Two days after the worst shootings in U.S. history, the Arizona senator and GOP presidential candidate declared his belief in “no gun control.” Though in the past he has supported background checks for gun show sales, for example, he told a S.C. crowd that the way to prevent more carnage like the Virginia Tech tragedy is by preventively identifying the would-be perpetrators. “I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control,” McCain said.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/21
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/21
- Hud on Open thread 11/21
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/21
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/21
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/21
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
26 Comments
Even a broken watch is right twice a day!
But, but, but, It was already a Gun Free Zone, how on earth could this happen.
Are you telling me that a criminal murderer that planned this a month ago – did not adhere to that zone.
My goodness…how telling.
Its a lot like these NO-GUN signs put up around here. Those are the places to go to get shot by a robber. They know THEY will be the only person with a gun. Those signs are simply another way of saying ROB ME FIRST.
Maybe that is why crime in the UK is up 2400% for home invasion robbery. After they confiscated ALL guns in the country, they just walk in while you are there and load up your stuff. The Bobbies wont even come because they no longer have time to chase “property crime”. Just help them load your stuff.
In fact a Mr Thompson hid his gun from the confiscators and a year later he was being robbed and shot the robber. Now Mr. Thompson the homeowner is in prison for 7 years for shooting the robber, heh surprise.
Plus the Dems keeping a low profile has the usual liberal morning shows just aghast. All the usual morning chick show suspects are crying about the Dems not jumping on it.
But they courted a bunch of conservative Dems last time that told the Dem leadership to shut up about it or they would vote the other way. They now have people like ex QB Keith Schuler and of course Jim Webb, who had his pistol caught at the capital x-ray last month. Plus Gore lost his HOME state last time.
So the scam of “main streaming” of more crazy people is finally coming home to roost. What they need to do is sue the ACLU for shutting down the institutions like Winfield and others.
Right now almost 13% of college students are seeing the college shrink. The ADA has forced the colleges to accept these – for now but it may change. Plus the HIPAA privacy stuff is extremely dangerous.
Remember Parents, if the kid is over 18 the school is FORBIDDEN by law from telling YOU they are getting treatment. Think on that.
Does anyone know where I can get a RPG here in town? Perhaps McCain thinks fertilizer bombs would fall under firearms protection or is it strictly something that fires projectiles. I’m dying for a M-60 with armor piercing bullets to do some…um…quail hunting.
Funny think though. Smoking pot is illegal but a diagnosed mentally disturbed person can get handguns. If the Virginia Tech shooter had a pot habit he wouldn’t have killed 32 students but would be raiding the 7-11 for doughnuts instead. Great priorities our country has.
McCains pandering is getting really really old. I used to have so much respect for the guy.
As I stated in an earlier thread, ten day to two week background check waiting period, dna sample.
Get caught with serial numbers filed off, one year in jail. Crime with a gun? 5 years added. Make it so criminals would have to be really stupid to commit a crime with a gun. That way, most republicans will be in jail, and us libs can rule the country:-)
There should be almost NO gun control. This is a view I agree with. I am honestly of the opinion that the more armed a society is, the more polite. civilized and less crime ridden it will be. But not everybody should have a gun. You should have to get a permit and go through a background check. Anybody with felonies, mental illness or domestic violence should be denied. This can be checked at the time of purchase instantly. If this was done right, he would not have passed screening because of his mental health problems. But the law did not require he be reported to the database as mentally ill because he was not an inpatient. That needs to change. Anybody being prescribed psychological drugs such as Prozac should be on the “no buy” list too.
“As I stated in an earlier thread, ten day to two week background check waiting period, dna sample.”
The technology exist that the background check can be done instantly in store. No reason for waiting periods. If a person is buying a gun, it is because they feel a need for it now- not in 10 days. Perhaps it is a person that has a rash of crime going on in their neighbourhood. Perhaps it is a women being stalked and threatened by an ex. They need their guns NOW- not later.
The second amendment says we should have the right to bear arms (well then there is the whole militia comment, but we’ll ignore that).
Arms. Not guns. So, with today’s technology on how much we can arm ourselves with, should I be able to make pipe bombs all day long? Carry anthrax? Nukes?
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we have the right to massive killing weapons. And that would include guns.
“So the scam of “main streaming” of more crazy people is finally coming home to roost. What they need to do is sue the ACLU for shutting down the institutions like Winfield and others.”
You are suing the wrong party. It was Reagan who shut them down. All the ACLU did is to make sure mental institututions were ran like treatement centres and not prisons. Mental patients that need to be institutionalized (and I agree some do) need to be treated humanely
Another thing we need to do is bring back the old “citizen deputy” programs but with reforms. I understand why they were shut down when Sherriffs were handing out badges like candy to politicians and political contributors who were not in the least bit qualified for them. But why not have a semi professional volunteer law enforcement program? A program where the volunteer would attend classes taught by the local police on proceedure, first aid and legal theory as well as qualify on the firing range to carry a gun. Then the citizen would do a certain number of ride along hours with a police officer. After this, I would see no problem wiht giving that person a badge and a gun permit.
Kev
Much of what you say has merit (the dna check etc) but no gun control means people can have access to weapons well beyond the need for their protection and perhaps lack the ability for them to handle properly — I don’t see the logic in letting people have large automatic rifles (BAR’s and the like) –
If people are being civil to each at the point of a gun — they will be plotting / conniving a way to have the biggest gun and get “MORE” respect …. run the risk of some clown shooting you because you didn’t see him and inadvertently cut him off in traffic …. certainly good for the funeral industry ….
PM — I don’t think you can ever win the battle for total gun control, I think our best bet is to establish the equitable controls (background checks, safety requirements, etc … ) to keep guns out of the hands of as many people who are unable to handle them responsibily – the only perfect system would be total gun control, and that will never fly — even tho I’ve never owned a functioning weapon — I can see where it makes sense to allow responsible people to have some way of defending themselves — (I can remember times walking the streets of Chicago where I wish I had a gun – but I’m such a klutz I’d shoot myself) ….. level the playing field with the bad guys if you will ….
“..will be plotting / conniving a way to have the biggest gun and get “MORE” respect.”
It’s the “I’ve got a bigger dick than you syndrome” ….
and women know that’s how “Real” men look at life —– (again, tongue in cheek) —
can’t wait to hear from the sand dwellers here — but I better run out and get more cookies ….
While many examples of “No Gun Zone” were given suggesting that if weapons could be carried as a matter of daily business horrible gun related violence would somehow be either prevented or subdued these gun free zones exampled holds no water as prisons and jails are gun free zones for obvious reasoning so just what evidence is there to support such a stupid suggestion that gun free zones that should be as a prison should be i.e. a college for example how would students at a university be served if random numbers of students had a concealed weapon at any moment?
Bomb,bomb, bomb bomb Iran. This guy is another Bush loose cannon.
“Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we have the right to massive killing weapons. And that would include guns.”
So, basically what you’re saying is that the second amendment is irrelevant to you. At least you’re honest and admit it.
The 2nd Amendment should say Right to Bear Arms (Responsibly)
Start with this..guns are sold at stores or gun shows, traded between people and no one takes an eye test.
No requirement at all to prove buyer of the gun can actually see well enough.
Sure, the motivated wanting to practice shoot at targets figure out corrective glasses or contacts are needed.
But the eye sight challenged can see almost well enough in daylight, big spaces.
Many eye sight challenged do drive cars.
But who cares, its about the transaction. Money is to be made selling weapons and bullets.
Database will protect and it doesn’t. Not when organizations aren’t updating the Federal Database.
Buyers can skip the database completely at gun shows or street transaction. The NRA pushes hard to keep that happening.
The NRA wants guns in irresponsible people’s hands, because they have the Right.
People who have carried guns illegally or legal now, might be taking their gun to bars.
Drinking and having the gun concealed.
There you go, irresponsible with a gun.
CC may be legal and protect themselves while drinking, but they lose all society “authority” immediately.
Once drinking they can’t have the responsibility taking on a shooter in a public area.
Don’t drink and drive. Don’t carry a gun and guzzle alcohol, pretending that’s a protector of society.
America is being harmed with big clip weapons, too many shots in guns not used for hunting.
Some guns should be banned from sale completely. No longer manufactured at all. They don’t serve anybody any good.
Big clipped weapons beg to be shot. Pull that trigger fast as possible until every bullet is gone.
Many times innocent people are being shot at.
Seems reasonable less shots would do Americans much good. Make the criminals reload more often.
Gun control is sanity. No gun control insane.
P mom –You should google video in “knob creek machine gun shoot”.You can see all those big boys toys in action.
Mrage
Good Post –
…. but a total ban on guns will never occur, and probably shouldn’t, the best we can hope for is the “I have a right to bear arms at any cost.” folks will finally realize it’s not about them but their loony neighbors, co-workers — I don’t want to take away their (although say we do) guns — would like to do everything reasonable to try to insure that the guns don’t get in the wrong hands ….
…. and you’re right about the money ——- it’s that freedom to be greedy culture we live in ….
When you promote a culture of fear and violence like we do in this country, having no gun control is just thowing gas on the fire. We either have to do something about the way we allow our children to be desensitized by saturating them with grafic violence in movies, TV, video games, music, etc. or else we need to get rid of the guns. Getting rid of both would be ideal. But, too much money is being made on both, so it will NEVER happen, because we worship money in this country more than anything and we’ll gladly throw our children on the sacrifical fire before we give up the chance to get rich from selling garbage.BTW, expecting to change things by not allowing mentally ill people to have guns won’t work. Some of the most mentally ill and volatile people I know have never had treatment for their mental health issues. And thanks to all the concern about the rights of the mentally ill, it’s almost impossible to have someone committed to treatment. I know a young man who is a perfectly predisposed for doing the same thing Cho did, but there’s no way we can force him to get help, because he doesn’t think he has a problem, he would never admit he feels homocidal, and he hasn’t hurt anyone…yet.
Also, I have no respect for John McCain anymore.
Todd don’t be stupid. Give me a nuke and we’ll be even. Because that’s about the same logic you’re using.
Mary makes excellent points. I agree that treatment, and sometimes involuntary will have to be the answer. Some will have to have more supervision than others.
P-mom:
Parker v. DC. Read it carefully.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/Parker%20DC%20Circuit%20decision%203-07.pdf
Now tell me again how, as you put it – “Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we have the right to massive killing weapons. And that would include guns.”
The ‘debate’ (if there ever really was one) over the meaning of the 2nd amendment is over, if we are intellectually honest. It means what it says. (there’s a thought . . . constitutional language actually meaning what it says? Who’d a thunk it!)
Parker also thoroughly disposes with the “massive weapons” (i.e. RPG/ nuke) canard.
No right is absolute, of course. And there’s legitimate debate over just what the limits of firearm regulation ought to be. But the heart & substance of the 2nd amendment is clear.
And hear, hear, to that.
I’m the strongest 2nd Amendment advocate I know.
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. But I also believe a well-regulated militia is essential to a free state.
And to that end, I wouldn’t mind mind if my neighbor kept a thermo-nuclear device in his rumpus room, provided he were vetted by certain basic standards and subject to the Miltary Code of Justice. (Well, maybe not so much now that George WMD Bush has lowered the bar by expanding military service to convicted felons and high school dropouts. Perhaps someday the standards could be reinstated to Clinton’s pre-Iraq levels.)
I buy into the NRA’s objections against banning an inanimate object (although most NRA members seem just fine with banning marijuana; it must speak to them. but I digress…) What I’m most concerned about is the mentalstability and technical competence, social responsibility and personal reliability of people who insist on owning lethal firepower.
The NRA is perfectly willing to accept minimal governmental standards including background checks and proof of competence for Concealed Carry permit-applicants. Does it make sense to accept less from someone trying to buy an AK-47?
We’re still learning about the demons that haunted the Virginia Tech shooter. But the short answer: he wasn’t “well-regulated militia” material.
As far as I’m concerned, guns might as well be available in vending machines, provided the purchaser is certified to be sane and competent and responsible. Let’s require recertification with, say, an hour a month at thefiring range and annual one-day training and refresher course; an opportunity for a 21st Century version of a citizens’ militia to weed out the psychos, the desperate, the irresponsible, and the incompetent.
“Losing” a gun, or having a gun “stolen,” or allowing your crazy teenager access to your personal arsenal would be dealt with with the same severity a solider would face if s/he “lost” a weapon. Possession of a weapon without current militia status would be dealt with the same way we deal with those impersonating military personnel. Harshly.
No, it wouldn’t guarantee elimination of another Columbine or Virginia Tech, but it would likely reduce the risk. And I cannot for the life of me imaginewhy a sane, competent, responsible gun-owner would object.
There is SO MUCH BULLSHIT here and uninformed people such as:
“CC may be legal and protect themselves while drinking, but they lose all society “authority” immediately.”
You cannot CC in a bar or while drinking, DUH!!
“No right is absolute, of course.”
WHAT?!@?>!?!?!?@@@$#%#^@% In a free society?????
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
“And there’s legitimate debate over just what the limits of firearm regulation ought to be. But the heart & substance of the 2nd amendment is clear.”
NO there is NO debate to it at all. The Founding Fathers put in “Arms” because that is what one “arms oneself with”. Simple. The time they come up with this the “bad guys” had muskets and such. In todays world “bad guys” have bad weapons, and we have the 2nd amendment to protect ourselves. It is NOT for hunting weapons, it is for protection. If the enemy or the “bad guys” have a Glock 40, you should have one 2, and have the right to protect your pursuit or “life, and liberty”. If the “bad guy” had an automatic weapon, you should have the right to “arm” your self to protect to that level.
The second amendment is not about “hjardware” but an idea that you can “arm” yourself. It is not limited to clips, magazines, or machine guns or howitzers.
Very simple.
You want to be an unarmed clueless “sheeple” please do so, but “Don’t tread on me”, adn do not ask me to be an unarmed “sheeple” just because YOU think it makes YOU safer.
I’m pretty pissed off at the NRA for turning into a bunch of appeasing namby-pamby rights-giver-away-ers. They turned into a marketing arm of small weapon manufacturers. The NRA promotes registering concealed-weapon-carriers in governmental data bases and systematically promotes denying 2nd Amendment rights to a significant segment of the American population.
I’m talking, of course, of the government’s unconstitutional ban of guns in prisons.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?!
Convicts in Prison have the right to religion. Convict-run prison newspapers are testament to their right to freedom of the press. If charged with a crime, prisoners have the right to face their accusers, to a trial by jury, to their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Convicts in prison cannot be subjected to double jeopardy.
But every American’s 2nd Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” is endangered by the unconstitutional denial of incarcerated prisoners their *right to keep and bear arms* in prison!
What’s more, it just makes sense. Just as advocates of Concealed Carry laws have proven that more guns on the street will make criminals have second thoughts about committing crime, those same criminals will be circumspect about committing crimes behind walls if they know every one of them is packing heat. What better way to prevent prisoner rape than to arm the potential rape-ee? Who’s gonna shiv a snitch if his target’s ready to drill him with a .44 Magnum?
Now, you may say something bleeding-heart pinko-liberal like, “What about the guards? Won’t prisoners shoot the guards?” What a faggoty-assed, piss-ant un-American *you* turned out to be. Modern prisons are constructed to permit guards from never coming in contact with prisoners. Ever hear of bullet-proof glass? Ever hear of remote-controlled gates and doors? Ever consider that, perhaps, guards themselves might be armed?! (The only reason prison guards aren’t all packing heat is the ill-conceived, *UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!* effort to deny convicts the right bestowed to them by God!