THEY SHOULD NOT SPEAK OUT AGAINST "ANY" GUN CONTROL BUT SHOULD SUPPORT LIMITING ASSAULT WEAPONS....I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD WANT LESS VIOLENCE THAN MORE VIOLENCE. OUR FOREFATHERS, WRITERS OF THE CONSTITUTION, DID NOT ENVISION MORE THAN A MUSKET AT BEST!!!!!

Betty, it seems you have a lot of violence in your blog. All CAPS?? I believe our forefathers wanted us to have what ever the government had and for the government not to be able to rein over the people. They were not stupid people. This country is going downhill because of the government with all the laws and regulations they are putting on the citizens. This would be just one more step towards the country's freedom cliff.

If Law Enforcement can voice support for Gun Control then Others that supports the 2nd Amendment Pro Gun can damn well voice their's

How many of those officers were killed or injured by the guns the gun grabbers in DC want to ban? I really don't know, but my guess is ZERO.

And how many of those officers were killed or wounded by guns that were legally obtained? Criminals don't really follow laws; that's what makes them criminals. In the meantime, did you read the story in the Marietta Daily Journal about the wheelchair-bound veteran in Athens whose door was kicked in by an intruder? He grabbed the gun from his nightstand and pointed it at the lowlife, who ran away. I wonder what the outcome would have been if he hadn't been armed?

The police have the automatic rifles and big clips, just like the criminals now. And they are not worried about the people with these types of guns and clips, they worry about the crazy person or criminals that have them. Speaking about the size of clips, sure they are not needed to go hunting, they are needed to deter future signs of the government trying to take more of our rights or to defend our loved ones and property from bad people that are threatening to take over. If people know you have weapons in your possession, they may think twice before coming after you.

I think we should speak out against the Presidents gun proposals. People will get as many guns and amo as they can no matter what they do. you can kill with knives are they going to take away all knives?

In history in general have the outlaws always had guns to shoot???? Yes!!!!!!!!! So as far as gun control the bad guys will always have ways of finding and using guns. Us as citizens have been protected by the 2nd ammendment and our right to bear arms, I can gurantee if you had a home invasion and no way to protect yourself the tables may be turned on your stance on this issue.

It's not too broad. It's to the point. As for the officers at a disadvantage, that's only with crooks that intend to break the law. 90% of us are no threat to the law. We would stop and help an officer in a heartbeat. And they know it. We're the law abiding people.(The people the constitution was written for) The crooks could care less about what it says) This gun control will NEVER take guns away from crooks. They will always have guns that will be a danger to our officers and to us. The officers wounded and killed in Ga were killed by lawless people that have no regard for human life and had no business having a gun. And that won't change by taking guns from law abiding people that have them. Crooks don't buy their guns legally like we do. There is no way to stop them from getting guns-all types. The 2nd amendment is to protect us from the lawless murderers, rapist, kidnappers, etc. What we should be doing is supporting our officers with more and better bullet proof vest and even bullet proof pants.(lightweight material) And headgear. They should be protected every way possible.

why is everyone so interested in protecting an agency that the supreme court has deemed has not duty to protect the citizens. It is everyones duty to protect themselves. Not the governments. Also if a statute is passed and is not in accordance with the Constitution we as law abiding citizens are to ignore it and only back the law of the land which is the constitution. Not Statutes. People are confused over what politicians are calling law.

You are saying that Police and Sherffs do not have a 1st Amendment Protection but Mayors Governor and Elected Officials has that Freedom of Speech Right.The Police should have the Right too.Just as you said that many are Anti-2ND Amendment,there are many out there in the Front Lines that are Pro-2nd Amendment.From what i get you are saying just the Anti-2nd Amendment Police and Sheriffs should be allowed to Voice their Opinion,to that i say you are a hypocrite of the worst kind that if someones opinion don't match yours ,then they are wrong.BULL

Well said every word is truth. I have always been amazed at how the founding fathers knew what might happen if the ammendments weren't precisely on target. The constitution should be defended by every American including Sherriffs. if i were Sherrif I would feel better knowing there were so many Good Ameriacans with guns. i think everone should be schooled on guns, gun violence, safety and laws about them.

Obama Executive order count: 138
Bush Executive order count: 291
Clinton Executive order count: 364
Bush Sr. Executive order count: 166
Reagan Executive order count: 381

What exactly do you fear? Reagan issued 3 times as many.

Paulding County Resident and Parent:I believe in the Constitution as a Whole ,not just certain Parts.A lot of Newspapers will use the Freedom of the Press to get their way,but some of them are the 1st to be Anti-2nd Amendment .I believe the above comment to wrote was right on the money.Good Job!

Hate to break your heart but County Sheriffs in Georgia answer to the Governor Georgia, not the federal Government or Obama. Fact not fiction.

County Sheriff's are elected in Georgia and if the people in the county are unhappy with him, they can do just that. I suggest that they won't.

Oh so wrong Jeff! You need to take a paralegal course and understand the US Constitution. Read about how the Fed's are taking over Sheriff Joe Arapio in Arizona! The federal government can have supreme jurisdiction over any state or county

Thank you Jeff,,, Thank you!!

I agree 100%!

Jeff S.:Amen Brother

It's that "including law enforcement from using their judgement (sic) prior to Judicial review" that causes problems. How do you think we ended up with Miranda?

This ultimately will go back to the Supreme Court again. Hopefully, they will revisit the tragic Heller decision which gutted the Second Amendment of its intent. The shame is that the vast majority of the "Second Amendment" group has no idea what it says other than "the right to keep and bear arms" nor its judicial decisions which have left us in this mess.

Sherriff's need to support the constitution and the laws, etc they were elected to uphold. They also need to support other federal law enforcement agencies which were sworn to uphold the remaining laws.

Lowell ;Good Job!

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

-Scalia. DC v Heller.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

I guess any law that limits that is not an infringement.

The second amendment reads : "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. " How quickly everyone forgets the first part of this statement "A well regulated Militia"

Jan, people don't care why the 2nd Amendment was written. They just think their guns are going to be taken away.

Jan, you do realize that the militia isn't the National Guard?

According to Title 10, Section 21 of the U.S. legal code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311), the militia consists of the following:

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So the militia consists of all able-bodied males age 17-45 who are citizens and anyone in the National Guard. This appears to imply that the Founders (and other elected officials beyond the Founders) believed it was the responsibility of most adult males to be armed and ready to defend their communities, whether or not these citizens are formally trained by the National Guard or a military organization.

I'm actually hoping for an F-16 for Christmas. I mean, hey... if Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood can have them, why not me? Now, Pam J... can you define an "assault weapon".. please and thanks?

An assault weapon is like a rifle but with the ability to shoot more bullets in a quick amount of time. If you have a gun with six bullets in it, I guess you have to cock it everytime you want shoot, although there are guns where you don't have to. Boom, boom, boom....An assault weapon has the clips where you can just shoot one bullet after another, quickly. Apparently, whatever Adam Lanza had was capable of a lot of shots because he was able to shoot 20 children, multiple times, very quickly. Same with the joker guy in Colorado. Lots of shots, real fast. The normal homeowner probably does not need that type of gun. And if you do, why? Just because you think the 2nd Amendment says you can?

The normal public cannot have automatic guns legally they have to be semi-automatic. Guns do not kill.

I believe we should be able to have any kind of weapon the the government has. Why should they be the only ones to have them. Remember, it was the government that committed mass murder ( Kent State, & several others) and we did not hear take the guns away from them and limit what they should use. That is why I think we should have anything they have.

BTW Pam D, good point on the F-16.

PamD and Greg. You can believe that all you want, but it's incorrect.

(http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html)
The constitution lays out quite a few rules on the operation of the government, laws, and rights. Where Article III was ruled (Mabry v. Madison) to give the Supreme Court the judicial review and interpretation of the constitution.

The legislative passes laws, the executive enforces, the judicial reviews.
The legislative says you can't have those weapons. The president signs, and it's the law. If the authorities arrest you, take it to the judicial. If they agree that it violates your constitutional rights, then the law is overruled. That's is what the Founding Fathers wrote. No American should pick and choose which parts we want to live by.

The Supreme Court and several lower courts have ruled that legislative limitations and executive restrictions to "unusual" weapons do not violate your rights. The whole process is working, just like the Founding Fathers intended.

The kids that were killed with a hand gun not a simi-automatic weapon. The guy had an assault weapon in his car, but only used hand guns. Check your facts before you spout off.

The "reports" said he was trying to hide the rifle under his coat when he was trying to get in the door.

Paul,
It was a shotgun in the car. AR-15 and 2 pistols in the school. Models are in the governors report.
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284

The Newtown Conspiracy makes no sense on top of being vile.

Pam, Not everybody- just law abiding people. Law abiding people won't shoot other people with it. Just the lawless crooks will do that and they are going to have those guns regardless of gun control We will then be helpless against them. Something is not right or fair with this picture. What do you think??

I rarely hear where a criminal uses a AK-47 or AR-15 to shoot cops. Usually they have a handgun. They don't go out and pick fights with cops. Only the mentally disturbed and deranged make plans to go out and kill innocent people. We need guns in schools with someone responsible who knows what to do.

Debra, even law-abiding citizens snap and shoot people. More than likely, a lot of the people who shoot other people had not commited any other crime in their life. Go out and buy your AK-47 if it makes you feel safer. But you also don't hear about a lot of break-ins where the bad guy has an assault weapon. If it makes you feel better to shoot the home invader 100 times, go right ahead. And Greg, I think it's just scary that we want armed guards in our schools. In order to be effective, they would have to be posted at the door. So, everyday when your first-grader walks into the school, he/she will see the man/woman with the gun standing there. Great.

Amen brother ! ! ! !

Good Lord, of course people are killed with other things. But there is no amendment about knives, hammers or poison. Or being hit with a big fish or frying pan. This is about the 2nd Amendment and everybody's belief that everybody should be able to arm themselves in case we are invaded by another country. Gosh, we've got to be able to kill those 30 people trying to break into our houses.

Hammers? Fox really said that? lol

Who was President in 1994? What party was in control of Congress? Just asking...

I believe that Bill Clinton was President and I think that the Republicans controlled the Congress (not sure about that one). Your point?

Richard, so you claim to be a civil rights activist. You speak like a hater of our country and hate the law. I hope the people that listen to your speeches do not fall for your loose words. You group people and to you it makes them all alike. Sure there's a few bad Sheriff's but not all of them, but you bad mouth them all. Put them all in one group. It is my belief that you just want to stir up hate and anger in large masses of people. You want them to hate the whole group, not just the one that was wrong. Something is causing you to carry alot of hate in your heart. And you're trying to pass this hate to as many people as you can. Your words have no logic. I think you're out of your level of education on the subject of gun control and the law. For whatever your reason is, you are misleading people on purpose.

Perhaps the Sheriffs are following President Obama's example of what laws to enforce. Here is one, for example.

Washington (CNN) – President Barack Obama says that federal law enforcement agencies have "bigger fish to fry" than prosecuting marijuana users in Colorado and Washington, which voted in November to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

I do, but it doesn't matter. Nobody cares. Just like with all of the other amendments, they get skewed to fit the situation.

The Sheriffs are certainly within their right to say whatever crazy nonsense they can come up with. They are NOT within their rights to enforce the law based on their interpretation of the constitution. Articles 2 and 3 spell out the difference. Article 5 says who has supremacy. Please read the constitution- the whole thing.

As far as the rest of your comments. Bqhatevwr.

Wrong Carl....the overwhelming majority of law enforcement agencies and associations are in favor of more gun control, such as the President is proposing, as are the majority of Americans.
The merchants of death, the NRA, and those who are in their pocket, of course do not want you to know that and will do everything to deny this.

Thank you Brett...you prove the point that we can rely on professional law enforcement to protect us and do not need the personal firepower (assault rifles, etc) that we are seeking to ban.
The "tyranny of gun grabbers" is a fantasy concocted by the NRA, the merchants of death, and by those who are in their pockets or believe their nonsense.

I'm guessing you don't see the irony in you lecturing people about history...& particularly the history of this topic.

The Bill of Rights and the amendments contained therein were written when the country was a heck of a lot different than it is now. Because of new problems, laws are being written about all kinds of things. So I think it stands to reason that some of the amendments may need to be seriously tweeked to fit modern times. Because I don't think that what is available now in firearms is exactly what our forefathers envisioned. But if those pesky British people invade us again, I guess we can shoot them with assault weapons and take them all out at one time.

Quoting New World Order Truthers now? Precious.

As far as the slippery slope nonsense, the Supreme Court set a floor on gun control. The constitution has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to mean that we have the right to own handguns, shotguns, and rifles. How will this oppressive truther ban come to pass?

The author does not matter--the statement stands. I just didn't want to pass someone else's words as my own. Nice try though...thanks for playing.

The Supreme Court ruled for the 2A right to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns, so the statement stands only as semantic garbage, as relevant to real life and US Law as "The Hunger Games".

Richard Pellegrino, No, they are not just neighbors. They are also my family members. As for guns in your home making you more safer there is so many reports you couldn't read them all in a years time. Having a gun at home saves your life and your family members lives. You are so wrong in your thoughts. You have NO correct facts all at. And there is plenty facts and research to prove we need our guns to protect ourselves. Sadly it is a ""fact"" of life.

Hi Debra...I respect your belief but it is just a belief and if that makes you feel safer go ahead...just make sure you get trained in their use, lock them up and take every safety precaution you can because the statistics show that guns in your home or car are used against their owners, or are stolen and used to commit crimes, or are the cause of fatal accidents, way more than they are ever used to prevent an attack. (The plenty of facts and studies you say you have I bet are NRA propaganda circulated on the internet and have no substantiation whatsoever.)
Thankfully, the CDC and other agencies are now authorized by the President to resume studying the real effects of guns.
I have lived in countries without guns and they were way more peaceful and safe. I have lived in every environment possible in this country, including rural and urban ghetto, and as a civil rights activist I get death threats, and I have never felt the need for a weapon to protect myself or my family. I think we have all created boogey-men in our minds, and the unscrupulous gun lobby, NRA, and politicians in their pockets, have perpetuated these false fears. I choose to live unarmed and unafraid.

Richard, it is people like you that are running this country into the ground thinking the government and the majority of the people should dictate what others can do. The majority of people want security, not freedom because they are too lazy to take care of themselves.

Amen to that!

Then leave Charles, go find somewhere to live that is better than what you have here.

The constitution is an operating agreement, so it wouldn't get so specific, but it does say that new laws can be made in the very first section after the preamble.

Article. I. Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

From what I've read, most states don't even input data into the background check system, so it is broken. If the states are that afraid of federal encroachment, maybe they could team up like in Powerball and have regional background check systems.

I had read that about 40% of the guns sold do not go thru background checks... IE: gun shows, and personal sales. There is certainly room for improvement there.

Where did you get the misconception that anyone has to "meet in the middle" when it comes to their guaranteed Constitutional Rights. Those rights are firm and have been in place for a long time. I am unwilling to relinquish any rights (or pieces of them) just because there are angry and emotional folks running around and ranting that I must. No sir. This plight to overcome the law and take away the rights of others is "yours" to overcome...not mine to concede. Again, if the "majority of Americans" wand to amend the 2nd, let them follow the law and not overlook it by asking anyone to "meet in the middle."

Mr. Pellegrino is right, of course.

I think most extreme pro-gun people have little clue what the constitution says, much less what it means. You don't need an amendment to make a law, never have.

Universal background checks should happen. States should do a better job sharing info for people who should not have access to guns.

Of course you don't need an amendment to make a law, but you may need an amendment to make a law constitutional. Conversely, laws can be voided by judicial review, finding they are in violation of existing constitutional principles. Where the line is can change in either direction over time. Every new law can be called into question against the Constitution. Some are obviously OK and some are not. That's why we have a court. I think the point here is if the advocates of much stricter control are so sure they are in the majority, then let them take their case to the people in the form of a clarifying amendment and put the question to rest. Smugly contorting the meaning of the Constitution only breeds contempt for the institutions involved in doing so. Glibly claiming that the Constitution means anything that the Supreme Court says it does, regardless of common sense, is just spoiling for a fight in the legislature and in enforcement.

Thanks Curtis but that is not a middle of the road solution as apparently most Americans believe that more guns is not the solution, so that would be an extremist position. And there is no conclusive proof of how many people actually obeyed the Kennesaw ordinance, or exempted themselves based on their "beliefs", or that it really had any effect on crime. (See ^ Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-472-03162-7. "...a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduce crime."
^ Squires, Peter (2000). Gun culture or gun control?: firearms, violence and society. New York: Routledge. p. 82. ISBN 0-415-17087-7. "Later research, however, found no reduction in Kennesaw burglary rates [but not other violent crime] when the figures were re-examined over a longer time period." It appears that the only research which supports the ordinance is that performed by the NRA and other gun advocates--hardly independent.)
So again, what I am searching for is middle ground, between an all out gun ban or gun grab (as it appears many of you believe is coming, but is not likely) and the status quo (which is also not likely).
One statement we use in community activism sometimes is "if you don't come to the table then you are on the menu" so I think it makes sense to come to the table, not stay in our entrenched camps, and work out a compromise (which is really what democracy is all about).

OK, Richard. As a "community [and] civil rights activist activist", lets talk about how you would compromise on some other amendments. Let's start with the First. Surely you'd be willing to have the government administer a test of basic religious doctrine as a prerequisite to, say, vote? You know, not require that you actually profess any belief, but have heard the major sides. [State religion worked for Connecticut until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833. In fact the MA Constitution provided that "... the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require,...public worship of God..." until after 1947. Or, perhaps you would start with an office that doles out licenses for publishing content and opinions on the Internet, or provides control over just who is allowed to spend precious natural resources using paper to publish news and/or opinions for public consumption.

Sounds pretty vile and revolting doesn't it? So, why should there be compromise on the Second item in the Bill of Rights?

Do you have any idea why, with so many important topics to cover, the Founders felt it so necessary to provide a Bill of Rights and place so highly the Second? I'd love to hear your wisdom on this. Or, were you honestly asking above because you really don't know?

No, there really need be no compromise on the principles of the Constitution. Rather, find our best means of living within (and up to) those principles and expect more of those who choose to violate them.

Jeff, where did I get my idea of meeting in the middle or compromising in our understanding, interpretation and application of the Constitution---where else but in the whole fabric of the Constitution and democracy. That is what it is all about--ever evolving and subject to new interpretation. The 2nd Amendment, which everyone here so loves, was born in slavery to protect runaway slave militias rights,and was not interpreted to relate to private gun ownership until a new Supreme Court decision in 2008. (In between the 1800's and 2008, its interpretation and meaning changed many times.) So of course, it like any other aspect of our laws and Constitution, is open to changing interpretations at any time, without ever having to amend the Constitution.

As I expected, Richard, you are spouting revisionist disinformation born in 1998 in an article by the aptly named professor Carl Bogus at Roger Williams University Law School in Rhode Island. You would probably also argue the 3/5's clause was a racist slight to blacks. No, the Bill of Rights, penned by James Madison, stemmed from dissatisfaction that the Constitution lacked a statement of specific individual rights. These were enemies of tyranny who had just defeated the Crown as an overreaching central authority. The didn't want to create a new one. Madison looked to the Virginia Declaration of Rights, from George Mason and found many inspirations there, including "Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Clearly the focus is limitation of central power, fear of a large centralized army-backed authority and a desire to push power out to the people. The point of the 2nd Amendment is that the body of the people at large (not just some wing-nut minority) could, in the extreme, ultimately join forces and defend themselves against a central authority. In that context, all this whining about "military-style" firearms melts away and they are revealed as entirely appropriate.

Lowelll,
Every Supreme Court ruling ever supports and upholds some degree of regulation, especially when the issue turns to military weapons.

Why should we believe Lowell from the Patch over Scalia or Berger from the Supreme Court of the United States? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the constitutional scholars are on the big benching not on patch. Their thoughtful articulate decisions are posted on the Internet, and your version of the 2nd Ammendment is at odds with Articles 1, 2, 3, 6 and the preamble. So, I can't be swayed by any argument regarding constitutional interpretation.

But why would any rational patch reader accept your constitutional interpretation over that of a Supreme Court justice?

Yeah, Byron. God knows there were never any dissenting views on any rulings, so they must be perfect. So, tell me how my "version of the 2A" is so at odds, please. I would've sworn I was looking at the same text everyone else is.

Because the congress makes the laws (Art 1) and this is the law of the land (Art 6).

Because the original intent of the 2A as determined by the Supreme Court under powers granted by Article 3 and settled by Marbury v Madison contradicts what you say. You are wrong because you ignore the rule of law, judicial precedent, and the interpretation of actual experts.

Fwiw, the dissents don't support your view of the 2A either. Even if they did, per the constitution, they're not the meaning of the law.

Nothing I said conflicts with your cited articles. Of course, this Federal administration has made ignoring the rule of law a common practice. So, go figure. Law enforcement is always picking and choosing enforcement actions. Any belief to the contrary is wildly naive. In this case, believing the law unconstitutional until tested and ruled otherwise in a competent court, they are upholding their oath. It's not my judgement at question here - it is the judgement of the involved LEO supervision. I simply defended their right to speak out and to make that judgement. I also never said it couldn't ultimately be without consequence.

That link is hilarious. "Two Kennesaw officials link A with B" using the scientific "Because I said so" technique.

The "straw man" purchases you refer to are exactly what is referred to in Obama's proposed legislation. He wants to increase the penalty of that crime. Fewer straw men restricts the flow of guns and doesn't infringe on a single right.

Curtis, my method is to find the common ground for cooperation and compromise, which is what I offered earlier. Common sense, like everything, is in the eye of the beholder, so we need objective studies to determine what is really going on. (For instance, common sense to me is to get rid of all guns but I would not impose my common sense on you.)

Lowell, of course I am open to reasonable restrictions on the First Amendment rights, as any other rights we have, because they all come with responsibilities.
Read my reply above regarding the 2nd Amendment---its interpretation and application has changed many times throughout history, and even most recently the Supreme Court in 2008 said that it did not allow unrestricted gun ownership and allowed for certain gun bans, background checks, etc. (and even Scalia, the most conservative, wrote that opinion).

Richard, I hope you are mistaken when you say you would be "open to reasonable restrictions on the First Amendment rights,..." or you are horribly misguided and childlike. Perhaps you are referring to the responsibilities that come with freedom and thinking of those as "restrictions"? No, the difference is that, for example, the government does not place a muzzle on you or cut out your tongue before you go into a theatre, preventing you from yelling "fire" without reason. There are instead, consequences for misusing the right that you have irresponsibly after the fact. This is known as the Doctrine of Prior Restraint, which applies to rights like free speech. Many don't understand this and consider libel and slander laws infringements. They don't understand that the right allows you to commit those transgressions, but the responsibility part kicks in after the fact and allows for repercussions and consequences which themselves are not unconstitutional. Nevertheless the right provides unbridled freedom to those who exercise it responsibly. That I am never willing to compromise and I hope, enlightened, you would not either.

says the yammerer-in-chief

Where does that paranoid "church-going" old man in Lilburn who shot the young man for turning around in his driveway fit in to your equation?

So, I'm wrong? None of these mass murderers have mental issues?

Amen!

Ken,

I love violent video games. However, if we need to tighten restrictions on them to keep people safer, I'm on board.

Interesting fact: I recently played through one of those violent video games - "Call of Duty: Black Ops". I noticed during the credits that they gave special thanks to Remington, Barrett, and Colt (three large gun manufacturers in the US). Their guns are licensed to the game makers. It's a great little marketing relationship. Here is an article in the NYTimes that explores the relationship between game makers and gun manufacturers. Unfortunately, the manufacturers did not provide a comment. Just something to think about. You can pretend to use their guns to kill people!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/business/real-and-virtual-firearms-nurture-marketing-link.html?_r=0

The NRA just introduced a violent video game aimed at 4 yr olds. Maybe we should start there?

Sure Ken. Let's ostracize video games as the reason for gun violence.
And while we are at it, lets ban the news too, because I see far greater REAL violence on the evening news than I see on a video game.
Games are not sold to persons under the age of 17... Guess what? Kids are playing them too, so the parents must be breaking the law, and letting their kids play them, so, let's ban people from having kids...

Pam - The people who abuse the guns are the ones that don't follow laws, so the laws really only restrict law abiding citizens.. The background check laws are in place - they just need to be expanded, and networked across states - perfect reason for a federal program.. Automatic weapons are already banned...
Stereotyping an AR15 as an "assault weapon" is silly - ALL instruments capable of killing are assault weapons..
Magazine size limits are reasonable to me, as are bans on bulletproof vests and certain types of ammo - those are military/police/security items to me.

This to me would be a rational, reasonable approach.. The problem is fanatics on both sides of the issue are puffing up their chests and not listening.