As an advocate for peace and nonviolence, and as someone who does not own a gun, I think it is wise to have strict laws regarding guns, as Connecticut does.
However, going forward is it also wise to remember the monumental failure of the "war on drugs" this country continues to endure. A complete "war on guns" would be just as damaging.
We have to stop the pendulum from swinging from extreme to extreme and make wise decisions based on facts. We also have to accept that sadly a mad man who is intent on inflicting pain will.
Violence such as the Newtown tragedy is so horrific it brings attention to the violence in our society. Children are the victims of violence every day, truly something must be done. The easy way out is to stop this painful conversation about why with assumptions, accusations and judgments.
But we cannot afford to take the easy way out. This is a time to listen to one another. Before we change laws and create new policies let us begin this healing process by treating each other with respect and kindness and prayer.
so many ignore it, and hope it will 'fix itself', or worse, just go away. those people may just be getting what they expect, a broken government replaced by a totalitarian & commercial plutarchy
You are wasting your time. All Hawk does, not matter how he tries to couch or camouflage it, is state his position on the issue. Almost everything he writes is never much more than a declaration of his stance. Hawk doesn't realize that it's ok to declare where you stand, but then you need to take it a step farther, back it up either with an anecdote or a rational explanation. But Hawk seldom if ever backs or explains anything up. Here's just one example. Hawk says about gun ownership (above) " One position is to have all that anyone wants. Another is to just ban guns. Neither are practical or useful. " Fine, but again, this just states your position that either unlimited gun ownership or complete banning of guns is neither "practical or useful." Why? He doesn't explain or offer anything to back this claim up? They are two completely different things (banning or unlimited ownership of guns) yet he combines them all into one and declares that both positions "are not practical or useful." It's confusing (he said it, I didn't) but it is only a claim and proof of nothing. Ed, I applaud your effort, but it's like trying to push rope...
Hawk says; "Example: the semi-auto AR-15 (M-16 analogue) with 30-round clips is more gun than anyone needs." Again Hawk, what you provide here is simply a statement of your position. A 30 round "clip" (it's called a magazine, not a clip) being "more gun than anyone needs" is simply your opinion. Whether it is right or wrong needs to be followed and substantiated by a logical progression of ideas or facts, you offer neither. Another example is that you also say ". Every illegal weapon started as a legal one. Availability counts. Notice the lack of absolutes." Yes, I did notice the lack of absolutes and the lack of facts or substantiation. The idea that "every illegal gun started as a legal one" is again, yet another opinion, substantiated with nothing and not further explained. Maybe you need some "absolutes" in your discussion. Absolutes like facts and some elaboration would be nice. Otherwise your comments are not offering up anything much more than "I like this" or I don't like that." Also, how about some shorter, more digestible paragraphs would be nice? No one takes the time to read those big globs of words 150 at a time.
.And again, that's just one example. I quoted others (above) which substantiated my claim. I will not repeat them here, but you may pretend that they never existed. Hawk, the bottom line is this, who are you or anybody to limit the freedom and rights of others, who've committed no crimes, harmed no one, and threaten no one? An individual's right to own property and defend his inalienable rights to life, liberty and property are his, not yours to dismiss. If an individual cannot defend his life, liberty or property as he see fits, then those rights simply cease to exist in any real way.
I was talking to a friend of mine who is a trooper and asked him about this whole situation. Bottom line is they won't go take guns away from people who are not a threat regardless of what the politicians do. He thinks someone should be trained and armed in every school and that individual law abiding permitted and trained citizens should conceal carry wherever they go. Remember not everything that goes on in society gets to the media. Things are worse than the average person realizes. I trust his judgment more than grandstanding politicians,
If a person is committed the police can take their weapons for safe keeping. The person can only get them back when they show a note from a doctor.
As for the Consitution and more innocent age, I think you need to re-learn your history. You focus on the 2nd amendment but how do you think the forefathers would have dealt with the millions of abortions we have had? I'm pro life by the way. How would they have dealt with people that live off the government dole which is other peoples taxes, for years and don't work? What you need to understand is that the 2nd amendment was not just about what the British had done on what was going to become American soil. It was about what Henry the 8th and other dictators did on English soil. Things like murder of innocent citizens in that innocent age you dream about, and one day waking up and finding out that you were no longer allowed to be Catholic, and you were now Protestant. That's what drove our 2nd amendment. Now how would I write that amendment today? Lets see, we had have Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Islamic Facism, just to name a few in our last century, so that would have to impact my thinking. We have immigrants that come here and want to be Americans so I am good with that, but we have some that come here that dont care about being American and that concerns me. Ruby Ridge and Waco, hmm I think I would make my right to bear arms alot more clear.
1) to try to get Obama in for a third term rings of dictatorship. He is one that should shut that talk down now. That would show leadership. 2) for the sake of this country Obama cannot change the 2nd amendment by Executive Order. That also rings of dictatorship. He can make his push for his recommendations to Congress, but trust me when I say this is the wrong guy at the wrong time, to be changing the 2nd amendment uniaterally. He already fought for an internet shut off switch and thank God he lost. Even liberals were bothered by that. I may not like the legislation and the courts may uphold it, but that's how this country works.
i also referred to our forefathers having in their history the execution of innocent people. Why dont you just skip over that Mr. Castro?