the 2nd amendment, upheld by the supreme court has NOTHING to do with hunting. I have 2 daughters in elementary school. We go out to eat, out shopping , to church and to the park. I have a permit and carry a concealed firearm. The truth is, when violence happens, the police will respond in minutes, if lucky, when seconds are needed. I put my families saftey in my own hands. I also own a few high powered rifles and have large capacity magazines (a clip is a short video or movie) Besides the weapon hidden on my person, all my firearms are secured in a expensive gun safe. Drugs are illegal, hows that war going a trillion dollars later ? You shoud turn the idiot box off and research some more. Do you have any idea who Robert Holmes , father of Aurora shooter is ? How about Mr. VP of the largest corporation in the US, Mr. Peter Lanza ? do some digging. A war amongst the elite bankers rages on. You know, the to big to fail, to big to go to jail in the circle of friends people. The guys on the top of the pyramid. Yes it is tragic and sad. I have looked at each photo of the little child that was slain (except for the few missing) and it fills my heart with greif. My eldest daughter is 6, she is afraid of wolves. I tell her if a wolf ever comes around not to worry, her papa is a sheepdog.

When only law-enforcement officers have firearms, they become the law, not the enforcers.

A ban means we, the law-abiding, are then ruled by the lawless, the criminal, and the person who does not care about our rights.

Semi-automatic firearms are NOT automatic, and not rapid-fire. They shoot one bullet with each pull of the trigger. Please learn what you're proposing to ban. The regulations on owning *automatic* weapons are legion.

See this is the problem - can we all say this loud enough.......

NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!!!

Sheesh - all we want is to have sensible gun legislation - like perhaps making sure crazy people don't get high powered firearms at a gun show.

I am so tired of the NRA and gun supporters crying wolf and being so dramatic about their "constitutional gun rights" . And for those of you who think an armed teacher would have saved all of them ,,,,, think again - It wasn't so long ago that a police sharpshooter in Sully Station lost her life opening fire on a crazy kid. If you are that armed person - just say goodbye.- because you won't live long in a hail of bullets and you may end up shooting an innocent victim.

We will no longer pander to your parinoia and sense of entitlement to have whatever mass killing machine you want. You and your kind have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion. And We do not need YOUR so-called protection from the government or anyone else. Frankly if you believe that, but a shack in the North Dakota mountains and leave the rest of us alone. We are safer WITHOUT the likes of you.

Wow T-Bird.....thanks for your constructive and well thought out commentary.
Are you the Pot or the Kettle. Your comments are very telling however...I guess if we don't agree with you we should just be quiet and do what were told.

Right Greg, like saying that "I need my guns because I will defend you when the Governemnt comes to take you away" is reasoned and well thought out. Uh huh. If all you have to add to the discussion is tin foil hat parinoia and NRA propaganda, then you have nothing to add to the discussion and shouldn't expect to be taken seirously. Say something real and you will get a real response. This country has tolerated the likes you you and John for far too long in an effort to avoid a constitutional fight. But the time for that is over.

Ditto on that Melody - well said.

Can anyone actually think of a justification for owning an automatic or semi-automatic firearm? The 2nd amendment states quite simply that we have the right to bear arms, it doesn't specify what type of arms. So, a band on automatic and semi-automatic firearms is not un-constitutional....period.
We have to take a step in the right direction to help prevent this type of tragedy in the future. Those kids might still be alive if our leaders had made a better choice in the past. We owe it to our children to do better....

OK, Firearms 101.

Automatic weapons are highly regulated. Highly. They require BATFE approval, tax stamps, law-enforcement officer approval, and lots of money.

Semi-automatic firearms are so-called because they place one more cartridge into the barrel after each trigger pull. One pull, one bullet. They are not rapid-fire, or high-capacity, firearms. Some *may* hold more than a six-shooter (and some don't).

When only the police and military have *any* class of firearms, HOW will you ensure that criminals *don't*?

T Ailshire - I guess magazine capacity (or at least an honest evaluation of it) is Firearms 102. You would then know that just about every semi automatic weapon holds more than 6 rounds. You would also know that the Newton shooter had 30 rounds and the Colorado shooter had a 100 round drum. You would also know that your rate of fire can be anywhere from 3 to 5 rounds per second, and the average person could unload a 30 round clip in 10-15 seconds. You want an honest discussion, yet you continue to distort the truth. Also, everybody has a right to an opinion on this matter. People in the "know" regarding terms have no monopoly on deciding what happens. That's called a democracy.

T-bird, those are more facts, potentially. No distortion of the truth, just facts.

I'd have to question whether "just about every" magazines hold more than seven rounds. I simply don't know; I'm much more familiar with handguns than with long arms. Before the advent of the Glock, I'd have argued your point, as the 1911 generally carries 7. Since then, "standard" capacity can range from 7 to 30. Most handguns are 6-15; above that they become too heavy to carry. Beyond that, I'd have to research.

Neither makes a difference to Mervo's point of "automatic or semi-automatic firearm". A semi-automatic, rifle or pistol, is a standard firearm in the 21st century.

So you prove my point, but infer I'm somehow wrong. It is a distortion to call a 100 round drum "not high capicity". It is a distortion to infer that only some semi-auto weapons have more than 6 rounds, when in fact it is nearly all. It is a distortion to call 3 to 5 rounds per second a low rate of fire. All distortions made to support your false argument that we should just accept it the way it is, and it's not a bad as we say it is. Both false. Your lies are not convincing anybody.

By the way I do own a gun (a rifle) and I've been shooting since I was 11, when I was trained by my scoutmaster (a federal agent) in gun safety. Just in case you think more distortions are going to convince me, they're not.

T-bird, I'm not going to argue irrelevant. I responded to melody lloyd's point and Mervo's point about "automatic" weapons. You can have the last word if you like.

A double-barrel shotgun was one of the firearms used to murder at Columbine. Only two shots can be fired from a double-barreled shotgun before the shooter must reload by breaking the barrel open, manually inserting two new rounds, and closing the gun. The cops sat outside while those scumbags murdered, reloaded, and murdered more.

Very good point Rick. The media definitely adds to the frenzy. And while many people are screaming about tougher gun laws, no one is talking about the nut in China who walked into a school with a knife and stabbed more children then were shot in Conn. What happened was terrible, but tougher gun laws would not have prevented it. Until society learns to respect and value life, terrible killings will continue to hapen.

Jason, do we really need to point out again that the 22 children in China were injured, and none were killed. If that guy had a an AK-47, there would be 22 dead children. Fail.

Irrelevant. Warner hasn't changed his mind on abortion rights based on what some person did in Connecticut.

Intellectually honest? Like the argument that any form of gun control would be ineffective (even though you have no real proof) so we shouldn't even try or talk about it? By the way Greg, you DO NOT have the right to buy any gun you choose. That is not what the Constitution says. It says you have the right to bear arms. Peirod. Therein lies the problem. You want to let anyone buy an gun anywhere they like. That just does not work and this country will no longer accept that to pander to the likes of people like you. And by the way, nobody really cares about protecting the gun industry right now. The jobs of a few people in a non-critical industry is not worth the lives of 20 children. Add to that the 30 or so adults and a hundred or so injured just in the past 6 months. All by assult weapons with 30 and 100 round mags. This may be acceptable in your twisted world, but here in reality it is not.

Uh huh, only illegal guns kill? Ever hear of Virginia Tech. Cho owned those guns legally. This guys mother owned those guns legally. And you berate people for "not knowing enough" to even discuss the issue. Because what, they don't know technicial terms? And tell me, what is an AR-15 with a 100 round clip?? A hunting rifle? Do you even know how many of the people on the "left" actually own guns? Or are you just passing off more vauge generalizations as fact. Learned that watching Faux News? It usually is the most dim witted of us calling everyone else idiots.

And I quote "I will not accept infringement on my right to purchase a certain type of firearm because of a specific incident." MY point was YOU do not have the RIGHT to "purchase a certian type of firearm". You have the right to purchase A firearm. No type or selection was ever specified. And by your comment, I must then assume that you would object to any kind of restriction on the type of weapon you can buy. This is not a wild generalization, and is based exactly what you wrote. My conclusions are no more wilder than what is being made by gun supporters here. The general public does not need or want your protection. And while there are laws, they have obiviously failed. Yet, all you do is comment on the comments and not the subject at hand. Nit pick about terminology and critque writing. I have yet to hear a reasoned response on the subject. Where's your proof that there are "enough" gun laws already? Where is your proof that additional restrictions would have no effect? I'll tell you where it is, you don't have it because it don't exist.

Oh and right, everybody who wants more gun control is a commie. Talk about generalizations. I didn't know Japan and Austrailia were communist.

So there should be no rules or regulations for operating a car since most people drive safely? We should all just trust your judgement and self-regulation? We should trust the judgement of half-wits like you who think there is a legitimate need for a 100 round mag? Who think the "guvernmint" is coming after them? I think not.

Maybe you'll consider a similar tax when you use your First Amendment Right.

You,sir, should be entry # 1 into said database.

If he cares about children's lives, would he not be willing to protect them in whatever manner possible, EVEN IF that meant armed guards at our schools, or armed faculty and staff?

If one supports armed guards at airports, terminals, sporting venues, etc., how can one say a school is less important?