Plain and simple.
Gun Control and regulations WORKED.!
Adam Lanza TRIED to buy a gun, but he didn't pass the background check....thus he was denied the right to buy a gun......
So what did he do, he went and  killed to steal guns:  from his own mother.
The standard argument:
Her owning guns made it easy for him to kill her and take her guns.
That means you are assuming that had she not owned guns, that he wouldn't have gone out and found them elsewhere? Â Big assumption. Â Because he was heck bent on going out and creating destruction, for whatever reason......
Had his mother not owned the guns, she may or may not be alive today, but I can assure you that he would have gone out and gotten guns somewhere very likely having killed another person to get them......
Now we have a (cough cough) administration that is using Sandy Hook as a smoke screen to take away from the real problems of this country. Â The economy, the spending, the new taxes, take focus off all the new fees of health care regulation, etc, etc....instead we have an idiot administration that is shoving gun control down the throats of law abiding citizens wanting to make it harder to own weapons, and when in reality they ignore the fact that gun regulations already work..
But that would go against the administration who wants a revolution, or a civil war, so martial law can be imposed, so a dictatorship can be installed, and 2016 elections will never happen. Â I've been saying this for over a year already, and some people will never wake up to see the sheep in wolf's clothing for what he is: Â the wolf.
I don't care what past administrations have done, I'm not talking about past administrations and their mistakes. Â I'm talking about current events, and how the current administration and its rippling effect is blatantly ignoring the constitution, as they have said 'its a misunderstood document" that can be made understood with executive orders. Â WRONG.
If the current administration was so hyped up about gun control why doesn't the administration use Chicago as an example?
Just in the summer months alone:
This summer has been a brutal one. Between the first of June and the 31st of August, 152 people were killed. Of those, 38 were teenagers. The deaths of Emonie Beasley-Brown, 3 weeks; Iyonna Davis, 1; and Heaven Sutton, 7, must be mentioned as well. We look at their lives now.
http://www.complex.com/city-guide/2012/09/rip-remembering-the-lives-of-every-teenager-killed-in-chicago-this-summer/
And while I can not find  statistics for  the entire year, it was expected  too surpase 2011......But if the administration is using Sandy Hook for an excuse as gun control, why not use Chicago as a reason, oh wait, they already are a gun free zone.  So criminals know no one can be armed.  Could that be the reason why crime and murders are out of control in Chicago?  Seems that the gun control laws already work
So why do we need more gun regulations, when its clear what is in place works. Â Seems to me that there should be less gun free zones and less restrictions so that citizens can stop a bad guy with a gun, and yes that means I am for teachers for being allowed to carry concealed weapons (by choice). Â Its a better alternative than a police state, because then it doesn't stop there. Â Because then the administration would feel 'obligated' to protect kids anywhere that they were, malls, parks, movie theaters, etc.....I can go on and on....
So quit with the gun regulation crap and focus on the real issues of the country...
Because the regulations work.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 39
Simple as that.
If a person wants to own an assault rifle they should be able to do so. These assault rifles have been used for protection in homes...simple as that.....
Following the second amendment logic, we should be freely able to own any armaments at all. Again, following that logic, there should be no restrictions on any citizen which would prevent anyone from owning any arms.
There is nothing at all in the second amendment which would preclude regulating gun ownership.
Machine guns and automatic rifles have been banned for the average person since the 1930s, and can only be owned after additional checks are passed and a big $1000+ fee is paid. The gun-banning politicians groups and media never bother to tell you that. They'd rather you believe that an "assault weapon" ban will ban machine guns. Because you are more likely to support it.
The current administration WANTS a rebellion to happen, that way the current administration can declare martial law and install a dictatorship and the US and the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are forever gone.
We won't have to worry about congress, because Congress will be just going through the motions, what the administration wants the administration will get, through executive orders.....
And Adam Lanza was DENIED the right to buy a rifle......more than one news outlet reported that.
We still don't need regulations....because what we have IS working.......if anything we need LESS.
Yes, I am pro right to bear arms. And I am Taking my stand, because I will NOT lose my freedoms without a fight.
I don't think he killed his mother to get her guns. He already had her guns before he killed her. She was shot to death with her own weapons, not chocked or knifed or poisoned.
Side note - having concealed carry for teachers simply means that teachers will be the first to be shot in future school massacres.
Why do we need more regulations, more big government, when what we have is already working.!
Depending on your reference source, there are between 14,000 and 23,000 gun laws in this country right now. Every state has laws making murder illegal. Some states even have different laws regarding killing someone with a gun and killing that same someone with a knife.
With all these laws -- people still kill other people.
And that’s the point that Cheryl and Susan are missing. The “bad guys” don’t care if there’s a law against it or not; they’re “bad guys” because they don’t obey the laws. You enact a law and the only people that will obey it are the “law-abiding” citizens -- the ones who will be hurt the most by these laws.
By the way, a lot of gun crimes are committed by people who were the good guys right up to the point that they pulled the trigger. Please don't throw law abiding people at me, I drive and there's damn few law abiding people on the roads of America. There is no reason at all to suppose that they would obey gun laws one bit better.
And Len you got the point.
They can regulate all they want, and it won't stop a bad guy with a gun no matter what he wants....he will still go out and do the crime.
I'm asking you to state your position on that topic. Do we need more gun control or not?
Yet one more point, even if you have semi automatic weapons, you will never be able to take on the government and win.
Not only will they be slaughtered, for the first time in my life I will take up arms supporting our government against these extremist outlaws.
I guarantee,
The administration does NOT WANT AN ARMED SOCIETY, so we must submit to them, and in the process the administration IGNORES the 2nd amendment of the constitution
While I agree with not letting the mentally unstable own guns, I also think that gun owners need to keep their guns secured so that unstable folks can't steal them.
I ask because when I was a child there was nothing my parents couldn't keep me out of. Most children are smarter than their parents.
The other day I was visiting my aunts and Grandma, and they were reminiscing about all the weapons Grandpa had, as a hunter. They were all accessible, but he did his duty as a Daddy and taught them never to touch them!!! Grandpa could have left a loaded riffle on the kitchen table, and the kids would have walked right by it. They knew they'd either hurt someone with it, or get hurt if Grandpa found out they'd even loomed at it twice!
I can't accept that story. First, it is putting too much responsibility into the hands of young children.
Second, if the guns were accessible, then they were accessible to the children's friends who came into the house.
Third, Hubby can only claim that he does not know of his kids ever getting their hands on the guns. They wouldn't have told him if they did.
When a parent tells a child not to do something, if the child was raised with respect, and well disciplined, th child didn't get into crap that was off limits. OF course you never knew my Grandpa, or my Dad, for that matter, but they were legendary in that department. And the kids friends? No way in Hell would they have been in my Grandparents house, or my husband's house for that matter, without ADULT SUPERVISION. Capitalized words aren't me yelling, just typing with emphasis.
Since not all families have the level of discipline generations of my family were raised with, certain precautions are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of children.
Please don't tell me about that being a lot of responsibility for children.
When I was a toddler I knew all kinds of things to keep me safe.
-Don't stick your finger in a wall socket.
-Don't play with matches (yeah, like I'd be able to find any!)
-Don't play with knives (knife drawer was locked!)
-Don't eat stuff in the medicine drawer (that was also locked!)
-Don't go near the stove
-Don't play with the sewing machine, curling iron, iron, or other things.
-Don't get into the cleaning supplies (on a high shelf)
-The riffle hanging next to the tanned wolf hide is not loaded, but if you see a gun you can reach, even a toy, DON'T GO NEAR IT!!!!
Yeah, my parents were strict beyond belief, in those areas, and we learned. I remember as a child going into some houses that had child locks, and wanting to know what they were for. When someone explained it to me I said (I was three years old at the time!!) "in my house Mommy and Daddy tell us to stay out of those cupboards, and we listen!" Dish soap was under the same sink where we had some art supplies. We knew we could play with the art supplies, but not the dish soap. This was just common sense that Mom and Dad taught us at an early age.
When I was a little girl the guns at Grandpa's house were never just lying around, but i knew they were there, and I also saw a box of ammo behind the stereo while I was looking for my favourite record. I asked him what it was, and he told me. When I knew it was "a box of bullets" I automatically knew to leave it alone.
If five children can be taught (myself, my sister and my cousins) and four children before us (my Dad and his sisters) then WHY is it to much responsbility for a child of today? A little PROPER DISCIPLINE goes a long way!
-struck your finger in a wall socket.
-played with matches
-played with knives
-ate stuff in the medicine drawer
-went near the stove
-played with the sewing machine, curling iron, iron, or other things.
-got into the cleaning supplies
-or went near guns.
I don't believe you. Obviously your parents weren't stupid, therefore they hit the matches, locked the knife drawer, and medicine drawer, put cleaning supplies on a high shelf, and didn't leave that rifle hanging next to the tanned wolf hide loaded. They knew you couldn't be trusted.
My point is, it is possible to have unsafe things in a very safe household. And no my cousins, sister and I never got into any of the stuff that I mentioned.
In California gun dealers must be licensed, and must require a background check of any person they sell a gun to.
However, a non dealer who owns a gun can sell that gun at any time without a background check being made. That is what's happening at NRA shows. The people selling the guns claim that they are merely selling their personal guns, and are not gun dealers. Therefore no waiting time, and no background check. No law being broken.
My own assortment of weapons all have factory installed smart features, so even if someone were to get a hold of them, which is highly inlikely they don't have the DNA coding necessary to discharge them.