weather icon 80° Cloudy
The Latest:

Moran: Congress Must Do More To Stop Gun Violence

by Aaron Kraut | July 24, 2012 at 10:35 am | 3,727 views | 338 Comments

Rep. Jim Moran (D) called for the renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the closing of the “Gun Show Loophole” in an interview Monday afternoon on MSNBC.

Moran spoke with Martin Bashir guest-host Thomas Roberts about gun control laws in the wake of last week’s movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., in which 12 were killed and dozens were injured.

Moran referred to “more than 60 multiple shootings” nationwide after the Jan. 8, 2011 shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

“We shrug our shoulders and come up with all kinds of pious, remorseful rhetoric. We ought to do something,” Moran said. “And we haven’t done anything about this. To some extent, we are complicit in these crimes if we don’t stand up and speak out.”

Moran also said that lawmakers have been “politically castrated” by the National Rifle Association.

Section: Politics | Tags: , ,
Print Friendly and PDF
  • Enough already

    Take guns away and only criminals will have guns. If everyone law abiding citizen had a gun to defend themselves and their families, crime would go down

    • LVGuy

      no

    • VaGurl

      +1 – how about we just enforce the laws already on the books? they are already pretty restrictive. and criminals who do these crimes dont follow the law people!

      • drax

        What laws were not enforced in the Aurora case?

        • buzzrbtr

          Just about every item in your house could be used as a weapon, should I restrict your access to bleach, forks, or propane?

          • jackson

            Ah, the “MacGyver” argument.

          • CG

            No, should just restrict semi-auto assault rifles with 100-round magazines…

      • ClarendonDweller

        I could not agree more.

      • Banksy

        No, the laws are not pretty restrictive. They have holes that you can drive trucks through. That’s part of the problem. Police can’t stop the flow of guns to criminals because the NRA makes it almost impossible to trace the flow of guns that end up on the black market.

        As far as I know, the only law that Holmes broke before he started firing was carrying a weapon into a no-carry venue. Preventing massacres like this starts long before that — like preventing him from amassing so much firepower in the first place.

        • KalashniKEV

          The laws are already quite restrictive- for those who are inclined to follow the law in the first place.

          You mention “black market” guns (which these were not)- Would it have made a difference if he bought his firearms in a back alley? What if he used his homemade pipe bombs? Or just plowed into the line with a truck while they were all camped out waiting for tickets?

          You do seem to realize the absurdity of the “Gun Free Zone” though, right?

          • drax

            No, the laws are not very restrictive. And there are loopholes you can drive a truck through.

          • KalashniKEV

            There are no “loopholes” that I’m aware of. The laws are very restrictive.

          • Ivy

            If you only listen to the NRA or FOX News, there are no loopholes and guns are extremely restrictive. If you ask anyone else, there are tons of loopholes in the gun laws. Put it this way….getting a drivers license is harder and has more loopholes than getting and owning a gun

          • KalashniKEV

            So getting a driver’s license is easy, because there are more loopholes, or is it harder… I’m confused!

            What are these “loopholes” you speak of?

            Also, you understand that RKBA is a right, and driving is a privilege, correct?

          • darsasx

            Ivy – you DO realize that bad drivers kill more people in the U.S. every year than guns, right? So what is your point? You act like the DOJ is supporting the distribution of guns to criminals or something.

          • Banksy

            No, I don’t think gun-free zones are absurd. I don’t feel safer around people packing heat, because people can be stupid, clumsy, and angry — and that’s far more likely to happen than someone who deliberately plots to go on a shooting spree.

            Why is it that the people who want guns the most are usually the people who should least have them? To quote Some Hill Staffer:

            Proposed law: persons with any hint of mental illness can’t purchase a
            firearm. Amendment: desire to own a gun counts as mental illness.

          • KalashniKEV

            When have you ever known a CCW’er to be stupid, clumsy, or angry?

            Assuming you live in VA, you’re around us all the time. Any OK corral action lately?

            Gun Free Zones only disarm those who are inclined to obey the law in the first place. We’d have a much better chance catching Bank Robbers if we instituted a 5MPH zone 3 blocks around all financial institutions too- but only law abiding citizens would comply.

          • Huatuo

            > Would it have made a difference if he bought his firearms in a back alley?

            Sure it would. Buying in a gun store’s easier.

            > What if he used his homemade pipe bombs?

            Some creeps do, but we do not have a national pipe bomb problem nor a National Pipe Bomb Association to ensure easy access to pipe bombs.

            > Or just plowed into the line with a truck while they were all camped out waiting for tickets?

            Not as Rambo as guns.

            Jim Moran’s right on this one.

          • KalashniKEV

            1) It is infinitely harder to obtain a firearm through legitimate means than it is to simply buy on the street. Only a fool would argue this.

            2) Does everyone own a pipe bomb for a wide variety of lawful purposes? That’s why.

            3) Not as “Rambo?” Is it more “Grand Theft Auto?” I don’t know, but that’s a clown comment, brah.

    • LVGuy

      I can’t imagine a responsible gun owner would have shot his weapon in a dark, chaotic room full of smoke. Gun control might not be the solution, but there’s certainly an argument to be made for it and I’m not going to discuss it on Arlnow.

      • Clarendon

        Thing is, many gun advocates believe everyone should carry (it’s just prudent and personally responsible). If everyone (of age) in that theatre had a gun when the shooting started – there would be some that were well trained, intelligent and calm. There would be many who were ignorant, stupide and panic’d. It’s easier to get a gun than a driver’s license. There are plenty of people who shouldn’t be driving (especially in a severe situation). So, I submit that if everyone was armed the death toll would be much higher from cross-fire. I guess I would like to see a training requirement/test with gun purchases. It’s funny that many non-gun owners assume that there is some sort of competency requirement – there is not (at least in Virginia).

        • Mary-Austin

          You are right. It would have been total chaos in that theater. It would have essentially created a circular firing squad situation.

        • Ivy

          If everyone in that theater had a gun, everyone would have been dead because people would have paniced. The NRA company line about this tragedy is the stupidest thing I have every heard.

        • DERPHERP

          There is a training requirement for CCW permits. Those that have a permit in VA to concealed carry must first take training and prove it in the courthouse to get a permit.

      • Mary-Austin

        Agreed!

        Gun advocates always picture themselves as being a hero and taking out a shooter.
        Here is just as likely a scenario: You are sitting in a dark theater. All of a sudden it gets smokey and you hear gunfire. At first you are confused as you are in a movie and it is an unexpected event. You fumble around for your gun. Meanwhile people all around you are getting shot. You stand up in the smoke and darkness to shoot at the gunman who is three rows in front of you and get shot point blank.

        • Ivy

          The gun people also like to picture themselves as victims of the “liberals.” THey are just like the anti-choice people…..victims of the liberals and Obama.

    • drax

      Moran isn’t calling for taking away all guns, is he?

    • Chimichanga

      So ok, PUFF all guns disappear. DONE.

      Now this guy had 30 handmade grenades in his apt. Ok, no guns for him, but he decides to play dodge ball with these instead in the theatre. Or walk into a school chuck one into a classrooms.. in the hall, cafeteria.

      what did gun control do? nada.

      • jackson

        99.9% of the time, gun control does not mean gun abolishment.

        It’s just framed like that by the NRA to make calm discussions about it impossible.

        • KalashniKEV

          Not just the NRA, but “We the People” will not accept unconstitutional infringement upon our rights.

          • jackson

            Then the discussion comes down to “arms,” I guess. What does that constitute? Anything that can be carried? Does it have to shoot a projectile? Is one constitutionally protected if they want to walk around wearing a flame thrower?

          • KalashniKEV

            “Is one constitutionally protected if they want to walk around wearing a flame thrower?”

            YES.
            http://flamethrowerexpert.com/broke.html

          • drax

            I don’t think the guys who wrote the Second Amendment were thinking about citizens walking around the streets with flame throwers.

          • KalashniKEV

            They were thinking that the citizens should own weapons comparable to that of the day’s military. That’s the whole point of an armed citizenry.

          • drax

            So you’re saying citizens should now have the right to own tanks and fighter jets and cool stuff like that, Kev?

          • KalashniKEV

            If you can afford it, why not?

            There’s really nothing preventing me from buying a DRMO HMMWV and mounting an M-60 and I’d at least be rolling OIF-I National Guard style.

          • curious george

            @drax Actually you can own a tank or a fairly modern jet fighter. Of course it is insanely expensive to purchase and maintain and most tanks have been demilitarized so the weapons are deactivated.

            But if you really want a “destructive device” (ATF term) ,and you can afford the cost and time, you can legally own one.

            Also assuming there is a legally transferable item available in the marketplace.

            Just background.

            So the 1% can get anything they want.

          • Josh S

            Actually, he has a point. And I honestly think it’s an important one.

            So yes, I would support the rights of individuals to own tanks. Unfortunately, only the 1% could afford them, so they would hardly be useful in protecting indivdual liberties for the masses. The 1% would just use them to protect their shit in the event of a riot. Which doesn’t fit in with the “protect yourself against the tyrannical government” mind-thought of the Founders.

            Maybe the local civic associations could take up a collection. POssession of the keys would rotate on a monthly basis?

          • LGRooney

            That’s ridiculous. First, I guess you’d agree that every GOPer on the hill, to have recently sat in the WH, currently holds a federal bench, or is involved in academia or NGOs related to legal scholarship, is wrong in their absolutism regarding originalism since you’re clearly reading into their minds.

            Second, you’re reading is flawed. Go read the 2nd Amendment again. It wasn’t to fight the government that they wanted an armed citizenry nor did they want the public to match the military power-for-power. They wanted a ready militia to protect the country from invasion and insurrection precisely because they wanted no standing military – perhaps a ready officer corps, hence the USMA.

            That’s why the 2nd Amendment reads the way it does. So, if some faux-macho Texas yahoo in the WH wants to start a needless war somewhere, he will have to convince the citizenry that it’s a good idea because there is no toy army for said yahoo with which to play. That was the point of the 2nd Amendment.

            Schools and right-wing propaganda have utterly failed us.

          • KalashniKEV

            @LGRooney- Those are not the roots of the “Tree of Liberty” and you know it (if you are truly educated, as you state).

            @Josh
            “Maybe the local civic associations could take up a collection. POssession of the keys would rotate on a monthly basis?”

            Now THERE’S a Personal Pet Project I can get behind! Forget the stupid Trolley Folly, the icky Public Pool, and whatever other nonsense… I want an M1117 ASV!

          • LGRooney

            Jefferson didn’t think bloodshed the right way to go about it. Stirred up passions were a good thing because it meant a concerned public. However, that is why he wanted broad press circulation and a free press, as well as public school & universities, and public libraries, i.e., so that people could be educated a/o educate themselves. It was ignorance that bred bloodshed. He thought those high passions were a good reminder to government of who really holds power.

            So, your bumper-sticker patriotism is cute but will not actually further the cause of this country as much as truly educating oneself beyond pithy sayings.

          • KalashniKEV

            I can’t help it… Jefferson was just so PITHY!

            So in favor of books over bloodshed was he, in fact, that he shot and killed 2 men in different duels, and his opponent declared a truce in his third rather than have Jefferson’s “Passion” blow his brains out the back of his skull. (I guess they weren’t reading up at his library… or subscribed to his press! LOL!)

            Your revisionist history is SAD.

          • not your bro

            Are you trying to troll us, or are you just actually crazy? There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that Jefferson fought in any duels.

            Revisionist . . . back at ya, armchair.

          • KalashniKEV

            FACT: Every single one of the framers was a Certified Badass.
            (except for Benjamin Franklin, who they kept around because he was a Pimp)

            Wanna know what a debate between Obama and George Washington would be like on the merits of Socialism vs. Rugged Individualism?

            There would be no debate!! Washington would just choke slam him.

          • LGRooney

            You get your history from John Travolta movies? ‘Nough said. Thanks for playing.

          • KalashniKEV

            You are SO lucky Alexander Hamilton isn’t around to set you straight…

          • Mary-Austin

            Most people in this country agree with common sense restrictions.
            The gun nut crowd is a very small but vocal minority.

            Also, it is worth noting the constitution does not say you have a right to bear arms. Maybe you should read it.

          • KalashniKEV

            Awww c’mon Mary, you make it too easy, it’s not long to quote:

            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

            Now is “the people” the actual-people, or some government behemoth? This is where brainpower counts…

          • Mary-Austin

            “The people” is referring to a well regulated militia. Having no restrictions on weapons is an extremely poorly regulated militia.
            When are you and the NRA gun nuts going to stop infringing on our constitutional rights to a well regulated militia??

          • KalashniKEV

            NOTE the punctuation, Mary.

          • Grumpy

            In Kev’s world, every 7-11 would carry Sarin nerve gas for general purchase, cause that’s what the government has.

        • Chimichanga

          whatever you want, i was just going to the fairy tale extreme. Point being, these people are mental. If they want to kill you, they will find a way.

          Taking my gun away or making it hard for me to carry it such as MD and DC does, prohibits me from a fair fight for my life.

          • drax

            Nobody wants to take your gun from you.

            Moran specifically mentioned assault rifles and the gun show loophole. If you can pass a background check, you will still have your handgun.

          • KalashniKEV

            What about if “his gun” happens to look eeeeeevil?

            Then Moran says he shouldn’t have it, right?

            MOLON LABE, Jimbo!

          • drax

            No, Moran has not called for a ban on guns that “look evil.”

          • KalashniKEV

            I hate saying it, but “Assault Weapons” are what? Nothing more than evil looking sporting arms.

            (or at least that was the Clinton definition)

          • Chimichanga

            Gun control either wants to

            A) Take it way
            B) Restrict it use (carry) MD & DC are case in point
            or
            C) Restrict me from acquiring a new on that will conceal better in that wonderful new dress i got or my jogging outfit so they don’t rape me on the trail.

            None of those would have prevented this tragedy if the guy wanted to toss some homemade grenades instead.

          • Chimi-churri

            Gun control either wants to
            A) Take it way
            B) Restrict it use (carry) MD & DC are case in point
            or
            C) Restrict me from acquiring a new on that will conceal better in that wonderful new dress i got or my jogging outfit so they don’t assualt me on the trails.

            None of those would have prevented this tragedy if the guy wanted to toss some homemade grenades instead.

          • not your bro

            having a problem with your screen name?

    • Ivy

      Love to see the research on how owning guns causes crime to go do. All the research I have ever heard about says the opposite.

  • U ROY

    I love when pro gun people say things like that. Just like the Wild West! bullets flying all over Arlington, when someone get’s robbed of their flip flops.

    • I personally love…

      When anti gun people insinuate that less restrictive carry laws will inevitably lead to bloodshed in the streets.

      Approximately 1 in 20 of your fellow Whole Foods shoppers, fellow brown flip flop wearers, and patrons at the Starbucks or the Starbucks or the Starbucks is carrying a firearm.

      Yet we both know that your likely hood of getting shot is quite a bit higher across the river.

      Criminals aren’t as stupid as you think they are. Why mug someone in VA, when they can just as easily do the same in DC (where there’s approximately zero chance that victim will be armed)?

      • Josh S

        Color me skeptical.

        I imagine your stat is derived from total concealed carry permits issued in the state, divided by population of the state? Do you really think the proportion holds in Clarendon? Not even close.

      • LGRooney

        That’s why there are no DC-based criminals riding in on the metro to Pentagon City or Ballston malls, right? That’s why there are no DC-based criminals committing illegal acts anywhere in N. Arlington?

        Criminals may not be stupid but your comment is. Criminals go where the money is and where the money is accessible. They don’t care whether 1 in 20 or 15 in 20 are packing heat in Clarendon. That’s a risk of their trade and their lives may dictate that certain risks are more worth taking than we possibly would.

        • FredB

          They mostly go to PG county, Md

  • CW

    I think people make this out to be too black and white. There is a gray area between “taking away our guns” and making it so that you can pick up a carload at the farmer’s market on the way home.

    I am not in favor of “taking away” anyone’s guns. I am, however, in favor of making damn sure that someone isn’t crazy, really pissed off, or in possession of an extensive violent criminal history before we sell them one. Is that really too extreme of a view?

    • VaGurl

      again, enforce the laws already on the books….

      • VaGurl

        but i also digress because this nutjob from the theater shooting would still have gotten a gun because he was just crazy and got a gun. too bad he wasnt diagnosed before. but sometimes bad things happen. he wanted to kill people hence the whole shooting and booby trapping of his apt. either way he would have done it somehow. sometimes you just have to move on.

        • sevenofnine

          “sometimes you just have to move on.”

          Nice. Please be sure the Colorado families get that message ASAP. Yours is exactly the solace they’re looking for.

          • VaGurl

            perspective much? monday morning quarterbacking isnt gonna help anyone. he got a gun, he made explosives, he killed people. arguing about gun laws that arent gonna change does nothing for the families. it cheapens what happens to the people that were killed. its not about gun laws – hence the “sometimes you just need to move on” its no ones fault but the crazy dude.

          • sevenofnine

            Your talk of “cheapening” what happened to the victims while callously telling them to move on is really inspiring. More, please.

          • VaGurl

            you apparently arent reading correctly. i am saying move on to people who are trying to blame this on gun control. thats not the point. people died, its a crazy dude that did it. this is not a gun debate. hence the “move on” *smh*

          • jackson

            “Oh well, can’t stop the nuts. When it’s you’re time, it’s your time.”

          • Josh S

            Your comment appears to be dripping with sarcasm.

            You would instead suggest the message sent to those families is that we’ll be sure to allow them to throw the first stone in the public stoning of the guy who did this?

            Perhaps some of them would actually even enjoy this. I wouldn’t necessarily blame them.

            But then what?

            Pain and loss will still dominate their life.

            Eventually, no matter how society responds to this crime, those families will still be faced with the need to move on. So I really don’t see how this could be perceived as an out of place or insensitive message for those families.

            There is no law that could be passed that would prevent this kind of crime entirely.

          • faintly progressive

            there may be laws that could make this less frequent. The urgency to just move on seems like an attempt to avoid considering those laws (which need NOT involve banning all guns) And yes, it does sound insensitive – the families are not calling for stoning him (afaik) but do want to grieve – and the rest of us (and perhaps some families) DO want to reexamine the role of our gun laws in contributing to this.

          • sevenofnine

            The one obvious change I would see here is banning the 100-round barrel for civilian use.

            You can’t stop every crazy person from killing people, but you can sure stop making it easy for them to increase exponentially the number of innocent people they kill on an awful spree like this.

          • jackson

            When terrorists overtook the crews and flew planes into buildings, we changed how airports screen. When someone poisoned Tylenol, they started using safety seals. But when things like this happen (and they happen several times a year across the country) we all seem surprised and argue about what to do or not to do. Then someone says “Well, couldn’t have stopped it if you wanted to. Let’s move on.”

            Seems like we have a mental block when it comes to gun violence. I don’t have the answer.

          • VaGurl

            actually the high capacity magazine IS regulated. no longer nation wide like it used to be under the AWBan, but its now regulated by most states.

          • KalashniKEV

            “The one obvious change I would see here is banning the 100-round barrel for civilian use.”

            If he had 3 or 4 standard 30 round USGI mags he would have never experienced the malfunction that no doubt saved lives.

            Why aren’t we looking at the violent video games he played too? Lets BAN them! Oh, and don’t forget BIG SODA! ;)

          • jackson

            Kev, the media already reported on the video games he played, and he didn’t play the violent ones. You know what he did play? Rock Band. Fake guitars and drums!

          • KalashniKEV

            Rock Band, you say?

            BAN IT.

            …along with BIG SODA.

          • Josh S

            How many additional Tylenol poisonings has that prevented? Any? One?
            How many additional terrorist attacks have the changes in airport screening prevented? Any? One? Two?

            Also, I don’t have a constitutional right to wear shoes throughout my trip to the airport. Nor do I have a constitutional right to expect easy access to the little pills inside the bottle. So infringing on my ability to do so involves a lot less controversy (unfortunately).

          • bman

            100 round 9mm glock double drum magazine

            http://betaco.com/cmag_product_details.asp?product=25

            sweet!

          • KalashniKEV

            Yeah… it weighs a ton, insta-malfs, and when you drop it, it breaks like glass…

            BUY ONE NOW BEFORE OBAMA BANS IT!
            :)

      • drax

        Perhaps we need new laws now that anyone can just go buy anything they want on the Internet without a background check.

        • bman

          What are you talking about DRAX?

          Buy what? a Gun?

          It goes through a transfer process through a licensed FFL.

          • KalashniKEV

            I think he means the Ammunition… but isn’t it beneficial to law enforcement that they can pull his transactions up online and see in a minute what he ordered and from where?

            (He’s tipped his hand- this isn’t about public safety or law enforcement at all)

    • Jerry

      i have guns. And i support what you are talking about. People who are crazy or who have a violent history will still find ways to get guns though. Not sure how we are going to solve that one. Taking guns away from everybody isn’t the answer. Chicago is gun free, and people are shot and killed there hourly.

      • novasteve

        Liberals only can think in feel good moves. They can’t think about reality. Only law abiding people would give up guns, leaving only criminals to have guns.

      • VaGurl

        and mexico has one of the most strict gun laws around, and look how well thats working out for them.

        • curious george

          Of course the Justice Department is arming the mexican drug gangs.

          • Josh S

            Ah yes, the Fox News sound bite du jour. Repeat it widely, accomplish nothing other than the continued shredding of the fabric of society.

          • novasteve

            So why is Obama claiming executive privilege?

          • KalashniKEV

            Because he Created that pattern of crime to link US commercial gun sales to Cartel Violence (which is fueled by military grade, world market weapons).

          • Josh S

            Kev – hilarious.
            Steve-o – Because he’s following in Bush’s footsteps?

          • drax

            The most pathetic part is how the NRA is bashing Justice for (gulp) letting people buy guns.

          • Chimichanga

            to be fair, DOJ already admitted to the fox news stuff…

          • Josh S

            I don’t think they would agree to a statement that had them “arming the mexican drug gangs.”

            I far as I know, we’re talking about a few thousand weapons, some which have been traced to two border agents dying. What percentage of the murders committed by the Mexican drug gangs would this represent? What percentage of the Mexican drug gangs’ arsenals would this represent?

            It’s a fiasco, no doubt, but to use that nugget to jump to a sort of blanket statement that this is what the DOJ does as a matter of course seems a bit much.

          • KalashniKEV

            They armed them to support a dark agenda… and against the better judgement/ protest of many agents in the field.

            Read up on F&F…

          • curious george

            This has also been covered on CNN and in the Washington Post. A bit of a stretch to call it a “Fox News sound bite du jour”.

            Whatever makes you happy I guess.

          • Josh S

            Just to connect the dots for ya -

            yes, just about every news outlet reported the news. Fox is about the only major news outlet using it to promote an agenda of discrediting the Obama administration, stretching the existing facts beyond credibility in the hope that their listeners will internalize their message and thus come to hold a worldview that is in alignment with what the owners of Fox want.

            This is what Fox does.

          • curious george

            @Josh S

            I never mentioned Fox News at all until you brought it up. I really did not even think of it.

            Always amazed at how rabid folks get at the mere whiff of the “F” word. Really not good for your blood pressure to get so worked up.

        • faintly progressive

          and Japan also has strict gun laws. Perhaps Mexico has particular issues with enforcing their laws?

          • Marc

            It also has spree killers using kitchen knives.

            See Akihabara massacre and Osaka school massacre.

            What do all of these murders have in common? The killers where not sane. Better mental healthcare and people actually caring about their neighbors enough to intervene is about the only thing that can possibly stop these type of crimes.

    • novasteve

      How’s that to stop someone who bought a gun while sane, then later became crazy? The end result for gun control advoactes is completely disarming people.

      Do I get to pick which constitutional rights I get to violate like you anti gun liberals do?

      • jackson

        “The end result for gun control advoactes is completely disarming people.”

        Only in your “All or nothing, everyone is out to get me” worldview.

      • faintly progressive

        whats to stop someone who has a drivers license that does not require corrective lenses, from having their vision decay?

        • novasteve

          You don’t have a constitutional right to drive.

          • faintly progressive

            which has nothing to do with your comment.

            You know how we deal with drivers vision – we ask them to register periodically, and in between we accept that deterioration of eyesight is not something we can complety account for.

            The same could be done with sanity and guns.

          • novasteve

            So wait, you need to be licensed and what not to have guns, a constitutional right, but you can’t require ID to vote?

            Can you explain your liberal logic to me?

          • faintly progressive

            why do you keep trying to change the subject?

            If you support picture ID requirements for voting, make that case when it comes up. I doubt the positions of all us on gun control map exactly to our views on other issues. Why not discuss the issue, instead of making it a liberal vs conservative thing?

          • faintly progressive

            btw –

            do you think an insane person would have been allowed in a “well regulated militia” in 1789?

          • novasteve

            Back in 1789 they probbaly would have used the term “possessed”

    • KalashniKEV

      “Is that really too extreme of a view?”

      Who makes the call? On what authority?

      People with criminal history, or who have been adjudicated mentally defective, are already barred from purchasing firearms. This subject was neither.

      • CW

        My post wasn’t specifically targeted in response to what Moran said, or to the Colorado incident, because there are too many knee-jerk reactions going on, as there always are. I was just musing about my stance and saying that maybe if people did not think in such polar opposite terms we as a society could actually get something done once in a while.

      • Hank

        “People with criminal history, or who have been adjudicated mentally defective, are already barred from purchasing firearms. This subject was neither.”

        So… are you saying the system worked?

        • KalashniKEV

          What system?

          He filled out a 4473 for each purchase, right?

  • southie

    We could also work to identify and treat those of us that suffer from mental illness.

    • cc_res

      But that’s just soooo time consuming

      • jackson

        And expensive! Sounds like Obamacare. Sounds like socialism! Round up the “bums” instead.

    • VaGurl

      +1 – and speak up when we see something odd. i.e. had that range owner notified authorities, maybe something could have been done.

      • novasteve

        I really have to question the veracity of many stories I’m hearing. Lots of people have an incentive to make things up to get media attention these days. I’ve never heard of any shooting range with any policies like that. Even in NY, which very strict gun rules, you didn’ thave to go through some elaborate process of going to the range. You just show up. In MD, you take a safety test, .

        • VaGurl

          i thought that Holmes was trying to join a gun club – not just go shooting at the range? might have mis-read though. the gun clubs are memberships so they can say no….?

      • KalashniKEV

        I’m not sure how that would have been possible.

        You tell a person over the age of 18, “You need help” and they say, “No. I’m fine” and there’s just not a whole lot that can be done.

        Even for a minor, especially when you’re not a family member, this is tough to accomplish.

        • VaGurl

          less of the range guy saying something to the person himself, but if the authorities were notified and THEY talked to him, and if he was as incoherent as the range dude said he was, and known to have weapons, there are things law enforcement could have done, i.e. involuntary commitment (72 hours) etc.

          • KalashniKEV

            Too many ifs. IF there were 100 million cops, to follow up on all incoherent voice mails, and verify that no nefarious intent exists this still could have happened if they contacted him outside of an “episode.”

            Sadly, there’s just not a whole lot that could have been done to prevent this.

          • VaGurl

            totally concur.

          • drax

            Maybe we should report people who are obsessed with guns to the point of using screen names based on a weapon, and espouse all sorts of irrational views on the Internet.

          • KalashniKEV

            And do what?
            No citizen can be stripped of his rights without due process.

            Did you have a crime in mind? Or just suspected “thoughtcrime?”

    • LVGuy

      This. Better awareness of mental health can prevent this from happening again.

      • novasteve

        They had inferior mental health care, more guns, less restrictions, and even taught shooting in schools back in the 1950s,and you didn’t have mass shootings like you have now.

        Why?

        • jackson

          They had more guns in the 1950s?

          • novasteve

            They were easier to get as well. You didn’t have restrictive gun laws. We also didn’t have the violence occuring today.

            WHY? Will anyone tell me why?

          • jackson

            No, I’m asking you: Why do you think there were MORE guns in the 1950s? The population has grown exponentially in the past 65 years. You think we have FEWER guns in America now than we did 65 years ago?

          • novasteve

            We had fewer people in the 1950s as well. Your point? If anything the proportion of gunowners was higher in the 1950s than it is now.

            Areyou going to answer my question? Why do we have more gun violence now than we did then?

            Maybe your liberal values have been harmful to this country?

          • jackson

            DO we have more gun violence now than we did then? I’m not accepting that as fact just because you say so.

            http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2404/is-the-world-more-dangerous-now-than-when-we-were-kids

          • Tipper Gore

            Rap music.

  • Rick

    STATES RIGHTS! On guns though, not the slavery part.

  • novasteve

    Here’s the thing libs: Gun laws don’t work to stop criminals becaues criminals don’t obey laws. There are too many guns out there at this point, so any plans on banning guns will just make society a lot more dangerous. The only thing you could do, which would involve EXTREME violations of the constitution, is to have warrantlesss searches of everyone’s homes, apartments, yards, offices, at all times of the day, without any warning, so the guns could be found and confiscated. That means everything else illegal they see, you will get busted for as well. So are you prepared to completely violate the constitution and privacy rights to get rid of guns, because anything less than total confiscation of guns will only make society even more dangerous, as only criminals will have guns, and police aren’t everywhere at all times, and we don’t even have a right to police protection.

    This is the second time this year I’ve heard Moran advocate for people’s constititional rights to be violated. The last time was over that “Go to Hell Obama” ad up on the metro. He hatets the first amendment, and the second amendment.

    • drax

      “Gun laws don’t work to stop criminals becaues criminals don’t obey laws.”

      Criminals don’t obey any laws, should we therefore get rid of all laws?

      • novasteve

        So you want only criminals to have guns?

        • drax

          Wow, steve, you COMPLETELY miss the point yet again.

          At this point I refuse to believe you are a lawyer.

    • TJ

      Here’s the thing, cons:

      No one is asking that all guns be banned.

      Surely you can see that there’s a class of weapons that both citizens (sane and craz) shouldn’t have access to, like UZIs, AK-47s…

      • novasteve

        The end goal of libs is to ban guns.

        What civilian get can an UZI or an AK-47?

        Are you referring to semi auto versions of them? If so, what is the difference between a semi auto AK-47 and a semi auto hunting rifle other than the AK 47 looks mean?

        Are you seriously wanting to ban guns because of what they look like?

        Sporter = okay

        mean = not okay

        Is there any logic to this view? You want to ban a g un based upon what it looks like?

      • KalashniKEV

        That’s so interesting!

        Please tell me why…

        • novasteve

          Because they look mean!

  • novasteve

    Can we have a test? Could a gun owner here in Arlington put up a sign saying “Proud NRA Member” outside of your home, and a liberal put up a sign saying “Gun Free Zone” outside of your home, and lets see whose home gets broken into first?

    • drax

      Thieves like to steal guns.

      • novasteve

        But in Arlington, lots of well off people have lots of expensive things. I think a sane person would be more likely to rob the house of the person who they know doesn’t have a gun because they otherwise might find their brains on the wall when the homeowner sees them in the NRA home.

        • UA

          Both signs would have to be in Spanish though to complete the test.

    • faintly progressive

      The NRA member, cause they at least have a gun to steal, while the liberal probably has nothing worth stealing, right?

    • Chimichanga

      Can’t we accomplish the same with a sign that says “Protected by Brinks Alarm System” a few cameras and spotlights in plain sight and out of reach?

      who gets broken into first? me or neighbor.

      (btw, i’m pro gun).

      • KalashniKEV

        Nope. Cameras don’t even deter daylight bank robbers… and they have good ones!

        Cameras and alarms do nothing (zero) to deter break ins. Getting shot in the face is a real deterrent.

        • jackson

          Who sits in your home with a gun during the day when you’re out?

          • KalashniKEV

            Right now (home for lunch)… me.

            No robbers today. Darn, I didn’t get to do my macho man, I carry a gun, ninja flipping, OK corral, save-the-day moves.

            I guess I’ll just make me a sammich.

          • Chimi-churri

            thank you. exactly my point. I was just going with the irrational line of thinking above.. “who gets broken into first” .. bla…

  • Noid

    I like shooting guns. I’m all for gun ownership and CCW. Had a person with a permitted concealed handgun and a modicum of training been there, they could’ve ended this sooner.

    That said, it makes sense to ban magazines that hold more than, say, 10 rounds. If you’re too lazy to reload at the target range, find another hobby.

    Re. the gun-show loophole: This POS bought his guns at gun stores. So clearly the waiting period/background check isn’t working.

    The Assault Weapons Ban focused on the wrong things. It banned semi-auto weapons that basically just look evil. Normal-looking semi-autos were OK. And that part was for the better, because semi-auto just means no cocking the gun again with every shot.

    Forget how mean the guns look; ban the high-capacity magazines, and get the FBI to keep an eye out for people buying huge quantities of ammo.

    • novasteve

      Exactly, the “assault weapon” that liberals cry about isn’t even an assault weapon. Not based on the StG-44. They aren’t automatic, which an assault weapon is. So basically what liberals are complaining about is what hte gun looks like. It looks mean, so ban it. They might as well make sporter looking AK-47s so liberals will stop objecting so much to a particular semi auto based upon what it looks like. But then what next, when you ban high capacity magazines, will you limit how many magazines people can own? If someone buys three magazines, should they go on some sort of watch list?

      • Noid

        I’m a liberal, actually. Blame Congress in the ’90s, not liberals, for the stupidity in banning mean-looking semiautomatic guns. (Fully automatics have been banned since the early ’80s.)

        No, I’m not for banning owning multiple magazines. At least a would-be mass shooter would have to reload if you ban their capacity. It wouldn’t stop every murder and probably not the next mass murder–but it would provide a better chance of ending it sooner. I’ll take that.

        • KalashniKEV

          “Fully automatics have been banned since the early ’80s.”

          Not true. There are plenty of Machine Gun owners in VA. More than any other state. I’m one of them.

          Top five states with Machine Guns (MAR 2012)
          1. VA = 30,220
          2. FL = 29,128
          3. CA = 28,774
          4. TX = 28,690
          5. IL = 24,651

          • Noid

            I meant to say “manufacture of” has been banned. I’ve been to the gun show too and seen one selling for $30K.

          • KalashniKEV

            Wrong again.

            All it takes is a LE Demo letter… cheaper that way too!

            Do you know how many PD’s are currently “demo-ing” VLTOR PKMs right now?
            :)

        • Chimi-churri

          you sir have never fired a weapon or are very bad at it. please don’t get a one or turn it in.

          • Chimi-churri

            that was for “noid” not kev.

    • LVGuy

      would you have shot a gun in a room dark room filled with smoke? In what way is that safe? What if you had inadvertently shot one person, without actually hitting the shooter?

      People can talk all they want, but in panic mode no one knows how they’ll react.

      • novasteve

        So that would apply to the police as well. Should the police also wait until the shooter runs out of ammo or gives up and let a bunch more people die so that nobody accidentally gets shot by the person not trying to murder people?

      • KalashniKEV

        “What if you had inadvertently shot one person, without actually hitting the shooter?”

        This sparked an interesting debate on another forum- I wonder how many here would accept being accidentally shot by a responders bullet if it meant a total death toll of 2 or 3 instead of 12?

        I would think 100%.

        • jackson

          I’d prefer not to be shot at all, thanks.

          • not your bro

            Include me in the ones who would not think it was ok to be shot by anyone. Especially if the civilian’s shot killed. This fantasy of an armed citizenry intervening to prevent bloodshed is just that: a fantasy.

          • KalashniKEV

            I would take a bullet (and DIE if need be) for the chance at just 10 killed instead of 12. The whole “Gun Free Zone/ Unarmed Victim Zone” needs to go away NOW.

            It’s sheer lunacy.

            (and Armed Citizens prevent bloodshed from happening ALL THE TIME! It doesn’t make the news because there *isn’t bloodshed*. Pick up an American Rifleman and read a dozen stories a month about it.)

          • not your bro

            You’re a real armchair hero.

          • KalashniKEV

            You’re a real keyboard coward.
            (it’s the same name calling, ARLnow… allow it or don’t)

        • Not Me

          Ummm… maybe don’t go with 100%

          • KalashniKEV

            Go to “flyover country” where values remain strong, and there is a sense of Community instead of “me first” Arlington.

            It’s 100%.

          • Josh S

            If you say so.

            Actually, no. Not even if you say so. This argument is so completely BS.

            Yes, God has looked down and he has chosen the residents of Kansas to be more virtuous than the residents of Massachusetts. Absurd. Ridiculous. Fantastical. Insane, even.

          • Not Me

            So, you’d have grandma ‘take one for the team’ eh? That’s mighty fine of you! Why not, she’s lived long enough, right?

            This isn’t a question of values or sense of community. But thanks for the Patriot America Heartland reply. I’ll take it under advisement.

            America…. where the TRULY Patriotic will take a bullet so that 10 die instead of 12. Everyone else is a COMMIE.

            I bleed red white and blue. I love America so much I want it’s babies, but I don’t want to get shot while a hero shoots me in the face by accident and I’m now ‘me first’?

            wow.

          • KalashniKEV

            I can only speak for myself, but where ties are stronger you see people do amazing things for each other.

            That is all.

            (If you don’t understand it, I can’t explain it)

          • not your bro

            People sure do amazing things for each other, every day. They volunteer to donate a kidney, they give blood, they help people build houses, they take them in when the power’s out in the other guy’s neighborhood, they protect their girlfriends from a killer’s bullets in a Colorado movie theater, they risk their lives to pull strangers from burning buildings, they run into enemy fire in combat zones to rescue their comrades in arms.

            They do this all over the country, and in fact, all over the world. Not just “values” people, not just Midwesterners, not just Americans, people. These are risks you, me, they, we, anyone consciously chooses to take in any given moment because we/they are motivated to help our fellow human beings.

            You’re talking about someone involuntarily taking a bullet from some yahoo who couldn’t see, or aim, or figure out who the “bad guy” was, so that, potentially, that yahoo might be able to hit his target on the next, or 5th, or 50th shot, and thereby might reduce a body count in an incident such as this from 12 to 10 (not counting the number he adds by hitting others before he hits the killer). I can guarantee you that not even close to 100% of “flyover” citizens would want to subject themselves to the potential of being killed in the crossfire. I doubt you could muster 25% who would agree to that kind of risk, that they can’t decide, in the moment, they want to take. They are happy to let our trained law enforcement officers do their jobs. I’m one of those flyover people, by the way, I grew up in the Midwest.

            If you want to be shot by armed bystanders because that makes you feel useful, go ahead. It’s not heroism, though. (If you don’t understand it, I can’t explain it.)

          • Not Me

            Not your bro – I could not have said it any better myself. I agree 100% (pun intended).

            There are good and decent people everywhere. Not wanting to get shot has no bearing on one’s level of patriotism, sense of community or any other measure, save perhaps one’s natural desire to live.

            All that said, KalashiKEV, I know you are a good person based on your comments, and I’m glad to have you and ‘not your bro’ as fellow Arlingtonians. I feel safer with good folks such as yourselves all around me. I’m confident you BOTH would do the right thing in a bad situation. And that’s enough for me.

            Maybe that’s the lesson. Good communites are found all over the world. Where neighbors stick together and help each other out. These senseless tragedies are no easier to digest in a small town then in a big city. And as we try to explain away the cause we try to find differences which, in the end, serve to divide and not unite us. This effect is unfortunate, because I believe there is much more that binds us, but it get’s lost in our search for meaning/answers.

    • SteamboatWillie

      Yeah, because in a darkened, smoke-filled theater, in a firefight between a citizen with a CCW-approved .40 caliber handgun and a maniac in body armor spraying rounds from an assault rifle, the smart money is on the former every single time.

      Lunacy.

      • redstang423

        You make a very valid point – but I’m not sure what you mean by “CCW-approved.” In Virginia at least, any firearm or any caliber categorized as a pistol is “CCW approved.” I have my CCW permit, and it’s pretty unlikely I’d end up drawing my firearm in that type of situation for many reasons. Confusion on who the shooter is, chance of missing and killing someone innocent, or worst case – if the police got there as I was taking down the shooter, what if they thought I was the shooter?

        That being said, even if the guy was wearing body armor, it’s not like someone is hitting you with a feather. A hit “may” actually even knock him down. Was it also a full armor suit? Or just a jacket? If you hit an unprotected area, that’s really gonna slow down the guy. Even if the defender missed, I’m willing to bet it would’ve confused or distracted the shooter and given people a few extra seconds to get to safety.

        • Chimichanga

          yeah people watch too many movies, never fired a gun before and run their mouths. Just because we have a gun, doesn’t mean we draw it and get trigger happy. Bullets don’t bounce off body armour. A .40 cal round will knock you on your ass and you’ll be there for a bit. Long enough for me and the guy that was getting aimed at to run away.

          No one says the CC folks will win everytime. All it means is you get a fighting chance, swing the odds a bit.
          These people had ZERO odds in their favor.

          • Kate

            Also, if you read the accounts from the people in the theater, it was not mass panic. Several people told how completely rational thoughts and actions took over, protecting people, watching the gunman aim at them, ducking. The hysterical gun-grabbers just assume everybody would wet their pants just like they do.

          • jackson

            I am interested in seeing statistics on crimes that were prevented (or crimes in progress that were stopped) because a private citizen in the vicinity happened to be armed.

            Is there a nonpartisan site with that information?

          • Arlingtune

            Statistics on prevented crime? PreCrime? You sound trollish.

          • jackson

            I’m not asking for instances when someone was thinking of committing a crime and changed his mind when he saw a citizen with a gun sticking out of his waistband, I’m talking about a bank robbery where the robber was stopped by a citizen with a gun, or a shooting spree stopped when a citizen shot the guy after he took a single shot. Lots of people say if someone in the theater had a gun, it would have resulted in less loss of life, but has that happened before elsewhere? Are there documented cases where private gun owners stopped mass shootings?

          • not your bro

            I’d be curious to know this too, I’ll do some poking around.

          • Arlingtune

            Google perhaps?

          • Chimi-churri

            I take you missed grandpa shooting the crap out of some kids.

            OHh better then stats, here you go from last month! Video!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t5f5AwkkiY

            watch how a trained, non hysterical citizen took control of the situation.

          • not your bro

            I can’t find any statistics that aren’t published by a gun rights website. There was a reference on one of those sites to an FBI study that claimed three crimes per year are prevented by a gun owner, and that site took issue with the FBI’s claim.

          • VaGurl

            +100000

      • drax

        The obvious solution is for every able-bodied citizen to wear body armor and carry several assault weapons at all times.

        • Chimi-churri

          i like how you think..

    • redstang423

      Banning high capacity mags won’t have that much of an effect on someone crazy that’s trying to do as much damage as possible. Instead of bringing 3 30-round AR15 mags, he’ll just bring 9 10-round mags. If you’re trying to do damage, you’ll probably have a mag pouch with you. Someone who’s proficient at changing mags will have dropped the mag and inserted a new one in an AR15 in about 3 seconds. Or, you’ll just illegally obtain 30-round mags.

      The bulk ammo lookout will be tough too – it isn’t uncommon at all for me to buy 1,000 rounds or more at a time. It’s not because I’m stockpiling for the day I go crazy, it’s that its a heck of a lot cheaper to buy in bulk. I know people that will order 5,000 at a time for the discount. They also have no intent to harm anyone.

      Unfortunately, it’s easy for me to shoot holes in arguments to attempt to help prevent these situations, but I have no better solution myself. This guy probably would’ve passed any background check people wanted to implement. I’d never suggest or support a psychological exam, but who knows if he’d even had passed those. And then what about the situation where someone was fine when they bought them, then had a traumatic life experience and went south psychologically?

      • novasteve

        No doubt liberals will implement precogs thought police like in The Minority Report.

      • Noid

        Those are actually good points, I must admit. I might argue that even if a proficient shooter can reload a mag in 3 seconds–at least that’s 3 seconds of delay that wouldn’t be there if he didn’t have to reload. And maybe a Todd Beamer kinda person could tackle him in those 3 seconds.

        As to buying black-market 30 mags, if those cease to be manufactured, eventually the supply of them will dry up as their service life ends.

        I agree that a ban on bulk purchases wouldn’t do anything; perps would just buy the max every 6 months or whatever the period is.

    • KalashniKEV

      We already tried this during the dark Clinton years…

      A ban on magazines over 10 rounds (STANDARD capacity magazines for most firearms) does nothing but make things more expensive for those who are inclined to follow our laws… and does *nothing* for those who don’t.

      • Noid

        Didn’t the supply of the illegal ones dry up, though?

        • KalashniKEV

          What “illegal ones” are you referring to?

          They didn’t come into everyone’s house and round up the bazillions of mags that were already out there- they grandfathered them and made you stamp a date and “RESTRICTED” on the new ones… so you had Glock mags at $150+. We all still bought them, and it effected nothing but the price.

          • Noid

            Yeah, but eventually they wear out. If there are no new ones to replace them, no more big mags.

          • redstang423

            Think of it like this: drugs are illegal, but there’s still a never ending supply. Even if we banned mags with greater than a 10 round capacity, other countries will produce them, and where there is a demand, people will figure out how to get a supply into the country. Again, easy to give a counterpoint. Difficult to come up with a solution.

            As far as I can tell, the only real solution is to get a time machine, go back to when guns were invented, and prevent them from ever being manufactured. With all the guns out there now, no gun control will ever have much effect beyond preventing the law abiding public from having guns.

          • KalashniKEV

            Wrong again… WOW, you’re bad at this!

            The mag body is the “control item.” They can be re-sprung forever, protecting their value as an investment.

            (We didn’t know then if our freedom would ever be restored!)

      • Collot

        Just curious.

        Do you have a job?

        Were you actually a Ranger? Did you serve in a Ranger battalion or just go to and pass Ranger school (still quite an accomplishment, of course)?

        What do you carry when you go out?

        • KalashniKEV

          Email’s in the profile for all your curious questions.

          Let’s stay on topic here.

          • Collot

            haha fair enough.

            Although changing the subject (illegal immigration, drunk driving, regulation of knives,etc) seems to be pretty standard on this thread.

  • SomeGuy

    Moran’s saying that “we” are “to some extent… complicit” in mass murders is not a positive step toward earning my vote.

    It’s unclear to me who’s included in the “we” he’s referring to.

  • blah

    We are talking about people getting shot who were at the right place at the right time. They weren’t anywhere they should not have been. It seems like it is OK to take our lives away, but not our freedom to have weapons.
    Watch this video from a Virginia Tech shooting survivor.
    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/23/virginia_tech_shooting_survivor_colin_goddard

  • Kate

    Looks like they caught him right after his 5-scotch lunch.

    What a fossil.

  • T:GEoA

    Waiting for Moran to tell Congress to stop violence against women and children

    • Homeowner

      +1

  • novasteve

    Question for everyone: Given gun laws were more lax in the past, and kids could even learn how to shoot in schools, the scouts would train kids on guns, why is it other than the U Texas Bell tower shooting and organized crime during prohibition, mass shootings that happen today virtually non existent in the past? They even have better pscyhiatric care today. They had more guns, less restrictions, and less mass shootings, despite inferior psychiatric care back then. Is it POSSIBLE that that destruction of the family, violent games, and hollywood glorifying violence might have anything to do with it? If not, what’s your theory about why these mass killings are common today, but weren’t in the past given that it’s harder to access guns today?

    • iiandyiiii

      The murder rate today is far lower than it was in the 80s and 90s- it’s about the same now as it was in 1950 (the peak was around 1990). Perhaps there’s more mass-shootings now, but there are NOT more murders.

      • novasteve

        And you think gun laws are responsible for that?

        Why are you so much more outoraged over a rare mass shooting than the daily carnage in cities like chicago?

    • drax

      Prove that they are more common today, Steve. It’s likely that you think they are simply because you remember the more recent ones.

  • novasteve

    is Moran also going to speak out against illegal aliens trafficking and putting 23 people in a pickup truck and them flipping and killing 14 people? More people died in that single car accident in TX yesterday than died in Colorado in the shooting. Why aren’t democrats speaking out against illegal immigration?Those people would be alive today had we enforced immigration laws.

    • iiandyiiii

      Do you always feel the need to change the subject?

      • novasteve

        How is it changing the subject? MORE people died in a car accident that wouldn’t have happened if the immmigration laws are enforced. Do we only care about some loss of lives if we can attack guns?

        • jackson

          How did immigration laws cause them to hit a tree?

  • David

    You can’t talk to gun people, they just don’t get it. I’ve heard people say, “If more people believed in the second amendment the crazy people would get fewer shots off” Seriously, fewer shots, how about ZERO shots off. “If more people had guns in the theater they could have put an end to this…” Really, it was dark, imagine if two or three people in different parts of the theater started firing on this guy, now you have 4 shooters from different directions in a dark theater and gas/smoke bombs going off, that’s a lot of lead flying and I bet a lot more people would have been injured and killed. Not to mention he was covered head to toe in body armor. I am 100% for responsible gun ownership as the NRA SHOULD be, but they believe it’s your God given right to own enough guns and ammo to take out a small village. Are any of you gun owners part of a well organized militia, doubt it. Gotta find some middle ground to keep the crazies from getting guns.

    • novasteve

      Why don’t you read the Heller decision before you show how ignorant you are?

    • neutrino

      They may be a part of a militia, but you’d never know it because they all registered for it under the name Rusty Shackleford.

    • SteamboatWillie

      Amen.

    • blah

      The shooter in Tuscon was found to be not competent enough to stand trial, yet was competent enough to acquire weapons, double standard?

    • R H

      > Really, it was dark

      The shooter was in the front of the theater and silhouetted by a bright screen.

      > now you have 4 shooters from different directions in a dark theater and gas/smoke bombs going off, that’s a lot of lead flying and I bet a lot more people would have been injured and killed

      That’s assuming the other shooters are just “blasting away” into a crowd. Thankfully most people that pass the educational and background checks for concealed carry would not just fire into a crowd.

      Also, the theater was stadium seating giving the audience high ground.

      I’m not saying he’d have been in an easy target with the panic and confusion going on, but it was far from difficult.

      > Not to mention he was covered head to toe in body armor.

      He wasn’t actually. Rather than wearing a “ballastic vest” as reported by some bloggers, he was only wearing a tactical vest- which is just a nylon vest with a bunch of pockets.

      Regardless, a bulletproof vest only prevents lethal injuries. If you get shot while wearing one, you still go down and need immediate medical attention.

      > Are any of you gun owners part of a well organized militia, doubt it.

      You’d be happy to know the VCDL meets bimonthly in Annandale.

      > Gotta find some middle ground to keep the crazies from getting guns.

      I completely agree.

      In all reality, if even one audience member had a gun it would have been a very different situtation. At the very least he wouldn’t have been able to walk up each aisle and shoot without fear. He would have had to at least retreat to cover.

      Every mass shooter in history has never actually been mentally prepared for armed resistence. History has shown when the police show up they either suicide or give themselves up with no resistence (as in this case).

      • Chimichanga

        So what happens if instead of guns, he’d use the 30 home made hand grenades? How’d gun control help that?

        BAN THE INTERWEBZ I say! Web controL!

      • David

        “You’d be happy to know the VCDL meets bimonthly in Annandale.” Well regulated Militia or Lobby Group? Sounds like a lobby group to me.

        • KalashniKEV

          It’s just a club… you should check it out!

          • Chimi-churri

            They don’t allow his brown flip flops in annandale…

          • KalashniKEV

            They’re actually quite welcoming.

      • blah

        when trying to sound intellectual about this matter, using, “as reported by some bloggers” doesn’t work.

        I am not OK with this guy even getting one shot off. But apparently 2nd amendment apologists are. His weapons were powerful enough to shoot through walls and hit people in adjacent theaters.

        “Every mass shooter in history has never actually been mentally prepared for armed resistance” But they have been prepared to take innocent lives, and that is the problem here.

        • novasteve

          Should cars be banned because they can go through walls, as we often see here in Arlington?

          • drax

            Nobody is proposing a ban on guns, so why are you yammering about a ban on cars?

    • KalashniKEV

      Well, the theater was a posted “Gun Free Zone” so the killer knew they had zero chance of survival if they followed the rules. I’ll take “some chance of survival” over zero chance every single time.

      The idea that the the shooter comes in the back door and everyone in the theater opens up on him is as ridiculous as the notion that someone could come up off the hip and nail him in the face from the back row. There is a logical middle ground there where reality can be found.

    • http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/2/24/I_see_what_you_did_there_super.jpg BoredHouseWife

      anyone can make an explosive from everyday household objects. so maybe we should ban those substances. gotta protect ourselves from the crazies.

    • KalashniKEV

      “Are any of you gun owners part of a well organized militia, doubt it.”

      Actually the “militia” is the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. You might be a part of it too!

  • neutrino

    Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that felons or the mentally ill don’t have the right to bear arms (or vote for that matter). What we need is to re-write the second amendment.

    • novasteve

      Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can require the men to register with the selective service and not women.

      Nowhere in the constitution does it set up different standards of scrutiny for the equal protection clause, yet there are three different standards used.

    • drax

      The courts have already affirmed the power of the government to restrict gun ownership by the mentally ill and felons, and for other reasons.

    • Hank

      +1 Exactly. That’s why we have AMENDments…

      I don’t think that the Founding Fathers anticipated high capacity assault weapons when they drafted the Bill of Rights.

      Does anyone really have a problem with the effect Schenck v. United States (shouting “fire” in a crowded theater) has on the First Amendment?

      • novasteve

        Do you think the Founding fathers also anticipated abortion on demand and gay marriage?

        • Hank

          What does that have to do with anything? Or, are you just listing things you are opposed to to try to create an analogy that isn’t logical?

          Yeah, and I’m pretty sure abortion existed before 1789. And I’m pretty sure that some fellows had a swell time with one another in ancient Greece.

          • novasteve

            Your argument is that times change. Why can’t I bring in an analogy given logical arguments are made using analogies?

            Was it legal before 1789?

          • Hank

            I doubt it was addressed in terms of law, but I could be wrong. So I think we’re on the same wavelength. Situations change, societies evolve, so perhaps we need to revisit laws to determine applicability.

          • novasteve

            So why don’t liberals amend the constitution rather than proposing unconstitutional legislation or relying on activist judges? There’s a proper procedure for society to change the rules if they want to, and that’s called the amendment process.

          • Patroclus

            See ya at the P St Beach ;)

    • KalashniKEV

      I wish you luck in repealing or curtailing any of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights.

      (actually… I don’t) ;)

      • neutrino

        Who said repeal? I didn’t say repeal. I implied amending it.

        • neutrino

          My point was the mentally ill have the right to a firearm under the Constitution as it is currently written. To restrict their rights is unconstitutional.

          • KalashniKEV

            No… they don’t! Where are you getting this information???

            No one who has been adjudicated mentally defective can possess a firearm. No one can be stripped of their *rights* without due process of law.

            Know your rights or risk losing them!

          • not your bro

            where is there a prohibition in the US constitution against the mentally ill owning guns?

          • KalashniKEV

            It’s in Block 9(f) of the 4473. Seriously.

            I don’t think you really have any idea what you’re talking about…

          • Josh S

            It’s the Commerce Clause.

          • not your bro

            “It’s in Block 9(f) of the 4473. Seriously.

            I don’t think you really have any idea what you’re talking about…”

            the 4473 is the form you fill out to buy a gun.

            It’s not the US Constitution.

            I don’t think you really have any idea what you’re talking about.

          • KalashniKEV

            So your proposal is that we enact the same restriction that is already in place… yet incorporate it into the United States Constitution?

            Sort of like “elevating” it?

            Interesting! To what end though?

      • Hank

        Well, First Amendment rights are and have been limited for justifiable reasons (inciting panic, violence, threats to national security, etc.). I think that the Second Amendment can be limited for justifiable reasons.

        • neutrino

          Such restrictions should not have been at a judge’s discretion. They should require amendments to the Constitution.

          • Hank

            Isn’t this the purpose of judicial review?

  • novasteve

    Also another question, there’s probably 20-40 shootings in Chicago every single weekend, and in most major US cities. Why are these democrats only focusing on these rare mass shootings but not hte daily urban crime? Is some life worth less to them? Keep in mind where the vast majority of US gun violence occurs is where they have the strictest gun laws.

    • novasteve

      Anyone? The daily violence doesn’t bother you but the the once in a blue moon one does?

  • KalashniKEV

    Shameless remarks from a coward.

    Using the blood of innocents to push his oppressive political agenda is absolutely DISGUSTING to me, and I hope the citizens soon show him what they think of his misguided and foolish thinking. Those who would sacrifice essential liberty to to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    • Hank

      Oh, and it’s not shameless to advocate for all citizens to be armed with concealed weapons?

      • neutrino

        It’s not shameless to debate public policy in response to a major event, if it is relevant to said event. This goes both ways.

      • KalashniKEV

        I advocate for the freedom of each citizen to do as he or she chooses.

        No shame in that.

  • http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/2/24/I_see_what_you_did_there_super.jpg BoredHouseWife

    oh lord here we go. of course they are going to use Colorado incident to promote a ban on guns. they try every time some idiot shoots up a place. “oh we must ban guns/specific gun because idiots may get them and do this” ooga booga be scared! but dont worry the govt. will protect you. am I right?
    as soon as they make the 2nd amendment null, they will make owning a gun illegal, then they will come into your houses and get them and then maybe China or Russia can invade without the threat of an unpredictable militia of 80 million. (sometimes the only way to get rid of the stone is to chip away at it)

    I can hear the chorus of naivety saying, but that wont happen! its all in the past!
    humans haven’t evolved past their need to fear. therefore, it will happen.

    besides hypothetical, what will happen is that a black market will be created, and some tyrant will become more powerful. prohibition is one of the biggest money making schemes that has ever surfaced.

    • KalashniKEV

      *big high five*

      Somebody gets it…

      • PB

        Yes, because the reason China and Russia haven’t invaded is because they watched Red Dawn.

        • KalashniKEV

          It was a tactical consideration for Japan during WWII.

    • not your bro

      I think it’s our nuclear arsenal and large military that deters an invasion, not the “unpredictable militia of 80 million.”

      • Banksy

        +many

        Add “untrained” to the “unpredictable.” Jeez, these gun nuts really have an overinflated sense of their own worth, don’t they? That’s part of the problem — the sense of invincibility that is completely divorced from reality, the irrational belief that guns make them safer in their everyday life. These well-armed “law-abiding citizens” that they’re think make up their “militia” are only law-abiding until they shoot someone in anger — but then it’s too late for the poor victim.

        • KalashniKEV

          1) Guns actually do make you safer in their everyday life… from violent crime.
          2) The militia is the body of citizens fit for military service.
          3) Shooting someone “in anger” is OK with the law- if they met deadly force criteria in the process of making you angry.

    • VaGurl

      +100000 *fist bump*

    • drax

      Gun control is all that is holding back a Russian or Chinese invasion?

      We’re going to fend them off with pistols?

  • Paul

    How about a ban on bloviating congresscritters who always ride their favorite hobbyhorses.

  • KalashniKEV

    I hope some of the posters here talking about the Framers realize that the Second Amendment is not about hunting ducks or shooting holes in paper.

    • novasteve

      No! Only the founders were allowed to take up arms against the government, nobody else can!

    • CW

      I agree with your right to have all the Revolutionary-War-era firearms you wish. Well, maybe not cannon.

      • KalashniKEV

        Good thing we go by the law of the land and not by what-you-agree-with then! ;)

        (and I CAN have the cannon. Thanks.) :)

  • Pablo

    I’m just glad Mr. Holmes wasn’t trying to buy beer or wine over the Internet and across state lines. THOSE restrictions are tight.

    Hey, it’s the NRA’s America and we just live and die in it.

    • KalashniKEV

      The NRA is “We the People.”

      I don’t understand the whole “the NRA” this and that…

      • george

        …just like I (and a lot of other people here) can’t understand the whole “Liberals” this and that, or “Democrats” this and that. I am among the Democrats who support the right to bear arms, but who believe that there are controls that are reasonable and needed. It’s the NRA who preaches that anyone who supports any form of control is only using it as s first step toward a total and absolute ban on guns. I believe that either extreme view – i.e., on one end that any control is unreasonable/unconstitutional, or on the other end that the only correct solution is a total ban on guns – is counter-productive, and leads to the kind of vitriol we are reading on this site today. OK – next topic: Abortion, anyone?

  • novasteve

    I think everyone should be forced to turn in their kitchen knives, and we should all be only allowed to use sporks!

    • Pablo

      Which would you prefer your mass murderer to be armed with? Kitchen knife or semi-automatic with a thousand rounds.

      • PB

        I vote kitchen knife.

      • novasteve

        More people got killed when a pickup truck crashed in Texas yesterday than did in the CO shootings. Should pickup trucks be banned or should immigration laws be enforced so that 14 illegal aliens don’t die when their pickup truck flips?

        • CW

          I’m pretty sure it is illegal to ride in truck beds in some states.

          • drax

            And driving requires a license, and vehicles are regulated.

          • novasteve

            There’s no constitutional right to drive, unlike with guns.

            So 12 people getting killed is worse than 14 people? You libs only care HOW people die, not that people die?

          • faintly progressive

            would Joker-killer have been allowed in a militia in 1789?

          • jackson

            More American soldiers have died in Iraq since 3/19/03 than Americans were killed on 9/11/11.

            Which statistic upsets you more, and why?

        • Hank

          The purpose of a pickup truck is to transport people/goods, not to inflict harm or kill someone. Anything can unintentionally inflict harm (except maybe rainbows), but the difference is that the purpose of weapons is to inflict harm.

          • VaGurl

            the purpose of weapons are to protect and deter not inflict harm.

          • Hank

            No, deterrence is a byproduct of the fact that a weapon’s intent is to inflict harm.

            A smoke detector’s primary intent is to protect. It doesn’t have to threaten you with bodily harm first.

          • sevenofnine

            “the purpose of weapons are to protect and deter not inflict harm.”

            That might be one of the stupidest things I have ever read on any comment board anywhere.

            The purpose of weapons is to injure, maim and kill. Over the centuries, we’ve created more and more efficient and destructive ways of killing, up close or from thousands of miles away.

            Societies have produced moral codes that might endorse using a weapon only defensively, but that’s not what weapons were created for.

          • redstang423

            This might sound silly, but there’s a difference between a weapon and a firearm. I never refer to guns I own as “weapons” – I call them firearms. As you said, weapons are intended to injure, maim, or kill. A firearm is intended to be used for sport or for self defense.

            That being said, keep in mind the point of a knife is to injure, maim, or kill. Same with a bow and arrow or a slingshot. When you get down to it, so is a club. They are all devices that were built with the intent to injure, maim, or kill. Typically, all used for sporting or household purposes instead – except for the rare cases of misuse.

            Unsurprisingly, that is minimally different than guns – with the important distinction that guns are much easier to use in mass attacks than the other items listed. It is silly to think that eliminating guns will prevent this type of event from occurring. Just a few months ago, a man killed 4 and injured 3 in an attack with a machete in Hungary. About two years ago, a teenager took a classroom hostage with a sword; luckily no one died. Those are instances off the top of my head, but I’m sure you can easily find others throughout the world.

            Similarly, statistics don’t back up the correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. Switzerland has the 4th highest per capita gun ownership in the world, yet has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. In Estonia, you can’t own a gun, yet the gun murder rate is only about 2/3 of the USA’s gun murder rate. It should be noted, however, that Estonia’s non-gun murder rate is over 4 times HIGHER than USA’s total murder rate. Before you argue that its a “special” country, Serbia and Yemen both have significantly lower gun-murder rates than the US despite having the 2nd and 3rd highest per capita firearm ownership rates.

            As a final point of consideration, the UK (which has very strict gun control) sees very few gun crimes. They do, however, see about 270 knife crimes per 100k citizens. The US, in comparison, sees about 133 gun crimes per 100k and about 10 knife crimes per 100k.

          • sevenof nine

            I don’t think you’re silly, I’m sure you’re quite sincere – but I’m sorry, calling your weapon a firearm doesn’t make it any less a weapon. Societies have accepted the use of weapons for sport, true, I alluded to that above. They’re still designed to injure, maim and kill.

            You’re right that guns are much more easily used in mass attacks, so why not control (and enforce that control) on weapons that are designed to kill many people rapidly?

            Machetes, swords and knives are no joke. I don’t want to be killed with one of them either. As you point out, the death toll from the recent machete attack was lower than most of our American gun sprees.

            The type of weapon matters.

            As for the statistics about violent crime, you’re right that gun ownership and gun violence do not necessarily correlate. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a pacifist country, we live in a violent one.

          • CW

            Unfortunately, Webster’s Dictionary disagrees with your nomenclature, becuase I just checked their definition of “arm (noun)” and, yep, it has the word “weapon” in it. Just pointing that out – you sound like a very reasonable and responsible gun owner from your posts.

          • redstang423

            @CW – the distinction was explained to me by a former FBI special agent during a firearms class. It may not be technically correct according to a dictionary, but at least according to the instructor, it’s how LEOs refer to guns. I like the distinction, so that’s why I’ll never call any of my guns “weapons.”

            @sevenofnine – If the theory is regulate things that could easily kill large groups of people, guns wouldn’t be the first place one should look. Gun massacre (in our country at least) rarely kill more than 30 people – and that’s on the very high side. What about bombings? It is scary how easy it is to make something at home that can be incredibly deadly. Heck gasoline alone can do some damage. Imagine driving a big pick up truck through a crowd. Should we regulate those things as well in the same way? They also have the capability of killing masses rapidly when used improperly.

            I have no issue with preventing criminals or people with psychological issues from getting guns, but the massively vast majority of people who would never dream of using a firearm in an improper manner shouldn’t be preventing from owning something used for sporting purposes. This is especially true when you think the firearm this shooter used looks different, but functions no different than a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle.

            Many criminals aren’t as stupid as we would like to believe. If one wants to commit mass murder and you take away the ease of getting a gun to commit their crime, they’ll either find a way to obtain the gun illegally or simply find another way to commit murder with objects they can obtain legally.

        • faintly progressive

          The people and their elected reps have the right to evaluate the costs and benefits of pickup trucks and determine if its worth allowing them, and how to regulate them.

          I think applying the same standard to guns would be fine.

      • KalashniKEV

        “…semi-automatic with a thousand rounds.”

        This is another thing that NEEDS clarification. I carried 390 rounds in Iraq and a bit of dismounted patrolling broke me off QUICK. Just because Holmes bought 4000 rounds (which is not a lot) doesn’t mean he put it all in his pocket and went to the movies. I’ll bet he had less than 300 rounds.

  • PB

    I have a lot of problems with a persons Constitutional right to bear arms, but I get the argument. But it doesn’t say anything about the right to also have ammunition for said arms, does it?

    Let’s just ban bullets!

    Or at least make them $6,000 each like Chris Rock said.

    • KalashniKEV

      So… I guess if you’re going to kill people you’ll just put them on your credit card and the rest of us can deal with it, right?

      (they are about to cost that, I think… the natural panic of election time has been jump started x10. The shelves are bare!)

  • Keeping Count

    Just got more comments than the Trolly Folly

  • JamesE

    I would have stopped him with my open carry AWM.

  • Johnny b

    That particular high capacity magazine probably saved lives…after starting his rampage with the shotgun and pistol, he then started firing with the AR15 but it jammed due to the poor quality magazine. He then went back to his car, possibly for his second pistol, but was apprehended. He expressed shock and surprise that the police had showed up so quickly.

    If you want to feel safe, move to Chicago….they have the strictest gun laws in the country….illegal to possess pistols and assault style rifles. Yet 28 murders by gunshot in the 1st 3 weeks of July.

    Gun laws ONLY AFFECT law abiding people….no matter how many laws are made, a criminal will break them….that’s why they’re called ‘lawbreakers’….go figure.

    All you libs out there should relate to the fact that deadly drugs like heroin are banned nationwide, yet are readily available. Why would you think a gun ban would be any different? We have a homegrown epidemic of meth labs across the nation; would homegrown gun shops be next if guns were banned? If there is demand, someone will create a supply.

    And who loses in that scenario? The dis-armed law abiding sheep who then become the victims of the predatory wolves.

  • iiandyiiii

    This is a damn tough issue- I don’t think stricter laws or better enforcement would have helped here- the guy got his guns legally and at a gun store. America is different on guns than most other countries- there’s tons and tons of guns already here- so banning them would be about as effective as banning marijuana. And guns aren’t “consumed” (though bullets are)- a well maintained gun can last decades… not to mention the culture of guns in America.

    I also don’t know if armed citizens in the theater would have helped- unless you’ve been under fire, you really have no idea how you’d react. I haven’t been under fire (but I served in the Navy with some guys who had), and from what they tell me it’s absolutely terrifying and panic-inducing… even for the highly trained. It’s a very rare person who doesn’t panic the first time they get shot at with live ammunition. It’s unbelievably loud and chaotic- no doubt even more so in a crowded theater. The police at least have some training and experience in this.

    Now I don’t buy the “constitutionality” argument against basic gun control. Obviously citizens aren’t allowed to have any weapon they want… no one complains that it’s unconstitutional that you can’t have your own Tomahawk cruise missile or Hydrogen bomb. And few people complain that you aren’t allowed to have a machine gun. If banning the sale of fully automatic machine guns passes Constitutional muster, then I think banning high-capacity magazines would, and other rather basic policies (and by this I’m definitely NOT talking about handguns, shotguns, and semi-auto rifles). But I don’t know if such policies would have made much of a difference in this case.

    Perhaps in America, we just have to deal with this… and keep our eyes open.

    • bman

      Seriously,

      Why aren’t people harping on the drug dealer who sold him 100 tablets of vicodin?

      Or was it a pharmacy?

      The drugs made him more nuts.

    • johnny b

      “And few people complain that you aren’t allowed to have a machine gun. If banning the sale of fully automatic machine guns passes Constitutional muster”

      Machine guns are not banned and they are allowed to be owned in most states….just have to sign away most of your right to privacy, show proof of a safe place to store it, pay a transfer fee and you can buy any machine gun manufactured prior to 1986.

  • bman

    Less likely to die in a mass shooting than by a drunk driver.

    ban alocohol and cars.

    • faintly progressive

      how come consies always bring up the risks of dying in car crashes in gun discussions, but not in discussions of transportation alternatives?

  • Debs

    Every body talks about “rights”…what about “responsibility”? People own guns who haven’t gone through training, have really no clue about how to care for one, how to keep it safe etc. The NRA has a really good training program that could be used as a model for the states if they want to require training or at least suggest it…as part of the deal in buying a gun. It is funny, as part of that training…all guns must be turned into the trainer before training starts…and they are locked up! I am married to an NRA-trained trainer and he does find that amusing…

    • novasteve

      Should people on welfare be forced to use birth control and other responsibilities in order to get welfare handouts as well?

      But only for explicit constitutional rights they should be forced to have responsibilities?

      What’s youre saying is like forcing voters to become educated on political issues or whatever as responsibility to have the right to vote?

      Your same logic could be used to force women considering abortions to have to see a sonogram of the fetus. That would just be a responsibility before exercising a constitutional right, right? More die from abortion than gunshots.

    • novasteve

      Also, everytime I hear “rights come with responsibilities” it comes from liberals basically calling for free speech to be restricted so that nobody gets offended.

  • novasteve

    Let’s not forget that these liberals who want to ban guns are the same people who can afford to hire security guards who will still be allowed to be armed, meanwhile the regular person becomes much more susceptible to crime as a result.

    • Hank

      Yes, all liberals can afford armed security guards. I myself have a platoon of Swiss Guards, three ninjas, and a Cossack family that travels with me wherever I go.

      • novasteve

        The jim Moran type liberals and other gun grabbing celebrity types thta tget the press calling for the second amendment to be violated can afford private armed security.

        • george

          Oh, unlike the poor Mitt Romney type conservatives (sic) and other gun-supporting celebrity types? Give us a break. You keep on starting posts that contain trite generalizations like “these liberals….are the same people who can afford to hire…”. So useless in terms of contributing to a civilized conversation.

  • Elmer

    This is one congressman with a LOT of experience in violence (of the domestic kind).
    http://jezebel.com/5076227/why-you-shouldnt-vote-for-a-bad-guy-with-good-positions

  • Mary-Austin

    Just remember that James Holmes was a citizen who was just exercising his “2nd amendment rights” up until a few days ago.

    Crazy that we live in a country where this guy was able to legally obtain an assault rifle.

    • novasteve

      So you’d be fine if he had a sporter style semi auto rifle instead?

      • KalashniKEV

        He did.

  • novasteve

    http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/56370494?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp

    Traffic fatalities are up 13.5% over last year. Where are the car control proposals? Or do you not care that people die, you only care how they die?

    • happycyclist

      wait, what? So you are not one of the consies complaining about the war on cars – attacking the Arl Co bd for the car free diet stuff – claiming road diets are a plot against our freedom?

  • MaydayMalone

    Fat, antisemitic, and stupid is no way to go through life Jim.

  • http://www.panicattackstreatmentdirect.com/ panic attack symptoms women

    hey there and thank you for your information –
    I’ve certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise a few technical points using this website, as I experienced to reload the web site a lot of times previous to I could get it to load properly. I had been wondering if your web hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but slow loading instances times will sometimes affect your placement in google and can damage your quality score if advertising and marketing with Adwords. Well I’m adding this RSS to my email and can look out for
    much more of your respective interesting content.
    Ensure that you update this again soon.

  • Scott

    The bill that bans “assault weapons” (whatever those are) also needs to ban cars that go over 75 mph and knives that are longer than a few inches.

    • happycyclist

      So you support red light cams?

    • KalashniKEV

      Don’t forget BIG SODA.

  • Elmer

    “Moran also said that lawmakers have been “politically castrated” by the National Rifle Association.”

    That’s our Jimbo. Ever ready to combine an incendiary comment with a reference to sex.
    My how that guy’s mind must work!

  • Jim Moron

    While taking a mandatory NRA safety course to obtain my CCW permit, the instructor taught me a simple and valuable lesson that is apparently lost on most liberals. He put a revolver on a table and said: “That gun, just sitting there, will never harm anybody.”

    Guns do not kill people. People kill people. I’m all for laws that restrict people from unlawfully killing people. There’s no reason to restrict law abiding citizens from purchasing and using firearms for protection, recreation, collection, etc. Public opinion data and recent SCOTUS decisions reflect a broad consensus that our Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment for a reason.

    • george

      “…apparently lost on most liberals”. Hmm, that reflects no bias whatsoever in your views, does it? In any case, the REASONABLE issue to discuss is not whether there’s a reason to restict law abiding citizens from purchasing firearms for the purposes you articulated. Rather, it’s whether there’s a reason to place restrictions on law abiding citizens from purchasing ANY form of firearms (and ammo type) whatsoever. Despite your paranoia, there is virtually no support in this country (including from the President, who has proposed nothing on restricting firearms) from banning ALL firearms. And even if it were proposed, the chance of it passing Congress is zero.

      • Jim Moron

        George: I wasn’t aware that the comments section of ArlNow was intended to be bias-free (irony intended). Anyway, you’re right, I confess to being biased: I believe in the Constitution, the right of people to protect themselves, and limited government…all things that liberals tend to despise.

        Anyway, federal and state governments actually do regulate firearms based on type. Walk into a gun store and ask if they have any fully-automatic machine guns for sale — you’ll see what I’m talking about.

        And while a blanket ban on firearms is not politically doable, I know many people who would support just such a thing. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard a friend say: “I don’t understand why anybody needs a gun…they should just be banned.” I have no doubt that if it wasn’t political suicide, the blanket ban of firearms would be advocated by at least half of the Democrats in Congress.

  • Collot

    When did the comments on here obtain the intellectual consistency and quality of those under a foxnews article?

  • Larry

    Those darn sentient guns, out killing people at random. Just like the sentient cars and SUV’s, rolling down the black top mowing down the kiddies. For shame!

  • KalashniKEV

    Can Jimbo check “No” on 9(h) and 9(i)??

    “Harassing stalking or threatening intimate partner or child”

    and

    “Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence”

  • AmyKLM

    Moran is a moron. I am sure that nut in Colorado would never have thought twice about murdering people if he didn’t have a gun permit. Crazies and criminals will find a way to do harm and wrong others, no matter what laws are set into place. I do not understand how people can agree that “gun free zones” will lower the instance of gun-related crime. If you take a guns away, so what..they will just use whatever else is available. Japan is gun-free, so they just stab each other to death!

  • nota gain

    I seriously doubt if anything will ever be done with gun control in the US when those controlling the laws r the agents of those who sell the guns.

    • Jim Moron

      They’re also the representatives of Americans, about half of whom own firearms (and a sizeable portion of non-owners support 2A rights). That’s the problem for the anti- crowd…the electorate is the gun lobby.

  • DERPHERP

    “…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

×

Subscribe to our mailing list