"...an armed society is a polite society..."

[WilliamPitt]

"If only one of the teachers had a gun..."

One did. She owned several, in fact. Her son used them to kill her, her colleagues, and 20 children.

...so you'll pardon me if my respect for the "Responsible Gun Ownership" argument has taken a long walk off a short pier.

I know I know I know I know, you own an AK-47 or an AR-15 and the world didn't end...because you're responsible, right?

Is everyone you know responsible? Everyone with even fleeting access to your "Arsenal of Freedom"? Is everyone who might rob your home responsible?

...pssst...

You don't need an assault weapon. You really really really don't.

You're going to defend yourself against a government that has nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, drones, SEALs and the United States fa-chrissakes Marine Corps with your piddly-ass AR-15? Good luck with that; send me a note from the front.

Grow up.

You don't need it. You want it. End of file.

Your right to bear whatever fantastically lethal thing you set your cap to is infringing upon everyone else's right not to die in another God damned bloodbath.

You don't need it.

You want it.

There's a difference.

And that's the beginning of real reform, if you decide to accept it.

Make the very Christian decision that you will, in fact, be your brother's and sister's keeper.

You don't need an AR-15 or an AK-47.

You just want it.

Other people want them, too. See: Newtown.

Exert a little self-control over your desires. Your ability to responsibly enjoy an AR-15 is NO LONGER argument enough to defend their wide, wild availability.

This is not rocket science. This is basic humanity, and enlightened self-interest.

The old saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society."

Well, we've been an armed society - 300 million guns and counting - for a long while now.

I'm sure everyone will be very polite at the 20 funerals for those 20 kids.

Mission accomplished.

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17696-an-armed-society-is-a-polite-society

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. NO polite society should allow assault weapons. EVER.

I can see rifles for hunting, and simple non-repeating revolvers for home or self defense.

What I cannot see is the presence of assault weapons in anyone's possession. The police and the military excepted.

[KoKo]

13. Agree it's the Assaulting Repeat Rifles and Guns. You don't need that much Repetition

or Bullet Power to hunt a deer to feed your family or to protect yourself from errant Coyote or someone you feel is entruding on your home that you feel you have a right to protect yourself from.

Maybe you get more than One Shot...Compromise to three shots..from rifle or hand held gun. But, who needs ASSAULT WEAPONS?

They think they are going to fighting off Armed Militants and have to be a RAMBO?

NRA needs to give this up...they look more and more like the ENEMY than a Protector of "American Citizens Rights to Have Arms."

The NRA is bcoming a CABAL OF CRAZIES!

[themandylion]

30. Guns only for the police = Police State

So you'd like to live in a police state? Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were "polite societies" where only the police and military had effective weapons.

The Second Amendment was written for ONE purpose. NOT for hunting.

It was included because the Founders realized that ALL governments can turn into dictatorships that kill their citizens. Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic Party, advocated universal gun ownership. His reasoning remains sound today. Alex Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.

[teknomanzer]

41. The second amendment is an anachronism...

When the second amendment was added to the constitution the weapons of the time were muzzle loaded flintlocks or matchlocks. If you think that having an AR-15 in your hands will defend you against the best equipt most technological fighting force on the planet then you sir are in need of a serious reality check.

One word pretty much sums it up: DRONES. Good luck defending yourself against a hellfire missile lauched from an unmanned aircraft you can't even see with your little pea shooter. HA. HA. HA. It is to LAUGH!

[ComplimentarySwine]

53. If that were true

then how do you explain Iraq or Afghanistan? Those were hardly overwhelming victories for the USA, in my opinion.

[SWTORFanatic]

61. Well, they are mostly using IEDs (bombs) not guns. Guns are an ancillary weapon

when it comes to military usage.

As far as home usage and hunting guns, no one needs more than certain rifles for hunting and a 12 gauge shotgun or revolver or 9mm (no extended clip needed) semi auto for home defense.

[smirkymonkey]

90. +1000 Thank YOU!

[kardonb]

54. guns

the founding fathers could not possibly foresee the crazies " WITH GUNS " let loose in malls , theaters and schools and heaven knows where else . They would be horrified by the gun nuts and their reference to the constitution as their right to carry horrendous weapons and countless magazines full of bullets . I seem to remember a specific mention of " a well-regulated militia " in the constitution , but nothing about murderous crazies being able to amass an arsenal in order to kill innocent people .

WE NEED MUCH STRICTER GUN LAWS !!

[marions ghost]

69. +++++

Hiding behind the constitution in this debate is the biggest farce yet. What BS.

[_ed_]

73. You're going to fight off the federal government with your little gun?

Utterly paranoid, delusional fantasy.

[Bjorn Against]

94. You can go to hell if you think those of us who want sensible gun laws are Nazis

You should know damn well that there are many nations around the world that limit gun ownership and they are not Nazi Germany, they are free nations. Don't you dare compare those trying to stop the slaughter of kindergateners to Nazis.

[union_maid]

97. Your guns won't do squat against today's government

Ditto for your bunkers. Just forget it.

[ComplimentarySwine]

32. Why would the police be excepted?

If citizens didn't have these guns, I don't really see why the police would need them either.

[surrealAmerican]

37. I agree.

Our police should not be an army. That's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[xtraxritical]

40. I, very much agree, Police do not need automatic weapons either. The military should keep them

under lock and key too.

[BlueCaliDem]

2. Powerful and hard-hitting rant that I felt deeply.

Thank you, WilliamPitt. This is exactly how I feel about this whole mess and the escalating gun killings in this country, but don't have the eloquence to write it down as perfectly as you have. I'm too wrought with emotions at this moment. I felt every word touch my heart that's been broken today by the avoidable deaths of twenty innocent children. I cry and mourn with their parents and family.

Thank you for giving me this release valve. I felt as if I were going to implode until I read your post. Thank you.

and rec'd.

[marions ghost]

70. And if we continue to bury this grief

without action, without change...then we become ever more numb, ever more paralyzed, and I would argue ever more complicit.

[BlueCaliDem]

86. Totally agree, 100%.

I've written my pro-war Senator Dianne Feinstein and my progressive Senator Barbara Boxer AND my U.S. Rep., Joe Baca(D) to do something about this; to urge legislation that would ban assault firearms and their ammo. I loathe the NRA and made that very clear. I want to see change, too, MG. Don't doubt that. However, I am not opposed to responsible Americans owning hunting rifles (they have their usefulness even if I don't agree with them) or for those people in rural areas where the police can't get to them easily, to protect themselves with handguns, but AR-15's and AK-47's are inexcusable in a civilian theater and they should be banned.

[marions ghost]

89. Good--the only thing that will bring about change is if we

speak as one voice and make it clear to them that this is unacceptable.

Hunting rifles are one thing, sure, but there are abuses there too--some of the high-powered ones are being used in areas that are no longer rural. And hunting seasons are not enforced. It's just the whole lax attitude toward guns that is the problem. The NRA really is holding the whole country hostage. People don't realize how vulnerable they are. Even guns for protection are not usually used for that--they are far more often used to kill family members or settle some interpersonal argument.

If it is true that the mother of this shooter owned these guns and her disturbed son had free access to them, then she is to blame. The free and easy attitudes are what made this happen, what made her so careless. (If he got the guns another way (I think they're saying he did get the rifle from somebody else) then how did that occur? Who is that person?

This is a national epidemic and it must be treated as such or we run the risk of turning this country into a very dangerous place to live, visit, or do business in--if we aren't there already.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

3. Kicking, Rec'ing, and bookmarking. So well said, Will.

[Progressive dog]

4. Before the gun worshippers overwhelm this thread

Just a note to say thanks.

[RomneyLies]

5. "I have as many guns as I need, but I don't have as many guns as I want" -- Phil Gramm

As long as that sort of attitude exists, there will be assholes pulling this sort of shit.

[Kolesar]

9. Al Franken used to mock Phil Gramm when Al worked for The Daily Show

Way back during the 1990s
"Want" became two syllables: "Wa-aunt"

[DemoTex]

6. I stand with Will Pitt

"Send me a note from the front .. Grow up."

[backscatter712]

7. Today's particular armed person was downright rude! n/t

[Arctic Dave]

8. Exactly. You don't need it, you WANT it.

Guns stopped, for the most part, being anything useful long ago. Now they are just another deadly status symbol for people with money to burn and too bored to do anything good with it.

[ellisonz]

10. "This is not rocket science. This is basic humanity, and enlightened self-interest."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

[Flatpicker]

11. It's time

for America to be disarmed. We're not the Wild West anymore.

But it has to be done right.
Quickly and completely with no exceptions. Just have to figure out how.

You want to hunt for sport, get a damn bow.
Or use a fucking pen knife for all I care.

[ComplimentarySwine]

39. That sounds like a logistical nightmare

I assume that you would want to compensate the gun owners in some way for taking their guns off their hands, in order to be fiar. I imagine that it could easily be accomplished for less than $50,000,000,000, which is really small change compared to things like the bailouts.

Of course, then you're going to have the issue of holdouts who refuse to turn their's in. Assuming that there are 5,000,000 gun owners (I don't know what the real number is), if only .001% of them decide to shoot it out with the confiscators, you're still looking at potentially 500 bloodbaths during the course of the confiscation. As I recall reading, there were something like 160,000 background checks called in for people purchasing guns on Black Friday this year. 160,000 potential gun sales IN ONE DAY. That sure seems like a lot of guns out there to me...

Another thing to consider is the large number of home-built guns out there. I know of several people who buy partially complete receivers and then machine them into functioning firearms with no real paper trail such as would exist with a factory-made gun. Now with the invention of 3D printing, that could increase the number even more.

[99Forever]

66. Sure.

Here's your "compensation." We won't lock your ass up for the rest of your life when you voluntarily turn in your guns.

Problem solved.

[ComplimentarySwine]

81. I'm not sure that that will fly for a lot of gun owners

With so many things being a felony these days, and so many millions of people owning scary weapons, I imagine there will be a lot of people who aren't so afraid of the law in a situation such as that.

Maybe we'll find out in the not-too-distant future...

[99Forever]

82. We don't ask for their permission.

They resist at their own peril.

Enough is enough.

[Flatpicker]

87. I don't

Want to hear that some more people got killed because of a firefight between some gun owner and the collection agency.

That would defeat the purpose.

So really, they would resist at the peril of those around them.

[ComplimentarySwine]

98. You mean like Waco?

or Ruby Ridge?

[99Forever]

99. Real fucking hero..

.. the gun psychos have in baby raper David Koresh, eh bucko?

Yessiree, don't he make you glow with pride?

[ComplimentarySwine]

100. Nothing to do with heros

It just goes to show what happens when someone resists the government taking their guns at their own peril. Unfortunately, it wasn't just his peril, but also that of all of the women and children who died with him.

[99Forever]

102. Raping babies and trafficing in illegal weapons is...

.. "resisting the government?" Followed by having your henchmen burn your compound down with those women and kids trapped inside? What real fucking "freedom fighter" your "revolutionary" buddy was.

Yeah, very fucking impressive example you site there.

[Chorophyll]

12. Yes.

[madinmaryland]

14. FUCK THE NRA.

[Care Acutely]

57. Hallelujah! + a gigazillion

[WheelWalker]

15. Where does the fantasy begin? That you need an AR-15 or an AK-47?

I don't think those damned video games like Black Ops, Modern Warfare and Halo are helpful at all in modeling a polite society.

[obxhead]

21. ffs

Isn't the gun argument enough?

Lets fight one beast at a time.

[calimary]

16. Fuck that. That's no "polite society." An armed society is a FUCKING SICK society!!!

I wonder if there were/are any laws in Connecticut or elsewhere - that prevent someone from owning guns WHILE THEY LIVE WITH SOMEONE WHO'S MENTALLY UNSTABLE IN THEIR HOUSE????? I feel horrible about the gunman's mother being among the dead. But WHAT THE FUCK was she doing keeping guns in her house? Where her messed-up son lived with her????? Did she not know or recognize that her mentally-afflicted son should NOT be able to get access to guns???????

I mean - what do we do? Do we just let this shit stand??????????????

[The Wizard]

44. People with lunatics residing in their homes

hide the car keys.

[Generic Other]

17. And whether they admit it or not

most of the gun nuts want to shoot something -- anything -- if for no other reason than the "Zimmerman" rush.

[WilliamPitt]

19. Shooting is a lot of fun.

I've done it. It takes skill. I've been to firing ranges. Putting .9 millimeter rounds in a black circle from far away is challenging, and fun.

I don't need an AR-15. Neither do you, or you, or you. Christ, most people barely need a .22, really. I've successfully repelled two different home robberies with a pellet gun that looks like a deer rifle, and all without pulling the trigger. I held it up, the fuckwit wriggling through my window saw it, and he left rapidly. Twice.

[Generic Other]

23. But notice you said shooting was fun

The scary ones secretly add the word "someone" to your statement.

[WilliamPitt]

25. With all respect,

please don't help me.

"The scary ones secretly add the word 'someone' to your statement."

...accomplishes nothing vis a vis rhetoric or argument.

Name a "scary one" for me. I mean a DUer. Here. Now.

You can't, because no one here is going to say it's fun to shoot "someone."

Which means you're vaguely demonizing a whole bunch of people I'm trying to reason with...which sucks. You're picking a fight with everyone and no one...in effect, making reason impossible.

If that's the best you can offer, please please please...

Don't help. Because that doesn't help. At all.

Thanks.

[Generic Other]

63. I don't think every gun owner feels this way

and I clearly hope none on DU do. But how do you explain Black Friday this year when they sold so many firearms that the FBIs computers went down. And then they tell us it was because people think they will need to shoot zombies.

Sorry if I sound alarmed. My husband was in a school where multiple shootings occurred. That was -- oh I don't know -- five or six mass murders ago. Our community had a mall shooter. The DC sniper came from my community. Those were all scary incidents. Scaryt people with guns. Dead students, neighbors, friends.

I am sick of fancy dancing over this issue to avoid offending the gun crowd. There is a need to find an answer to a problem. I am not the problem.

[tpsbmam]

62. ITA, Will. It's fun.....I loved riflery when, as a kid, I went to a camp that had it

and I love skeet shooting. I can't imagine for the life of me shooting anything living, I'm a vegetarian because it makes me sick to eat food that's been killed to feed people (I do feed my dogs meat....I know a few vegetarians who don't and the dogs are incredibly healthy)...Despite that, I have no problem with people hunting as long as they eat everything they kill.

In none of those things do you need nor should you be using anything automated. If you're a hunter, you have plenty of advantage over the animals -- you (sometimes LOL) have cognitive abilities the animals don't and you have access to weapons that can slaughter animals without needing to riddle it with bullets from an automatic weapon.

Added safety in the home? Nope. It's late & I'm exhausted so I'll just post a paragraph from one article -- there are plenty of stats out there to back this up:
Guns are good because they provide the ultimate self-defense? While I’m sure some people believe that having a gun at their bedside will make them safer, they are wrong. This is not my opinion, and it’s not a political or controversial statement. It is a fact. Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Guns on the street make us less safe. For every justifiable handgun homicide, there are more than 50 handgun murders, according to the FBI. The expanding right to carry concealed guns make us even less safe. So what right is being protected if it is not the right to be safe? The right to feel safe, at the expense of actual safety?

(more at the link)


Anyway, too tired to be articulate. I simply agree -- gun "sport" is fun. Gun ownership -- based on statistics, not particularly smart & delusional when it's done to make one "safer." (Awaiting the anecdotal onslaught of "I saved my ________ because I had a Glock automatic. (Geez, just fell asleep while typing.....need to get outta here!)

[rustydog]

18. Well said

It is time this country did something positive about such horrific events.

[Canuckistanian]

20. I live in a "polite society" called Canada

And we don't allow handguns or AR-15s or AK-47s.

Nor is anyone complaining that we CAN'T.

[Electric Monk]

27. You can buy an AR-15 in Canada, but you need to jump through a couple hoops and get licensed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#Canada

They're limited to a 5 round magazine capacity, though, and can only be fired on certain licensed ranges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada#Laws_and_regulations

[Warren Stupidity]

64. Seems like a reasonable policy.

[silhouete2]

22. Yeah I can see how polite it has been lately

I just don't understand why this senseless violence continues. How many people have to die before we have the discussion about who should and who should NOT have access to guns? People have the right to own guns--however, they do not have the right to kill innocent people. This whole "Guns don't kill people. People do" is pure BS. People use the guns to do the killing. How many lunatics have to shoot up theaters, malls and classrooms before we scream enough is enough? Why in God's name do these nuts have access to firearms? Why aren't there more waiting periods to make sure these people are of sound mind and body to carry around a lethal weapon?

I'm a teacher of little ones--and looking at their innocent faces today made me cry. I could never imagine something like what happened today happening at my school to my students--but it could. I'm also a parent--and I kiss my son everyday as he leaves for school fully expecting I will see him safe and sound when I return. But I have no guarantees. I could never imaging what it would feel like to lose a child--and I hope I never do. And I'm sorry, but I would NEVER have a gun at school. I'm not Rambo or John McClain and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the mindset to go get my gun and shoot that guy myself. I'd probably be so scared I'd freeze up.

When are we going to stop pretending that everything is fine--when it is WRONG and needs to be addressed? How many innocent children must die before this stops? It sickens me to watch people on TV defend the use of guns yet weep for the innocent deaths, and then scream about how we don't' need stricter gun laws. My cousin spews that quote you posted all the time--but lately she has been quiet. I wonder if she is having second thoughts about that whole polite thing. There is nothing polite about someone walking into a school and gunning down anyone in his path.

[WooWooWoo]

24. i think the whole "teachers having guns" argument misses the logical solution

which is - have security guards. Yes, even in middle schools now.

[lastlib]

26. An armed society is Somalia, and it ain't very polite.

FUCK THE NRA! FUCK THE GUN CULTURE! FUCK GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA! FUCK 'EM ALL!!

[themandylion]

34. Hitler & Stalin

As the son of a family of victims of both Stalin and Hitler, gun ownership is something that we understand the necessity for.

If the Jews of Germany had guns - they did not, thanks to the Weimar Republic's gun control - there would have been no Holocaust. Likewise with the Holodomor (Ukrainian Famine), if the Ukrainian farmers were properly equipped against the Red Army and Cheka thugs.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Insulting rightwing horseshit. Gun control did not enable hitler or Stalin.

[RZM]

83. Agree about the Hitler. But with Stalin it's more complicated

Hitler had a fairly receptive population to work with. Germans had given Hitler many votes for president and had made the Nazis the largest party in parliament even before he was in power. Terror and violence were there in the 1930s, but I would argue Hitler's domestic position rested relatively little on them (which is kind of more disturbing, if you think about it). The 'more guns' argument doesn't really work here.

But the Soviet Union is a different story. The Bolsheviks overthrew the sitting government and had to fight a bloody civil war to stay in power. This coincided with war in the countryside against the peasants who wanted to be left alone (and didn't want to surrender the food they grew to the cities). There were large peasant revolts during this time precisely because the peasants were able to get their hands on guns, since all of this occurred in a wartime environment.

By the time collectivization and the Ukrainian famine came, there weren't as many guns lying around and the state was able to impose its will without facing the prospect of major peasant revolt. Since other forms of resistance were common during collectivization, it stands to reason that more guns would have meant much more resistance - possibly enough to make Stalin change course.

[_ed_]

74. More delusional gun fantasies by the NRA's useful idiots

Prove your point. Challenge federal law enforcement to a shoot-out. Let me know how easy it is to "protect your liberty."

[Capt. Obvious]

79. Are you banned yet?

Oh good

[OldDem2012]

35. So, you would have had TWO or more people blazing away in a class full of children....

....and the "body count"....your phrase for the children killed today..."would have been cut in half...or lower"?

Riiiigghhhttt.

Do you honestly believe that crap or have you been totally brainwashed?

Do people like you even bother to think about alternatives to the armed world in which you apparently would like to live?

Incredible.

[taught_me_patience]

36. You signed up today to spout bullshit slogans?

Those kids that were murdered today are no longer "free". The families of the victims will never be "free" from the pain. Take your crap elsewhere.

[Jennicut]

29. She was not a teacher, she was a part time sub. And they found her at her house. She was

shot dead by her son before he came to Sandy Hook Elementary. That was the MSM making mistakes in reporting today. But I agree with this article. No one "needs" an assault weapon.

[themandylion]

33. Can you define "assault weapon"?

Can you define "assault weapon"?

Why does anyone "need" a car?

Why does anyone "need" a cell phone?

I simply do not understand how people cannot "get" the fact that the First Amendment is meaningless if the Second Amendment is not exercised. The latter protects the former with credible threat of force.

[Jennicut]

38. Because you don't need an assault weapon when you gave have a simple pistol.

You don't need a car either. Or a cell phone. In fact, my mother did not have a car for most of the 70's. She shared my father's. I did not have a cell phone until 5 years ago. To save money.

No one had semi automatic assault weapons when the Constitution was written.

[The Wizard]

50. Assault rifles have one purpose

cars and cell phones..................

[WilliamPitt]

42. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

You're going to defend yourself against a government that has nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, drones, SEALs and the United States fa-chrissakes Marine Corps with your piddly-ass AR-15? Good luck with that; send me a note from the front.

Grow up.

[The Wizard]

48. Most of the gun toting yahoos

who think they can fight the military have no clue as to military power. A battery of howitzers can wipe out most American communities in minutes.

[ComplimentarySwine]

55. How do you explain Iraq and Afghanistan?

It seems like a bunch of people living in caves and mud huts with AK-47s did pretty good fighting against us.

[laundry_queen]

95. I'm going to second Will's durrrr

and say maybe it's because the US was subject to international laws when it came to the wars. And for the most part (the weapons part, not the torture part) they followed them.

I'm guessing, that if the American government was to the point of killing its own people, it wouldn't be very worried about international laws, rules of engagement or its standing in the world. Just guessing.

[ragemage]

43. Seriously?

Seriously that is what you are going to respond with? Spare me the 2nd amendment rants and "defend the Constitution" bullshit. There is no reason a person needs a semi-automatic weapon. Period. Are you really that paranoid you feel the need to have it? Unless you carry it 24/7 with you it means nothing. Assault weapon = any weapon that can be fired in semi-auto or full automatic mode with an easily exchangeable magazine i.e. 30 round magazine/clip commonly found with ar-15 or ak-47 rifles.

[_ed_]

75. Credible threat of force?

You really think you can fight off the entire federal government?

The "define assault weapon" argument is pure NRA bullshit. Laws define things. That's how laws work. We can write a law that specifically defines what an assault weapon is. Then the government will come and take your guns. And you won't fight them off because it's a stupid, paranoid fantasy.

[WinkyDink]

76. So you're a military veteran who has seen combat, right?

Bwahahahahaha!

[Little Star]

77. Jen, didn't she use to teach there full time and..

quit to be home with her own son a few years ago? I read/heard that somewhere. Then I heard that she now substituted. Anything on the local news about that or is it just more inaccurate information?

[Jennicut]

78. Local news in CT is now reporting they don't know her connection to the school now.

One parent thought she was a part time sub teacher. Other parents had never heard of her. The local news is reporting that Adam Lanza did go to Sandy Hook Elementary as a child.

[OldDem2012]

31. There was a very good reason the marshals in the Old West had newcomers check their guns at the....

...town limits or at the town jail. They knew from sad personal experience that guns, whiskey, cards and women were not a very good mix.

[defacto7]

45. Big K&R

[dpgillam]

46. Armed is polite?

But you have it backwards; we've spent the last 80+ years (since the 1930s) banning guns; removing weapons from society.
Logically, we would (and have) become less "polite".
I found it Ironic that I heard more AK gunfire at night in Washington DC in 2008, when such guns were banned from the city limits, than I did in Central Baghdad the same year.

Beyond that, Ive yet to see an intelligent explanation of why an "assault" weapon is more dangerous than a regular rifle. and a .223 is significantly less dangerous/deadly than any of the .30 caliber rounds.

Third, there's still the trite (but accurate) rebuttal that is perfectly honest:
By your logic
Since doctors are 9000x more likely to kill you than guns (according to HHS) doctors should be banned
Just because you can have a car (truck/motorcycle/boat/etc) responsibly, the fact that millions across America cant means cars should be banned
I could go on

Fourth
Criminals, by definition, dont obey the law. And you think they will obey gun bans?

[WilliamPitt]

49. "removing weapons from society"

Douchebag fails badly; film at 11.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

52. Don't bother.

[BainsBane]

58. Intelligent?

Like slaughtering more children a shorter length of time? What kind of immorality prompts you to smugly take pleasure in the fact you know more about how to kill than the rest of us who don't devote our lives to promoting polices that lead to mass murder.

No we don't know the details of your evil killing machines. For some bizarre reason, I've spent my life believing intelligence was honed by education and reading rather than practicing how to kill people. Silly me.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

59. He's gone

[BainsBane]

60. Good

I'm on the verge of getting myself banned by going off on these gun people. I had become weary and numb to mass murders, but the age of these little victims is too much to bear.

[Liberal In Texas]

47. Obama isn't going to take your guns away.

The consensus of the people will.

Mark my words, this is the beginning of the end for the nonsense of owning military arms, no permits, and selling arms to mentally disturbed people.

Eventually a sane society will not be an "armed society".

It's barbaric and needs to stop.

[NealK]

51. Great article.

[Care Acutely]

56. K & fucking R.

1000 times if I could.

[mmonk]

67. Recommended.

[99Forever]

68. Thank you Mr Pitt.

Bravo!

[stlsaxman]

71. yessir... BIG difference between Need and Want. You nailed it. n/t

[Paladin]

72. Outstanding Thoughts. Keep On Hammering. (nt)

[exboyfil]

80. Some news magazine should run

some simulations with a few CCW holders to see how effective having a gun would have been here or in Colorado. I do get sick of that argument that it would have been an effective solution. I just don't think so, but it would be good to see visually how 10 typical CCW holders handled the situation. I know it is hard to simulate because obviously the holders are prepared for the simulation - how to put them off their guard?

[struggle4progress]

84. What does that slogan even mean? "Dead children aren't noisy and bothersome"?

[truebluegreen]

85. "An armed society is a polite society"

was an advertising slogan from Colt.

See what they did there? It was always about money.

[xchrom]

88. I always thought - by that reasoning - America

Should be the most 'polite' motherfucking society EVAH.

[neverforget]

91. With 300 million guns in the US we should be the politest and safest country in the world

[OrwellwasRight]

92. +1

[sulphurdunn]

93. When civilians need

military grade weapons to defend themselves, they'll acquire them soon enough from their enemies.

[flvegan]

96. "polite society"??? LOL, let me know when that happens, armed or unarmed.

This goes beyond guns. Sorry, but it had to be said.

[liberal N proud]

101. An armed society lives in fear all the time.

There is no safe haven when so many have CONCEALED guns.