I've heard they have extremely strict gun laws in Canada. But I've also heard that shootings happen there too. Let's just imagine hypothetically that the strictest possible anti-gun law was passed tomorrow: NOBODY in the United States is allowed to own or carry any type of gun for any reason whatsoever, period. No guns allowed, or you will go to jail. OK, now what? What will that change? Anything? All it will do is cause the honest law-abiding citizens to give up their guns. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation yet they also have the most gun violence. Face it-- there will always be nuts who will use guns or bombs. However these nuts would think twice entering a theater if they knew there could be many law abiding citizens with concealed weapons waiting to defend us all!

Norway has some of the strongest gun control laws in the world, yet they didn't prevent the mad man in the Breivik massacre from obtaining his weapons. Criminals and the insane will always find ways to kill, gun control laws or not. I'm a strong 2nd Amendment supporter and know that if disarmament of the law abiding citizen occurs, only criminals will have guns. I'm getting my Concealed Carry License next month. I will not be a victim.

You are off base on this one Colleen: "Why does the average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon?". All weapons that are not automatic (which is illegal) are semi-automatic, you pull the trigger, it fires one bullet. I am a gun owner, not a huge fan of the NRA, but also not a fan of the anti-gun lobby. We as Americans have the right to own guns, some states are too lax in their laws, NJ is not one of them however. I'm all for banning real assault weapons, not true hunter needs 30+ rounds. However the anti-gun lobby wants everything to be illegal. Again no compromise can ever be discussed or reached; each must have all or nothing.
More people die each year from drunk driving accidents then from gun related crimes, most of which are illegal guns that would still be in the hands of the criminals if there were a ban. Do we ban cars? Do we ban alcohol? No, we put laws in place to limit who can buy alcohol and/or cars based on agreed upon parameters. Gun laws do the same, 18 to own/buy a rifle/shotgun, 21 for a handgun. Plus the back ground check that we have in place in NJ. Plus the NICS check that is run each time you make a purchase. Of course some guns end up in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, then again so do alcohol and cars.

Certainly not, there are plenty of gun laws already, in my opinion, in regards to what happened in Aurora, rather than taking aim on guns and blaming guns for everything, seems to me what has changed over the past several decades is how media and the film makers have continually pushed and pushed the limits out there on what they will produce and call art, if you dare say anything about that then certain people cry about their freedom of speech, and how it couldnt possibly effect an individuals behavior. Finally, as far as guns are concerned, it is healthy for a country that a government should fear its people, if you take all gun rights away, then only government has weapons, you throw off the checks and balances that were meant by the writers of the constitution.

I'm not for getting rid of all guns, but you are wrong in your hypothetical Jon. Many guns are pure chased for criminals through intermediaries. That's just one way increased gun laws could cut down on criminal's access to guns.

We already have a strong national gun law. It's called the Second Amendment.

The laws havent stopped illegal drugs and they arent stopping guns. Once again the law abiding gun owner will be getting tortured.

olleen you are way off base with your ows example. First they were on private property then they started doing drugs and I believe someone was a victim of rape. It was not alleged unsanitary and hazardous conditions when clearly people were using the streets for bathrooms or destroying people's places of business. The ows was not people having the right to assemble peacefully. Actually your freedom of speech/slander example is weak also. not getting off point but if this was a court of law and i was a juror you lost the case for your client.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Government has already over stepped its bounds. We do not need any more gun laws.

3,000 people died in the 9-11 attacks, no guns were used. 168 people were killed in the Oklahoma bombing, no guns were used. In Lockerbie 270 people died, no guns were used. Remember John "Jack" Gilbert Graham? Way back in 1957, he kill 44 people, including his Grandmother, and he didn’t use a gun either. Sadly the list goes on and on.

Maybe, just maybe, we should start to look into what drives a human being to become such a killing machine. Banning guns won’t change that; it will just force the human killing machine to find other ways of killing people. So let put our efforts and money where it will do some good, not just change the way mass murderers ply their trade?

Gun Laws need to be federal and not state. Trace many of the guns that are used in alledgedly "Tough" States and you will see that they came from other states where laws are weak. Gun lovers have national outrage over one gun Lost by the ATF at the scene of a killing but there are 800 gun stores in Arizona where you can buy semi-automatic military type weapons and as much ammo as you want on the border with Mexico. One of the comments here said that the Government should fear the people if they are armed. Like someone will stand on their rooftop and fire at an F-16 with a rifle. A never ending stream of false statistics come from the NRA about their efforts on gun ownership but no one should have access to the type of firepower this person had. No one should escape notice for buying 6000 rounds of ammunition or 4 weapons in a month but they will because it is "Legal" in their state.

Colleen, you are way off base with your article.

Sweden, until 2007 required all males to; 1) be in their military, and 2) have a government issued gun and ammunition in their house, until they reach the age of 30!

Funny how the liberal press here in the good old US of A, never points that out!

If guns kill people, pencils misspell words.

Which legislators supported allowing the assault weapons ban to expire, and what was their rationale? Do they feel at this time that they made the right choice?

Colleen, can you put up a poll on this?

Here's a thought: Guns will soon be as outdated as swords. Each home will have its own drone, programed to circle the property and bomb an intruder. So what if an occasional family member gets killed by mistake? Guns have already done that often. At last the NRA will have no more arguments. Yes, I'm being snarky. But isn't this the logical direction of the argument?

Colleen, I bet you quite a number of the patrons at the colorado movie theater that survived during this horrific event have changed their views on gun control, but most likely not in the direction you were hoping. If anything has changed, more people believe in Concealed Carry and the right to protect yourself and your family from imminent harm from others. How would that night have played out differently had some audience members been allowed to Carry Concealed and were given an opportunity to defend themselves? It is our god given right and our constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families whether we are in our homes or outside our homes. Criminals will never abide by the laws, and killers will never stop killing. Had I been in that theater with my concealed LC9 with built in LaserMax that was dialed in previously at the target range, Mr Holmes would have taken 7 rounds in the head, period, end of story. Killers don't follow the law, but law obiding citizens do, and what happens then, their freedoms and their rights to protect themselves get legislated away. When will the antigun lobby and the legislators ever learn?

Assault weapons and all other weaponry that is not a normal rifle or handgun should be kept strictly for law enforcement and armed forces. hunters use bow and arrow and rifles. if you need protection at home, a handgun. now to get any weapon; you should be licensed and gone thru a training on that weapon BEFORE you are allowed to purchase it. Then it needs to be registered.
Now if you are not doing anything illegal with it; this should not bother you knowing that everyone else should be doing this also. Buying guns at a fair or a store without having the license and a background check should be illegal.
This should be a federal law that covers everyone.
Many accidents happen at home because many are not trained. the guns should be kept in a place that children cannot get them.
My own Uncle was cleaning his gun when I was small and didn't check the entire barrel. He now has an artifical leg. I was there at 7. He was a hunter. He taught me how to shoot the rifle and guns and how to respect them. I also got burnt on one that was too heavy for me.

As Chris Rock said, whatever happened to crazy? Timothy McVeigh was crazy, never used a gun. Killed 168 and injured 680 and caused three quarters of a billion in property damage.

There is a basic fallacy in logic here, and we see it after every mass shooting, as lazy journalists (and ex-journalist bloggers) leap out of bed the next AM with a free column idea. The fallacy is that were there no guns, madman would be forced to employ kindergarten grade rounded edge scissors, and would eventually be overcome after killing 5 or 6 Democrats (assuming there were a few Republicans in the theater). And, by the way, if a few Republicans with carry permits were in the theater, how long might the guy have lasted?

Ever notice the analogy about murder in a theater isn't about guns? It is about fire.

And, by the way, a few more of Colleen's left of left "columns" and there is going to be enough to build a fertilizer bomb.

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect citizens from the government so as to allow the citizenry to have power equal to the federal government. The only weapon banned under the 2nd Amendment is a sawed off shotgun that was so banned by the US Supreme Court in the Miller case in 1938 BECAUSE A SAWED OFF SHOTGUN WAS NOT A MILITARY TYPE WEAPON -thus implying the military type weapons are protected by the Constitution. The basis of the 2nd Amendment can be found in the following concept acknowledged by Jefferson : "The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons." Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments.[1]

Putting a ban on any type of gun would only leave law abiding citizens defenseless against criminals and crazies. This guy (just like all the other mass murdering gun users) had motive and plans, He was going to get his guns one way or another. if anything, the gun laws about carry permits should be reviewed. Allot less crime would happen when the criminal won't know if their target has a weapon to fight back.
That being said, people who know nothing about guns, shouldn't be writing articles about them.

John D, you make a good point. Had there been more armed civilians in that dark movie theater filled with children, it would have been a much safer situation.

I will never understand the argument that gun ownership is a "God-given right". I missed that part of the Bible. Unless I skipped the part where Jesus had an AK.

I am a proponant of responsible gun ownership for the purposes of hunting, collection, and in certain situations, self-defense (particularly in the home). That said, I cannot understand any argument opposing background checks, waiting periods and other controls designed to prevent crazy people from getting their hands on dangerous weapons too easily and quickly.

By the way, for all of the discussions about international gun laws - the U.S. leads the world in gun deaths per capita. Countries with tougher gun ownership laws (particularly in Europe) have FAR fewer gun deaths per year on a per capita basis.

Chicago has some of THE toughest gun laws in America.
1st 3 weeks of July = 27 shot dead ! NONE of the shootings involved "assault" weapons.
BTW there have also been 27 stabbing murders in Chicago in the 1st 6 months of 2012.

Jersey, you cannot limit gun rights to self defense only in one's home. Would that have stopped the movie theater massacre? You are insane in that regard. It is because we are so overlegislated with gun control laws that these massacres continue to occur. Think Columbine, Virginia Tech and anywhere else an armed madman decided to go on a shooting spree in public, the public was defenseless! When will you learn? Keep your religion to yourself Jersey, and I will keep my guns and protect my family inside and outside my home.

The states have various conceal and carry laws, if you can get a permit (after thorough background checks, pschy eval and gun training) I'm all for it. But as noted above by another poster, most states prohibit carrying guns into certain venues, like theaters. No, I don't think it's a good idea for a bunch of people to have guns in a dark movie theater filled with children that is playing gunfire on IMAX surround sound. I think that's pretty frigging stupid.

Listen, the people who commit these types of rampages are crazy. They are not logical, they often kill themselves or commit death by cop, they are not worried about their own lives. To say that a complete maniac would pause and think, "hey maybe I shouldn't shoot up a movie theater because someone might shoot me" is insane.

I am more inclined to agree with that line of reasoning for, say, a burglary or robbery. If the motivation is to commit a property crime, the criminal may give more pause if it's more likely that the property owner could be armed. In that case, the motivation is to steal/rob/whatever and get out alive. That's just not the case with the Columbines, VA Techs and CO movie theater situations. I'm sorry.

I'm an atheist.

I think a lot of people are arguing the wrong point here. No one is suggesting that firearms be banned altogether - this article mentions only assault weapons. Also, all those who argue that there will still be violence even without an assault weapon ban, I think you are missing the point. The point is that with an assualt weapon, someone can quickly shoot 70 people as happened in the Aurora tragedy. I enjoy reading thoughtful insight on both sides, but please let's stick to discussing the contents of this article.

John D I am bowing out because I'm tired of being called insane because you disagree with me. It's giving me a slight headache, and you are not worthy.

Collene, Good column,. I love the way any reasonable column by you is called leftie, communist, democratic whatever. You raise reasonable points but unfortunately to an unreasonable commenting crowd,. Good work.

Money. It's about the money. The owners of Assualt Rifle manufacturing and distribution companies make ALOT of money. I know of a couple who own such a company they belong to the country club where I work. Sorry to say, as long as their "livelihood", (God forbid, they had to forgo their summer home in Montana, golf retreat in Palm Springs or the Ranger Rovers). These people are responsible for these atrocities because they make weapons that kill on a mass scale. They have the money to stop producing these "products" and reinvest it in more productive ventures. They pump money into the NRA to make sure ASSAULT WEAPONS continue to be produced. As for having a hand gun or hunting rifle in your home...fine....this isn't a statement about your rights. This is about THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY AT YOUR EXPENSE... KEEP MANUFACTURING GUNS THAT KILL IN MASS QUANTITY, and then you feel the need to get a gun to defend yourself and so the cycle continues. I wonder how these people can hold their tea cups steady during afternoon lunch at the club. Oh, yeah, that's right...Zanex, Valium...lovely people that set.

Let's give everyone a gun. Then all the stupid people who misread the Constitution can off each other and leave all the normal people alone and safe.

The Second Amendment was written to protect the people from government oppression not wackos in movie theaters.

If one law-abiding citizen in that theater was armed, a lot less people would have been killed or hurt. Washington DC, Chicago, and Detroit have some of the strictest gun laws in the country- a lot of good it does them. Also, since New Jersey has such strict gun laws, we all should all feel safe to walk the streets in good ole Camden, NJ without the fear of gun violence, right?

Criminals don't care about gun laws.

The shooter in this particular incident apparently did not have a criminal record, came equipped with body armor and multiple weapons, some not of the "assault weapon" ilk. He apparently planned this attack, sourcing and constructing explosives, pyrotechnics and tripwire type initiators...

We also see a VERY low mortality rate of 12/70...maybe he only hit each person once? 70 bullets...

The US Constitution enumerates the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right...not to be infringed. To me, that means banning a type of arm is a no go without an Amendment change.

What seems reasonable would be to create a standard/ mandate for firearms training, create a national standard for individual recordkeeping (so that when a firearm is stolen, it can be identified), create a national access system for Brady checks that actually works all the time... maybe extend it so law abiding firearms owners can resell and have some hedge that they are not releasing the weapon to a felon or crazy person.

Oh, and that crazy person bit... maybe we should put some effort into spotting those crazy people... this guy has likely been broadcasting his instability for some time...shame on us for not spotting it.

The criminal element will always be armed in the US... the arms are here already.. if they couldn't buy them, they would steal them... disarming the law abiding is not the fix.

I have yet to pick up a gun that compelled me to want to kill something. I have yet to see or know about a gun that possesses the holder and makes them want to go on a killing spree. It's not the gun - its the person. If some nut wants to kill a bunch of people in a hurry, they can do it any number of ways that may be easier or harder than acquiring and using a gun. Why not ban ultra fast cars....who needs them? Why not ban super-sharp big knives...who needs them? Every time one of these terrible tragedies occurrs - and this was definitely a terrible tragedy - we go all paranoid. Just stop it and think.

There are thousands of instances where people who are armed - commen citizens with a legal concealed carry handgun - PREVENT violent crimes. What if someone in that theater, a law-abiding legal concealed carry permit holder, was witness to that crime and stopped that person quickly? We may be talking about 0, 1 or 2 dead - not 12. You think that nut would stand there with someone shooting back at him? Banning guns will not prevent crminals from having guns. It just prevents the law abiding public from having guns and protecting themselves. no criminal wants to tangle with anyone they think may be armed. The criminal is armed to give them an advantage, not have a fair fight.

The right to keep and bear arms is a guaranteed civil right and no less important than all the others.

Gess im never getting a gatling gun :( o well back to the 22lr :)

I am not going to go into the reasons why we should be able to buy long gun’s and pistol’s but I am going to go heavily into the thoughts of the people of the United States not owning guns in any form. My Plan is to remove all objects used to commit violent crimes from public ownership.
First of all let’s remove all guns from society, meaning all civilians cannot own a gun. Second let’s remove and ban the sale of Knives in all forms….. Survival, Hunting, Fishing, and Kitchen Knives would be illegal. Third Let’s Ban Cars, Van’s, Trucks and buses, along with any other form of transportation, since they have all been involved in the deaths of people.
OK now we should be safe from harm……………..OH wait we need to add to the list…….HAMMER’S those deadly things used to hammer nails, remember how they have been used in violent crimes, and OH yeah BASEBALL BATS anther dangerous item. OK we are Now safe……..OH! OH!! We need to amend the list again let’s not forget SWIMMING POOLS, and Boats they kill people every year, and let’s not forget SNAKES …..you know the kind that slithers around in the forest and fields, just how many people have they attacked and killed. Whew safe at last!!!!!!!!
Oh NO!!!! What’s that you say you want to add more to the list ,,,,,,,,Well OK!!

And the list would go ON and ON and ON and ON and ON………………..
It’s not the gun’s the cars or any object that does not have a pulse that causes DEATH’s and MURDER’S.
It’s the People and they way they are raised, the way they are treated by society and the pressures we place on each other, because of greed, and power that causes all the issues faced by modern man.
Look at the facts, not the hype………..GUNS ARE NOT THE ISSUE……….People ARE!!!!

Frank, I don't think anyone here has called for a ban on guns. My take is that the discussion is a bit more complex - gun regulation, bans on certain types of weapons and conceal and carry laws.

"Death's" and "Murder's" need not be possessive. They are plural. You can drop the apostrophes.

By all means, carry on with your outrage.

:)

Actually, offensive speech is protected by the First Amendment. Not all speech is, though, contrary to popular belief. The Supreme Court has carved out numerous instances of speech that is not protected under the First Amendment despite those instances not being specifically addressed in the text of the Consititution.

Similarly, it can be said that the right to bear arms as granted by the 2nd Amendment is not absolute - it too is subject to interpretation by the Court. Unfortunately, the NRA and its die-hard followers tend to ignore that fact.

We don't need to ban guns, though there is no other purpose for an "assault" weapon than to kill human beings. Having said that, far more people die in auto accidents and swimming pools every year. But I don't think anyone is suggesting we ban cars or pour cement into all the pools. Rather, it might be a good idea to consider some common sense rules when it comes to the purchase of a gun. Just as with a car, you are required to pass a rigorous written and driving test and you must have the vehicle inspected every two years. And you must be present for that inspection and prove your license and registration remain in good standing. As for pools, the law allows you to have a pool, yet requires you to put a fence around it. These laws in now way infringe on our precious "freedoms" but rather help protect others from our possible mistakes and accicents and protect us from ourselves. Can anyone tell me with any reasonable clarity why we would not institute similar common sense restrictions when it comes to the righ to bear arms?

"""The state ranked second behind California on the national scorecard of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?"

First off, if you want to keep citing Brady, you should probably understand their actual stances on issues, which include support for the legal sale of semi-automatic weapons -- they just think clips should be smaller.

Secondly, citing brandy-new gun laws to gun-related crime statistics is silly. There are two hundred million guns in America, and no state has ever passed a law taking one out of anyone's hands. Maybe 30 years after a law is passed, statistics might be relevant.

Raging liberal SCOTUS Judge Breyer said this after the near total ban on handguns was overturned 32 years in DC: "Violent crime in Washington has increased since the ban took effect in 1976. A comparison with 49 major cities reveals that the district’s homicide rate is actually substantially higher relative to these other cities than it was before the handgun restriction."

Bumpersticker:

"Guns Don't Kill People. Graduate Biology Students Who Think They Are Comic Super Villians And Have An Apartment Full Of Bombs And Deadly Chemicals Kill People."

I think one question that should be asked of the surviving victims and their families is this one very simple question....Do you think concealed carry should be unrestricted for all law abiding citizens who pass a background check and mental health check?
Colleen, I think you will be surprised just how many more people will support concealed carry now. Our government, state and federal, is always trying to "protect us" from ourselves by legislating our freedoms away because they know better. All too often it is plain common sense that is the real answer. Stop taking the means of protection away from law abiding citizens and you will see a marked decrease in voilence in general. Holmes had no respect for the moviegoers because he knew they were unarmed. Had a few bullets come back at him in the theater he probably would have ran to escape if not shot dead already.

Just to correct this article you can actually buy as many guns as you want everyday .... Only handguns are limited to one every 30 days

Several years before the Columbine shootings, Congress imposed a school-zone gun ban which prohibited firearms within 1,000 feet of any school, under the mistaken belief that potential killers obey gun-control laws. That law didn’t deter the two perpetrators of the Columbine massacre, but it did get Joel Myrick in trouble.

In 1997, assistant principal Joel Myrick used a gun to stop a violent teen who was shooting up his school in Pearl, Mississippi. He succeeded in preventing a massacre, but was prosecuted for having a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.

Gun bans just don't work.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

I've heard the gun/anti-gun debate for decades. The most common abuse is the misuse of statistics - i.e. cherry picking. This blog entry is no exception. For example:

After passage of the 1968 gun-control act, the number of robberies jumped from 138,000 in 1965 to 376,000 in 1972, while murders committed with guns increased from 5,015 to 10,379 in the same period. According to the Census Bureau, the proportion of cases in which the murder weapon was a firearm rose from 57.2 percent to 65.6 percent. There are also periods where crime decreased after enactment of stricter gun laws, if you cherry pick the data.

Yes, and if you believe Freakunomics, the big drop in national crime is not due to tougher legal tactics (ala Giuliani), but due to the effects of Roe- v. Wade 16-18 years earlier, so there were less unwanted children going bad, getting guns, and shooting up the streets.

Actually, their stats are very convincing.

I am not a strict Constitutionalist. Let's face it, most of those guys owned slaves. But the fact is that this is a crazier world than 1790 america, with more nuts and more senseless violence, and godknowshowmany guns out there in the hands of criminals.

So, guns it is. I say tax the bejesuses out of ammunition and pay off the national debt.

It is unfortunate that the debate has been launched in response to a horrific incident, perhaps doubly so in that the circumstances tend to lead to knee jerk solutions. Assault weapons are designed for use in combat. As a tool for criminal activity, it has very limited use. We lose about 9,000 of our compatriots to gun violence every year, very few of whom die from assault rifles. No one holds up a convenience store or mugs a pedestrian with an AK-47 because there are other better options for portable, concealable deadly force namely handguns. Tragic though it is, mass casualty events are statistical outliers whereas the murder of 750 Americans each month is as predictable as the weather.

Can someone give me a clear definition of assault rifle? And one major component of this tragedy was that this lunatic's first act of violence, used to confuse as well as "disarm" those in the theater, was the use of tear gas. Where did he get this?

Which part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is not sufficiently clear? What liberals seek to achieve is governmental monopoly on armed violence while leaving citizens defenseless against criminals and lunatics who don't give a flying eff about gun laws. Private guns are illegal in Cuba and North Korea - did it help people there?

An assault rifle is just a semi auto or full auto magazine fed rifle ..... In new jersey you can own an "assault rifle" as long is it doesn't have a magazine capacity of more then 15 rounds and doesn't have a collapsible stock .... The collapsing stock law is just a way of limiting the market for over the counter sales, it makes no difference if it's collapsing or not in my opinion because it really only makes a rifle 6 inches shorter .... Big deal.... But anyone could go out of there way and alter these options very easily which violated new jersey laws

I am a gun owner I use them for recreation shooting and fir all people who think guns are dangerous you are all wrong.... It's the person behind the gun that makes it dangerous so before we start getting into the whole "we need to take guns off the street arguments" think about the law abiding citizens who own them as well and if guns "kill" people mine all must be broken because not one life has been taken with my guns

I also believe that gun laws need to be federal and not by state ..... A gun is a gun people are people and criminals are criminals wherever you are

It's very simple, the "right to bear arms" does not include assualt rifles that can take out 12 people and harm 58 others. There needs to be a separation from the amendment that includes, surely you should be able to have a handgun at home for protection, or a shotgun for hunting. I agree. What disturbs me, is the availability of the gun and material this Psychopath used to kill these unknowing and innocent people. Disgusting! My heart goes out to all of the families that are suffering. words cannot begin to heal their wounds.

>> It's very simple, the "right to bear arms" does not include assualt rifles
>> that can take out 12 people and harm 58 others

And who gets to decide what the "right to bear arms" does and what it doesn't include? In any case, a knowledgeable lunatic can kill hundreds with an explosive charge made out of common fertilizer and simple chemicals - shouldn't we also ban "assault fertilizers" while we're at that?

Wow...so it's governed by state?? you have just enlightened me, and guess what? This guy knew that! Disgusting, disurbing, and absolultely ridiculous that this psychopath was able to get a hold of the artillary that he had by the INTERNET?? I absolutely want to cry for the victims of this heartless tragety.

When people make the argument that making certain guns illegal or harder to obtain will only stop law-abiding citizens from getting those guns, why doesn't anybody consider the fact that if it's harder to obtain these guns legally, it's harder to obtain them illegally too? If someone can't purchase a gun legally before selling it illegally, that's one less illegal gun on the market. I understand that most people use their guns legally, but as this article says so well, there needs to be limitations. There is no reason that a civilian needs weapons like these.

We have every right to own weapons like those I have an ar-15 it's 100% jersey legal why shouldn't I have it? I'm a law abiding citizen

Erm, an inconvenient question: the Aurora nutjob booby-trapped his apartment with an assortment of home-made explosives. If he didn't have firearms, what sort of bomb would he have used in that theater?

"why doesn't anybody consider the fact that if it's harder to obtain these guns legally, it's harder to obtain them illegally too?" That's a false assumption, as the FBI will attest.

Well, well, it turns out that the psychopath was a drug abuser. After the massacre Holmes calmly told detectives he had taken 100mg of the prescription painkiller Vicodin, and identified himself as "The Joker". The same drug was found in the system of actor Heath Ledger when he died of an accidental overdose of prescription drugs in 2008. Ledger played The Joker in the previous Batman film The Dark Knight. Vicodin side-effects can include euphoria, paranoia and, in rare cases, hallucinations.

So by the logic of gun control advocates, it's Hollywood's fault for promoting the drug culture and making the anarchist Joker so cool.

consider this. Only law abiding citizens are eligible for purchasing firearms. Every transfer of firearms made must b registered (meaning all ur personal information, ss #, is linked directly to the firearms serial number at time of purchase so it can b traced) criminals smuggle and import firearms illegally therefore cannot b traced or found. If the government decided to ban and confiscate all firearms, they will only b taking the firearms from law abiding citizens. There is no affective way of removing all firearms from the united states because criminals will always exist and smuggle firearms leaving law abiding citizens vulnerable. Firearms will Always exist. Crime statistics will sky rocket if citizens have no protection. Todays statistics are proof that allowing law abiding citizens to own firearms and carry concealed weapons is a great concept. In research by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which 3,000 felons were interviewed, 45% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 60% of these criminals admitted that they have not committed a crime because they feared that the potential victim or the people around the area may have been armed. Allowing law abiding people to arm themselves offers more than confidence for those individuals but pays off for everybody through lower crime rates.

Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2009 show that states with right to carry laws have a 37% lower homicide rate, 50% lower robbery, 25% lower aggravated assault rate and a 31% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws.  That is why more and more states have passed right to carry laws over the past decade. For example, in florida, since concealed carry was approved,  the total violent crime rate has dropped 40% and its homicide rate has dropped 65% Floridians, except for criminals, are safer due to this law. Also Since wisconsin recently went from being a no issue ccw state to a shall issue ccw state, crime rates have already dropped significantly. violent crime rate has dropped 10% and homicide rate has dropped 20%, since enactment of its carry law and it hasnt even been a year yet. It is our constitutional right to own firearms and i quote "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." as stated in the second amendment of the constitution by our founding fathers.

Btw the Aurora theater doesn't allow concealed weapons on the premises, therefore noone was armed and furthermore, even though the killer had body armor, parts of his body were still exposed including his thighs which have major arteries in them so dot try tellin me not a single person could attempt to take him down somehow and also not hurt anyone in the act. I know there was tear gas but remember it was thrown to the very front of the theater which means it had to spread to the rear which could take some time, enough time for some people in the rear to fire some shots.

Also this is BS. "The state ranked second behind California on the national scorecard of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. According to the campaign, the six states with the toughest gun laws also had the lowest gun death rates in the nation last year." ummmm noooo, jersey is actually higher than most other states because we have very strict concealed carry laws, it is nearly impossible for anyone to get a permit therefore criminals arent scared or threatened

Banning guns and keeping law abiding citizen from owning guns legally will get you nowhere, all its going to do is make it a little harder from others to get weapons, and dealers will make a killing by ripping people off. It just puts more money in someone elses hands to obtain guns ilegally. The constitution gives you the right to obtain and own weapons{ but I know that many agree with Silly Hilly and Odumbo about destroying the constitution}.

I carry a gun...because a cop is too heavy

People who are against civilians owning these types of rifles don't realize it's only classified as an assault rifle because of magazine capacity my jersey legal ar-15 has a15 round magazine which is jersey legal the only thing somebody has to do to turn that into an "assault" rifle is change the magazine to a higher capacity which is done in seconds ... So you can go from assault rifle to non assault rifle just from a magazine change ..... So this is why civilians can own these, most states allow high capacity jersey is limited to 15

Remember: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In fact, the police were *already on the premises* when nutjob started his rampage.

In 1994; the federal government passed a law outlawing the assault guns by normal citizens. It expired in 2004 and should be re instated. All states should follow the same rules on this as you can cross state lines to where there are NO rules.
Criminals do now. No one needs a gun that can shoot 100 rounds in seconds.

The guy was insane!!!!! He said he was the "joker" and went on a rampage of killing.....CLEARLY he was dillusional,,,,,,,he would have made home made bombs or something if he didn't have access to firearms. Gun laws and reasonable arguments sadly don't explain this sort of horror.

Debate this...announced today...gun sales and gun safety class enrollment up 41% in Colorado already.

He (James) did expect to have people shoot back at him. Aurora is a conceal and carry state. Sorry but the little handgun your allowed to carry is not going to win against an AR15 firing 100 rounds per minute. But he was dressed for those who tried with protective gear and clothing from head to toe. The tear gas also made it a little hard to combat. An AR15 was one of the guns banned under the Assault Weapons ban that was allowed to expire. Contrary to popular belief put in your heads by the NRA so they can continue to sell to the criminally deranged, that law did make a difference. People can't buy what is no longer made! If criminals could get their hands on guns, no matter what we do, prisons would be loaded with gun toting felons walking around inside their cells. That being said, I do believe in the right to bear arms. I do not believe in allowing the NRA for the sake of GREED to allow criminals to outgun the average person. As long as the assault weapons ban is not in place, the average citizen does not stand a chance with their little handgun permitted with conceal and carry laws. We have two choices, ban assault weapons so conceal and carry laws actually have meaning or allow all to bring in AR15's to malls, theaters, etc.

Uh sorry...in a CQC situation a pump 18in.12 GA with 00 buck would do more damage than any AR-15, or AK and you don't have to aim it...just point it. BTW the stupid politicians (who think black weapons are more dangerous) banned JHP, but FMJ rounds penetrate deeper and may actually go through and keep on going!

The NRA wants the rights of serial killers not to have to reload and ignore the rights of citizens to be safe in public places. That is all this amounts to. There is no rational reason for average citizens to have access to military type weapons and equipment. The NRA has supported killers over citizens for decades and it is time to hold them accountable. Now score that NRA.

The point of assault rifles are so we can protect ourselves against a tyrannical government, kind of like the one we have now!! This is not up for debate, it is our god given, founding fathers given rights and you will NOT take it from us!

It's the nut behind the bolt.

You obviously are completely misinformed. Take some time to actually do alittle research and you'll find that gun bans only lead to more crime and death

Let's blame rocks for stoning and cars for accidents

Some of you have no issues with placing conditions on the "rights" in the 2nd Amendment. Would you feel the same if conditions were placed on the 1st Amendment and your "rights" of free speech because some don't agree with your opinion? How about your "rights" to practice whatever religion you choose? (I'm a druid) Let's place conditions on the 4th and let LE just come into your home without a warrant anytime they feel like. You want to add another law, to the already 20,000 U.S. gun laws, to control a criminal or lunatics thoughts and actions. Does that make sense to you, really? Ask Norway...77 killed. Ask Finland, Germany, England...Oh wait ask Chicago the City with one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and the highest gun violence in the Nation. (FBI stats not mine) Now go ask Switzerland where most citizens carry!

BTW, 2A does not give you the right to "Bare Arms" it only reinforces your god given right you had when you left the cave to feed and protect your families. I suggest you revisit why the founding fathers placed that in our constitution. Hint: had something to do with a King

Fecal_Matters,
Great handle. Says a alot. Next time you fly on a commercial airline, stand up and let everyone know you have a bomb. When you land, make a threat against the president. And on your way to the police station, tell the cops to go screw and you will quickly learn about all the conditions on your first amendment right to free speech. As for the 4th amendment, what do you call the right of websites to sell your private purchasing information? How about random road blocks? Wake up. If you are going to waste our time with your inane drivel, at least do some homework first. As for the second amendment, the right to bear arms is "in order to form a militia." Further, it would seem your first amendement right to attend a movie without being shot would trump your 2nd amendment right to arm yourself with weapons designed with no other purpose than to kill - something none of the forefathers could have possibly envisioned.

@ Dan Grant are you some type of idiot I am a law abiding citizen you can come in my neighborhood anytime you want and I can assure you my guns will be locked in my locker .... And as for your comment about citizens owning military weapons ... Yes we can because it's our right the gun only does what the person pulling the trigger wants it too don't forget not everyone with guns is a criminal do watch what you say about being afraid of gun owners

TCBY How do you equate a website selling your information to a search and seizure of your personal property without a Warrant? Also, your liberal argument of “can’t yell fire” is tired and old. So is your tactic of not using complete sentences when quoting 2A. “A well regulated Militia, (comma) being necessary to the security of a free State, (comma) the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bare Arms, (comma) shall not be infringed”.
I do want to thank you for being perfectly clear though. You apparently do not have a problem with killing. You just have a problem with the amount of killing, the velocity of the round, and what style weapon you use to accomplish the insane act. "arm yourself with weapons designed with no other purpose than to kill - something none of the forefathers could have possibly envisioned" What’s your number 15 like the State of NJ magazine capacity? Is it okay if a nut uses a musket since our forefathers didn’t envision any different type of weapon?
BTW how come you Liberals won’t ever address the subject of a using a knife for violence, is that okay? In the end, murder is insane and another stupid law will not stop criminals or nut jobs. But I could be wrong, so please enlighten me as to where your idea is working.

It is important to note that virtually all of the sociopaths chose "gun-free" zones (VA Tech, Columbine, Ft. Hood, Aurora, etc.,) in which to unleash their madness. Unarmed, defenseless people make easy prey.

Had law abiding concealed carry permit holders not been disarmed, the outcome might not have been different but the odds certainly would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

The anti-gun people who rant about the "powerful" NRA confuse cause with effect. The NRA is powerful because Americans support it; and Americans are supporting it because the anti-gun people have lost the argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2lUpvCWuVA

Colleen asks "Why does the average citizen need a semi-automatic weapon?"

"Need" has nothing to do with the issue. There's a reason why it's called the Bill of Rights rather than the Bill of Needs.

The Wall Street Journal had an article that referred to "sniper shotguns". Seriously.

The New York Times published a picture of a .45 caliber (stamped "45 ACP" right on the slide) model 1911 Les Baer pistol and captioned it "Glock .40 Caliber handgun".

Unfortunately Colleen is representative of a media that has no trouble writing about things they know little to nothing about.

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/1420/undefined6.jpg

Latest news: James Holmes spelled out gory details of his planned massacre in a notebook which he mailed to a University of Colorado professor ... more than a week before he opened fire in the Aurora movie theater. The notebook was reportedly addressed to a professor/psychiatrist who treated patients at the campus' psychiatry facility.

Police and FBI discovered the notebook while searching a mail room on the Aurora campus on Monday ... but it had reportedly been sitting there unopened since July 12 -- EIGHT days before the shootings that killed 12 people and injured 58.

Inside the package was a notebook full of details about how he was going to kill people. There were drawings of what he was going to do in it -- drawings and illustrations of the massacre.

A cry for help.

"Assault" weapons should not be banned because an armed populace is the last, ultimate equalizer to a government gone rogue. One of Hitler's first actions was to disarm the people. Numerous countries that have been around much longer than ours have, for whatever reason, descended into tyranny and genocide. History and current events are replete with names and places like Stalin, Mao, Rhawanda, North Korea, Bosnia, Syria, Libya and the many thousands of "The Disappeared" of South America all recall instances of governments and populations gone mad, and marked by psychopathic leadership that had their obsequious armies murder literally tens - if not hundreds of millions (in aggregate) of their own citizens. You think the USA is immune from such tyranny somewhere down the road? It's happened just about everywhere else at some point. Secondly, families need real weaponry, not muzzle loaders, in instances of civil unrest where the mob mentality takes over, and thousands of people across a city or area are willing to rob, pillage, loot, kill and rape. Go on youtube and look at videos of the LA Riots, or read about the looting, rapes and killing in New Orleans after Katrina. During the LA riots, regular Los Angelinos ran to gun stores begging to buy guns to protect themselves and their property, but they could not because of the left-instituted 10 day waiting period. The gun laws came back to bite the very citizenry who voted for them. Of course, all the criminals were well armed.

The government should just outlaw killing people. That would solve the problem. Then it wouldn't matter how many guns were in the hands of private citizens, because it would be against the law to use them to kill another person. Remember, more laws and restrictions ALWAYS solves the problem.

Problem solved by the benevolent wisdom of your government.

Nothing will prevent something like this from happening. Nothing. It happens. Always has, always will. Crazy people do crazy things. The argument here is the same as it is for any other aspect of society that can or may cause harm to other people. Should the government regulate our lives to protect us from ourselves? Should the government regulate our lives to protect us from things that are out of our control? Personally I would rather have freedom than have laws limiting my rights to supposedly protect me from something that probably will never happen. I don't own a gun but I respect the freedoms allowed to do so in this country.

One point about the prevention of the killings if some theatergoers had been armed: go find and ask an Afghanistan or Iraq combat vet about how easy it is to stand up without cover and identify and hit a shooter during a close range firefight, especially in a crowded, smoke-filled, super-loud, crazy-chaotic environment.

The federal gun law that was pasd in 1994 expired in 2004 and has not been renewed yet. Does anyone realize that the second amendment was passed in 1700's when the weapons of today were not even thought about yet.....Why do you need a Uzie in your home???? Do you really hate your spouse or kid that much?
What do you need a machine gun for? Assualt rifle for.??
they are for the armed forces and police affairs. a swat team might need them.

So all those folks who keep repeating the 2nd amendment just remember when it was written and what they had back then. pistols, handguns, rifles.
And if you have nothing to hide in your background; why object to a license and training to lean how to use the gun? If you do have something to hide; then you don't deserve the opportunity to own a gun.

Dick Armey: Don’t control guns because cars can kill people too
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Thursday argued that guns should not be regulated after the massacre that killed 12 and wounded 58 in Colorado because the suspect could have “taken a car and driven it into a school bus” — and firearm restrictions would be like taking away football scholarships to punish a school for misconduct.

rawstory.com

Bottomline, it shouldn't matter if you use a bat, sling shot, pipe, hands, auto, knife, pistol, rope, poison dart, semi-automatic "assault style" rifle, machine gun, canon, or bazooka...murder is murder and it's already illegal. Politicians on a soap box suggesting a new useless law against the "need" for the amount of ammo (e.g.high cap mags), type of ammo (e.g.JHP ammo), or type of weapon (e.g. assault weapons) is just a diversion...because they are at a loss and have no real solution or deterrent (not even a death penalty) to stopping a criminal or nut job before they commit an insane act.

The NRA is a disaster for America. What they really do is defend the rights of mass murderers not to have to reload over the rights of people to a free right of assembly. Let's not sugar coat it. What they also push is you must arm youself just in case you don't like what the Government does and that, in any other context, is call treason. We have to show ID to buy Sudefed but you can buy guns and amunition in several states and under the Gun Show loophole, without any check on who you are. The only defenders of these policies is the NRA and the political clout they bring to the process.

Hey another stupid comment by Max but you bring up a goog point even if it is by accident. If as Republicans claim that an ID is required to vote which is a right, than how can they claim the Government doesn't have the right to restrict the right to bear arms.

Mr Grant,
As per XV Amendment Section 1 "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged etc"....SOoo Voting is a right of AMERICAN CITIZENS ....not illegal aliens!!! Asking someone to show ID is not stopping or infringing on that right, it's ensuring that the person has that right to vote!

Dan out of all of the American people you want to restrict what I own. Yes,I own an AR rifle. Yes,I love shooting it. I have served my country to the point of no return, givin all I have for the United States. What the person did was horrific. Should that bad apple effect me? Should I have to give up what I have worked my ass off to have because of him? I say hell no. There are over 350 million weapons in the U.S, it's hard to argue more guns means more violence. Fact is the article misleads the reader.

Oh and Dan I feel sorry for the town you served, that they had to listen to half of the half truthed bull you have thrown out here. I hope your political career never goes anywhere, you will be up there with ole Bloomberg asking his officers to go on strike.

Karl, If you understand the process for voting each election district has 4 Board workers (two from each party) and the voter is required to Identify themselves by name. The boardworkers locates their name in a book provided by the county. Most elections districts are relatively small and most have the same board workers in place year after year. They tend to know most consistant voters and they have the voter sign the book in which their name is found which also has a comparison signature. Every person on the ballot has the right to have challengers present who can challenge the vote of any person. They then may have to cast a provisional ballot which will be checked and approved after the election. I think the amount of voter fraud is almost non-existant.

John D, all Dan wants to do is inflame and infuriate us. He gets off on people dying and trying stand on there graves to preach his idiotic point. It is exactly why I am leaving this conversation. All Dan Grant wants to do is inject his venom into a subject and try and litter an already littered story. You cannot argue with him, his mind is set. Personally we all should quit engaging DAN GRANT. It only adds to his agenda.

Shannon, Max, John D. Fecal Matter (how appropriate). A. Local governing bodies don't enact gun law. B. I am more afraid of a person like John D. shooting me than a criminal. C. You don't need a AK-anything to defend your property or life and if you do you will in all likelyhood die anyway. D. Shannon as for the number of guns in America you say that can't be connected to the fact that we kill more people with guns than any of the modern Countries in the world????????. E. Shannon thank you for defending my right to express my opinion now you need to remember that I am entitled to it.

My point proven. To all of my friends in the gun world: keep up the valiant fight. Remember even Martin Luther King thought we should be able to defend our families and homes. Imagine that. Dan Grant goodbye.

I still don't understand the rationale for having easy access to assault weapons and buying large amounts of ammunition. People keep making this argument that it is their right - well its also your right to drive a car - BUT YOU HAVE TO PASS A TEST. and guess what - THERE ARE SPEED LIMITS AND TRAFFIC LAWS. But hey - a wreckless driver will still find a way to speed and kill other drivers?!?! Its not the car that kills, its the people that drive which do? And semi automatic and assault people - go ahead and make your next argument - well they dont outlaw cars do they!?! No they don't - but you ARE LIMITED IN WHAT YOU CAN DO. Thats what this is about - LIMITS.

You want to bear arms and defend your home and have a gun - that is your right. It is not your right to own an assault weapon unless you are trained and checked to perform an assault - thats called being in the military.

Dan is right.

Uh JW...Do you live off Black Oak, because I'd be worried... the water may be still be contaminated. "well its also your right to drive a car - BUT YOU HAVE TO PASS A TEST. To drive in NJ is a PRIVILEDGE! Not a right and therefore it can be regulated!!!

Dan Grant....Ignorance is Bliss, and you are one blissful idiot! Maybe you should go work for the Brady Campaign where all facts are discarded and they make up their own statistics. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Poor Dan. You are oblivious to reality.

John D. if there was a section on your gun application under opinion and gave yours no one would give you a permit for a water pistol. BTW John don't use a right and claim that it is God Given unless God himself was at the writing of the Bill of Rights. God has no place in your desire to make sure that spree killers don't have to reload.

Keep drinking your "coolaid" Dan. I never defended the killers you moron. I've always defended the right to conceal carry and defend yourself. Like I said in my posts from the beginning, if some other patrons in the theater were allowed to carry concealed within, the massacre would have ended with much less bloodshed, and/or Mr. Holmes may have never chosen the theater to begin with, had he known that potential movie goers would be armed. Criminals thrive where ordinary citizens are left without the freedoms to defend themselves. Why don't you stop "spinning" the facts and spewing lies and find something productive to do with your life Dan. You are a disgrace to the human race and the general population.

So John if I am a disgrace to the human race it sounds like you might want to eliminate me. Should I be afraid? You are the classic example of why we need more gun control.

Focus on the title of the article: "assault weapons ban renewal."

Where were all the concealed guns when Gabby Giffords was shot? Or that's only to protect Tea Party Patriots™?

John,
Conceal carry is legal in Colorado. How do you know an armed movie patron would have "ended the massacre with less bloodshed" as opposed to killing even more people during what would have been a shootout in a dark movie theater? Take a look at the shooting of President Reagan. He was surrounded by men with guns who were not only trained to use them, but trained to spot a potential shooter. Still, they were unable to prevent the shooting. To you point about our "freedoms being taken away" that is the last refuge of the ignorant. Just as you are free to drive, are you suggesting a speed limit is a threat to your freedom? Are laws against walking up to a liberal you don't like and shooting him a threat to your freedom? All of our freedoms come with restrictions. Just as you have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to yell "fire!" in the same movie theater where the shooting took place. Is that restriction on speech a threat to your freedom? I always find it funny to hear pro-gun advocates whine and complain after a mass shooting when it is the very bitterness you hold toward anyone with a different opinion is the sole reason for the funerals now being held in Colorado. How can a pro-gun person complain after the rights you seek to protect just last week allowed Holmes to murder 12 innocent people - many of whom are presumably just as "conservative" as you are? Why not cheer for Holmes excercise of the freedom you live in fear of losing?

TCG great comments. They are in effect arguing for the right of a killer like Holmes not to have to reload.

Maxim,
What would I do WITH a weapon? Shoot the government?
Again...as a person who believes the 2nd amendment was intended to permit anyone to have any weapon and any amount of ammo and the right to kill as many people as fast as possible, how can you now whine and complain about a fabricated suggestion that "we all agree to give up all firearms." Who exactly is calling for that? Why not celebrate the fact that Holmes freely exercised the very freedoms you seem to be concerned will be taken away. Gun laws have become less restrictive over the last 230 years, not MORE restrictive. Holmes is living proof that you are winning the argument. So why so angry? Why not simply laugh at those who suggest even limited rules on licensing? And why are you not afraid the government is coming for your car - a far more regulated and restricted weapon of death and destruction? Just curious? After all...you can take out a lot more innocent 6 year olds with a car than a gun. Don't mean to give you any ideas - just asking.

Knowing that whackos like the Aurora shooter can legally and easily buy thousands of rounds of ammo and weapons like the AR15, without tracking or detection, is a small price to pay for preservation of the 2nd Amendment.

After all, ask yourself which is greater: the odds of the Obama administration taking away all our guns so they can declare every citizen's property and family forfeited or the odds of another psycho with an arsenal killing a bunch of innocents (then again, who's really innocent?). The people have spoken: http://www.slate.com/blogs/breakingviews/2012/04/04/prospect_of_obama_s_reelection_fires_up_gun_buyers_.html

I'm buying one of each in case Osama is re-elected.
http://www.toptensthings.com/2012/01/top-10-most-dangerous-guns-in-the-world/

Maxim.
Hate to ruin your day, but apparently the government's restrictions on free speech stopped a copy cat attack. How dare the mean, imperial goverment restrict this guy's rights to excercise his freedom!
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/maryland_man_calls_self_joker_threatens_oFovCPRhLSfuIQpRGV801M

These Gun nuts all talk about the fighting the Government as if they really could. This is no longer the Army of the revolution when citizens and Army were armed in a similar manner. There is nothing more laughable than one of these people saying that they need their AKs in case the Government comes after their property.

Max, tell the truth, How did you ever pass a citizenship test. You came out of nowhere moved to Montville in 2005, had everyone else educate your children and actually think you know anything about my 15 year service to the Township all of which occurred before you decided Montville was the place you wanted to live. The only thing you have done is write nasty posts about teachers, firefighters, unions and Democrats. You also know nothing about my personal circumstances.

Just like I said you would reply. A lame excuse by a broken politician who has no courage and hides behind his computer to insult others with his antigun hate, mistated facts and spewed garbage. I called you out Dan on your beliefs and to backup your claims in a public place, a police department, and you chickened out. Everyone, Dan is nothing more than the coward he claims that is opponents are. I'm done with your childish and pathetic back and forth games Dan. Get a life and move on already.

Some solid evidence the Aurora shooting was the fault of Obama and the Heathen Lib'ruhlz:
http://gawker.com/5928451/here-are-the-most-insane-aurora-shooting-conspiracy-theories

Dan Grant, you wrote "What I said about the NRA is the truth. They fight against the police having protection while they support cop killer bullets."

Dan, please tell us exactly what are "cop killer bullets" and when exactly the NRA fought to defend them.

Say it ain't so??
http://www.alternet.org/story/156416/5_issues_that_divide_gun_owners_and_nra_leadership

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Dan Grant, please explain when exactly the NRA fought "against the police having protection."

Guns are inanimate objects and therefore cannot be inherently good or evil.

A gun in the hands of the young mom with her infant probably saved both of their lives:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57352784-504083/okla-mom-sarah-mckinley-wont-face-charges-for-shooting-intruder

A gun in the hands of a Florida senior citizen protecting his wife from an armed robbery probably saved them too:

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/national_world&id=8740954

"... There's no such thing as a good gun. There's no such thing as a bad gun. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a very dangerous thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is no danger to anyone except the bad guys. ..."

Christian News, a Lutheran journal published in New Haven, Missouri, USA, published the following item in its Feb. 4, 2002 issue: "In 1960, Robert Menard was a commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. "Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other. "Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. "Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question. " 'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.' "

I hope none of us ever have the need to protect our family from armed criminals breaking into our homes. If you do find yourselves in such a situation, I hope you are well armed and trained in the use of that firearm or pray the criminals are kind, God-fearing people. I think your family would rather not have to rely on the possibility of meeting well behaved criminals.

Dan and TCG, I know you Liberals didn't have any issues with the way Jeff Dunham held you. So can you tell us why you two stopped working for him? I understand he's shooting a new special and wants you guys back.

See www.GunForHireRadio.com tomorrow. Anna Little, running to defeat Frank Pallone, will be the guest.

Join New Jersey Second Amendment Society (www.NJ2AS.com). All of us who seek to reform NJ's repressive guns laws, which make sure criminals encounter defenseless prey, need to band together and VOTE!

What Does A Disarmed Country Look Like?
http://savejersey.com/2012/07/what-does-a-disarmed-country-look-like/

"..in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. "

"What liberals are really after is not preventing the tragedies that can’t be stopped. Their goal is to create inconvenience so fewer law-abiding citizens turn to guns for protection. They want the public to look to government instead."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/23/dispelling-gun-myths/#.UA6gcbdzGgg.facebook

Now there is a headline I can appreciate. "Fecal-matter Joins Second Amendment Society"

Why are we so eager to give up our freedom? The men and women that have been representative of our great nation have been fighting for over 10 years. For what you might ask? Our Nation! Our Freedoms! We have given up so much already in the face of extremists that hate. Why do they hate? We may never know the answer. We need to give new birth to Love and respect for life. We need to fight for it. Look at the past. Freedom has never come easy. Terrorism, whether domestic or foreign is still terrorism. Will we give up everything that this great nation stands for? If we let them, these terroristic attacks will breach America’s freedom and strip this great country of its’ constitutional protections and liberty. True American’s are not supposed to live in a bubble. We need to put the weapons in the hands of the good American citizens. American citizens need weapons, weapons training, confidence and vigilance. We need to stay strong and aware. Legal gun ownership should not be infringed. Whether it’s an “assault” rifle or handgun it makes little difference. We need to arm, educate and train. Protect yourself, protect your family and friends. Keep our country free and strong. We need to expose the idiots before they attack. We need to make swift examples of these murders. The death penalty should be automatic for these individuals that destroy so many lives. I carry a weapon all the time. I'ld put myself in the middle in a heartbeat if I could save even one life.

The anti-gunners want what they want and don't care about you or your rights. They have no cure for the insane criminal acts of gun violence so they just scream for a ban. Thank God they are not Doctors (not smart enough).
BTW, it's amazing they don't want to ban knives or even debate it. Are they not used for violence? Are those dead victims less important?

News Flash, Saw Scalia on Faux News. He can see a Second Amemdment Right to hand held rocket launchers. The man is insane. He has all the arrogance of a sociopath. Is that what you want your neighbor to have?

Mr. Grant,
I watched the interview with Justice Scalia. I thought he was bright, honorable and very fair. He was especially fair to those who oppose him on the Supreme Court as well as the President. You are spreading your filth in the hopes that someone will buy your pap without doing their own due dilligence. I do not remember hearing even one word about the Second Amendment. Why don't you just stop lying and abusing the readership here. I am very proud that such a fine mind is working for ALL Americans, regardless of their politics, their ethnicity and their private beliefs. You are a very bad guy and are a person with absolutely no integrity as has been evidenced by your many contributions on Patch. You lie in almost every comment you print.
We should all just work hard at not responding to this very dishonest and self-serving man.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

The NRA just cant get past their theory of slippery slope, allowing these sales to boarder line mental patients,only proof that anyone can get such a weapon to do massive damage,so what if it had been 75 dead and only 12 injured,some still thinking there living in the wild wild west!

Guns don't kill people, nut jobs like him kill people !!!!!!!

"News Flash, Saw Scalia on Faux News. He can see a Second Amemdment Right to hand held rocket launchers. The man is insane. He has all the arrogance of a sociopath. Is that what you want your neighbor to have?"
Hey, Grant. I am quoting you above. Did Justice Scalia mention the Second Amendment or rocket launchers during his interview on Fox News on Sunday morning??? Did he speak of the President in respectful terms? What was it that Scalia said that any fair-minded person could construe as being the words of a "sociopath"? You lie about people and positions all the time on Patch and cannot stand when people call you out on your dishonest portrayals.
It is people like you who do great damage to the Democratic Party. If you want people to consider your positions, you really need to stop lying about the other folks who might feel differently than you on a particular issue. You state your "opinions" as proven facts and then you are offended when thinking people take issue with you on easily checked information. I don't care if you like Scalia or not. But if anyone else watched the Scalia interview, they would have seen a very smart man who was very careful not to fall into the trap of speaking about what he was sworn NOT to speak about, that is the inner workings of the Supreme Court. And he would not be baited into speaking ill of the President. There was nothing showing insanity or sociopathology. Your comment was purposely wrong, which means you are dishonest!

We need to re enact the Federal Brady gun law that expired in 2008.
Don't you get a license to get married? a license to drive a car? a license to practice law and medicine? If you have nothing to hide in your background then there should be no hestitation to get license to own a gun. But the NRA PAYS Congress not to re enact it. They pay out big bucks to them all to support their ideas along with many other companies and groups.
Anyone who knows what the second amendment said and when it was written, knows that it was written to protect folks from wild animals, indians, to hunt for their food, to protect in time of war (right after the Revolution with British soldiers running around) and outlaws. This is 2012. The weapons now have been updated for the law enforcement people and the Armed forces fighting wars. No one needs those in their homes unless they are law enforcement people- Swat teams- FBI-CIA- soldiers on base.
If you want a handgun, rifle, shotgun, pistol you get a permit, take a class, get a license and take care of that weapon so that children can't get at it and use it wisely,.

"If you want a handgun, rifle, shotgun, pistol you get a permit, take a class, get a license and take care of that weapon so that children can't get at it and use it wisely,."
Ms. Jones, what you have provided in your last paragraph is exactly what the NRA endorses and provides for. The rest of what you have written is just political diatribe with is mostly incorrect. By the way, please see my comment of several days ago which I recommend you read. It was written at 3:58 PM, July 28th. I wonder why no one has commented on that? It starts as below. I cannot reprint it because it is too long for this space.

"Christian News, a Lutheran journal published in New Haven, Missouri, USA, published the following item in its Feb. 4, 2002 issue. "Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast. " We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.' "
I hope none of us ever have the need to protect our family from armed criminals breaking into our homes. If you do find yourselves in such a situation, I hope you are well armed and trained in the use of that firearm or pray the criminals are kind, God-fearing people. I think your family would rather not have to rely on the possibility of meeting well behaved criminals.

Here is Scalia in full context on Friendly Faux News,............Justice Antonin Scalia is sticking to his guns when it comes to strictly interpreting the Constitution. This morning on Fox News, when the discussion turned to gun control, in the wake of the Aurora, Col., massacre, Scalia suggested that even hand-held rocket launchers might be protected under the Second Amendment since they can be hand-carried. When asked whether weapons that can fire a hundred shots in a minute pass constitutional muster, Scalia said, “We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and ‘bear,' so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.”
Also he commented............"Scalia also was asked about his past criticism of rulings by Supreme Court colleagues in which he called them "folly" and "sheer applesauce."

"I don't know that I'm cantankerous," he said. "I express myself vividly."
When you look at the temper trantrum he threw over the ruling on the ACA you get a picture of a man more interested in his Conservative ideaology that the law.. None of my comments make me a liar or dishonest. Your defensive offensiveness
just shows you poorly and reflects more on you than me.

The NRA and many pro-gun people very successfully re-frame any argument to enforce existing laws (e.g., background checks) or strengthen them (e.g., eliminate the background check waivers at gun "shows") to make it appear that "they want to take all our guns away." Just like the Tea Party wields huge influence in the GOP, a small minority seems to run the NRA:

13% of NRA members say support for 2nd Amendment rights does NOT go hand-in hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals
26% are against requiring criminal background checks
21% are against requiring gun retailers to perform checks on all employees
25% believe concealed carry permits should be granted to applicants who have committed violent misdemeanors, including assault
26% believe completing gun safety training should not be a prerequisite to gun ownership
32% believe permits should be granted to applicants who have prior arrests for domestic violence
29% believe being on the terrorist watch list should preclude gun ownership
37% support gun ownership by people under 21

SOURCE: http://news.yahoo.com/poll-nra-members-frank-luntz-shows-strong-support-194600813.html

Handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes might well be protected under the 2nd, according to Justice Scalia.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/29/scalia-handheld-rocket-launchers-could-be-constitutional/

Mr. Grant,
I did not hear the part of the interview of the interview that relates to the Second Amendment. If that is accurate, I stand corrected. I did hear the portion regarding "folly" and "applesauce" and found that to be very acceptable. We have the Supreme Court to argue legality and Constitutionally correct application of laws. The fact that Justice Scalia argues vividly is great for us all. Regarding YOUR depiction of his "temper tantrum" is to me, disgusting, because whatever is not in your socialist ideology (my opinion of your politics) you feel comfortable in describing in less than honest ways. It is for this reason that I consider you to be a dishonest person. If anyone can find anything showing evidence of "insanity" and/or "sociopathic" behavior in anything Justice Scalia said, I would like that explained to me. We don't have to agree. We just have to portray events and people's words accurately and honestly. When you begin to do that, I will have fewer problems with you.

Hey Maxim, if you choose ANY public figure as president (i.e., someone most of us have heard of), who would it be? And were you joyful when Gabbie Giffords was shot?

How to stop a massacre

Surveillance video reveals simple, low-cost solution that works everywhere:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjH3ZMUks1o&feature=youtu.be

This video reveals an astonishingly easy way to stop massacres in mere seconds. It requires:

* No police or 911.
* No taxpayer expense.
* Can be deployed anywhere.
* Begins working in as little as five seconds.
* Protects innocent lives

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/

When dealing with criminals, or those who intend to break the law, implementing laws are only effective or a deterrent to those who obey laws. Laws are not effective for those who break them, or intend to break them. Similarly, stricter laws against drugs, and increased sanctions for drug selling had little to no effect on reducing drug use and drug trafficking. Stricter laws on gang violence had little to no effect on reducing gang-related crime. The gun debate, do guns kill people, or do people kill people have been widely studied by Criminal Justice researchers. Boston, MA and Irvington, NJ have implemented Operation Cease Fire, cities such as New York have implemented gun buyback programs. Unfortunately, none of these efforts reduced the amount of gun violence or gun-related crimes. The Brady Act was implemented in 1993, nearly 20 years ago. How effective was that in keeping guns out of criminal hands. It didn't, criminals simply get guns on the black market. Research on criminals has found that if their intent is to kill, for example, Wells & Horney 2002, they will kill, regardless of which weapon is available. In the case of this massacre in CO, I am not so sure it could have been prevented with stricter gun laws. His intent was to kill a large number of people. He could have done so using various methods or weapons. He chose to use an assault weapon. If he didn't have access to one, I am certain he would have found another way to cause mass havoc.

All of you anti gun commies should move out of the USA, you would all be craping your pants and praying that the person next to you had a gun when your life was in danger from a killer. You all make me sick.

You go, John! LOCK-N-LOAD!

How does this happen? He must of had one of those Swiss Army semi-auto high cap 9 blade black assault knives! A teenager has been arrested after killing nine people and wounding four others in a knife attack in northeast China, state media reported Thursday. Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack:The 17-year-old, who was identified only by his surname Li, barged into the home of his girlfriend armed with a knife following an argument and killed two relatives of the girl, the Legal Daily said. As he left his girlfriend's home in Liaoning province's Xinbin county, he stabbed six more people to death and wounded five.
Well Dannny Boy? Doesn't China send you to jail for life if you spit on a picture of your buddy Mao? Don't they take your children if you have too many? Surely they have strict gun laws...but alas that didn't stop this nut job from multiple killings with a knife!

Right on. I wonder what lame excuse Dan the Democrat has for this incident happening? Oh wait, I got it. Dan, you are going to say we should all be wearing straight jackets so we can't cause harm to others, right? And we should all wear gag balls so we can't possibly chew off another persons face or bite them for that matter. Oh wait, isn't this what the liberal democrats have been trying to accomplish for decades? Take away our freedoms and give all power to the goverment so we can be good little sheep and do as we're told. The founders of the constitution knew exactly what would happen again if they did not address back then. Obama and the liberals want big government. See the following Thomas Jefferson Quotes:
http://www.federalbudget.com/biggov.html

In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim" and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.

Allowing law-abiding people to arm themselves offers more than piece of mind for those individuals — it pays off for everybody through lower crime rates. Statistics from the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report of 2007 show that states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate, 46% lower robbery, and 12% lower aggravated assault rate and a 22% lower overall violent crime rate than do states without such laws. That is why more and more states have passed right-to-carry laws over the past decade.

I guess it is ok for the government to give guns to felons in fast and furious but law abiding citizens cant bear arms?

The psychiatrist who treated Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes has reportedly disclosed she had warned officials at Holmes’ school, the University of Colorado, about his alarming behavior more than a month before the massacre. Doctor Lynne Fenton says her warnings went unheeded and that no action was taken because Holmes was in the process of dropping out of school.

A drug-abusing psycho who reached out for help; several warnings were ignored. Somehow this supports the argument that the rest of us should not be allowed to defend ourselves from drug-abusing nut jobs and criminals.

'lack of proper treatment'

It is not about the size and shape, or how many rounds, it is about our right. Guns don't kill people ...people kill people. If we limit to 6 shots and a crazed person kills 6, do we then limit to 5? If we give up our arms and only police and goverment have them.....thats ok? There are crazed cops, there are crazed people in military & goverment. You can not and will not stop acts of terrorism, another law, or size limit, nothing will stop events like this. To be able to defend ones self from foreign or domestic foes. We need less goverment , less regulation, better education (not bigger or more teachers & schools), and more brotherly love......There is too much of a power grab going on in washington.......don't like the second amendment vote change it.....but you won't get my vote

Wingers: Does this seal the deal?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/jenna-jameson-mitt-romney-endorsement_n_1737769.html

Hi Max: Thanks for the response. Still puzzled how your pointing out that you don't get wood for Michelle Obama substantively adds to the conversation. And again, I don't disagree that rich people benefit by voting Republican.

I must disagree with your implication that wealthy people are smart, and (by corollary) not-so-wealthy people are not. I know a lot of nasty, mean, ignorant, idiotic rich people and I know a lot of cerebral not-so-wealthy people.

Let me ask: does Jenna's endorsement have any impact whatsoever on your decision to vote against Obama?

Finally, when was the last time you went to the shooting range?

Please

kill

this

thread

already.

It

is

only

a

conversation

between

Max

Mike

and

F.M.

why does everyone keep making this a gun issue? This is NOT A GUN ISSUE!! Its a mental health issue!! Until such time as mental health is taken more seriously by not only our insurance companies, but society and the stigma removed, things like this are just going to continue to happen --- mental health is a serious issue that needs attention - if it isn't guns, it will be other means - STOP THE STIGMA and start taking this very serious illness seriously!!!!

Yes Melissa, you are right. The guy was nuts and gun control has little to do with his rampage. He could have thrown home made bombs into the crowded theatre...he was crazy! Plain and simple.

Great point, Melissa!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian,he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal
non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

I disagree with a ban on assault weapons. What is the definition of an assault weapon, anyway. And, who sets that standard?

I wish I knew what the cure for gun violence was, If I thought banning them all was a sure cure, you could have all mine right now. I think the problem is much, much, more difficult. I'd rather have a nationwide licensing program, similar to a drivers license and registrations and tracking of all guns. Training, enforced responsibility, education and identification would be the key factors. Although, a large component of our mass shooting problem is also a matter of mental health. Trying to fix that by banning guns is a lot like trying to wag the dog by it's tail.

Part 1
Prentiss, I have the solution for addressing the mental health component of gun violence. Please listen and think about how simple this solution really is. First of all, lets go over the facts of the Colorado Movie Massacre committed by James Holmes. We know he was seen by a mental health professional. We know that this professional deemed Mr Holmes to be a threat and immediately notified the campus police and the Behavioral Threat Assessment Team and that this warning was given 2 weeks before the incident. The rest is history. Now here is the very simple solution. The laws should be changed such that any mental health professional who is treating a patient and deems that patient to be a threat to themselves or other people, they should have at their disposal a tool to preserve the safety of the general public and also the ability to get the patient needed help. This would be done thru a court ordered restraining order, enforced by the local sheriff, such that the patient's access to weapons would be removed (seized) and the patient would be admitted into a mental health facility to begin treatment (intervention). Any member of society today can get a restraining order against another individual if they feel unsafe for any reason, and also from verbal threats. If all mental health professionals had the same tool at their disposal, many violent crimes would be prevented.

Part 2
When Holmes' therapist went to warn the campus police and the threat assessment team, she should have had this tool available as well. Holmes' weapons would have been seized and all those lives would have been spared.

Now, I've wrote letters to both of my senators and I've reached out to one survivor of the shooting in effort to get someone to sponsor a bill to make this available going forward. If you know how to push this idea further, please help. Its so simple and we already have the system in place for regular citizens seeking protection. We need to offer this to mental health professionals so that their hands are not tied and so that law enforcement notified by mental health professionals can act.

Rewriting our laws based on isolated events is bad policy. Of course it's easy to politicize events like these shootings. The problem is they are far from the norm.

My experience has been that those people who oppose gun ownership of one sort or another typically have no experience with guns. The judgement against guns is made on scary stories in the news and not on an understanding of how they are owned and used by the 50 million or so Americans who own guns and never commit a murder.

If someone driving a Ford Mustang far above the speed limit caused an accident and killed several people would we ban all Ford Mustangs and similar "dangerous muscle cars"? Hey why does your average citizen "need" a dangerous muscle car anyway?

Well, another mass shooting has happened with an assault weapon. 6 & 7 year olds killed in cold blood for nothing. They probably never knew the kid.
Now if you go and do a search on guns laws like I did; You will find that the National Assault Weapon law ended in 2004 and has never been reinstated yet.
This weapon this kid used is the same as what our soldiers are using in Afghanistan.
There is no reason any regular citizen needs a weapon like that in a home esp. with a mentally handicapped son living there. She had to apply to the FBI and the state etc to get the permit to buy this rifle that shot off many rounds at one time killing all these little kids. WHAT MORE WILL IT TAKE TO WAKE FOLKS UP.
the 2nd amendment was passed when we only had rifles and handguns of some sort. Now we have so many more guns of all kinds that shoot without having to refill the barrel. HOW MANY MORE NEED TO DIE.
Gabby, VA tech, Columbine, Conn., I can't think of the others right now.