Vigil in Pleasant Hill to Honor Victims of Sandy Hook Shooting – Coordinators Call for Tighter Gun Control

February 25, 2013 15:45 pm · 120 comments

A number of Contra Costa residents who are pushing for stricter federal gun control laws are coming together this evening for a rally and vigil in Pleasant Hill.

The candlelight vigil will honor those killed in the Newtown, Conn., school shooting last December, said Sandra Ruliffson, president of the Brady Campaign Contra Costa County chapter, which is organizing the event.

The gathering will begin at 6:30 p.m. outside City Hall at 100 Gregory Lane, and will include a bell-ringing. The group has joined with other local organizations, such as political advocacy group MoveOn, to support President Barack Obama’s call for Congress to pass stricter gun laws, including universal background checks for those who want to purchase firearms, an assault weapons ban and limits on high-capacity magazines.

“We know that people are really upset with what happened and they want change,” Ruliffson said.

Twenty children were shot and killed in the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, along with six adults. The shooter, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, also killed his mother at her home, and took his own life.

She said the tragedy has spurred people in Contra Costa County to get involved politically. “There will be people for whom this is the first time they will be participating in something like this,” she said.

Ruliffson said tonight’s vigil and rally will show that all sides are coming together to keep communities safe. “We know that most people that are longtime gun owners do support sensible gun legislation,” she said.

Pleasant Hill Mayor Michael Harris and representatives from the office of Congressman George Miller have been invited to attend, Rulffson said.

After the names of those killed in Newtown are read, attendees will have an opportunity to share stories of those affected by gun violence locally.

“The impact of gun violence … it’s so pervasive,” Ruliffson said.

Copyright © 2013 by Bay City News, Inc. — Republication, Rebroadcast or any other Reuse without the express written consent of Bay City News, Inc. is prohibited.

1 J. February 25, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Will “Flash” be there to take some photos for CLAYCORD.com?

Prayers and condolences to the families, friends, and victims of Sandy Hook.

2 Noj February 25, 2013 at 4:05 PM

My fork makes me fat.

3 Root Cause February 25, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Want to do something for communities, advocate for treatment of mentally ill and education of the public. Those can stem the wave of attacks on society by mentally ill killers.

4 Crossings Mom February 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM

It’s about time our leaders stood up for the innocents of this world!

We need a mandatory (except for law enforcement) one year waiting period for ALL gun purchases, you should only be allowed to own 2 guns at a time, we need to require all citizens have licenses in order to buy, own, possess, or even hold a firearm, and, because this is a matter of public safety, we need to make the location and addresses of all guns and gun owners. Hopefully our leaders will finally stand up to the gun manufactures and NRA and pass sensible gun legislation.

5 stricter federal gun control laws... POLITICAL MOVE February 25, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Do people relay think that people who shoot other people register there weapons?

I get it…. We are all very sad about what has happened..

And some of you probably do not like guns… But seriously does anybody think this will do “ANYTHING”

Lets not call congress by the name congress anymore….

Lets see if we can come up with some other names that make better name for how bad they are doing.

I have a few ideas…

Hey and you so called “OPEN CARRY PEOPLE” stay at home you give us law abiding people who have guns a bad name. (AND YOU WILL PROBABLY HAVE YOUR GUN TAKEN FROM YOU ANYWAY!)
Look it up on the internet it is quite funny!

Hey and buy the way… Quick note!!!

If they take all the law abiding citizens guns it “DOES NOT MEAN THAT NOW PEOPLE WILL NOT HAVE GUNS!!!!

IT WILL ONLY MEAN NOW THAT NOBODY KNOWS WHO WILL HAVE THEM BECAUSE I KNOW I WILL ALLAYS HAVE THEM GET IT THEY WILL JUST NOT BE REGISTERED!!!

SO STOP GRAND STANDING AND WASTING YOUR TIME DOING NOTHING!!!!!

STOP TRAMPLING ON OUR RIGHTS!!!!!

6 Sacto Rob February 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Problem solved!

7 Gun Nuts in 3,2,1 February 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Waiting for comments by the extreme gun owners who think they have a constitutional right to own weapons that can mow down a crowd in seconds. That Newtown was a setup by the gubmint to spark new gun control laws.

Gentlemen and women, don your tinfoil hats!

8 limeridger February 25, 2013 at 4:32 PM

It is unfortunate that the memorial for Sandy Hook victims is tied to lobby groups supporting gun bans and restrictions against innocent gun owners that had zero to do with Sandy Hook or other tragedies that were commited by deranged people with guns. It is true that the most if not all responsible gun owners share in the horror, outrage, utter senselessness of such tragedies, and concern for how the perpetrators of such tragedies became so divorced from society and humankind that they could carry it out. It was not the guns or magazines or registration that drove them to such crimes. The fear of breaking laws (such as pre-mediatated murder) did not prevent such crimes. It is something deeper and we do need to look at the root cause as a society in a sensible and responsible “response” rather than kneejerk reaction to take the away and restrict the tools from everybody that a few choose to abuse. The worst school murder in history is known as the Bath School Disaster and took place in 1927 Michigan. A man set fire with explosives, not guns, and killed among others 38 elementary school children, 6 adults, and wounded many others. He did not use the fully automatic weapons that were readily available and legal at the time such as the tommy gun. In any event, I fully support a vigil for the needless and tragic loss that occurred at Sandy Hook, but cannot support the groups tied to the vigil for purposes other than remembering and honoring their lives and mourning the loss.

9 CAPS AHOY February 25, 2013 at 4:33 PM

I’m now convinced that the greater use of caps is proportionate to the lesser lack of reason and common sense.

How on God’s Green Earth is it anyone’s right to own the type of weapons that are coming under legal scrutiny? How many times can you kill the same deer?

Nobody, anywhere, is talking about simply taking all of our guns away.

Stop the madness.

10 mike mac February 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM

My guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy’s car ever did. Stop the violence? How about focusing on real issues like the economy?

11 Anon February 25, 2013 at 4:44 PM

@mike mac. We have the gun mentality/violence of a third world country we might as well have the economy too.

12 Concord Resident February 25, 2013 at 4:48 PM

I have to admit that head like kinda pissed me off… but I’m much relieved to read these comments. Gald we are all on the same page.

13 Question? How will stricter federal gun control laws... Keep scumbags from shooting people? February 25, 2013 at 4:49 PM

I get it you do not like guns… So do not own one!

Just because you do not like something do not try to press your ideas on everyone else… (Just because you have a feeling or are scared!)

Hey FYI cars kill more people than guns every year!

Or

Let’s just ban stupid people!

Wow I would hate to see how bad you would feel if they banned alcohol!!!

Stop with the “STUPID IDEAS!!!”

Wow we relay need term limits!!!!

14 Dear Caps Ahoy February 25, 2013 at 4:54 PM

If you think no ones talking about taking our guns away read “crossing moms ” post.

15 At (limeridger) Nicely stated!! February 25, 2013 at 4:58 PM

I am sure that everyone is horrified at what has happened!

But lets not go over board people who own guns and are responsible and continue to be why are they taking all this anger from people?

Is this fair?

Keep it up and it will come back to haunt you…. Be careful!

16 no handle February 25, 2013 at 4:58 PM

This event sounds like it is 99% second amendment bashing and 1% vigil for the victims of Sandy Hook. Look at who the organizer is.

17 Howard K. Mullins III February 25, 2013 at 5:01 PM

This event is obviously more a way to garner support for gun regulations than it is to be a memorial for murdered children. And I think that is just about as despicable as anything I have ever seen. Some of you people have absolutely no redeeming values what so ever.

A gun is a tool and its not the tool that’s causing the senseless murders, its the people using the tool.

There are a lot of people who could benefit from all of the time an money being spent to punish people following the laws.

The mentally ill need your help and yet many of you keep wasting your time and energy and funds on laws and regulations that punish the law abiding people, good citizens, while ignoring those who are desperate of serious care.

If this is an example of the bleeding heart left, which it really is, the future is even dimmer than I imagined.

18 @13 February 25, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Speaking of stupid, “relay” is spelled “really.”

19 Kevin Erwin February 25, 2013 at 5:05 PM

What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand. If you want to ban or limit guns then you need to go through the amendment process to change the Constitution. I would think with all the local home invasions and burglaries maybe people would be using their brains a little more than their hearts, but apparently not. If you don’t like guns, feel free to put up a “THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE” sign in front our your house!

20 GoodGrief February 25, 2013 at 5:07 PM

This is stupid.

21 Shuley February 25, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Ah yes, the old analogy that guns kill people = fork causing obesity.

Great analogy! The only one dumber than the person who thought of it are the people who repeat it. Now a challenge. Find a news story where someone takes a fork and force feeds dozens of people until they die.

22 Amy February 25, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Isn’t it a no-brainer that criminals get guns illegally? In order for a non criminal to purchase a gun, that person must take a gun safety course. 99.9% Of gun deaths are by criminals. Why does the government want to take away our right to protect ourselves from criminals? Has anyone called 911 lately and been put on hold? In a disaster, the police will not be there to protect us from crime. I believe the government will use any sensless tragedy to disarm the citizens because their real agenda is control.

23 It's 'Meme' is that you Ma? February 25, 2013 at 5:31 PM

As the gun debate ebbs and flows I have always followed the semi-gun golden rule…

Actually before guns…

“Live by the sword – die by the sword…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by_the_sword,_die_by_the_sword

Or even lately – “Live by the drone – die by the drone”…

Or is it better thusly:

To have a sword, gun, drone, even a nuke (cold-war logic) “peace through strength”…

To have one of the above and not need it – or to need one of the above and not have it…

That my genteel citizens is really at the crux of this debate…

As my rapper instincts kick in…

“If rap were illegal – would only criminals have rap!”

Or Banks – “If only Banks had ‘bank’ would only criminals have ‘bank’?”

Keep it open ended for American’s sake I’m thinking…

Not an easy twist of logic no doubt!

Love,

“Meme”.

24 Hey February 25, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Libs . . . What a waste of time . . . Guns dont kill people . . CRIMINALS DO! . . .No amount of gun control will stop criminals . . It will only disarm good people who can LEGALLY Possess a firearm.

stupid

25 Dennis February 25, 2013 at 5:33 PM

and there have been a total of 15 rampage shooters in schools, and less than 150 people killed by them, in over 100 years.

Yet every year, 33,000 people OD on prescription drugs. 22,000 are suicides. How many more commit suicide by jumping, hanging, cutting, or guns because of their prescription drug induced depression?

How about locking up the owners of all those Oxycontin pills pilfered from the medicine cabinet by their kids? How about making the owners of those prescriptions do a background check, show a photo ID, and give a thumbprint each time they renew the prescription?

And PS Caps Ahoy, when the 1st Amendment was written, your Right to Free Speech was limited to the number of people in the crowd listening to you shout. Since then, with TV, radio, telephones, and internet, you now have the ability to berate millions at a time. The authors or the Constitution had no way to forsee that, so maybe we should cancel YOUR right to use the internet (or whatever), just like you want to ban any guns not invented before the 19th century.

Get a clue: a Right is a Right, and prior restraint is just as wrong for the 2nd as it is for the 1st Amendment.

Meanwhile, 90% of violent crime is committed by ex-felons involved with gangs/drugs. Only 12% of the criminals are ever convicted for their crimes.

If you are serious about reducing violent crime, and suicides, try changing the laws so that there are fewer ex-felons on the street. While they are locked up, quarantined, they aren’t committiing crimes. And instead of badmouthing the War on Drugs, expand it to cover the liberal never-home parents of kids they keep medicated from birth, and dump into the public school system.

It isn’t the lawful gun owner causing society’s problems, it is the entitled liberals and the politicians they elect.

26 Anon February 25, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Will Lily Gaubert’s Name also be mentioned at the vigil?
Will the Death certificates be released?
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2013/02/23/stop-the-heretics-and-the-jackals-non-believers-kept-from-sandy-hook-death-certificates/
Do any of you LEMMINGS ever ask any questions? SICKENING!
Why is it going to come crashing down on the heads of Newtown residents??? Tell me –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usWSxBUlNhk

27 stan February 25, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Shuley @ 20 – The “Forks make you fat” is a perfect analogy for the “guns make you a killer” sentiment – but you apparently can’t comprehend that.

It’s not the analogy that is dumb, it is you that are dumb. “Democrat Dumb” in fact.

28 Dennis February 25, 2013 at 5:44 PM

@Shuley here’s a tiny little clue for you: it is the ACT of using a fork or gun to murder people, and not the OWNERSHIP of that fork or gun, which is illegal.

Your notion that banning OWNERSHIP should be a crime … for guns, but nothing else … is what is stupid.

Oh wait, get it! Youthink that a fork is harmless, and has no intent to kill, but a gun is an evil creature that will possess anyone owning it, and force them to kill? I sure hope you don’t own any enemas.

29 John Marty February 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Grow up retards sandy hook was fake

30 Let's be real February 25, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Let’s look at this theoretically.
Say they repeal the Second Amendment.

Which one is next? Women voting? Black people riding in the front of the bus? Free Speech? Search and Seizure?
How about something so simple as Roe v. Wade?

The Second Amendment is the only thing that is keeping the others in tact.
You want to take that away? :(

31 Just Sayn February 25, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Regardless of all you nay Sayers,
This is an example of Community
Action. You don’t recognize this type
of activity because you are home
posting on who knows how many
chat rooms . This is how things get
done out here in reality, or how they
used to get done before the “Internet”.
I am for any thing that gets people
together, face to face, with hellos
and smiles , you know, real people.

32 Anon February 25, 2013 at 6:05 PM

@17 stupid would also be not recognizing an obvious I-pad auto correct.

Go sniff shuley’s jock.

33 KJ February 25, 2013 at 6:09 PM

I was recalling that my grandfather used to make his own bullets. This got me to thinking: How about outlawing the commercial manufacture and sale of bullets, but keep it legal to make them for personal use. Gun-rights people could own all the guns they want, but would have to make their own bullets.

I suspect many will be too lazy, or dumb, do make them, so that might cut down on the slaughter of innocents.

34 Howard K. Mullins III February 25, 2013 at 6:09 PM

@Amy

Yes it is a no-brainer.

I guess that’s what is compelling the left to act as they are.

35 Two questions February 25, 2013 at 6:09 PM

One: do I need to bring my own torch and pitchfork or will one be provided?

Two: will the politicians and celebrities security details be carrying their guns?

36 Atticus Thraxx February 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend what sounds like a delightful event. To miss an evening with such a lovely group of reasonable, rational people as I’m sure will be attending will be cause for some consternation on my part, but alas, I must clip my toenails.

37 @26 February 25, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Yes and stupid is not proof reading before submitting and sending crap.

38 @26 February 25, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Once again it’s not my fault it’s someone elses. Just like when someone steals your gun. I did my best wah wah wah.

39 Travis Bickle February 25, 2013 at 6:36 PM

#30:

That sounds very similar to what the Occupiers said. What a minute – does the one percent still exist? Dammit! Back to the drawing board.

40 Anon February 25, 2013 at 6:37 PM

MoveOn.org is a joke. They tried to take up the cause of steroids in baseball in years past, which is when I moved on from them.

And pretty sad to see them use what happened in Sandy for their own political gains. Oh and YES I do want change. I don’t want my rights to buy and own firearms taken away every time someone does something wrong. Maybe we should all give up driving, after all those stolen cars being used to commit crimes. Idiots.

41 CoCoVigilante February 25, 2013 at 6:37 PM

AS ALWAYS, LOTS of stupid responses by soccer moms and people who do not value their constitutional rights! Lets take guns away from HONEST people who can legally obtain them so all the illegal guns overwhelm the state and law enforcement. Did you soccer moms know there are more illegal black market arms floating around the state of CA than legal ones!?Do you really think LEGALY OBTAINED GUNS ARE USED TO KILL PEOPLE OR ILLEGALLY OBTAINED GUNS?? Polititians who run this state are WIENERS who want to strip us of our roots and could care less about our rights. Really you think the lives of 20 kids should be used as a staple to smear gun rights?? Does NOBODY remember the past shootings and how they literally died in vein? Stupidity, stupidity, and more stupidity. Hundreds of people die every month in this country of ILLEGAL gun violence but lets just take the cute pictures of some little school kids and dishonor them by smearing gun laws
Come take my guns and you will get the ammo first!

42 Gus February 25, 2013 at 6:47 PM

@just sayn (wtf)

Yeah, this will lead to something meaningful, like a million felon march in D.C.

Your diction suggests you will be there. Although if you are so “out there” in the real (pronounced weal) world why are you commenting here?

You should be ashamed of yourself for using the death of children to further your political goals. But Jesse and Al have no shame ain’t dat right.

43 Howard K. Mullins III February 25, 2013 at 6:57 PM

A person who knows how to throw a knife can do just as much harm to people as a fellow who has a weapon. Just depends on how many knives the thrower may may have.

Banning, or even restricting things in this country has never worked very well before.

When some Americans are told they cannot, a lot of them just go out and do anyhow.

44 The Theorist February 25, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Sounds like PR propagan… OH I SEE
> “representatives from the office of Congressman George Miller have been invited to attend”

So do all these groups have the proper permits to assemble? Sounds like a big crowd… might need some tear gas to keep it under control.

45 Anon February 25, 2013 at 7:05 PM

@Stan I’ve had forks pointed at me before and have walked away every time.

46 Rob February 25, 2013 at 7:17 PM

strictor gun laws… make it harder for leget ppl to get leget guns because criminals are using illegal guns illegally.. genius.. i also love how ingorant ppl are exercising the right to vote for less rights…

47 Atticus Thraxx February 25, 2013 at 7:17 PM

“and will include a bell-ringing”
There’s bell ringing? Why didn’t you say so? I gotta tell you, no matter how strongly I feel about an issue, no matter what agony standing by doing nothing may cause, if any of you catch me in public, chanting and ringing a bell and there ain’t a big red fricken’ kettle next to me, kill me. For the love of God, just kill me.

48 When the zombie apocolyse happens February 25, 2013 at 7:20 PM

All you anti-gun owners will be the first to be dinner. Congrats. It gives me more time to load my gun and save my family.

49 Jeff February 25, 2013 at 7:29 PM

A vigil after this much time?

Must be motivated by liberal politics. Shame on you.

And keep your friggin hands off my rights.

50 Law Abiding Citizen February 25, 2013 at 7:50 PM

All you Anti gun people move to Chicago!!! They have the tightest gun laws in the whole USA!!! go see how many law abiding people like you have been killed by criminals with guns because they aren’t allowed to defend themselves with a gun!

Think before you speak nonsense. I know common sense isnt so common, it definitely shows here on claycord.

Think of it this way, that David Rosen idiot who hit and killed the dad and 2 girls on Treat Blvd, the govt decides to ban all cars because of him, is that fair to you and millions of other people who dont drive 65mph on Treat blvd?

51 TinFoiler February 25, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Garbage and a Hoax. Show me footage of 600 school kids being evacuated from Sandy Hook and December 14th – and I and Many others on Youtube will pull videos down questioning all of the inconsistencies with this Hoax.
Looks more like the Truman Show – HD Footage of Firehouse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX2ITHV6k-U
The way a REAL School Shooting Looks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3id88P6xlUk
The Actors, that we only saw once:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sppznMWdCF4

There’s many more, but what’s the point? You all Love it that a 120lb Boy supposedly brought nearly 100lbs of weapons and ammo, they just had an updated surveillance / security system at that school – Yet, we get to see none of that footage, because it does not exist – Just like all 20 “parents” did not get to see their “child”, they were shown a photo!!!! Are you sh!tting me? You love that some old strange pervert invited 6 kids into his house that the school bus driver abandoned?!?!
Oh, I have plenty more, but all that you have is what the media has told you and you questioned nothing.
The only cell phone footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HZcxUSm28s

52 Rollo Tomassi February 25, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Sad tragedy, media stunt. Politicians should concentrate on the homeless, jobs and gangs. All these liberal opinions are sickening, by that logic, alcohol should be illegal because I don’t like it and I won’t have to worry about being killed by a drunk driver. B.S.!

53 s February 25, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Oh wait…. He killed his mom and stole her guns to do that.Hmm(ILLEGAL)!!!!

54 Shuley February 25, 2013 at 8:36 PM

The attachment of intent to the object is not something I came up with. It’s something gun nuts did and I point out. Another STUPID cliche gun nuts use is “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” Yeah, we know. It’s YOU who are trying to be “clever” and point out that inanimate objects don’t get up and start killing people. Guns or forks.

You also aren’t enlightening people when your argument is that banning guns won’t stop criminals or crime. Duh.. We know. However, a lot more gun deaths are NOT attached to “criminals”. I guess it depends on your definition of a “criminal”. Nobody would have considered Adam Lanza a criminal until he committed that horrible act nor would they most of these lunatics who go on these rampages. Laws are not always written to stop bad things from happening. There is no way to do that. The idea is to balance “benefits of society” vs. risk. The benefit of a fork, a car, an airplane, etc.. are all things that outweigh their risks even though they carry true risks also.

Anyone who wants to have a real discussion about guns will see that the mere debate about risk assessment is far more complicated than something where there is obvious benefits, like cars. A lot of the gun nuts on here give responsible gun owners a bad name and are doing more harm than good for their cause.

And let it be said I am NOT in favor of banning guns. I am in favor tighter control but MORE personal freedom. I am leaning against an assault weapons and large capacity magazine ban, and I am in favor of concealed carry. However, I do think ALL guns should be registered and sold with background checks everywhere – everyone should be trained when buying their first gun, and they have to pay for all of it.. I don’t think that is punishing responsible gun owners. I think that defines responsible gun owners.

55 Atticus Thraxx February 25, 2013 at 8:47 PM

What exactly is an anti-gun owner? And I think you mean reload your gun. Empty guns ain’t good ‘fer nuthin ‘cept cleaning my pappy used to say.

And TinFoiler..God Bless ya son. But lemme ask ya this. Say your right. Say your right about all that wacky s**t you’ve been posting these past months. Say we wake up tomorrow and every single one of your “prophecies” turned out to be true?
Now what?
Seriously.
Now what?

56 you know February 25, 2013 at 8:51 PM

How come nobody ever complains about the forced use of seatbelts and helmets? The government infringed on my right to free will when those laws were passsed.

We should change the law so it states that if someone uses a gun in a violent act 1) it should be automatic death penalty and 2) the relatives of said criminal should also be charged for not declaring that person mentally ill before hand. After all, family members will know more about that person than some stupid test on paper.

If all the people who own guns want to keep them, they should be forced to submit to mental health testing twice a year with gun owner certificates being renewed every year.

And nobody needs an assault type weapon. Those should be reserved for the military.

57 Anonymous February 25, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Move on .org and similar whores could care less about those poor kids. As a pro gun guy I can see where this is going: at a certain level of lethality -no one “needs” a particular firearm.If you own a shotgun,watch out because they can put more lethal projections down range then an AR15 can.

Look at some of the loony suggestions featured on Claycord: one poster wants people to wait a year to buy a gun and have a maximum of two or DeSaulnier with his biometric requirement. People like this cause people like me to send money to the NRA even though I don’t always agree with them.

I hope someone notes every politician that attends this rally so I know who to not vote for.

58 Dennis February 25, 2013 at 9:10 PM

@Shuley background checks? You mean a list that does not include terrorists (and from 2000-2005 granted permission to over 1000 of them), and does not include ex-felons? Who *** IS *** on that list?

Your assumption that more crime is committed by non-felons (1st timers) simply doesn’t pass muster. Over 90% of violent crime is committed by those who ALREADY have a criminal record. Why gun for the 10% (many of whom were tried as juveniles, thus are not on the ex-felon percentage), instead of going for the mother lode?

You continue to focus on prevention based on presumed intent, yet there are about 300,000,000 guns in the US, and – gasp – virtually none of them have killed anyone.

And yet you ignore the dumping of criminals from prisons, you favor parole (only do half the time the jury decides), and favor not returning ex-felons with parole violations to prison. How is that solving the problem?

And how about those 33,000 OD deaths each year from prescription drug abuse? They make all the gun deaths pale by comparison.

As for cost-benefit, there are as many as 2,000,000 preventive gun uses per year, thus 2M fewer violent crimes committed. Overall, guns prevent more violent crimes than they “cause”.

But tell the families of those rape and homicide victims that you disallowed them their right to defend themselve, because YOU were deluded into thinking tha having a gun would have made them into a criminal, rather than prevent them becoming a victim.

Wanna do a balance sheet? Show me the results of 40 years of gun control in Flynt or Detroit, or Chicago, or Oakland and Richmaond. You can’t, because there IS no data to support your thesis.

59 The Real McCoy February 25, 2013 at 9:14 PM

NO GUNS NO PEACE
KNOW GUNS KNOW PEACE

1 Corinthians 35: “And yea, I say unto you, honor thy gun, and keep it holy: for it is the weapon of the LORD”

FACT: GUNS = FREEDOM.

WHY DOES OBAMA HATE FREEDOM?

60 Law Abiding Citizen February 25, 2013 at 9:19 PM

Shuley, background checks are done when purchasing a handgun, shotgun or rifle in CA already. You obviously havent bought any of these have you?

We pay the gunshop $ for the item, tax and background check and have to wait 10 days before we can pick up the gun as long as the background check says its ok.

If you are buying a handgun in CA, you need to have a HSC, handgun safety certificate. You need to take a test for it as well, without it you cannot buy a handgun legally.

How many criminals do you think will go to a gun shop and pay 500$ for a handgun they can buy off the street for 50$? or steal one?
Or take the time to pay for and take a HSC test?

Even if someone who is restricted to purchase a gun goes to a gun shop and tries to buy a gun legally that gets denied, you think that will stop them from getting one illegally?

We law abiding people all want to and deserve to be safe right?
You will never remove all the guns in our country, our world, its impossible.
You Ban certain rifles, and size of magazines so what happens? law abiding people turn theirs in? criminals keep theirs?

We all know law enforcement funding has been cut, response times are slower, crime is still happening,
I suggest you arm yourself to level the playing field against criminals.
It doesnt have to be a gun, you can take martial arts, pepper spray, a bat but those arent as good as a trained person willing to fight for their life with a gun. A gun can be used at a distance.

61 Stater of the Obvious February 25, 2013 at 9:23 PM

last time I checked the right to bear arms was limited to members of well regulated militias. Who here is a member of a well regulated militia?

62 Anonymous February 25, 2013 at 9:53 PM

We recall that Move On.org was formed to defend a gentleman who lied under oath and to all of us on TV. Hardly an auspicious cause in my opinion.I doubt that those folks instructing us on judgement and the law would be productive. I will contribute to anyone who runs against any politician who endorses these people. So will others.

63 anon February 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM

You pro gun people are getting stranger by the day. Nothing speciific any more just everyone else is going to die, a fork makes you fat, this is a political stunt, move to Chicago, gun free zones are crimial hot beds, it’s not my fault somone broke into my house and stole my gun and robbed a store and killed the clerk, and I’m moving to Arizona, Just a little paronoid.

64 Kevin in WC February 25, 2013 at 10:38 PM

I think Ben Franklin said it best, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

65 concord residente February 25, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Anything to dodge the real issue.
The heart of mankind is the issue.
the Gospel is the only hope for humanity.
Not gun control.

66 anon February 25, 2013 at 10:55 PM

Shuley – What is the benefit of pleasure driving? Hundreds of thousands of people are killed or maimed each year in car accidents, and many, if not most, of those deaths and injuries, particularly to children, could be prevented simply by banning the use of automobiles for anything but business and government purposes. Certainly, there are benefits to cars, but do the benefits of driving to Disneyland outweigh the cost of using them for frivolous purposes?

If there is a moral imperative to ban risk, then you should be against anything that carries unnecessary risk. Otherwise, the “benefits of society vs. risk” analysis is simply imposing your own subjective morals onto others through the police powers of the state. Frankly, I find your sort of morality more of a risk to society than gun owners ever will be. It’s the statist morality that has killed millions in the past century and are far more likely to participate in mass murder of fellows citizens than any individual gun owner ever could.

67 Shuley February 25, 2013 at 11:26 PM

@ anon 66

I didn’t make up the benefit v. Risk test. The American legal system is based on it. Again, your comparison to cars is completely irrelevant and weak.

Dennis, in his ludicrous attempt at an argument, brings up a good analogy. Prescription drugs. Naturally, there is a huge benefit to them. Many people need painkillers anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs every day. They serve a lot of good in society. However, there is a large risk asociated with them. Addiction and death is a problem. So,there is a debate and the role of our government is to reduce risk and preserve the benefits.

68 dinkydau February 25, 2013 at 11:37 PM

I laughed when I read someone wante a one year waiting period for buying a gun. Hell when you do that, the gun will get lost in the shuffle on a warehouse shelf in the backroom somewhere.
They should have more money which they wont, on mental health programs. The lawbiding people will register their guns or what they have to do to keep them but the gangbangers in Oakland wont.
Most shootings occur with handguns because they are easy to hide and conceal. How come the political people arent going into Oakland and granstanding about gun violence there? How come nobody cares about oakland where the body count was 134 last year? The polititians want to get re elected and they dont give a damn about anyone. Its their career they want to preserve.

69 dinkydau February 25, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Why are they having a vigil for the people killed in Oakland and Richmond last year? over 134 dead. What wrong with that?

70 joe February 25, 2013 at 11:47 PM

Why is it we only hear these gun grabbers talk about Sandy hook. That happens and all these morons want our gun rights taken away but gang members get shot up daily in Oakland and I haven’t heard anyone say anything about the poor gang members? All u idiots that want to our gun rights taken away are some of the dumbest people I have ever seen. If u don’t like guns then move to Mexico….they have very strict gun law’s there. The law abiding citizens there are not allowed to own guns and it seems to be working out well for them……NOT!!!!

71 Travis Bickle February 26, 2013 at 12:29 AM

@Atticus:

Thank you. Your comment is 100% on point. Supposing TinFoiler and his conspiracy theory cohorts are right, and all these tragedies and losses of life are conceived and executed by government agencies for some nefarious purpose, and all of the participants are government plants sworn to secrecy, and in this age of instant information via text, email, tweets, etc the conspiracy remains intact (think back to the Watergate scandal, where professional thieves and spies got caught before cell phones with cameras in them). Now what?

72 david the gnome February 26, 2013 at 12:51 AM

this is all getting out of hand.. no one is gonna take away our guns for the simple fact that they want to live long enough to make it home for supper

73 David February 26, 2013 at 1:34 AM

More strict gun laws will not stop these types of events from happening. Nor will it make them less frequent.Taking away our guns will take away our freedom, though. And those of you in law enforcement, you are just pawns. you have no place in the nwo’s future. You will see when you have family members takin away. Don’t think its going to happen? Watch the news. Read the headlines on page 3 or 4 of your local newspaper. It’s becoming more clear everyday.

74 1055maus February 26, 2013 at 3:44 AM

I would rather be responsible for my own fate. Having worked for more than one government entity, It, is neither altruistic, or effective.

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
–Thomas Jefferson–

75 Jermy February 26, 2013 at 5:15 AM

Hello all

Wanted to invite everyone to a “stop the car violence” event. We will be focused on stopping people getting killed by other cars! We are pushing for a ban on all vehicles, throughout the country! Cars are bad!!!

76 Don't Censor Me Bro February 26, 2013 at 5:18 AM

@Shuley got skooled, AGAIN!

Will someone please tell him/her that there is a kick me note taped to his/her back,soon?

This is too much….

77 Vindex February 26, 2013 at 5:37 AM

I’m for stricter gun control, but as these people dance on the graves of these children to promote their cause, I’m turned off. This rally isn’t about newton or the children, but rather to tap into emotions to promote a cause. Move on.org is the left hand of Pres. Obama and I lose more respect for him daily. A shame as he had such a bright future. Now he will go down as one of the most divisive Presidents of all time

78 @ stater of the obvious February 26, 2013 at 6:30 AM

Actually, according to George Mason (one of the guys that wrote the Bill of Rights, which I guarantee you didn’t know) said that we are all the militia, except for a few public officials.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or protecting your house. It is about preventing a monopoly on power by the government.

You anti gun idiots need to educate yourselves. Read the Federalist Papers and other writings by our founding fathers and you will see that our right to bear arms is to keep government (including the police) in check.

79 anon February 26, 2013 at 6:57 AM

How did that War on Drugs work out for ya? Swami from Miami predicts the War on Guns will go the same way.

Penalizing honest law abiding citizens is wrong.

80 BagsFlyFree February 26, 2013 at 7:17 AM

Anyone who goes to this should leave the second the Sandy Hook portion of the vigil portion is completed. “Wrapping” gun control propoganda into the compassionate moment is a disguised trick to push agendas. Any politician in attendance is not getting my vote ever again..

BFF Out!!!

81 TinFoiler February 26, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Atticus,
We are screwed as long as they have the moron majority that’s controlled by TV, Sports, Movies, Media etc. We are living in Idiocracy.
“If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” Malcolm X
“Those who are able to see through the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”
Plato

The ones that know what is going on will be the first to be taken out as was Aaron Swartz when He discovered Sandy Hook Counseling guide on How to Talk to Your Child about the Sandy Hook tragedy…..Dated December 10th –
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/how-we-know-a-guide-on-counseling-children-about-sandy-hook-predated-the-massacre/#comment-164788

Notice how every other Ethnic group or Sexual preference group has “their rights”, but the “Conspiracy Theorist” label is fair game to attack, the Conspiracy Theorists (anyone that questions their BS) are the new “N” word.

82 Phillip from Clayton February 26, 2013 at 7:29 AM

Stater of the Obvious #61…

A couple of comments……

1. The 2A reads “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.”

This states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” It does NOT state that it is LIMITED to members of well regulated Militias.

2. The most current 10 USC § 311 (Militia: composition and classes) states the following:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Read your history…. especially the Federalist Papers.

Fact – The politicians are NOT doing anything constructive to address “gun violence”; they take the easy way out by banning mechanical objects. When firearms are “banned”, guess who’s gonna obey the law? Those who are not the problem! Do you really think that criminals will turn in their guns? Really?

Fact – If firearms are banned, who’s gonna “collect” them? All xxx million of them? Given crime in this country, probably the only areas that will collect them are the anti-gun areas – SF, LA, NY, Chicago, etc… – all Democratic enclaves.

Get it? Criminals don’t obey the law. that’s why they’re called criminals. And the politicians find it MUCH easier to deal with inanimate objects than people.

@Shuley and others – you all wanna stop with your infantile namecalling? That illustrates nothing more than not having the facts at hand. While you may not like the fork vs gun comparison, it is valid….. both are inanimate objects incapable of performing any task by themselves. However, you can’t tell me that a fork was “designed to do xxxxx” – that’s your assumption.

When the ship hits the sand and you’re faced with a bad guy, are you gonna:

1. Snivel and whine?
2. Watch your daughter/wife get raped/killed?
3. Ask the BG to wait until you can call 9-1-1?
4. Other?

Or simply react by saying “it’ll never happen to me”?

Why don’t you all grow up?

83 Chris February 26, 2013 at 7:36 AM

“Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime.”
– DOJ (2013)

…So what’s the real agenda? Let’s see the economy is still in the toilette to the tune of $16T, the government is buying up millions of hollow point bullets, drones can now legally be used to kill Americans without due process, and I know we’ve all witnessed the militarization of our Police force…

“Assault Rifles”, which really are just rifles, are hardly ever used in crimes, but they sure would come in handy if the people finally decided that their representative government wasn’t so representative anymore. That’s why the founding fathers made sure to include the 2nd Amendment and that’s why our current leaders are doing all they can to wipe it out.

People need start being honest with themselves.

*source for above quote
http://www.examiner.com/article/nij-memo-shows-new-gun-laws-can-only-work-with-registration-confiscation

84 Pegasus February 26, 2013 at 7:43 AM

When we take away everything potentially harmful, there will be nothing remaining. Not even food.

85 Anonymous February 26, 2013 at 7:49 AM

Is it true the Occupy Oakland people are gearing up to attend and take over this rally?Hope not but keep hearing this rumor.

86 Anonymous February 26, 2013 at 8:03 AM

The organizers of this bell ringing rally are working hand in hand with Occupy Oakland (look at their web site). Might get real interesting and a bit out of hand.

87 Chris February 26, 2013 at 8:15 AM

@61
Please start being intellectually honest. The 2nd Amendment does not read:
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

The right is specifically acknowledged to be that of the people and that it should not be infringed.
“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.”

If that’s too tough for you to comprehend then try replacing it with things like books:
“A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books shall not be infringed.”
See, understanding the 2nd is not difficult if you remove your own bias. The above covers people registered to vote as well as anyone else who may choose not to vote. The right is for the people, so as long as you;re a people, your right is protected.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of our Nation. If you don’t like the people having the right to keep and bear arms then you need to get your politicians to work on getting a 28th Amendment ratified by all of the States that would nullify the 2nd and explicitly ban all weapons possession from the people. Every other bit of feel good legislation is illegal since it violates the 2nd Amendment. We either live in Nation that respects laws or we don’t.

88 Travis Bickle February 26, 2013 at 8:19 AM

@Tinfoiler:

“Notice how every other Ethnic group or Sexual preference group has “their rights”, but the “Conspiracy Theorist” label is fair game to attack, the Conspiracy Theorists (anyone that questions their BS) are the new “N” word.”

Just like everyone else, you’re entitled to your opinion about how individuals develop their sexual preferences. When you start comparing an affinity for conspiracy theory to genetically determined ethnicity, and imply that both deserve equal protection under the law, whatever credibility you think you had is out the window. That’s offensive to anyone with a modicum of decency.

89 Jeff February 26, 2013 at 8:23 AM

People are too uneducated to see the need for the second amendment. Perhaps some of you need to go take a history class.

90 Anonymous February 26, 2013 at 8:27 AM

This rally will include supporters of Christopher Dornan, who was murdered by LAPD a racist organization that hunted him down and burned him up. We will not forget, and we’ll be there.

91 Connie Dobbs February 26, 2013 at 8:36 AM

Never let a tragedy go to waste.

92 Travis Bickle February 26, 2013 at 8:36 AM

I have a conspiracy theory of my own. A select few that are highly tech savvy plant this stuff on the Internet in order to suck conspiracy theorists in and have a good belly laugh. That’s just as credible as anything else.

I’ve followed the links posted recently and in every case a fuzzy detail or action (or inaction) is pointed out as being outside the realm of “normal”. I’ll focus on one aspect that is continually pointed out. I’m not yet 50, yet I’ve lost both parents, a sibling and a child. Until one loses a loved one, especially a child, one has zero ability to gauge, judge, or critique someone else’s reaction to such a loss. The level of disrespect is appalling.

93 @ Jeff February 26, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Some people are so paranoid that they need the 2nd amendment to feel secure. Others don’t need an amendment to protect themselve. If there is anarchy are you going to be a law abiding citizen and stand in front of your house telling everyone looting the neighborhood about he 2nd Amendment. I didn’t think so.

94 jtkatec February 26, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Uneducated or not paranoid?

95 Laura Zah February 26, 2013 at 8:48 AM

I saw it on the news. There were less than 20 (by my count anyway) old ladies and a fat guy with a guitar, so it was a pretty small turn out. Each lolly had a sign with a large photo of a murdered child and just beneath the photo a drawing of a pistol in the red “NO” symbol. Each sign had typical anti gun slogans as well. So it was just an anti gun rally using dead children as props. Isn’t that special?

96 anon February 26, 2013 at 8:56 AM

@ #82 Phillip: Yes, 2A guarantees The People access to firearms.

In fact the jumping in point of The People, was when the British tried to confiscate their cache. 2A was written so the the common folk would always have recourse to defend themselves against a tyranical government.

97 Enough Already February 26, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Because we all know it is the guns that kill people. . . Sad event, very sad event at that school, but it has been politicized by the fringe left that is presently hell bent of destroying this county.

98 Laura Zah February 26, 2013 at 9:19 AM

Chris #87 “We either live in Nation that respects laws or we don’t”.

I would say “we don’t” (at least as far as the Democrats are concerned). Note Obama’s selective enforcement of immigration laws.

99 @Chris February 26, 2013 at 9:29 AM

At post 83, You are admitting that you want your guns so you can commit treason and fight against our government. You are disgusting and a disgrace to this great country.

100 anon February 26, 2013 at 10:46 AM

@#99 : Treason = Law makers that would strip law abiding Americans of their 2A rights. 2A was written to keep Kings and tyrants (congress in this case) from taking a persons basic rights. See below:

“That all men are created equal; …
…that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles,…”

#99: You may not know the origin of this document. You obviously do not understand the history of it.

101 bduns February 26, 2013 at 10:51 AM

@ #99 “@ Chris”

Educate yourself, fool. Read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the founding fathers.

It’s not about hunting or personal protection. It’s about deterring a corrupt government.

Your complete ignorance is a disgrace to the men and women that founded this country. They were a lot smarter than many of us, and especially smarter than everyone calling for more gun control.

102 Shuley February 26, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Nobody is proposing taking away second amendment rights – most people, including me, would not stand for it. There has always been agreement that some restrictions of certain rights, for the good of society, are legal and appropriate. Just as there are exceptions to the first amendment (you cannot slander anyone, you cannot threaten, conspire to commit a crime, etc etc), there are appropriate exceptions and regulations related to the second amendment. So, the second amendment argument holds no water.

Let’s not forget that 8 out of the first 10 Presidents were slave owners. Jefferson was one of the biggest slave owners in Va and slaves lived a pretty tough life, to say the least, on Monticello. James Madison owned slaves his whole life and did not even free them in his will. Women could not vote or own property. There are limits to how “holy” I find the writings of freedom and liberty from the founding fathers. These rights were intended to be extended to white men. Different time, different environment.

103 Henry February 26, 2013 at 11:29 AM

If you’re going to make the argument that guns need to be banned because they serve no purpose except killing innocent people. Maybe you should consider banning alcohol again. Think about it. What real purpose does alcohol serve other than getting people high, causing unnecessary violence, and causing tens of thousands of deaths each year? (overdose and DUI)

Oh yea, we’ve tried that before! It was called prohibition and it didn’t stop the distribution of alcohol. Instead it spawned a huge criminal underground.

At least with guns I can make the argument that it does serve the purpose of protection. Whether it’s from an individual, a group, or ( at the risk of sounding like a nut) the government. How dare you try to take away people’s right to this? Try telling the Koreans during the LA riots that they didn’t have the right to protect their business’ and families.

To quote David Joo, a manager of the gun store, “I want to make it clear that we didn’t open fire first. At that time, four police cars were there. Somebody started to shoot at us. The LAPD ran away in half a second. I never saw such a fast escape. I was pretty disappointed.”

Carl Rhyu said, “If it was your own business and your own property, would you be willing to trust it to someone else? We are glad the National Guard is here. They’re good backup. But when our shops were burning we called the police every five minutes; no response.

Jay Rhee said, “We have lost our faith in the police. Where were you when we needed you?”

104 Howard K. Mullins III February 26, 2013 at 11:30 AM

The “rule of law” is not respected by many in America today. Bending, twisting, usurping the law is popular right now in order for people of power to achieve their goals.

Ignoring the “rule of law” is what people of poor character, low integrity and poor morals support. There are many on this blog who believe that law does not mean they have to follow it, unless it does something positive for them in return.

People see the elected representatives misuse laws to their own purpose and the voters believe the law is theirs to misuse too.

The “rule of law”, for any society, is the core of the values of that society. When those core values are ignored, then there is no longer a society but simply a bunch of people with no values.

105 jtkatec February 26, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Other writings meaning the ANTI-Federalist papers?????

106 The Mamba February 26, 2013 at 12:26 PM

#95, I’m amazed they had such a high turn out. Crossing mom wins the most ridiculous post on this thread award.

107 Pegasus February 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Shuley @102 –
Nice quantum leap.

108 Anon2you February 26, 2013 at 12:50 PM

The fact that this group has an agenda, and that they are using the victims of Sandy Hook as martyrs for their cause pisses me off. If this was a true vigil to express grief at the loss of life in a truly tragic event, I would happily support it. But the fact that they are trying to push forth and agenda by false sympathy and lies, makes me sick to my stomach. If I was a family member or friend of one of the victims I would be ashamed of this type of “event”…

109 Chris February 26, 2013 at 12:57 PM

@99…no. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills and then try some analytical thinking :)

@102
“Just as there are exceptions to the first amendment (you cannot slander anyone, you cannot threaten, conspire to commit a crime, etc etc), there are appropriate exceptions and regulations related to the second amendment.”

Sorry but this is a bad analogy to me. There are no exceptions to free speech, your ability to slander is protected by the 1st Amendment, but the 1st Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of that slander. The government does not restrict how many words you can speak a day, or the forum of that speech in the hope of preventing slander, instead you are entrusted with that right and you are responsible for the consequences of that speech. This is in stark contrast to the limitations they want to place on law abiding gun owners, making them criminals before a real crime has been committed. This is even more egregious in light of the facts, even as admitted to by the DOJ, that “assault weapons” are not a real factor when it comes to gun crimes. Absentee fathers, poverty and recidivism are much higher factors in gun violence, but those are tough issues that make politicians and the far left uncomfortable.

110 Anon2you February 26, 2013 at 1:30 PM

@ Crossings Mom #4 – Those are the worst ideas I have ever heard. I am not trying to be mean when I say this either, but are you serious? The waiting period you propose is absolutely unreasonable and logistically impossible. A (2) gun limit? That is just ridiculous…All LEGAL gun owners weapons are registered, and buyers complete a gun safety course (which I actually think could be stricter) so your License theory is kind of all ready there. If I have to apply for a License, then it would be to conceal carry it…and LAST but not least…You want to publicize WHO owns a gun and WHERE they live??? Yeah that is the ticket! Every criminal could just get a daily listing of “fresh” guns to steal. Why don’t we advertise every home that has valuables in them, or every home that doesn’t have an alarm system…REALLY Crossing Mom…Come up with a better solution. I have: Simply…Any person caught committing a crime with an illegally obtained firearm will be sentenced to a MIN. 25 years in jail, NO possibility of parole, whether the firearm was used to cause injury/death or NOT. USE/CARRY or possess and unregistered illegally obtained firearm and you go to jail period, and you don’t get out early. If you want to do something get the guns out of criminals hands not law abiding citizens…

111 Shuley February 26, 2013 at 3:08 PM

@ Chris

Not true. Defamation, whether it be slander or libel, IS NOT protected by the first amendment. If it were, than any laws prohibiting such speech would be deemed unconstitutional. Any attorney with half a brain would tell you that. It’s not very complicated. Defamation is not addressed specifically in the 1st amendment. The courts use the constitution and precedent as a guide on how to rule, usually following precedent, but not always. The laws of defamation, conspiracy, negligence (in the case of reckless exclamation – i.e. yelling fire in a movie theater) have all been certainly challenged in a court of law and NOT deemed unconstitutional or they would not exist.

There are limits to the second amendment already. A civilian cannot legally own a hellfire missile, or a nuclear warhead. A felon cannot purchase a weapon. These laws are not specifically addressed under the second amendment, but have not been deemed unconstitutional. The court determines where that line is drawn. But just passing restrictions against owning certain firearms is not automatically constitutional. Attempting to ban the the right to own firearms completely most certainly is.

112 Don't Censor Me Bro February 26, 2013 at 4:21 PM

@Shuely #102

And don’t forget that the worst violators (slavery) were African & Muslim people groups,while the USA was behind the ending there of

113 Chris February 26, 2013 at 4:32 PM

@Shuley

I said the ability to slander is protected and not the consequences of the slander once you’ve said it. Think about it, you have the capacity to say anything you want, your freedom of speech, any speech is protected, otherwise they could shut you up just by claiming that you were going to slander someone. The government cannot know how you’re going to use the right to free speech, could be for good or evil, the ability to use it for either is protected… but you are not protected from the legal consequences of that speech. People get this confused, that the 1st protects you from the consequences of whatever it is you just said, it’s about preventing the government from pre-emptively shuting you up… it’s a very important difference.

114 Dennis February 26, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Well said, Chris! Shuley can’t seem to grasp the concept of ‘prior restraint’, nor the basis for Law: consequences for actions, not punishment because some group believing false stereotypes feels they can predict intent of others.
So what next, Shuley, put mentally ill people on the ban list? Who decides, you? I declare you mentally ill, and revoke your Rights?
If someone uses a gun to commit a crime, prosecute them to the full extent of the law. But giving Shuley the power to ‘predict’ intent, and allow him to strip you of your rights … based on his paranoid profiling … is much worse.

115 Dennis February 26, 2013 at 7:13 PM

@#61 Here’s a hint: the main body of the Constitution defines the rights, powers, and limitations of government; the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) specifically define rights of individuals. All court rulings and laws agree with that destinction. Individual rights also apply to groups of non-government individuals. Like the right of association: clearly association requires more than 1 individual, but the right is still valid for an individual. Any attempt to interpret wording in those 10 Amendments to limit the Right to a group (ie. Militia) is therefore wrong. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that shall not be infringed.

116 Dennis February 26, 2013 at 8:19 PM

@Shuley

“Dennis, in his ludicrous attempt at an argument, brings up a good analogy. Prescription drugs.”

guess it wasn’t ludicrous after all. even you agree with it.

“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege. — Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, 560 (1878)”

get it? penitentiary and gallows, AFTER the act, not a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege for EVERYONE before the fact.

“The American people have determined that the good to be derived from capital punishment — in deterrence, and perhaps most of all in the meting out of condign justice for horrible crimes — outweighs the risk of error. It is no proper part of the business of this court, or of its justices, to second-guess that judgment, much less to impugn it before the world …,”

– Justice Antonin Scalia

the good derived from the 2nd Amendment far outweighs the risks inherent in its protection.

117 Jeff February 26, 2013 at 8:43 PM

Bravo, Chris. Very eloquently stated, in a manner that Dums, er, Dems, cannot dispute.

118 Jeff February 26, 2013 at 8:47 PM

#93 @ Jeff February 26, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Some people have lived to tell their life experiences BECAUSE they had a firearm to protect themselves.

If you’ve been fortunate enough in life to not have a need for one, GOOD FOR YOU.

If anarchy, as you state, were to happen and people threatened my life, I would drop them in a fat second to defend myself and my family. And I wouldn’t think twice before doing it, and I wouldn’t have any regrets about defending my home.

119 Don't Censor Me Bro February 27, 2013 at 4:54 AM

@Chris & @Dennis, I’m reminded of the adage — you can’t match wits with the witless…

Good posts!

120 Shuley February 27, 2013 at 4:30 PM

@ Chris –

I am glad that you have your right wing kooks here to celebrate your “wisdom” But a simple matter of fact is you are 100% wrong. When something is “protected” by the 1st amendment, that means the act is legal because it falls under rights afforded by the first amendment. It’s not very complicated. If something is “protected under the law”, you can cite that law in your defense.

Ask 100 attorneys and 100 will agree with me – albeit very few will ever give you a straight answer. I understand the argument you are trying to make, but it is not correct. Sure, people cannot stop you from speaking because you might slander them but that does not mean all speech is by definition “protected” – what you are saying is simply incorrect. If the first amendment protected you, you can use the first amendment in your defense. Good luck doing that if you actually libeled or slandered someone. Even better, go to an event where President Obama is speaking and yell out “I’m going to kill the president!” and see how the first amendment protects you..

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: