"I can only conclude that we, as a society, have decided this state of affairs is acceptable, that the occasional murderous rampage is the price we pay for .?.?. for what? For freedom? For the Second Amendment? For campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association?"

well said.

We have decided that we can live with this state of affairs. No changes needed.

Don't be there.

If you are there, we will provide fitting tributes over rousing tunes. We wll celebrate your life, not mourn your death.

The end.

make sure you're armed.

exactly how?

I'm sure they'll find a way to fit that in.

-Louie Gohmert, Russell Pearce, et. al.

As a practical matter, how do you suggest that be done?

...and most likely, it was accumulated over a period of time, a few hundred rounds at a time. How would that indicate anything unusual?

to ammo purchases? It might set off some red lights.

Serious shooters (e.g. competitive shooters or shooting enthusiasts) can easily go through a few hundred rounds in a weekend and do it most weekends. I don't shoot much anymore, but when I do, I'll go through 200 rounds in an afternoon.

I buy 7.62X39, .223, and handgun ammo in bulk, lots of gun owners do.

potential signs that should be followed up. I know this sounds like adult tattling but it might save innocent lives and the accompanying un-ending grief. imho

How do you get from "he's acting wierd" to "you can't buy this weapon or this ammo"?

their guidelines that don't work to weed out the criminals. E.g. I would think the owner of the gun club that denied Holmes membership should have reported the red flag he heard in the voice message on Holmes' phone to the authorities. That would have been very responsible and easily verified by the police. THEN it's in the law enforcement's ballpark to act or not.

He did not commit any crime at that point. You're on a very slippery slope if you empower law enforcement to detain you or otherwise deprive you of your civil rights based on unusual behavior. There are powers that government should NOT have and that is definitely on the list.

who 'might' be trouble in their eyes!

Seriously though, I think if they had casually observed Holmes and paid him a visit at his apt. they might have had their eyes opened. Truthfully, I would love to know the message he had to answer his phone calls. The police could have called the number to see if it caused them concern.

The bottom line is that we do SOMETHING because what we've been doing hasn't worked.

Would you want the police visiting you because your neighbor thought you were weird?

No question, this is a difficult problem, but I don't want to wind up with a cure that's worse than the disease.

intervention might not help the citizen/law enforcement officer relationship. I think if the police had visited Holmes and told him they had a report, let's say about his answering machine, that concerned them. Holmes could either explain or tell them to go away. However the outcome, the police would have had that experience of him and a visual meeting. Maybe it would have scared Holmes that the police were on to him or maybe even aided him to seek help.

Every cell phone has a gps tracking device. I'm sure it could be put in the stock or handle of every weapon.

This last episode could have been prevented if there were software that alerted the authorities when a weapon gets too close to a place where it shouldn't be. The device could alert the authorities when it is removed.

I went through high school with a guy that was trying to establish a business tracking cattle with gps locators. They are inexpensive enough at this point that it would be practical.

That and/or gun insurance.

How would you know who's legit and who's a menace?

Just like law enforcement and military weapons. It would be easy to find stolen weapons (if it was discovered soon after it was stolen) and lost weapons.

The weapon movements could also be tracked so that 'when' it was at a certain location would also be known. If a weapon fell into enemy hands; you could track enemy movements.

I probably should file for a patent.

If it were optional, I might put something like that on my weapons if it didn't make them too heavy or unwieldy. I do worry about the consequences if they get stolen.

I would not want this to be a requirement, however - I've become increasingly distrustful of the government and don't trust it with the information. I believe you would find this view common among gun owners.

That's why they are receivers and not transceivers. Location services on cellphones blend data and GPS information. So putting a GPS chip in a rifle will only tell the person holding the rifle were he is.

There's no such thing as tracking technology.

I guess I should have looked on snoops before making such a silly suggestion.

When there's a massacre, they put measures into place that will decrease the likelihood of another mass shooting happening again.

But we can't do the same thing, because what people interpret as their "2nd Amendment rights" (to a well-regulated militia?) trump everyone else's right to go into public without being shot.

So we'll just go through the same cycle next time, ignore how the rest of the (saner) world deals with guns, and say "this is America, we're willing to deal with shootings daily and massacres occasionally so that everyone can carry whatever weapon they want anywhere. It's the price of 'freedom' "

Also, strict limits on non-dedicated hunting weapon i.e. assault rifles, handguns etc.

No.


I don't consider what countries like the UK and Australia have done sane. Bans are for simple minds that don't like tracking more complex issues. Banning abortions, soft drinks, homemade lunches, porn, gay marriage...very simple minds behind those ideas.

we knew it was going to happen again (somewhere).. and we know damn f*cking well that it's going to happen again (somewhere). And again after that. And again, etc.

.. ban the costumes.

The crazy is endemic.

think how safe we'd be without so many limits on what the police state can do.

Neighbor gets a bad feeling about you? Report it to the police and you're dragged away in the middle of the night for a 'psych eval'. If you're agitated or otherwise non-lucid you are stripped of your rights.

Want to go in to the city? Fine, file with the local police department for a permit that explains you reason for needing to travel. This can be presented at regular armed checkpoints along with a photo ID so they know that you have business traveling in that area. Of course there would still be pat-downs and you will have to turn out everything in your pockets. Resistance will be taken as proof of carrying contraband.

Oh and random house checks without warning would be necessary to see if anyone is stockpiling weapons or otherwise breaking the new Freedom Act. They would be unannounced of course and would not require a warrant or anything like that. Protesting it will be taken as a sign of guilt.

I can't wait. Just think how safe we'll be! And ultimately we'll be freer. Free from fear. Free from doubt. Free from worry. The state will take care of us like never before.

I think Glen Beck did a segment on that.

to "jackoffs" and blame much of our current woes on these all too numerous jackoffs.

Do you or have you pissed in a jar to get or keep a job?

How much more personal can a search get without sticking something up your ass?

Not being sarcastic, I genuinely fail to see how any search can be more invasive than one of your very biochemistry.

they can be mandatory simply for existing, rather than conditional like say for a job.

Had a nice little argument about that with a wingnut IRL the other day..

Now we have mandatory private insurance the insurance companies are going to want to know if you're doing illegal drugs..

How do you know for sure what the vials of blood they draw at the doctor are tested for?

Once you go the conspiracy theory route there's really no point in discussing it any further.

Can you prove the government isn't harvesting your blood in the night for testing? I mean really prove beyond all shadow of a doubt?

Sorry if it comes across as conspiracy minded, but incidents like that tend to make you skeptical.

Keep in mind that the PPACA makes us all responsible for each other's health care so if you're using illegal drugs that has a negative effect on me so I therefore have a right to interfere in your life any way that might tend to reduce the amount of health care you need.

Now I'm engaging in hyperbole a bit but it won't be long before you'll be hearing that argument or one very like it to support universal drug testing, I've already heard it for mandatory bicycle helmets and that was months ago..

They are not legitimate hunting or self-defense weapons. And individual civilians are not part of a regulated militia.

Dear nra,
Your right to bear weapons in a well regulated militia is interfering with the rest of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I suspect the core of the constitution trumps your twisted interpretation of its 2nd amendment.

sincerely,
the rest of us

The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right - read the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions.

Ban guns based on their "style"? The AWB that was passed in 1994 did that and what did it accomplish? Nothing, other than giving the House to the republicans.

"The rest of us"? The NRA has about 4 million members, but many millions of gun owners who are not members would strongly disagree with you. Support for more gun control has been declining for decades and "the rest of us" are really in the minority.

and of those millions, how many oppose some kind of gun controls?

Versus how many hundreds of millions of non-gun owners, and gun owners who favor some controls.

Machine gun style guns aren't necessary to hunting or self defense. They are necessary only for mass murder.

Oh, and SCOTUS voted in favor of Citizens United too, effectively conferring personhood and individual rights on corporations. They got that one wrong, too.

...who took control of the House. If anything, support for gun control is weaker now than it was then.

ETA: See attached Wiki link http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

including DU-type democrats, and that gave the GOP the house?

Per your wiki link: "Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun"

That suggests that between 50 and 61% of households *don't* have guns.

Of the households that *do* have guns, there is nothing that states that all members of those households have guns, or that all gun-holding members are eligible to vote.

And all of the people that voted the GOP the house in 1994 voted over that single issue, versus voting due to NRA propaganda that Clinton was going to take our guns away, or voted over some other anti-Clinton issue.

And of those that voted over that single issue, that presumes the same percentage of voters would vote the same way, post-Columbine, Virgina Tech and Aurora.

Finally, since 1994, nearly 2 generations of old, white, GOP gun-lovin' voters have met their maker. They've been replaced by 2 generations of younger people, some of whom still love them some guns...but some of whom may not be so fond of the havoc and death they bring.

There is a point where a tide turns. 3 strikes is a good tide-turner, imo.

all I have to do is put a 5 round mag. in it and it would make a great hunting rifle.
?v=8CE3CDC7FA4D840

These rifles are fast becoming very popular for hunting


Wanting to ban something because it looks scary is unreasonable, IMHO.

Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago put that argument to rest.

Guess what, all 9 justices afirmed the 2A as an individual right, the dissent was on the level of restrictions

effectively conferring personhood with individual rights on corporations. They got that one wrong too, and some of them have been big enough to admit regretting the vote.

"the dissent was on the level of restrictions"
Which brings us back to my first point. The gun you recently bought isn't necessary for hunting or self defense. In my opinion, it should be banned. That's where I draw the line in the sand.

but even if they don't regret it, or even if they haven't publicly expressed regrets, that doesn't mean it was a good decision on their part.

Has anyone expressed regrets over appointing a president in 1992, in violation of the constitution?

The disasters that are a direct result of those 2 more recent decisions occurred very quickly after those horrible decisions, making it easier for them to connect the dots.

The tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech and Aurora have been longer in the making, and are more a result of the insidious nature of our gun-worshiping culture. It is time to start pushing back on that cultural drift. Past time.

Oh, and I have some really bad news for you. I'm planning on getting a gun as soon as I sell my house. This has been my plan for some time. I live fairly rural, and once I sell will be moving even more rural and I do feel the need for some protection.

I am a cautious person and will do this with appropriate training and oversight from a local gun club.

The reason it is bad news for you is because my karma is such that *whenever* I join in with any popular trend, the tide immediately turns. I'm not joking. It's been my karma for nearly 60 years. I bought company stock, 2 months later it crashed. I bought a condo; 2 weeks after I signed the papers Reagan changed the tax laws and crashed the condo market. I traded in the condo for a house in '03, 2 years later the market crashed. I guarantee, in writing here on DU, that the minute I buy a gun the gun culture will come crashing down. In a way, by buying a gun I feel that I will be doing the very best I am capable of doing to bring on massive gun control. Even if Mittens were to be elected, even if they replace Mittens with Wayne LaPierre himself, the instant I buy a gun, all guns will likely be confiscated. It's sad (for me), but true...

OTOH, I've been a gun owner for more than 40 years and they haven't been banned yet.

Glad to hear you're planning on getting a firearm. My suggestion is to get a few - a .22 rifle for practice and plinking would be a good start (easy to shoot and the ammo is cheap). A 12 gauge double barrel shotgun will put meat on the table and be a very effective home defense weapon.

I'd be willing to bet that you enjoy the experience.

Here, let me help you with what the Scalia majority concluded:

Why don't you post the link where I said there could not be restrictions.

..why wasn't this massacre included in the list?

We need them to protect our state of freedom.

Exactly. That's how we seem to be looking at it.

Can't do anything. Second Amendment trumps all.