April 19, 2018
Contributors Latest News | Poll Questions | Alex Gray | Bump Stocks | Ferry Fees

Comments for: The clamor for gun control

The renewed clamor for gun-control legislation was inevitable. It would have come to the forefront with or without the shocking school massacre at the Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Conn. That American tragedy simply played into the hands of longtime gun-control advocates and catapulted the issue to the… Read More
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News and the Bangor Publishing Co. encourage comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • While I agree with the majority of this piece, your second amendment definition needs some “re-learning”…..

    “As law-abiding sportsmen and recreational shooters, or simply as nonsporting citizens who cherish the constitutional right to bear arms for self-protection,…”

    That is not what the second amendment is all about! The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars ,it is not about a hunting party or a sport-clays club!

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny.

    • Mórrígan

      You must have missed the Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment is, indeed, an individual right and is linked to the basic right of every individual to life.
      You are also wrong about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was intended to eliminate the perceived threat of maintaining a standing army. The country had just seen how abusive that practice could become.

      • Tom Brown III

        I think that is what bill was saying. guarantee against disorder and tyranny seems to be what you are saying it is.

        • Mórrígan

          I went back a re-read the comment. You are right.
          My apologies to Bill.

      • Anonymous

        Read much?

  • Duane Hirini

    An assault weapons ban is not removing your second amendmant rights. Banning high capacity clips and closing the gun show loophole is also not removing your second amendment rights.
    What Americans should be asking is where do we want to be twenty or thirty years from now.

    • Duane Hirini

      OK now I can’t edit my post. Great one!

    • Anonymous

      Perhaps, but then you are freely exercising your 1st amendment right to question our 2nd amendment right! See how ironic that is?
      Perhaps you could explain how banning the future sale of ‘Spooky Guns’ (because let’s face it, that is all they are – spooky!) will effect future firearm violence, when FBI statistics clearly show that ‘Spooky Guns’ are used in less than 1% of firearm crime!
      And please explain, now that MILLIONS more high capacity “clips” are on the street thanks to the screeching coming from the Left, how will banning the future sale of them change anything?
      And please, PLEASE explain this ‘gun show loophole’ the misinformed keep talking about! I go to just about every gun show in the state, and not ONCE have I been able to purchase a firearm without going through a background (NICS) check!

      Are you referring to the private sale of personal property? What other sales of personal property do you want to regulate? You really want the Government regulating the sale of personal property? Really?

      I agree, American DO need to ask themselves where they want to be 20 or 30 years from now! Do we want to be free citizens, or do we want to relinquish the only thing that guarantees our freedom for some imaginary security and live a life the Government deems fit for us to live, as a subject!

      Duane, you have the freedom to voice your opinion because people with guns died for your right! Why are you so quick to throw it away? Even if it;’s just chipping away at it, bit by bit?

      Would you feel the same if people were calling for ‘reasonable restrictions’ on your freedom of speech? I think not! Oh sure, you an bring up the “shouting FIRE in a crowded theater” argument, but do you really want our Government decided the definition of ‘reasonable restriction’ and how it applies TO YOU?

      Yea, didn’t think so!

      Evil people will be here, with or without a gun ban! If you really want to make a difference, and I believe you do, start with them, not us!

    • Briney

      You said it – plain and simple. Unfortunately, few can see it. The have turned it into a “Leftist” assault on “their rights.” Radical right wingers are impossible, as we’re witnessing in Bubble City.

    • Tom Brown III

      gun show loop hole is a misnomer. Any FFL participating in a gunshow has to do NICS check for all their sales. Some gun shows allow private citizens to come and sell their private collections/rent booths. Though many shows have stopped this practice.

      The premise of private sales with no official background checks is valid. Many of people myself included, do conduct private sales, and do as much as we can to verify we aren’t selling to prohibited people but at the end of the day it is possible people lie and forge ID’s. Regulating private sale might be a reasonable step to help stem the flow of guns to prohibited people but more than likely not, it will more than likely create a larger black market for straw purchasers and unscrupulous gun owners and will only hinder sales conducted between generally law abiding people. The only real benefit of that I could see is to better cover private gun sellers from liability of selling to people who later commit crimes with those weapons.

      • You sound like a well informed and reasonable person willing to look at pros and cons of reasonable regulation and restrictions.

        • Tom Brown III

          I try to be.

        • Anonymous

          Then promote such that applies to the felons and crazies as you do know about Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 & the 5th amendment, you should read how 85% of current 22,417 gun control laws dont apply to felons & crazies!

          But since 95% of felons dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with, what exactly will having the private sales go through the NICS accomplish, really?

          Anyone here ever write a database used on the internet and such, I have. The BATF has the easy ability to “ghost” their data entry and response portions of the NICS to allow anonymous inquiries for private sales via the internet! Dont do the check, get in some trouble, do the check, put the blame back on the BATF who since 1994 has refused to prosecute more than 1% of the 1.83 mil felos & crazies rejected by the background check.

          Dont worry, the BATF has also fixed their inability to catch anyone using a fake id, uh wait, they havent fixed that at all, damn!

          You better get right on that!

  • Anonymous

    Well though out and written!

  • Anonymous

    But let’s not get so hung up on ‘gun control’ that we lose sight of the desirability of some sort on ‘media control’ to keep runaway coverage of mass killings from setting off the next nut. There’s more than one way to deal with the problem sociopaths pose and the First Amendment doesn’t give media editors the right to endanger children.

    • Anonymous

      So now we’re into 1st amendment rights that don’t happen to favor your point of view? Censorship in this day and age is not only illegal, but ineffective. Editors and reporters endangering children? Hyperbolic to the extreme.

      • Anonymous

        Why do you want children to die? Damnable First Amendment fanatics….

  • Anonymous

    Maybe we should become more like Israel. We could allow people to own
    only one gun and buy no more than 50 rounds of ammunition a year after
    they have undergone extensive training, a thorough background check,
    applied for a license that must be renewed every three years, and shown
    a need for a firearm. I agree that could solve many of our gun
    related issues in this country.

    • Anonymous

      You mean Israel whose violent crime rate in 2008 was 2,300 per 100k people? (FYI US violent crime rate in 2011 is 383.6 VCR per 100k people).

      http : // www1 . cbs . gov . il / www / statistical / crime08e . pdf

      • Anonymous

        Jarhead, the author of the piece suggest that we become a society like Israel that arms teachers. I was pointing out the lunacy of his statement. If we want to emulate Israel society we should go the full 9 don’t you think?

  • Mórrígan

    When this equation is reduced to its simplest terms, there are just two components: guns and bad people.

    We could phrase the debate as either ‘How do we keep guns out of the hands of bad people,’ or ‘How do we prevent bad people from having access to guns.

    Leftists seem to want to address only one side of the equation. And, then, their arguments become total nonsense when viewed from the practical position of how would this have prevented the most recent tragedies.

    One of my favorite BS discussions centers around the call to ban flash suppressors. Seriously, how does anyone expect their argument to be respected when the very premise would have zero real effect.

    And what significant difference would 10 round magazines make? None. A little bit more weight. Maybe need a few more pouches or pockets. But, in the fraction of a second that it takes to drop an empty magazine and insert a new one, no one within proximity is going to sprint to safety or disarm the shooter.

    Leftists, get serious. When you begin discussing how we might limit individual rights to freedom of movement or expression, we might begin to have a real conversation.

    Let’s talk about stripping doctors, clinic and social workers of their licenses for failure to report immediately any individual they observe with mental health issues. Let’s give police the authority to temporarily incarcerate anyone who does not appear to acting rationally. Let’s talk about an automatic ‘R’ or ‘X’ rating on movies that overtly display any form of shooting, or put a ban on games, rap or hip hop music that glorifies violence or misogyny.

    Until there is some balance in discussing both the gun and the bad people sides of the equation, we are going nowhere and just promoting more political polarization in the process.l

    • You actually start out with a reasonable premise, “We could phrase the debate as either ‘How do we keep guns out of the hands of bad people,’ or ‘How do we prevent bad people from having access to guns.

      You suggest “Let’s talk about stripping doctors, clinic and social workers of their licenses for failure to report immediately any individual they observe with mental health issues” Would this include any mental health issues including anyone with depression, anyone with eating disorders, anyone with suicidal thoughts, anyone with alsheimers? And if they did report all of these to whom would they report them? If to the police what would you then have the police do?

      You suggest giving the police authority to incarcerate anyone who does not appear to (be) acting rationally. Would this include sports fans screaming imprecaitons at coaches and officials at sporting events? How about the yahoo toting the M4 around portland this week? should they have the authority to lock him up.

      Regarging the restriction on media with excessive violence I agree with you.

      Now on the other side. you claim “And what significant difference would 10 round magazines make? None. A little bit more weight. Maybe need a few more pouches or pockets. But, in the fraction of a second that it takes to drop an empty magazine and insert a new one, no one within proximity is going to sprint to safety or disarm the shooter.”

      Well in fact it is reported by the eyewitness’ at Newtown that it was exactly that momentary pause in the gunman’s firing when he fouled the magchange that gave a group of the children the moment of opportunity to flee to safety. It is very possible that if he had access to only lower round magazines the death toll would have indeed been much lower.

      • Mórrígan

        Yours is the perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of Leftists. It’s too difficult and unconstitutional, perhaps, to address the human component, so let’s just concentrate on the inanimate object and a constitutional right that some folk just don’t happen to like.

        Like I wrote, we must address both sides of the equation. To me, it seems that the calculus is not 1(gun, magazine, ammo, etc.) X 1(bad people.) It is more like 2 X 10. Symbolic but meaningless changes to the gun component are not going to change the equation by much, if any.

        As far as fouling the “magchange,” that just shows unfamiliarity or lack of training on the weapon. Millions of American veterans would not be that clumsy.

        • Actually I am an old style conservative. It seems to me you have more in common with leftists like the Sandanistas etc. who were staunch advocates for their right to own weapons to overthrow what they saw as tyrannical government than I. Also the idea of having doctors etc reporting to the government on mental health issues, police having the authority to jail people who do not “appear to be acting rationally” have more in common with the old soviet and National Socialist regimes than any U.S. tradition.
          That being said lets look at the hypocrisy question. I in fact did not reject any of your suggestions I simply asked reasonable questions about how you would go about implementing those suggestions and the implications of those suggestions. Any real conservative would agree that when you make a suggestion you are responsible to think through the implications of that suggestion and how it would be carried out.
          I am not adverse to addressing both sides of the equation as you put it. In fact I stated my full agreement with one of your suggestions. You on the other hand have shown your true colors in your response when you dismiss the actual fact of the Newtown gunman’s fouling of the “magchange”. In the context of your dismissal of this fact with the comment that Millions of American veterans would not be that clumsy can only be logically interpreted as a suggestion that these highly trained veteran warriors are more likely to be perpetrators of these crimes than less well trained mentally imbalanced civilians.

          All in all your comment and response demonstrates that you are indeed not as you initially claim interested in adressing both sides of the equation rather you throw out several strategies that you have not yourself even thought through and then claim any questioning of these is a sign of leftist thinking.
          This is pathetic and unworthy of any thinking conservative.

          • Mórrígan

            See? Here is the discussion at an emotional impasse yet again.
            My suggestions were only straw men for discussion and were intended to be provocative. Your dismissal is proof of my premise that too many people only want to discuss one side of the equation.
            As far as your analogies to Sandanistas and soviet or socialist regimes, well, taking away guns from private ownership was one of the hallmarks of protecting their power while governing.
            Having written that, I want to make it clear that I don’t have any fear of a “tyrannical” government. There are, currently, about 8 guns for every 10 people in this country. A coordinated, physical seizure of those guns is just not possible. I doubt, also, that there are many legal gun owners who actually fear that.
            Thinking that reducing the ratio to 7.99999999999999 guns per 10 people is going to have any real effect to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook is as unrealistic as the tyranical government premise.

          • Anonymous

            You failed to show that magazine capacity had anything to do with him fumbling the mag exchange much less lower mag capacity would reduce killings, when you cant even show everyone how the police will reduce their response times to under 12 minutes consistently as lets be real, it is all about the time it takes to respond as that is when most of the killing occurs!

            200 rounds fired is about maximum for these nut jobs, and at 3 seconds a magazine change (pro’s can change in 1.4 seconds), explain to any sane person what 39 seconds difference in reload time (30 round vs 10 round) will do to reduce deaths when Lanza had almost 8 minutes of spare time to screw up and take his time killing!

            Thank God the media hasnt taught these psychos how a 12 ga is a more effective weapon yet!

      • Briney

        It was the “pause” – that brief “jam” in the weapon, or, attempt to reload a 12 or 20-round magazine, that did indeed help save some students and teachers.

        Sportsmen do not hunt or need 10 or 18-round magazines. An automatic or semi – automatic does not belong on any hunter’s rifle rack. A telescopic sight takes away the sport, too.

        The contributor and some of the comments made blame “Leftists” for opposing the use of 12-round magazines. Many of the those labeled “Lefties” and also “Righties,” know that you might stand a better chance dodging a single shot weapon than a machine gun.

        This column serves as a means to air right wing angst against a president who has stated time and again he has no intention of attempting to take away the right of a person to own firearms. He is however looking for some answers that may help curtail these wild shooting rampages carried out with semi-automatic weapons.

        • You are correct that such weapons do not belong on a hunter’s rifle rack. In Maine such weapons are illegal for hunting. If gun owners were simply subject to the long fun limitations that Maine hunter’s abide by it would resolve much of the discussion.

          • Tom Brown III

            semi automatic firearms are not illegal for hunting in maine. don’t know where you got that? upland bird guns are limited to a 3 round capacity and rifles to 6.

            I typically carry a marlin 336 .35 remington with 2 in the tube and 1 in chamber.

            A telescopic sight might in your opinion take away the sport, but it improves safety during target identification, it gives optically impaired shooters a fair opportunity, and it gives everyone a greater chance to make clean and humane 1 shot kills. Though classic iron/aperture sights can be precise a scope almost always will be more so.

            Also some of us don’t hunt for sport, some of us need that meat in our freezer and sometimes we only get one chance at doing so and having a firearm we can 100% trust to take game up to 500 yards is crucial.

          • Mórrígan

            I had a Marlin 336 in .35 Remington. Loved that gun although the muzzle flash at twilight would leave you seeing spots for a while.

            It and I parted company almost 50 years ago when I broke through some thin ice on a pond in Standish.

          • Tom Brown III

            glad to hear you didn’t go to the bottom with it. It is a great brush gun. The new LeverEvolution ammo seems to be loaded with a much better powder load hardly any excess flash. The Remington 200grn corelockts are notorious as loud and bright.

      • Anonymous

        So because the bad guy fumbled his reload, which didnt have anything to do with the quantity in the magazine, but everything to do with practice, that means a lower capacity magazine prevented what again? You have lost me on that illogical fantasy!

        Shall we review how magazine capacity doesn’t affect didley,
        yeah, lets.

        It will be looked at as a time study, we who set manufacturing processes up do lots of these studies to accurately predict labor
        , material usages, predictions and savings.

        Response times by the police range from 2 minutes at Aurora
        was due to them being lucky enough to be near, most times 10 to 12 minutes from first call.

        Adam Lanza tried to open a locked door, couldn’t, so he shot
        the glass out to gain entry upon which time the principal and another person came from the office and confronted Lanza who then killed them both. Total elapsed time, approx 1 minute.

        Then Lanza walked down the hallway to the bathroom 15 seconds and then the 1st kinder-garden classroom about 150 ft away, max time to do so, 25 seconds, where he killed most of the victims.

        Lanza then walked across the hall 25 ft away, max time 15

        Whereupon he killed the remaining victims.

        Professional shooter can change a magazine in 1.4 seconds,
        someone familiar with the weapon, which Adam was, can do so in 3.0 seconds.

        Since we know that he fired approx 79 rounds, using 30 round
        magazines, that is 3 magazine changes x 3.0 seconds = 9 seconds.

        Cyclic rate for the semi-auto rifle/pistol is 60 rounds per
        minute so 1 shot for every pull of the trigger per second = 79 seconds.

        Total times

        Office killing 1min=60secs
        Hallway walk to bathroom =15 seconds
        Hallway walk to 1st room = 25 seconds
        Hallway walk to 2nd room = 15 seconds
        Shootings =79 seconds
        Reloads = 9 seconds

        203 seconds total = 3.383 minutes

        Now if Lanza had been limited to 10 round magazines as antis
        claim would limit the ease of killing, at 3 seconds reloads, needs 8 magazines = 7 reloads x 3 seconds = 21 seconds.

        That is an additional 12 seconds to the total = 3.583 minutes total.

        Since the time from the first shooting to the time the police entered the building and approached the shooter was right at 12 minutes whereupon he shot himself, explain again how the 10 round magazines would have made a difference when there was 8.417 minutes of spare time for the shooter to screw up and take his time?

        Time is indeed the main factor here once a crazy has started their killing as the best response time for a phone call to report the shooting is around 2 minutes, and if the police officer is lucky and close by 2 minutes response. So explain again how many shots a crazy idiot can fire in 4 minutes? You see the numbers above, and no one has refuted the basic premise or simple math that proves it.

        So explain again to everyone how you can solve this 4 minute time gap in police response to an active shooter which again this best response time is based on LUCK?

        Reality is, limiting a shooter to 10 round magazines doesn’t
        prevent anyhting and you cant prove different!

        • Tom Brown III

          I am glad to see someone else posting logical pragmatic and mathematically relevant information so I don’t have to.

          However, you can explain this over and over to people and they just refuse to listen and acknowledge that magazine size is not nearly as relevant as they claim. Many people believe that magazine size actually has something to do with a weapons cyclic rate!

          I like to often point out that 150+ year old design lever and pump action weapons can be continually fed and fired. practicing simple tactical 1 for 1 reloading techniques a determined shooter can easily get off 50-100 rounds from an off the shelf “hunting/sporting” rifle or shotgun.

    • Anonymous

      From what I have seen, leftist have been clamoring to address both sides of the equation. They have been calling for more spending on health care in this country (including mental health) and advocating for common sense gun reform. However the right seems to not want either of these issues to be addressed. Why do you think that is? This leftist (and gun owner who believes that anyone should be able to hit their target with their first five shots) believes that the right has a fetish when it comes to guns and that if there were fewer mentally deranged people out there, it would translate into fewer votes for Republicans. I am assuming this is why we can’t have decent health care screenings in this country.

      • Tom Brown III

        “and gun owner who believes that anyone should be able to hit their target with their first five shots”

        the focus is too much on the micro-sense on these problems. Lets keep maniacs from being able to kill 30 people it is much better if they only kill 10 or 5. lets keep the lunatics from being able to kill anyone. Keep them away from society, better yet keep society from producing more lunatics.

        What happens when someone goes into a school with a 30-30 lever action or a 12 gauge pump? what if they have been shooting and using that gun since they were a child and can load and fire it quickly and accurately? Will we ban all repeating firearms? What if they use a break action side by side and kill 10 people with it? ban those too?

        Besides a muzzle loader most firearms produced in the last 150 years use self contained cartridges and can be loaded and fired repetitively at a brisk pace by an experienced user with deadly effect.

        Most murders in this country involving firearms are committed with handguns. However, conversely most cases of self defense handguns are primarily used.

        • Anonymous

          Muzzles loaders, eithr rifles or muskets, could be reloaded, even with cartridges, only 2-3 times per minute and were therefore of decreasing effectiveness at close range. Therefore, soldiers switched to bayonets as the range closed. It’s estimated that 90% of the casualties in the Revolutionary War were from bayonets.

          • Tom Brown III

            but we don’t use bayonets or horses anymore.

    • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

      “When you begin discussing how we might limit individual rights to freedom of movement or expression, we might begin to have a real conversation.”

      Help me out here. So are you advocating that all other rights protected by law be thrown out the window?

      “Let’s give police the authority to temporarily incarcerate anyone who does not appear to acting rationally.”

      No chance of this type of power being abused, is there?!

      • Mórrígan

        More Leftist hypocrisy.

        You can’t pick and choose which constitutional rights to discard or ignore.

        • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

          Now I’m really lost, because you are advocating to “choose which constitutional rights to discard or ignore”. Did you read your post before you submitted it? You stated, in a stand alone sentence “When you begin discussing how we might limit individual rights to freedom of movement or expression, we might begin to have a real conversation”.

          • Mórrígan

            Your comment appeared to defend a continued attack on guns and gun ownership while defending the status quo on other rights.

          • Tom Brown III

            are you drinking this early in the morning? seems like you aren’t reading anyone’s posts and just looking for a forum fight!

          • WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot

            No, absolutely not. After reading some of your other posts, my guess is that we’re pretty much on the same page.

          • Mórrígan

            Thanks for taking the time to review some of my other comments.
            Sometimes I just can’t seem to get my points clear enough to convey my true meaning.

    • Briney

      People who embrace Left Wing policies – Democrats and Independents – also hunt, shoot, and collect guns. So why attack “Leftists” as if they’re totally one hundred percent opposed to gun ownership? Many Republicans are as much appalled by mass slaughter as any average American is, and are trying to understand these nightmares, and work together in an attempt to find ways to prevent further tragedies.

    • I’m all for trying to keep minors away from gratuitous violence in shows and games (though parents will always make more difference than ratings), though banning entertainment choices of adults is as worthy of the same amount of respect as the banning of flash suppressors. :

      • ObamazSon

        I am not proposing a ban. I think it would be helpful if we made it more difficult for minors to see, hear or participate in carnage.

        The ‘X’ or ‘R’ ratings might limit cable channels’ lineups, but we need to seriously consider the possible desensitizing to violence when children can view “Pulp Fiction” on a Saturday afternoon.

  • Anonymous

    The author talks about a freedom loving society yet fails to mention that we routinely accept limitations on our freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search & seizure and right to privacy. Are these freedoms not just as important, perhaps even more so? Further, I have yet to see anyone advocating against *responsible* gun ownership yet I see many railing that “no one’s gonna take my guns”. When a person refuses to allow any discussion on the safety of our children to include even the remotest reference to gun control then their priorities are very clear, gun ownership trumps a child’s safety, and that says a lot about them as a person.

    • Tom Brown III

      My children will be safe in my home just like I was and my father before me. It isn’t my responsibility as a motorist to teach your child the danger or crossing the street or driving a car, it isn’t my responsibility in anyway to ensure you child is safe. Why is it then my responsibility as a gun owner to protect your child from firearms? If you have guns in your home it is your responsibility. If you are afraid of guns and choose not to keep them in your home it is no different if you don’t drive a car you still need to provide some education about safety to your child. The berated and hated evil NRA has actually spent millions of dollars on the Eddie the Eagle children’s gun safety campaign and have distributed information to thousands of schools and children’s program to provide basic information about how to avoid dangerous situations with guns.

      If you think any sort of gun bans especially “assault weapons” bans will keep children safer, you aren’t using logic. I know the typical response to this is “well we aren’t talking about firearms accidents in the home we are talking about mass murders on shooting rampages with AR15s”. Well statistically about 50% of the homicides result in the U.S. are committed with firearms bout about 75% of those are commited with handguns. “assault weapons” are used in less than 1% of murders in this country, including mass shooting tragedies. Even if somehow you could withdraw all these weapons from the system legally and illegally owned, it would not significantly impact the actual statistics of firearms related homicides. That is even if you could get them ALL withdrawn, in actuality under grandfather laws and blatant illegal ownership there will still be many out there under any kind of ban.

      From a merely pragmatic and rhetorical standpoint the anti-gunners are focused on the wrong symptom, handguns still are overwhelmingly used in commissions of crime and besides limiting magazine size (which will do absolutely nothing) there is 0 take about handguns. This is because it is easy to demonize something misunderstood like the AR15.

  • Last July James Holmes burst into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and opened fire, killing 12 people and wounding 58. We was dressed in full-body armor and armed with legally-purchased weapons. Dudley Brown, the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which advocates for firearms owners’ rights, had THIS to say: “We’re different than other cultures. We DO allow Americans to possess the accoutrements that our military generally has.”

    “Accoutrements.” What a pleasant way of describing the weapons and ammunition and body armor that James Holmes had accumulated over a period of a few months.

    Doesn’t ANYONE find this just a bit disturbing?

    Someone who wants to own a handgun for the protection of himself, his family and property, and/or a rifle to go hunting with, who is also willing to go through reasonable background checks and registration requirements? THAT’S what I would call a responsible gun owner.

    But to suggest that the Second Amendment guarantees that anyone can have an arsenal, stocked with as many guns as he wants, of any type of gun and ammunition that he wants, just because it’s his HOBBY? That’s just nuts.

    All I can conclude is, if this is the way it’s always going to be, we should simply dispense with the hand-wringing when the next massacre takes place. James Holmes did not have a criminal record before he opened fire on a crowded theater. He went about accumulating his weapons and “accoutrements” in a perfectly legal manner. We might as well get used to this sort of thing, because obviously no one has the guts to stand up to the NRA.

    • Tom Brown III

      he did have a history of mental illness. but do to 4th amendment protections and HIPPA and current practices of direct/imminent threats of criminal or harmful behavior to themselves or others, health care providers are not required/can’t report people like james holmes. So before you suggest stripping 90 million people of their rights en masse how about we look at proactively stripping individuals on a case by case basis of rights?

      The Second Amendment is not a guarantee of anything, it is an affirmation of an inherent human right. We all have a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness, which includes the ability and duty to protect any of those rights, so long as we do not infringe on another’s life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

      I see a lot of people saying the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or home defense but instead it is a deterrent for the abuse of central power and rise of tyranny. I think a case can be made it is for all of those. Self determination and self defense go hand in hand. Being able to put food on the table, keeping others from stealing that food, and the government from taking the table are all part of the big picture. I am sure you disagree and will have some diatribe about how “well you don’t need an AR15 to do that” to which I respond: need is subjective and relative. Even maslow’s hierarchy can be subjective and interpreted.

    • Anonymous

      He wasnt wearing body armour he was wearing a tactical vest, so please refrain from posting that incorrect claim again!

      Then again since he was seeing a pscyhiatrist & was under review of the Risk Board at CU, explain again why they didnt notify auhtorities of his pscyhotic behaviour before as that has absolutely NNNNOOOOO bearing on what occured eh?

      Oh registration, lol, like Canada’s where it has cost their tax payers over $2 bil since 1997 and climbing, 52% compliance, 47 guns traced as stolen, and not one single violent crime solved, and their long gun portion repealed as of summer 2012.

      Dont forget you would have to repeal the 5th amendment for the registration to actually apply to felons and crazies, something about that no self incrimination thingy!

      • Anonymous

        Look the 2nd Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That includes the right for the criminally insane. It doesn’t matter what his mental state is, the 2nd protects his right to have whatever armament he wants. Unless of course we acknowledge there are limits to the 2nd Amendment and things like weapon type and magazine size and the ability to own a firearm can be restricted in a sane society.

    • ObamazSon

      If you would like to use lessons from Colorado, look up the shootings at New Life Church in Colorado Springs that occurred a few years ago.

      Just as one of the morning services was letting out (church membership was around 10,000, as I recall) a well-armed punk with a gun and hatred of Christians began shooting in the parking lot and then came in through the main doors.

      Several people were shot and two teenaged sisters were killed as worshippers screamed and scattered.

      One of the parishoners, a woman with a concealed carry permit and with permission from the church to carry while she was attending servfices, shot and killed the gunman within just a few seconds after he had entered the church.

      (p.s. note: The gunman’s arms included a Bushmaster XM-15; an AK-47 assault rifle; a Beretta .40 cal. semi-automatic handgun; a Beretta .22 cal. handgun; and a Springfield Armory 9mm semi-automatic handgun; and thousands of rounds of ammo. He was shooting the Bushmaster when he came through the doors. The woman who stopped him had a 9mm Beretta.)

      • Anonymous

        There was a concealed carry man in the theatre that was shot up in Colorado too. Really seemed to have save lives there (do not pick and choose stories, because there is always one out there to refute yours). Jared Laughtner in Arizona was legal able to carry a concealed weapon. So far there have been 14 officers shot by concealed carry holders, 435 citizens killed, and 23 mass shootings by people legal permitted to carry concealed weapons.

    • Eric Jackson


      His mental illness should be enough to disqualify him from buying guns. We need better “mentally ill people control” if we want to curb these violent acts. He was a danger to society regardless of what weapon he had. Read up on the mentally ill folks in China who have decided attacking school children with knives is the way to go. And if he had possessed actual military grade “accoutrements” as you profess his rifle would not have jammed. The civilian versions of military weapons may look the same but they are not the same quality. We will be safer as a society by controlling and treating mentally ill people rather than more legal restrictions on the rights of law abiding people.

  • Anonymous

    First of all, the mainstream media did nothing but bungle the newtown tragedy from the first minute. If you want to believe the mainstream medias account of the shooting then you must be very very confused. Because the number of discrepancies is amazing. Amazing. No one should trust the mainstream media version. No one.
    YouTube Robbie Parker interview, supposed parent. Or the medical examiner.

    Question everything. Things simply don’t add up….

    • Anonymous

      The reporting changed, as it should have, as the facts emerged from the chaos. Did you have access to any (reputable) media source that did any better as the tragedy unfolded?

      • Anonymous

        I watched the news cycle unfold all day long during sandy hook. It’s a little bit more than ” the reporting changed” actually facts were changing left and right!! ( where is that second shooter caught in the woods?)
        You work for GE? Murdoch? Disney? ( our “news” sources)
        You re way off man. We are talking about major discrepancies. Not a wrong name.
        You mean to tell me in this day and age when something like this happens you just believe what you’re told? Really?

        I could list a number of serious red flags, discrepancies and out right weirdness. But it seems you should do your own research. That is, if you care about the truth, freedom and liberty.

        Actually, here’s one very strange incident. YouTube supposed parent robbie Parker’s press conference—-or, the medical examiner press conference.

        It’s not any fun for me to bring this up.it makes me sick really. But I’m sorry, im a critical thinker and I call bs when I see it.

      • Anonymous

        I’ll make it easy for you. This is one of many sites. I don’t agree with the theories about who what and why, but there are way too many inconsistencies, way too many….and absolutely NO real reporting. None.


      • Anonymous

        Sorry for the number of posts. But this info nedpeds to be out and read by all!

        How does samdy hook student emilie Parker, who was killed, end up with Obama?

        How does a murderd principal make a statement regarding the shooting?

        It appears the Newtown Bee has pulled their story directly quoting principal Dawn Hochsprung after the attack. (She was later reported as one of the first who was murdered.) Here is a link to a screen capture of that article for anyone interested in saving it:

        [link to imageshack.us]
        Alive and well.

        “Sandy Hook School Principal Dawn Hochsprung told The Bee that a masked man entered the school with a rifle and started shooting multiple shows – more than she could count – that went “on and on.”

        [link to http://www.dailymail.co.uk]

        One of the first murdered.

        “An open intercom broadcast the murder of school principal Dawn Hochsprung, 47, to terrified students at Sandy Hook Elementary School providing teachers and students with vital time to run and hide.”

        The article originally ran at this web address:
        [link to newtownbee.com]

  • Briney

    I skipped the rest when the contributor cited Bill O’Reilly.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, ok. But, let us all guess, you “take your news” from NPR, CNN,or Amy goodman! right?

    • Anonymous

      Me too. But I did read the rest with that in mind.

  • Anonymous

    This is good stuff.,well worth it.

    Hollywood celebrities calling for gun control, yet they make millions peddling violence!!


    Pass it on….yeah, Alex jones, but that doesn’t detract from the message.

    • Tom Brown III

      haha yeh alex jones make money of peddling conspiracy fears. I found it very ironic that the “demand-a-plan” message was riff with actors like Jeremy Reiner, star of hyper violent action thrillers, like SWAT, Bourne Legacy, The Avengers, etc. #hollywood-hypocrisy.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, it’s a joke… An evil one….

  • Tedlick Badkey

    “Can anyone really argue convincingly that responsible gun ownership has no place in the America that must live in the shadow of neighborhood nightmares like Sandy Hook or Columbine?”


    • “Can anyone really argue convincingly that the dude parading around Portland this week with his loaded M4 on public display claiming he was not trying to make a statement is an example of responsible gun ownership?”


      • Tedlick Badkey

        No different than the guy riding his bike up my road with his rifle across his back… when pulled over by the cops because someone called, the incident ended with him showing his weapon to the cops, them approving, and sending him on his way.
        I do not fear guns… I fear lunatics. Gun laws do not keep guns away from lunatics.

  • The clamor for gun control or the clamor for guns people don’t need – which is worse for the country? Neither is helping, that’s for certain.

    • Anonymous

      The clamour of the primal need of the sadomasochists telling others what they need or dont need based on lies is only helping to further the violence and that is a guaranteed fact!.

  • Newcitizen

    The real issue is that our overzealous protection of the second amendment has lead to an overzealous use of the fourth amendment, which in turn keeps America from being what it can.

    Because of the fanatic view of freedom to include “self protection”, America has tied the hands of their law enforcement and military to the point it cannot protect its citizens. Unreasonably restrictive rules for search, seizure and detention make it nearly impossible for police to do their work. They lack the use of enhanced techniques for extracting information from suspects, other undesirables and obsolete persons. The outrageous Posse Act keeps the military from protecting against “enemies domestic”. Until people adequately fear criminals, they will never give government the tools to protect them and make them truly free.

    Even worse, this “freedom freak gun mentality” is the same that capitalist/individualist philosophy that bawks at paying their fair 50-60% share of income as taxes to support those less fortunate or able. Until we get past the 2nd and 4th amendments, I fear America will never model itself after peaceful and sustainable nations, taking the proper place in the world community.

  • Anonymous

    After the Newtown butchery Mayor Bloomberg demanded “immediate action” and immediate action was taken by tens of thousands of Americans—gun shows were thronged and thousands of guns were bought. The “assault rifles” have flown off the racks. In brief, gun ownership spiked and the immediate effect of calls for “sensible gun control laws” has been an increase in gun ownership. Assuming these “sensible laws” are passed it’s doubtful they will ever counteract the immediate action already taken by private citizens.

You may also like