist before they’re written. Absent someone enforcing it, there is no “right” to life (or anything else, for that matter), notions of Natural Law aside.

          IMHO, of course…

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Enforcing the right to life? You already exist… that’s a fact (especially given the new capcha enabled comments.) All that’s required for you to continue to exist is an absence of interference. A continuance of your current existence is the basis for the “right” to life. And, it’s not an opinion… it’s logic.

        • avatarHal J. says:

          By the same logic, a squirrel, a radish, and a rock also have the same “right” to exist. They already exist… that’s a fact. All that’s required for them to continue to exist is an absence of interference.

        • avatarVorpalis says:

          I’d like to see you expound on your assertion that a right to exist is inherent to the quality of existence, and also how “naturally” dying – an occurrence which has many disparate contributing factors – substantiates this assertion. I’m not being a dick, I’m honestly just curious.

        • avatarOutlaw says:

          I’m an atheist too, Tex. I don’t believe my rights stem from a supernatural Creator.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Hal J.
          Do you honestly not understand the difference between a human being and inanimate objects or irrational animals?

          Vorpalis,
          I’d recommend studying the philosophers John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Thomas Aquinas. They put it better than I ever could.

        • avatarHal J. says:

          >Do you honestly not understand the difference >between a human being and inanimate objects or >irrational animals?

          Of course I do, but it was you who said “You already exist… that’s a fact (especially given the new capcha enabled comments.) All that’s required for you to continue to exist is an absence of interference. A continuance of your current existence is the basis for the “right” to life. ”

          You didn’t draw any distinction between human and non-human animals (or even life and non-life) at the time. Precisely the same logic could be used to assert that a dog or a cow has inherent rights…and organizations such as PETA do just that.

          In any case, no evidence has yet been shown that rights have any objective existence outside the assertions of those who believe that they exist.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          Is death by cancer due to a toxin-besodden environment a “natural death”, or not?

      • avatarOutlaw says:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

        First, liberty exists in a state of nature. So you’re wrong about that. There is no “right” to liberty, it just is. It’s a condition of being free from interference.

        Furthermore, I own myself. The government can try to stamp out liberty and infringe on my rights that derive from my self-ownership (not a Creator) but there will always be ways around their controls and I will employ them, resist, or move someplace freer.

        • avatarTex74 says:

          You guys are arguing with an athiest…good luck with him listening.

        • avatarHal J. says:

          Just because I disagree with someone doesn’t mean I’m not listening, my lack of faith in the supernatural aside. I’m curious though…do you disparage everyone who doesn’t share your religion, or just atheists?

          For the record, I’m an NRA member and vote accordingly.

        • avatarAnonymous says:

          > You guys are arguing with an athiest…
          > good luck with him listening.

          Spoken like a true Muslim fanatic.

        • avatarWilliam Burke says:

          It’s a candy mint AND a breath mint!!

          You are Hal J. are BOTH right, believe it or not. You’re looking at the same right (whether natural or earned) from different angles.

          Neither is right, neither is wrong. It’s just a different point of view… we’re all on the same side! Get that through your head.

    • avatarAnonymous says:

      George Carlin on the “sanctity of life” (skip to 1:15)

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Djohakx_FE

      and rights vs privileges

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4

      Even if you believe that rights come from God, it is only a variation of “might makes right”; in this case the All Mighty.

  7. avatarRoss says:

    My greatest fear is that gun rights won’t be the only thing that won’t survive.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      If Second Amendment rights are gone, ALL the others vanish as well, because there’s nothing left to protect them but [AHEM] Good Intentions!

  8. avatarJack says:

    Mike Galanos at HLN used the phrase “semiautomatic rifles that mimic military assault weapons” this morning. Maybe there’s hope.

  9. avatarJoe says:

    If we think the push against 2A rights is bad now, imagine what happens if a tragedy occurs with something OTHER than a semi-auto rifle or pistol holding 15, 30, 50 rounds.

    • avatarJim Barrett says:

      You mean a single shot .22 or something like that?

    • avatarDaveL says:

      If we think the push against 2A rights is bad now, imagine what happens if a tragedy occurs with something OTHER than a semi-auto rifle or pistol holding 15, 30, 50 rounds.

      It wouldn’t matter. This has never been about what weapon was used or what kind of weapon would be necessary to commit such a crime.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      If we think the push against 2A rights is bad now, imagine what happens when a tragedy occurs with something OTHER than a semi-auto rifle or pistol holding 15, 30, 50 rounds.

      Fixed it for you.

  10. avatarPhydeaux says:

    Whose read Matt Bracken’s, Enemies Foreign and Domestic?

    The question is not whether the country will lose civil rights, but whether or not we will have to fight for them.

  11. avatarGreg says:

    What’s going to rock is when it happens again AFTER an AWB. Then after the next ban, then again.
    Because these school massacres have nothing to do with guns other than that’s the tool used to kill. Same day as Newtown, it happened in China with knives. The UK has a massive problems with knives.
    Because none of this has to do with guns. It has to do with a destroyed culture of death worship that has lost it’s reverance for life. It has to do with extremely demented mentally ill people not being treated. We also have a political class of people who desire power and no challenge to it.
    Until those things are addressed, it will continue no matter how much you disarm the honest law abiding people.

  12. avatarKY1911 says:

    In a word…no. Its all about timing and momentum. If such an event took place today, the right to keep and bear semi-automatic weapons would be gone…and not just rifles, but pistols too. I do think bolt action/lever action rifles would survive as would shotgun doubles and pumps, and revolvers. These, however, would be subject to a more insidious registration regime in order to acquire and keep.

  13. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    If we’re afraid of this it’s only because we’ve allowed the anti’s to define the debate. I see events like this as an example of the chickens coming home to roost. That is to say that after decades of efforts in society and the legal system to demonize all things gun-related, they have only succeeded in creating an environment conducive to this evil behaviour. The anti’s are so much more at fault than the law-abiding gun owners. They should be the ones under pressure to compromise their views and allow reasonable repeals of unreasonable gun restrictions.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      Well then, I’m just going to hold my breath until they’ve seen the error of their ways.

      Because this is NOT about their “distorted reality field” AT ALL. It’s about evil doing what evil does: destroying family, decency, true compassion…

  14. avatark4R-15 says:

    I sincerely hope that logic would prevail. However the emotional knee-jerk response, strengthened by a fresh barrage of endless media hype would be difficult to overcome.

    It’s astounding to think of all the time and energy Americans (both Pros and Antis) have spent on the gun control issue while almost nothing has been done or even proposed to address the core problems like Gun-Free zones, mental health, etc. That is the true tragedy IMHO and I hope it’s a long time before we have to face those facts in the wake of another massacre.

  15. avatarSGC says:

    No, I honestly don’t think we will be able to hold back the tide. I wait and watch every day with my gut in knots for some nutjob to do one more stupid horrible thing that is going to wipe out my 2A rights as a citizen.

  16. avatarSteve Case says:

    It could easily happen. The 2nd amendment gone overnight and one or two mass school shootings is all it would take. There’s a reason guns are flying off the shelves and ammo is scarce. People are scared and for good reason. Is it crazy I spend my lunch hour every day for the past month combing the local gun shops and Walmart for .22, 9mm and .40 ammo? Yes it is!! I feel crazy having to do it yet every time I visit a store and there’s no ammo to be had I feel justified. People are scared (lot’s of us) that we’re about to have our 2nd amendment rights taken from us.

  17. avatarmitziroop says:

    A little off topic here but, I’d still like to know why it took police and other first responders 20 minutes to arrive on scene after the first calls…

    • avatarGene says:

      They showed up which, according to them, is good enough. There is no requirement or law compelling them _to_ show up.

      • avatarrosignol says:

        If that’s their official position (which I kinda doubt), it’s time for the Mayor or City Council or whoever it is who runs Newtown to fire some people.

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      You really don’t know, or is this a rhetorical exercise?

      They were ORDERED not to show up until the killed had finished as much as he was required to do.

      Why did cops not enter Columbine for nearly three hours after the shooting stopped? SAME THING.

  18. avatarMilsurp Collector says:

    A couple of weeks after Sandy Hook I was talking with a friend about new gun control legislation. He said to me “The politicians aren’t going to come after bolt action surplus rifles or pump shotguns, that’s ridiculous”.

    Gun owners in the mid-late 60′s said the same thing about having firearms mail ordered to their front doorstep.

    Gun owners in the mid 80′s said the same thing about the machine gun registry.

    Gun owners in the 90′s said the same thing about Clinton’s AWB.

    Saying “It’ll never happen” and other such methods of sticking one’s head in the sand is how we as a community will get fvcked over. If all “assault rifles” were to disappear tomorrow, the next psychopath would just use a “hunting rifle” to kill people and bring about proposals for further bans.

    This is why we all need to offer to take as many of our fence sitting friends and family members shooting as possible. Even if you only successfully introduce one person to the hobby and they love it, that’s one less person who will fall for the media’s emotionally based antics.

    • avatarcyrano says:

      If some among you fear taking a stand because of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile, hoping he’ll eat you last. Ronald Reagan 1964

    • avatarWilliam Burke says:

      But the sand is so cool and soothing, plus we finally can’t see trouble approaching from down here! It MUST be safe!!

  19. avatar#2 says:

    I think if something else happens you’re another step closer to civil war. It just pushes people more into their corners, and when they pass that sweeping law that brings civilian disarmorment, you can bet the freedom fighters will be out in force to protect their rights.

    • avatarMerits says:

      There’s some sense. The question isn’t whether we’ll lose our rights if another shooting occurs. They can’t be taken if we don’t allow it. We have already lost rights and the march towards disarmament in fits and starts continues. Mass shootings only embolden the political disarmers to act and scare the public into acceptance. The question is can we defend and take back our rights without violence, and to what degree and at what point will we defend our rights with violence? I don’t have that answer entirely.

  20. avatargloomhound says:

    Wrong question.

    We should be asking can Gun Free Zones survive another Newtown.

    Logic is on our side and the best defense is a good offense.

    • avatarVorpalis says:

      Logic and fact are on our side, but name one thing that fear can’t trump? My wife is my best friend and I love her more than anyone, but if she came at me with obvious intent to kill me, my fear would overwhelm love and friendship and I would protect myself.

      Antis were slowly losing for years, but it wasn’t because of logic or fact, it was because of ebbing fear. Three horrible, scary-as-hell shootings and all that progress was lost instantly, because people were reminded to be afraid.

  21. avatarRopingdown says:

    What has become clear is that Americans prefer that murders occur one or two at a time, rather than 26 people at once, though much more rare in occurance. They prefer that the victims be black teenagers whose value can be discounted by assuming “they somehow deserved it,” thus shunting aside any need to reflect on the killing, so that one can move on to the sports scores. Unlike, though, the cheap concealable handguns that are instrumental in most murders, the Personal Defense Weapons used in Aurora and Newtown are also exactly the type of arms having any utility whatever in fulfilling the 2nd Amendment goals of an armed people with only a small “standing army” of government-paid enforcers. Look in the mirror, America, and admit that you will not react politically if an additional 500 inner city minorities are killed each year one at a time and in diverse locations you never visit, but that you will demand extreme and ineffective changes in national gun laws if, as a result of particular careless relatives, teachers, and therapists, a madman again shoots 20 children once during the year, but all in one five-minute interval and in one room. “Hard cases make bad law,” and terribly sad but statistically insignificant events are a poor context in which to alter the rights of 300 million citizens.

  22. avatarTaurus609 says:

    And the far left and the MSM can’t wait for another tragedy like Newtown! I know that sounds harsh, but look at the mall shooting in Oregon, shooter (who used an “assault rifle”) was confronted by a CC permit holder, coverage from the anti gun crowd, nothing. Shooting in NM by a teenager, shoots his mom and siblings with a 22 rifle (not an “assault weapon”, coverage by the anti gun crowd, nothing. Shooting in TX at a community college, involved minorities, coverage by the anti gun crowd, nothing. Because it doesn’t fit their narrative! But let another shooting with an “assault rifle” happen, and no one armed was there to stop them, watch the non stop coverage for days, weeks and months until all of our 2A rights are gone!

  23. avatarJon R. says:

    If another spree killing occurred with a AR-15 or AK clone we would certainly be more likely to see a AWB. The real question is what happens after a AWB, and the next spree killer uses a handgun?… and what happens after a handgun ban and some psycho with a bolt action hunting rifle goes on DC sniper style killing spree?… so on and so on…

    • avatarBobby says:

      They won’t stop until we’re issued slingshot permits. They want ALL GUNS banned. It’s the only way for their perfect utopia. Perfect utopias, such as Chicago, SanFran and Baltimore /snark.

    • avatarVorpalis says:

      What happens then is every weapon or object used as a weapon will successively get restricted and/or banned, yet people will still find means to kill each other. And the cries of “We have to have the courage to do something!” will continue.

      We can’t stop it this way, because our fallacy is in addressing the means (gun), not the cause (crazy / intent to do harm). It’s like trying to stop obesity by banning utensils (or large soft drinks) or trying to stop greed by banning money. I don’t know of any instance in all of humanity’s history where human behavior has been successfully modified by restricting access to an object or substance.

      The irony of the gun control movement is that it not only doesn’t address the problem, it distracts both its supporters and those of us who know guns aren’t the problem from working towards addressing the cause.

  24. avatarEO Guy says:

    Make no mistake about it if gun rights do not survive the current or future political climate no other rights will survive either.

  25. avatarSilver says:

    Oh, it’ll happen again. Those who wish to push gun control will see to it.

    One of two things can happen. People can see how dangerous the world really is and decide that the most logical course of action is to learn how to defend themselves and their families. Or they can descend into emotional insanity and wish the problem away to the land of rainbows through oppressive legislature. With the general stupidity in the public these days, I fully bet on the latter.

  26. avatarST says:

    Much like asteroid impacts with the Earth, spree shootings are an unavoidable curse of life. They happened in 3000BC, they happened in the 1800s when bolt action guns were the assault weapons of the time, and they’ll happen again after Sandy Hook.

    Its just a question of when itll happen. The damage afterward depends on the circumstances. If another mentally unstable person shoots up a school, people can at least grasp that the gun wasn’t the catalyst. If a stockbroker with a wife and 3 kids and no criminal record murders his family and takes his legally owned AR15 on a rampage, game over . Lacking anything else to blame, the guns will be demonized by Joe Six-Pack.

  27. avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

    The 2A will only survive if we are ever vigilant, and remain constantly on the offensive. We must constantly work to repeal the already very, very many bad gun control laws on the books! There will be no time to celebrate our victories, never a moment to rest- this is an endless Sisyphean task to preserve what few precious rights we have left… NEVER forget that!

  28. avatarMark says:

    Wouldn’t the fallout from another school shooting depend on the school and who was doing the shooting?

    Can’t hardly deny things would be different if “Sandy Hook” happened in Chicago’s south side or Watts, or even New Town Conn. If things were different they wouldn’t be the same.

    Like things being different, I see that “there are other ways to kill people” thing quite a bit, as though being able to fill a cheap wine bottle with gasoline and stuff a rag in the neck, or mix diesel fuel and fertilizer, is some kind of excuse to do nothing, or an excuse to even look into, explore and study what may be feasible.

    By the way, todays fertilizers suitable for bomb making are tagged, so I hear. I have also heard the purchaser gets “looked at” if they buy a whole bunch of it.

    Far as the “banning”, I have to admit when I first heard of “bans” my immediate response was “I want one”, but then I stopped and thought: What would I do with it? Burn up ammo and overheat a barrel. I’m one shot one kill and it had best be dead before the bullets done moving in the creatures skull. Get better meat that way.

    Will private ownership of weaponry survive another Sandy Hook? Probably. More than likely. It’s survived Giffords and Aurora AND Hook. Too much money in guns.

    I think the greatest threat to ownership of guns are the Sarah Palins, Alex Jones and Ted Nugents. They present themselves as “fighting for rights” while also being the loony toons with guns.

  29. avatarMartin says:

    I shudder at the thought of what might happen should the American gun owners be pushed too hard. Too many of them *would* crack under the pressure and attempt to win or go out in a blaze of glory. And after that, all bets would be off.

    And the problem is, you can’t stop madmen, not unless you can identify them and cure/hospitalize/neutralize them *before* they act. There’s no chance of preventing mass murder attempts, not in this day and age. Suppose you lock up all the guns, knives, axes, cars, gasoline, fertilizers and many other things common folks associate with danger? The civilization as we know it collapses – and you know what? A determined and knowledgeable high-school kid could build a bomb out of the over-the-counter stuff you can find in a *pharmacy*. Potentially deadly chemical weapons can be created even beginning with stone-age level tools and naturaly found ingredients. You can kill dozens or even hundreds of people using basically a saw and some wires. I could go on and on and on. And the problem is, most people don’t realize how fragile our societies are and they, to use a famous quote, can’t handle the truth.

    We have to try and convince those people thaw law-abiding gun-owners are not the problem, they are a part of the solution. And we have to do it without pointing out the vulnerability of our societies too much, because that could give too many crazies dangerous ideas. I honestly hope we will succeed.

  30. avatarTex74 says:

    Weather or not the 2nd would survive another mass killing depends (unfortunately) on the NRA being that they’re treated like the spokesman for all gun owners. What SHOULD happen if there were another killing during all this debate, is the NRA and any pro 2nd politician clearly blaming the left for leaving our schools “gun free”‘and vulnerable despite the continuance of violence at these locations. But would that happen? I doubt any politician or the NRA would have the back bone to take that charge to the left.

  31. avatarJoatmon2 says:

    Another shooting in Phoenix today just as gun control hearings were being held. Supposedly an altercation at an office and the person went home and picked up his sporting rifle. IF, IF, this person was a law abiding citizen and bought this weapon legally, we’re in for a shitstorm. Not a mass killing but any shooting right now hurts us.

    • avatarIdahoMan says:

      “Not a mass killing but any shooting right now hurts us.”

      Who made up that rule? I disagree.

      Screw the libs.. Knock the feet out from under their disgusting, insidious “argument” that when there is a shooting we should be looked at poorly.

  32. avatarJohn Rand says:

    Unless there’s a change in fundamental logic in our society, then we’re just engaging in a controlled retreat. Our country is run by representatives that need (roughly) 50% of the vote. To get that, they will vote for what’s in the best interest of the largest group of people.

    Right now, the American people feel that there’s a reason for everything. There is no personal accountability. If someone has gone into a school and murdered a bunch of children, it’s because they were a disturbed person, and it’s our fault that they had access to weapons and not enough help. We drove that poor soul to what happened. He/she was born a pristine snowflake, but through some complex biological and social program, hey ran down a matrix that resulted in “Mass Murderer”. The fault was ours, not theirs.

    So right now, the intention is to try to codify, in law, all the ways in which a person could possibly happen to run down that matrix, and if they make a wrong turn, then pounce on them and rob them of everything they have (Liberty/Property). Unfortunately, to keep this process going, we also need to rob the rest of the people of property and liberty, else you don’t have the resources to keep such a dragnet going.

    It’s Homeland Security. It’s Obamacare. It’s Medical Malpractice.

    Arming yourself puts you distinctly in another camp. Like many people have said “Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword.” Most of the people view that as a negative. In fact, it’s more an altruism you could just extend to anything. “Live by X, Die by X” just says that aligning your life with some paradigm sets yourself up to define your life. Arming yourself says to the world, “I am my own master, I will do what is necessary to define my life. Conversely, I also accept there are other armed people out there, and they may use that power for good or evil, and I will accept the consequences of this.”

    Someone is always in power. There is no world in which humanity is going to exist where someone isn’t calling the shots. It just wouldn’t work. The question is will it be you, or will it be your master.

    I would say 49-51% of the people currently do not think this. They would prefer to live as surfs who constantly “hope” for a better king to rule them, and who eagerly turn over their goods to the knights and tax collectors under the fervent hope that those knights will protect them when they need it. Of course, the ones who find out the truth, usually end up losing that bet.

    As a foundation for this statement, I propose you look at the 2008 presidential campaign. One of the candidates primary message was “Hope” for “Change”. Hope is an emotional state/response a person has when they have no physical or rational expectation on a return. They voted someone into office who said “I may do some stuff for you. But if I don’t.. well I tried. Let’s hope i do better next time!” Who would sell their house or car this way? Who would trade something they have, for nothing but a wish? Yet, we traded our country and rights a way for a wish.

    So, yes. There will be more shootings. People have been killing people for as long as there’s been people. Killing kids is pretty easy. We round up our all our kids and put them in a confined space for basically 1/3-1/2 of their childhood. It’s safe money to assume someone’s going to take that opportunity to cause damage.

    Until the Majority decides that people are accountable for their own actions (both theirs, and the people around them), anything that empowers a person is on the chopping block. Firearms being one of the greatest ways to empower yourself, is one of the first things to go. Instead we will all be left with Hope.

  33. avatarRon says:

    Something has happened.
    I thought this was about the Alabama murder / kidnapping when I saw it.
    Madman murders bus driver and kidnaps six (6) year old child at random.

  34. avatarRob says:

    After the next Newtown…

    The Anti will go into overdrive.

    We should go on the offensive, and as another poster said, we should put the blame on the other side for the GFSZ nonsense.

    I will not be punished for the actions of another.

    End of discussion.

    • avatarIdahoMan says:

      “The Anti will go into overdrive.”

      Good. They don’t have ANY relevancy at all. Let them have a melt-down and perish.

      “We should go on the offensive, and as another poster
      said, we should put the blame on the other side for the
      GFSZ nonsense.”

      Yes. It’s the socialist “progressives” who are to blame for pretty much every “problem” we today. They and their MSM(MainStreamMedia) have been pressing their false reality on us for decades to try and get their way.

      “War on Terror”, “War on Drugs”, “Shootings and Massacres”, “Big City Crime”… None of these “problems” would be problems were it not for the government and its constant need to be in our faces.

      We need LESS gun-control/big-government. The question shouldn’t be “How can we do more?”, but rather “Haven’t you done enough!?”

  35. avatarjwm says:

    Another mass shooting in a GFZ will happen. The anti’s are wasting everybodies time and energy defending against useless gun laws that will have no effect on the next Lanza.

    What the anti’s are not doing in any meaningful way is increasing the security in these places to prevent the next shooter. I was at an elemtary school last week that had no locked doors, no fences and the only security was an unarmed female office staff, just like Sandy Hook.

    If she was serious about preventing another tragedy Difi would drop this foolish AWB and work with both partys and the NRA to insure these unprotected schools have the security they need.

  36. avatarIdahoMan says:

    These bastards and their tyrannical “Gun Control” agenda are WRONG. Having more shootings isn’t going to change that fact. There could be 1000x school-shootings tomorrow and they will STILL be wrong.

    It’s time to hit back at these sick bloodancing, traitorous tyrants and their FatherlandSecurity/BATF thugs with all fury.

    Go on the offensive. Show them that their push for shootings/incidents so they think they can get their agenda passed isn’t going to work. In fact it will do the OPPOSITE.

    I’ll tell you this: Regardless of what happens in the future good, bad or otherwise… From now on we are getting our rights back. We will NOT comply with anymore infringements.

  37. avatarSlab Rankle says:

    We are being far too meek about this. Saying “I want to take your guns” is the same as saying “I want to put you in a gas chamber”, because the one enables and leads to the other.

    What if someone came right out and said “I’m coming to arrest and then murder you and your family”. Would would wait passively for that to happen, or would you favor the “best defense is a good offense strategy”?

    We’re at the stage where more talk only helps the enemies of our nation (Democrats and RINOs). As I mentioned in another post, two million armed men descending on Washington D.C. would make quite an impression on the Obamas, Schumers and Feinsteins of the world.

    BTW, the left is also busily and successfully destroying all the other constitutional freedoms besides the 2A. In fact, the only amendment not under furious assault is the 3rd, and that’s only because the left hates the military.

  38. avatarRalph says:

    Never mind another Newtown. If there’s another 9/11, the whole Constitution goes down the drain. All of it.

  39. avatarإبليس says:

    What happens if the next big shooting is perpetrated with a manual repeater?

  40. avatarSteve says:

    We should be pointing out the likelihood of another Newtown, until and unless we put armed security and preferably volunteer armed staff in every school. It can be done, and it should be done, and we should be even more strident on this issue than we are in defense of our rights. It needs to be a central and essential part of our argument.

  41. avatarAlphaGeek says:

    If it happens at any of the schools where you might find my kids or wife, you can bet your last dollar that I’m going after everyone who failed to take ANY action to improve their protection post-Newtown.

    If one of my kids or my wife is a victim, I will very likely need to be physically restrained from responding more than with lawsuits and bad PR.

    Fremont has done NOTHING to improve security at our schools.

    The Fremont school district has done NOTHING to improve security at our schools.

    Alameda County has done NOTHING to improve security at our schools.

    California has done NOTHING to improve security at our schools.

    It’s a sad day when I have to have conversations with my kids about when to run, when to hide, and when it’s fight-or-die time — and my instructions to them, in large part, directly contravene the so-called “safety plan” at their schools.

  42. avatarProfshadow says:

    That’s why we need to harp on the “Gun Free Zones” being the places these killers go.

    And push for having armed security, formal or informal, at our schools.

    Every time it happens in a Gun Free Zone we need to harp on the “Gun Free Zone” status. And mental health issues.

Leave a Reply

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