NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments

from the well-that's-one-strategy dept

As predicted, one element of the NRA’s “big announcement” today was to lash out and blame media, music and movies for violence. Most news stories are focusing on the wacky idea of putting armed guards in every school (and to do so in the next few weeks as well) and creating a database of the mentally ill, but the lashing out at video games and movies, despite no evidence that they actually lead to violence, seems equally ridiculous.

In some manner, it appears that the NRA’s response is that the 2nd Amendment is more important than other amendments in the Constitution. Blaming music and movies is an attack on the 1st Amendment, which allows for freedom of expression, while turning our schools into police states, patrolled by armed guards, at least toes the line on the 4th Amendment. The database of mentally ill patients also raises significant privacy issues. No matter what you think of various gun control proposals, it seems rather ridiculous to take a strong Constitutional stand as the basis for your argument… only to make a complete mockery of other amendments.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

My wife is a teacher, and I like the idea of security at the schools. The current security policy is to post a regular teacher at the front door and tell them to tackle a shooter and scream for the police to be called.

It would be less objectionable if the Israeli model was used and the security folks were trained volunteer folks in plain clothes, doing basic school volunteer work like making copies and happen to carry a 9mm handgun concealed. Is has been extremely effective in curbing Palestinian gunman attacks against school children.

JohnG (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The problems I see with a dedicated security person at a school are

1. This security person couldn’t cover every possible entry point
2. Waiting around for something to happen will inevitably lead to complacency
3. A dedicated security person could cost upwards of $100k (in total compensation) depending on what part of the country. With schools cutting after school programs and things of that nature, that’s a tough pill to swallow.

Your idea of trained volunteers or even training certain school administrators would be better.

I have a feeling the anti-gun crowd wouldn’t like the idea of removing the “gun free zone” signs, which is why I think more gun “control” is the more likely outcome.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Your idea of trained volunteers or even training certain school administrators would be better.”

When would the administrators do actual administrating?
Plus, if they’re elderly and/or physically-frail, putting administrators at the door with a gun is a bad idea…
Plus, are you going to give them additional pay for the new, dangerous, duties (presuming they survive)?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Armed guards at schools is security theatre, rather than a practical measure. Firstly I assume the do NOT use a quick draw holster when around children, it is a quick way of a child getting a gun.
If the shooting has started, then they are in a tactical environment where they need the skill to enter a room, locate the gunman, move to where they have a clear shot, and hit a head in under 1 second. That is a skill, as i have been told by someone who practised it, that takes a couple of weeks to reacquire if it has not been practised recently, and takes continuous practice to keep up. Stop practising and and it is soon gone.

Michael Long (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Right! But forget armed guards, we need the TSA everywhere! Backscatter scanners, detectors, no shoes, and strip searches at every school, playground, cilld care center, mall, theater and restaurant.

We must completely and totally abrogate the rights of everyone, and turn every building and establishment in the entire United States into an airport security line hell.

All because about 6% of the country is bound and determined to maintain their own private little arsenals…

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Are there many attacks by Palestinian’s on school children?

In such a case I would prefer to not apply a band-aide and instead figure out why Palestinian’s are attacking in the first place (though such things would require and admission of fault on behalf of Israeli authorities).

Much like in the US, admission of fault (from the shooter to the people who knew but did nothing to help him) is hard to come by. It’s much easier to blame others and stick someone with a firearm in the office “just in case” rather than address the real issue.

And if your trained volunteer shoots an innocent kid, as mistakes happen, what will result from that? I can tell you if it was a Palestinian kid who was shot, nothing would result. I don’t see how arming people is really going to help.

Asking a teacher to tackle a would-be shooter is encouraging paranoia. After Columbine people fed that paranoia and spent countless dollars on security. Still didn’t address the real problem.

I understand your fear and I don’t think the school’s policy is the correct answer, agreeing with you, but I don’t think a trained volunteer carrying a 9mm is the answer any more than frisking each student that enters the school and keeping the kids behind 20ft fences, guarded with security cameras and snipers.

Sure you dropped the odds of shootings on school grounds, but you didn’t address the root cause of the problem.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

> In such a case I would prefer to not apply a band-aide
> and instead figure out why Palestinian’s are attacking
> in the first place


Why the Palestinians are attacking is completely irrelevant.

If Population A and Population B have a disagreement, even a violent disagreement, it is not proper for one of them, whether in the right or wrong in your eyes, to start shooting children in the opposing population’s schools.

In that case, it would be completely within the rights of the other population to apply that “band aid” as you call it of shooting back at the shooters of school children.

(Notice that that works both ways, the way I worded it.)

> And if your trained volunteer shoots an innocent
> kid, as mistakes happen

Or mistakes may not happen. And if they happen they are probably going to happen less frequently than defending against shooters of school children. After all, the defender with a gun probably never draws their weapon unless there is an attack upon the school. Only then is there even a possibility of that mistake happening.

Therefore, overall, this seems a poor argument against having an armed defense.

Whether an armed defense in all cases is a good idea, I won’t get into. I’m just saying that this line of argument is not a good one.

> Asking a teacher to tackle a would-be shooter
> is encouraging paranoia.

Yes that is a good point. And there is more to it than just that. If the attacker (shooter) is a kid or young person, a teacher simply may not shoot them before they kill other children and adults. The teacher may not recognize the appropriate moment when they need to stop hesitating and shoot now.

> Much like in the US, admission of fault (from the shooter
> to the people who knew but did nothing to help him) is
> hard to come by. It’s much easier to blame others and
> stick someone with a firearm in the office “just in case”
> rather than address the real issue.

IT IS easier to put defenders in schools. I’m all for trying to prevent school shootings from happening long before they happen. But if that fails, it might be nice to have someone armed at school just in case. You’re probably never going to identify every mentally ill person, and even if you do, it’s a gamble that you can predict whether they might snap one day and do something terrible.

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I am afraid I have to disagree with you.

Why someone does something is very relevant when attempting from preventing a repeat.

Mistakes do happen and when it happens to your kid, you won’t feel the same. You won’t think “mistakes happen, it’s worth the risk” and I don’t buy that possibility speculation. Just because you do not see a firearm does not mean the carrying protector will not have their hand on their own when confronting a suspect. And a suspect could be anyone. Have you seen some of the reactions of security guards? Or police? It’s the fear I mentioned. That’s what will lead to a mistake.

How is the argument I presented not a good one? The premises I provided were specific to the discussion of whether armed defenses in this situation is appropriate. In this case, it isn’t. In the case of a military base, that goes without saying that you’d expect people to be armed. You’re also seeing restricted area signs all over, another indication that you can expect to find an armed defense.

Do you want schools to be similar? It’s very similar to the airports, wow, are they ever safe now! /sarcasm. They are a security nightmare. Back to your story, so the kid doesn’t enter the school, he just shoots from outside. Next you’ll want armed guards on the perimeter? Maybe a fence too?

Do you see the slippery slope here?

It IS far better and not that difficult to identify mentally ill. You honestly think there were no signs for Adam? How about the two boys bullied? How about Amanda from BC? The people around them should have known the signs. Adam’s mother knew he had problems. That’s a sign to get him help.

True you can’t protect always and you won’t catch them all, but not all mentally ill snap and kill people either. And not all armed guards will catch everyone that enters a school intent on causing harm.

So which do you feel is the better option? Try to help people or build fences and guards? Or is there some balance that can be achieved?

There is NO such thing as 100% safe! Your kids could be run over crossing the street by someone who couldn’t get a gun but could get a car. NOTE: This does not imply banning cars! Just an example of inherent safety issues.

I just don’t feel comfortable putting my kids into a prison-like school. I’d feel better if they hired profilers, maybe some kids could get the help they need.

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I’m saying the “mistakes” argument is not a good one. That is not to say I am necessarily in favor of having armed people in US schools. The problem is that it is conflated with mention of Palestinians killing school children. In that case, I probably would be in favor of having armed people in schools.

I agree it is a GOOD idea to try to identify mentally ill people and prevent school shootings. But it probably won’t be 100% effective and we’ll see more tragedies.

You make a good point about police overreacting, and you’re right that could lead to a “mistake” where a weapon should never have been drawn. Heaven knows we’ve seen enough TechDirt articles about police overreaction.

My posting was mostly started because of the Population A / B argument that two warring groups should not start shooting each others’ school children. If one side is doing that, I don’t care to step back and start asking why. Put armed defenders in the schools because you’re in a war. This logic does not apply to the rest of the points I addressed so I probably should have replied to those separately or not at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

All the shooters have been suicidal. Does that mean that everyone who is suicidal become homicidal? No. There are so few that do, it’s almost not a marker.

Using mental illness is just going to create more stigma that prevents those who might need help from getting it. Most of the mental health that people get in the U.S. is through the public system – or prisons. Neither one are very effective and they should be. But popping pills may not be the answer – there is another website that’s collected stories of aggression that may have been caused by the pills most likely to be prescribed. It’s enough to warrant a warning label.

But we don’t know what causes these outbreaks. Most states have cut back there mental health systems to almost nothing and we see an uptick in gun violence, mass shootings? Too bad that funding for that kind of research was cut off decades ago or we might know. Too bad the ATF hasn’t had a director for 4 years to help with background checks.

There’s a lot of lessons to learn from allowing trade organizations like the NRA from having too much input into government and public policies. An environment of fear, paranoia and anger sells guns and that’s all they are interested in. It’s time to end “privatization” of public safety and welfare. Big government CAN do better in some areas.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Or mistakes may not happen. And if they happen they are probably going to happen less frequently than defending against shooters of school children. After all, the defender with a gun probably never draws their weapon unless there is an attack upon the school. Only then is there even a possibility of that mistake happening.


3 million results.

Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Are there many attacks by Palestinian’s on school children?

There were, enough to be a serious problem. It’s gotten better since they started doing something about it.

In such a case I would prefer to not apply a band-aide and instead figure out why Palestinian’s are attacking in the first place

That’s already known: because they’ve been taught that they have a moral obligation to murder Israelis and steal their land, by any means necessary, including slaughtering children. There’s not much to “figure out” when they openly proclaim it.

So, now that we know why they’re doing it, how does that influence the choice of what reaction would be appropriate?

Robert (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ah so the Palestinians are guilty and the Israelis are innocent of any wrong doings throughout history.


Israel response has been excessive. And given the sanctions they impose and the methods of doing so, it is understandable the Palestinians would be angry.

Neither is innocent and neither should react as they do. But killing them is not the answer either!

ldne says:

Re: Re: Re:

Neither do you, because guns are simple machines and will always be around and available and the shooter at the school had already committed murder and broken several firearms laws before he shot a single student. The fact is, the overall crime rate in America has been dropping for a long time, since the late 1980’s, despite there being many more states allowing concealed carry and despite increased gun sales.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No thanks. Been to Israel and it will only be a matter of time until we have armed guards and checkpoints and… what? Thanks Paragould, Arkansas.

“If you’re out walking, we’re going to stop you, ask why you’re out walking, check for your ID.”

“They may not be doing anything but walking their dog,” he said. “But they’re going to have to prove it.”

Robert (profile) says:

Re: NRA proposal

Acts of terrorism don’t need to be repeated in their entirety for the fear to be continually spread. Just because the pilots are armed and no planes have been flown into buildings doesn’t mean there is a direct causal relationship.

The point was not to kill people but to spread fear. If they wanted to kill large numbers of people they could have done things quite differently.

Point being, you can arm the teachers and janitors and those who want to kill themselves and take others with them will come up with a different plan. Then the concerned public with react to that and the next attack will be different.

It’s a game of catchup and it does NOT address the root cause. Addressing the root cause will go farther in making things safer than arming teachers or volunteers.

Maybe it’s time to look at some stats on plane attacks?

The hijackings/attacks are not measuring up to the fear being pumped at you.

pixelpusher220 (profile) says:

Re: NRA proposal

There haven’t been any 9/11 style attacks since 9/11 so you can’t say the air marshal’s have contributed to safety with any certainty.

Besides, how many times have you heard that the ‘armed’ airline marshal was the one who subdued the problem passengers?

It seems to me the vast majority of people ‘solving’ the problem are the other passengers…much like Flight 93.

Reinforced cockpit doors and the knowledge that if you don’t fight them you’re going to likely die are what has made flying safer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: NRA proposal

“We armed the airline pilots, and increased the number of sky marshalls. How many planes have been flown into buildings since then?”

Not every flight has armed pilots and/or sky marshalls.
We also securely locked cockpit doors and installed additonal security systems.
You wanna pay for all that?

phillipnolan (profile) says:

Re: Re: NRA proposal

the point is that these shooters are violent but they are not stupid to the point of possibly facing an armed response. There is no need to have an armed person at every moment/entrance. The deterrent is knowing that there may be someone carrying at any time.

If the teachers are trustworthy enough to take care of our kids; surely they are trustworthy enough to be armed to confront anyone attacking them.

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile) says:

Re: NRA proposal

How many commercial airliners where flown into buildings before 9/11?

Between 1999 and 2009 there were 99,320,309 flights world wide.
Amongst this were 6 terrorist attacks, 4 of which were successful.

99 million flights works out as about 69,415,786,000 miles travelled.
One terrorist attack every 11 billion miles.

Total flight time: 18, 632 years, 276 days, 13 hours, 28 minutes.
One attack every 27 million hours (or once every 3,000 years)

Total passengers: 7,015,630,000 (23 times the population of America)
Killed passengers: 647.

Odds of being a terrorist victim on your flight: 1 in 10,408,947.
Odds of being struck by lightening: 1 in 500,000.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: NRA proposal

I bought a plush tiger the day after 9/11. There have been no terrorists attacks since the day I bought a plush tiger. Obviously me and my plush tiger are the reason there have been no terrorists attacks since. (You’re welcome.)

Solution to random shootings? We all buy plush tigers. If it stops terrorists attacks (which are “random shootings” writ large, although occasionally with additional weaponry and methods used) then it should stop random shootings.

Jake says:

Re: NRA proposal

Are your 2nd Amendment rights really so precious to you that you’re prepared to live in a country where elementary school teachers are issued sidearms? I mean, for crying out loud, what do you think you’re going to do with them? Have your fellow patriots clubbed together and bought a few Stinger missiles? Or maybe a couple of old 105s, they’ll put a decent dent in a tank if you’re lucky as well as providing counter-battery fire. Won’t help much if the National Guard throw up their hands and get the Air Force to send a few B-1s out to wreck your whole day, but hey, it’d be a start.

Mark Peskin (profile) says:

Re: NRA proposal

What a convenient and utterly baseless assumption. Can you provide any evidence at all that armed pilots or air marshals are responsible for the lack of another 9/11-style attack? We also armored cockpit doors, increased airport security, and focused more resources on intelligence gathering. Can you conclusively prove that those measures had nothing to do with the relative calm? Can you even demonstrate that we haven’t just been lucky for the past decade? No, you can’t, so stop being ridiculous.

Anonymous Coward says:

Fuck The NRA !

NRA & their Stooge Politicians will never shut my Rock N Roll Music up ! You will never Censor our Life.You will never stop our Art.Even in Nations like Russia Art could not be stopped.
From all of us Artists we shall all agree to say to you:


I expected this to happen.Bunch of lying Assholes who now try to deflect the issue instead of dealing with the real problems.

And for all my Gaming Friends:
Hi, I’m Commander Shepard and you NRA & Stooges can EMBRACE ETERNITY !

NRA Supporter says:

Re: Fuck The NRA !

Well Stupid is as Stupid does and you are Stupid.

It is an Honor and only through GODs grace that we have the privilege of living in the United States of America. I?m humbled each and every day by GODs grace and thankful for those who have fought and died for our FREEDOM and way of life. But I?m ashamed of how our love for GOD and good will is replaced by greed and power.

Today we deny GOD and look to our Government for all things, and are more concerned about Abortion and getting HIGH than being a responsible GOD fearing citizen. We are engrossed with the failures of others and yet we deny responsibility for our own actions.

The recent tragedies that have occurred are terrible and I pray for those families who have lost loved ones. But our current principles and values are to blame, NOT GUN(s). More GUN control is not the answer.

George Washington stated: ?It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.?

pixelpusher220 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Actually, banning things *does* work. We banned lead in water and products and funny enough, lead levels have dropped.

But you do need to actually ‘ban’ certain types of guns, like the assault rifles. They don’t serve a useful purpose for any normal activity. Not hunting, not target shooting, nothing.

So yes, ban those and the high capacity clips. 10 shots vs 25-30 is a big big difference in lethality and the ability to stop someone.

DCX2 says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

what percentage of US forces do you think will fight their brothers?

Have you seen the vitriol thrown at Bradley Manning? People will turn on their fellow citizens, all they need told is that the fellow citizen is a traitor and they will call for blood.

And assault rifles will be useless against Predator drones.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The protect us from our government” argument is, hands down, the dumbest possible argument to make.

Any weapon that would actually be effective against the US military is already banned. Your puny assault rifles are not a serious threat.

If your concern is defending against the government, put less energy into accumulating weapons and more energy into learning the right strategies and tactics — because those are what will win the day, even if you have no firearms at all.

in_to_the_blue says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:


and WHAT, exactly, are these amazing strategies and tactics?

so far nothing already done has worked, whatever strategy i can think of is probably either banned or rendered useless somehow, you don’t think these people have all their bases covered?

might aswell just zerg them with a bunch of rifle carriers, nothing else has worked so far and nothing else will probably work

The rest of the world says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh, like when your citizens revolted against Bush’s illegal administration who then went on to send your soldiers to their death under the hoax of WMD all for the oil profit of him and his buddies? Like that revolt against tyranny? Please, give the rest of us a break with this 2nd amendment bullshit. What a joke.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“They don’t serve a useful purpose for any normal activity. Not hunting, not target shooting, nothing.”

Defense is a very legitimate purpose, and should be considered a normal activity if you consider the history of our species. Also, you make the rediculous assumption that a non “assault weapon” is less lethal when used against defenseless victims.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I would say that you are stawmanning him bigtime here.

Defense is quite a tricky argument. If you need to protect yourself, you wouldnt use a full-automatic weapon anyway, since you hit jack s… with it after the first bullet in each salvo.

When it comes to lethality I am pretty sure that some of the inevitable stray bullets are doing collateral damage when we are talking full automatic guns.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I am not strawmaning, I’m simply responding to the rediculous claims that he made. You seem to be confused a bit by the terminology used to describe certain weapons, which is understandable for a non gun enthusiast. The assault weapons ban being discussed here has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons, those are banned already. (Sure, you can apply for a class III weapons permit and, if approved, can purchase these weapons from special dealers, but it’s not like you can walk in to a store and buy one.) Assault weapon, when used in this context, refers to a semiautomatic firearm with certain features deemed to be too scary. (Pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc.) Now retuning to your assertion that a fully automatic weapon is not practical for personal defense, I feel that, for the most part, is correct. However, notice I never mentioned the word personal in my original post. (Now who’s strawmaning, eh?) I wasn’t referring to fully automatic weapons either, but now that you mention it, why shouldn’t we be allowed to have these? If a group of people had a legitamite fear of attack by another group, it seams perfectly reasonable to me that they would want to have the means to properly defend themselves.

JMT says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Defense is a very legitimate purpose, and should be considered a normal activity if you consider the history of our species.”

How many instances of genuine defence with an assault rifle are you aware of? I’d bet the number of these weapons out there in civilian hands is orders of magnitude larger that the numbers of times they’ve been used for this “normal activity”.

Also, “the history of our species” is not what should be used to justify what weapons people need now. Times change.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

On the flip side, how many instances of gun violence involving them are you aware of? Want to know why there’s a disparity in the numbers? Because one gets reported on the evening news and the other doesn’t, even though the instances of a gun preventing a crime are at least a hundred times more numerous. Preventing the crime just doesn’t make the ratings.

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

All it takes is one crooked cop, one crooked FBI agent, one crooked munitions guard to put assault rifles in the hands of criminals. Clip capacity bans are as effective as soda volume limits…if I want 24-oz of soda, I’ll but two sodas. If I want to shoot sixty rounds I’ll carry six pistols (in most cases these attackers carry multiple weapons…not bothering to reload).

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Actually, you’re both right. Bans have worked in the past, especially with regard to profit-making enterprises where a clear reason for the ban is known. So, banning lead pipes, asbestos, etc. can work because there’s a clear public health issue, and most people aren’t going to have dangerous equipment installed just to save a few bucks when they could stand to face expensive retribution via lawsuits, etc. later on.

Banning things related to human behaviour is different. Banning drugs doesn’t stop people wanting to get high. Banning alcohol doesn’t work when people enjoy a few drinks. Banning games won’t work when people want to play them.

Guns are kind of a middle ground in most places, but America does seem to have a special relationship with them. Controlling certain types of guns, certain kind of access, etc. might work in some areas, but an outright ban probably won’t. An outright ban won’t stop people wanting to use them. There is a type of person who will insist that they need high capacity armour piercing rounds to hunt deer.

Speaking as a foreigner who has seen exactly one actual gun in his entire life outside of a movie screen, I can’t comment on the desire to own and operate one. But, it seems crazy to me that there’s any justification for private ownership of a weapon whose entire purpose is to spray as many bullets as possible. Perhaps a ban on such things without affecting lesser weapons might work, but there’s a cultural mentality to deal with that may make such a ban ineffective.

phillipnolan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

tell me again how “banning” worked to get drugs off the streets?

There is no logic to banning any weapon. We already have laws against murder — if these killers were deterred by laws they would not have killed anyone. Banning only serves to disarm the innocent.

The second amendment is not about “having a useful purpose” for every type of weapon or attachment. It is based on the premise that an overbearing government would be deterred from removing our liberties. What you cretins call assault rifles were labeled so by idiots who know nothing about firearms.

Assault rifles (fully automatic, used by the military) are not available to civilians without special licenses already.

tell me more about how criminals always obey the laws. . .

ldne says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yet another idiot. The guy in Connecticut waltzed in and through the school virtually unopposed, the only real resistance was from the unarmed principal, who he promptly shot. He could just as easily used 6X5 round magazines, 3X10 round magazines, or a 1X30 round magazine as no one would’ve stopped him from reloading. He chose a place that was a “gun free” zone loaded with helpless people and kids for a reason. Try actually learning a little about firearms before you spew, people use AR-15 style guns for hunting and competitive shooting all the time and they’re no more dangerous than many other types of rifles.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Databases and privacy

Not exactly the same thing imo.

Gun ownership, if the information gets out might not be very damaging to the person in question.
Psychological illnesses on the other hand…

Also, gun ownership would be a choice for the person entering since he/she can choose if they want a weapon. That is not exactly possible with mental illness.

The differences are between small concession / large concession of information and somewhat voluntary registration / forced registration. If you want to discuss first amendment rights those distinctions seem rather important.

Colin (user link) says:

Re: Re: Guns

Um, yes?

“In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby — exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping “a bad guy with a gun.””


Trevor (profile) says:

Re: Re: Guns

Virginia Tech is a college and has a full service, fully staffed, campus police force, including armed officers.

Look above for Colin’s article about Columbine happening despite the armed guard.

Ft. Hood is a Military Base, where 75%+ population is trained in weapons, and 90% of those have access to weapons at some point during the day while on base.

Additionally, Congresswoman Gifford’s attacker was taken down by unarmed citizens who overpowered him.

The presence of guns does not negate the possibility of someone trying to kill a bunch of people.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Really good research techdirt

kids went through several generations watching extremely violent media including movies and tv showing soldiers, gangsters & cops, and cowboys & Indians shooting each other dead in epic numbers from 1910 to 1970 and there were virtually no complaints about “violence in the media”!
What happened?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Really good research techdirt

Again, multiple reviews of the research has found that there are studies that CLAIM to show a connection, but when the methodologies are looked at, they fail to live up to the hype.

The studies listed at that link are among the ones that have been debunked by researchers at Harvard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Really good research techdirt

I wonder if you bothered to read your link. If you had, you would have found the following fun facts:
“A comprehensive report of targeted school violence commissioned by the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Education concluded that more than half of attackers demonstrated interest in violent media, including books, movies, or video games.”
“Although it is still in the preliminary stages, this research and several other studies suggest that a subset of youths may become more aggressive after playing violent video games.”
“After reviewing the research, they concluded that the combination of three personality traits might be most likely to make an individual act and think aggressively after playing a violent video game. The three traits they identified were high neuroticism (prone to anger and depression, highly emotional, and easily upset), disagreeableness (cold, indifferent to other people), and low levels of conscientiousness”
Nowhere does your article assert that there is no link between video game violence and real violence. It simply takes a more nuanced view of the topic; introducing independent physiological factors which could impact the connection between video games and expressions of violence. A quick tour down memory lane reminds us that many of the individuals who committed these terrible public shootings, exhibited these predictive neuroses. I am not asserting that video games are responsible for the Newtown massacre, or any. What I would assert is that the problem appears to be far more complex than the simple-minded, stolen from Huffpo, opinion piece here presents.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Really good research techdirt


Here’s a literature study that was done in September 2010 by the Australian Government itself (Attorney General’s Department) totally destroying your idea that Video games or any other type of violent have any major causation to these sorts of massacre’s. Especially in regards to School ones

September 2010 – Literature review on the impact of playing violent video games on aggression – found under Commissioned research subheading in page [ direct PDF link ]

Lets quote the conclusion of the report shall we:

Significant harmful effects from VVGs [Violent Video Games] have not been persuasively proven or disproven.

There is some consensus that VVGs may be harmful to certain populations, such as people with aggressive and psychotic personality traits. Overall, most studies have consistently
shown a small statistical effect of VVG exposure on aggressive behaviour, but there are problems with these findings that reduce their policy relevance. Overall, as illustrated in this review, research into the effects of VVGs on aggression is contested and inconclusive.

And why is it contested and inconclusive you ask. Easy, these are the reasons why the reviews and studies are basically all biased, irrelevant, or just plain political tripe

* the divided nature of the literature, which is embroiled in a larger social and political controversy
* the contested definitions and measures of ?aggression? and ?violent video games?
* that insufficient attention has been directed at third variables which may explain some of the effect
* that the strongest evidence has been found for short term VVG effects, and conclusions regarding long term effects have not been as strong
* that there is little evidence there is any difference in the effect of VVGs on children, adolescents and young adults
* that some studies appear to show games featuring cartoonish violence are just as harmful as games featuring realistic violence, and
* there is no conclusive evidence that VVGs are more harmful than other violent media. [emphasis added]

Also on pp11-12 of the report it specifically talks about School shootings and in reference to the Secret Service and Dept of Edu report you actually are quoting from it says this

A more recent and comprehensive report found that there was no useful or accurate ?profile? for school shooters. It also found that of the 41 perpetrators it examined, only 12% had ?some interest? in VVGs and only 59% had ?some interest? in any violent media whatsoever. Some researchers have even suggested that school shooters may have less interest in VVGs than the average young male. Seung-Hui Cho, the perpetrator of the April 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, does not seem to have played video games at all.

Some critics note that, in some respects, the present debate resembles a ?moral panic,? in which deeply held anxieties are projected onto ?folk devils?. Such panics can be started by a dramatic and newsworthy event that evokes latent social fears and concerns. Christopher Ferguson argues that references to school shootings in VVG research may unnecessarily contribute to such a panic. Causationist researchers, perhaps mindful of these criticisms, have not mentioned school shootings in recent studies. [emphasis added – footnotes removed]


Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The NRA uses it’s first amendment right to express ideas and you ridicule them, hypocrite.

The first amendment has no bearing on whether or not we can ridicule idiotic claims.

However, where it DOES matter is when a group is calling on THE GOVERNMENT to get involved to (a) stifle speech or (b) remove privacy rights.

Learn the Constitution.

I’m not saying the NRA can’t say whatever idiotic thing they want to say. But them expressing an idiotic thought doesn’t mean I can’t criticize them.

Berenerd (profile) says:

My current home town (not too far from Newtown) now has a police officer at every entrance of every school. The plan is to install electronic locks and cameras at every door. They need to buzz people in They then have a a team off full time substitute teachers who they will use to monitor it on shifts. nightshift security guards will monitor it over night (they already have this force do to gang violence in recent years)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The plan is to install electronic locks and cameras at every door.

That might stop a stranger entering the school, but how about the pupil that was expelled the day before? Which is the most likely to shoot up the school?
That proposal may make the whoever is running the school feel better, and give the parents the impression that measures have been taken to protect the school, but it is an expensive way of achieving very little in terms of stopping the most likely shooter to enter a school, a disaffected pupil. All they need to do is keep the guns out of site until the door is opened.

Daniel says:


It is impressive to see basic facts and logic completely ignored. Violent media is a global occurrence, but the school gun violence is mainly a US issue, so clearly the correlation between violent entertainment and actual violence is weak at best, otherwise we’d all be murderers.

So examining the facts:
fact a – healthcare before Obama was expensive, so there was little to no ability for the poor to effectively identify and deal with potential psychopaths early on – they just can’t afford the insurance or the meds or the hospital bills and as a result, many blooming psychopaths remain untreated in the states.

fact b – weapons and ammunition are incredibly accessible to most every american.

so – combine freely-roaming mentally unstable citizens around easily accessible weapons and it doesn’t take lots of brains to guess what will happen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Facts.

Actually, medical insurance, particularly Medicare, doesn’t much care for psychiatric care. Medicare only pays 50% as opposed to the 80% for most things physical. Think your insurance includes psychiatric? Best check and be sure. Oh, and if you do have any psych issues? Check your life insurance. Usually invalidates those policies so they don’t have to pay out.

Brent (profile) says:

It was a really terrible thing that happened and what continues to happen today is almost as bad. The press are completely over blowing the gun issue, they are so excited to have something to talk about since Sandy is over and Obama is still president. As much as they want you think everyone is ‘so concerned’ about it, i think the majority of people do realize that bans won’t work, more guards won’t work, databases won’t work and certainly ‘curbing video game violence’ won’t work. The only things that might actually work are building modern fortresses and (trying to) educate children in them OR eliminating all physical schools and enabling every child to be home/internet schooled.

There is no way to guarantee 100% safety.

DCX2 says:

Re: Re:

But we do not have to choose between 100% safety and doing nothing. We can choose to mitigate risks.

For example, seat belts won’t save everyone’s life. And yet we still put them in cars, because they mitigate the risk of dying in a crash.

I think we should consider banning high capacity magazines. Many shooters are taken down when they go to reload. Keeping the clip limited offers the victims a chance to take down the shooter after he has fired fewer bullets.

With such a ban, perhaps only 10 people would have died instead of 26 at Newtown. Perhaps Holmes would have only been able to shoot 20 people instead of 71.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The only things that might actually work are building modern fortresses

that’s is exactly what you have now, every home with a gun is it’s own fortress and prison.

everyone lives in fear of their neighbour going feral with a gun, it’s a fear based society, and for some reason people think having a gun is somehow going to make them safer and braver.

but it’s clearly not working, so you live is your own self imposed prison, and live in fear, small price to pay I would guess, to protect yourself from the King of England invading you..

Robert (profile) says:

Overreaction continues

Teachers were terrified. Several students were listening to Appetite for Destruction, clearly aimed at generating terroists. SWAT was called in to address the issue.

According to unnamed sources quite familiar with the situation “the students were walking through the halls quietly singing ‘Welcome to the Jungle’ which immediately drew the attention of our principal, John Hendricks. He immediately hit the terrorist alarm, you know the blinking green light? And we all ran to our rooms, put on our kevlar vests and hid under our desks, like the duck-and-cover instructional video our teacher showed us.”

Principal Hendricks only had to say “if it were not for the quick response of our tactical volunteer team, smashing the iPod to pieces, placing a black bag over the students’ heads after tackling them to the floor, we’d all be dead! At least that’s what we feared would happen. Thankfully the SWAT team arrived just a moment later, along with the bomb squad and fire department, to inspect the students’ belongings.”

When asked why they would listen to such obvious terrorist training material, not to mention banned material containing the word “gun” (despite the counter pleasant word “rose”), the students were quoted saying “You’re in the jungle baby, you’re gonna die.” Immediately after the students were regagged, dressed in orange jumpsuits, and rehooded.

The police spokesperson is quoted saying the parents of these two criminals-in-the-making are currently on their way to Cuba and will be questioned upon their arrival.

Thankfully the NRA got their way and no one was hurt. Who knew what was acceptable and popular just 25 years ago would suddenly become banned. No overraction, it’s all just to keep us safe! Thankfully someone is watching out for us.

… back to my Anne Murray cassette (as the CD’s were banned last week because of piracy).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Overreaction continues

“The sound of the 9 went BANG!
And all over the wall was his mother f****n’ brain.
‘Cause I’m a nigga you can’t sleep on,
So set the alarm ’cause I hit like a motherf****n’ bomb…
I got a .38 hidden up the sleeve
And it’s ready to go to war ’cause that’s what it’s here for.
I take down a million niggas and shoot one more.”

Ben (profile) says:

It was an "Accident"

Oddly, I consider Sandy Hook an “Accident” in the same way that I look at airplane accidents; trying to jump on guns, gun owners, or make claims about 2nd amendment rights is just ignoring the situation.

Planes have accidents for any number of reasons, but mostly I suspect improper maintenance would come out as a leading cause; good maintenance workers usually find (and fix) potential accidents all the time. The Sandy Hook tragedy is similar in that a part of our community, Adam Lanza, should have been cared for “better” (what that means is up for debate) and as a result caused our normal community to fail/have an accident.

Guns didn’t cause the problem; they did, however, probably make the body count higher, but considering elementary school kids it may not have been much lower if he had gone wild with a hunting knife. I suspect that the problem was a matter of our social network breaking down, especially in the case of handling “special needs” individuals (if Adam had Aspergers, for which I have no real evidence, that would qualify him). Maybe the reasons for him doing this will eventually be revealed (but maybe not).

When an airplane has an accident, professionals study it and try to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Our society had an accident. Let the professionals study it and see if there are ways to prevent it from happening again; pointing the blame at anything right now is premature.

And the NRA saying “it isn’t guns” is also premature.

Anonymous Coward says:

>>NRA: To Protect The 2nd Amendment, We Must Trample The 1st & 4th Amendments.

Sensationalize much?

>>Blaming music and movies is an attack on the 1st Amendment, which allows for freedom of expression,

While no good studies show video games, movies, TV and Music contribute outright to violence for average people, I know of no studies where there is no effect on the unstable.
Did the NRA actually say to ban depictions of violence?

>>while turning our schools into police states, patrolled by armed guards, at least toes the line on the 4th Amendment.

Our schools are already police states, with PC police, Thought Police, even my local high school has a cop, no guns but a cop.
To many gun free zones are a target rich environment for crazy people with guns.
Put aside the emotion for one minute and look at the facts, 40 some odd states have concealed carry for guns, those with the least restrictions on guns have a lower level of gun crime. Chicago is a prime example of restrictive gun laws high gun crime.

>>The database of mentally ill patients also raises significant privacy issues. No matter what you think of various gun control proposals,

As we know everything the government does today has significant privacy issues would we as a society say if John Hinckley were to be adjudicated to be harmless to himself or others would we then hand John a .22 caliber revolver and say go have fun John?
Wow can we as a society defend ourselves from people such as John if we are not allowed to protect our own person with a gun if needed.

>>it seems rather ridiculous to take a strong Constitutional stand as the basis for your argument… only to make a complete mockery of other amendments.

Mike you really see to be strong arming the NRA message to make it fit what might be called another agenda.

What ever ones personal views of guns the reason the framers of the constitution put guns in the bill of rights was the fact that an armed people are a free people.
History bares this fact for all to see. When people are disarmed the tyrants can and often do take over.
Our founders wanted to protect us from tyrants.

Trevor (profile) says:

Possible Compromise?

What if the US took a page from Switzerland and Japan, and upon requesting a gun license, be required to take a gun safety/use course, pass a written and application test, and then submit to a mental and physical exam at a local hospital, a background and renew the license (complete with mental/physical evaluations and weapons exams) every two years?

letherial (profile) says:

I live in Utah and i just found out that teachers are allowed to carry concealed weapon into the class room, that means that my son could be around a armed firearm at any point going to school and i would have no idea. As a parent who wants to keep him away from guns, i find this insulting and against my rights as a parent, and against my sons right to be safe in school.

These kind of laws is all because the NRA buys corrupted right wingers and sells ignorance to the masses. I am sick of lobbyist. Instead of trying to diminish the 1st to try and strengthen the 2nd, we should end money from politics and see how fast the NRA dies. Then maybe we can have some reasonable conversations in this country about a variety of issues.

American says:

Re: Re:

I also live in Utah,

America is great, and we still have GOD loving, good and decent citizen who love this country and the values that it was built upon. In addition this great Country allows people like you and I the ability to disagree/agree about any issues. In this case I disagree with you about guns and the Second Amendment.

It is an Honor and only through GODs grace that we have the privilege of living in the United States of America. I?m humbled each and every day by GODs grace and thankful for those who have fought and died for our FREEDOM and way of life. But I?m ashamed of how our love for GOD and good will is replaced by greed and power.

Today we deny GOD and look to our Government for all things, and are more concerned about Abortion and getting HIGH than being a responsible GOD fearing citizen. We are engrossed with the failures of others and yet we deny responsibility for our own actions.

The recent tragedies that have occurred are terrible and I pray for those families who have lost loved ones. But our current principles and values are to blame, NOT GUN(s). More GUN control is not the answer.

George Washington stated: ?It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.?

I want to point out that I would NEVER EVER want to take a life, However at the same time I believe I have the right to defend myself and family as the Second Amendment states (e.g. the right of the people to keep and bear arms). I love GOD, my family and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

You all have got to read this piece

I’ve been reading what people have been posting about the NRA (e.g., its history, move to the right). This one is an especially powerful piece.

Not Safe For Work Corporation | From “Operation Wetback” To Newtown: Tracing The Hick Fascism Of The NRA: “Because it?s now so deeply ingrained that owning guns is a form of radical subversive politics, the people who still engage in real politics have the pick of the litter. That first became really clear in the depths of the 2008-9 collapse, when a lot of people who thought of themselves as radicals and anarchists made a lot of feckless noise about how they were arming and preparing for the collapse and revolution. They could?ve gone out and organized something and maybe built a politics of people power or even a politics of what they call revolution, a politics that actually changed things. But instead, they locked themselves in their homes and apartments with their guns and fancied themselves political revolutionaries just waiting to be swept up. But no one came. No one bothered or cared. And really, why would any plutocrat or evil government agency bother with the suckers, all harmlessly atomized and isolated and thoroughly neutralized by the false sense of political empowerment that their guns gave them, while you do the real work of plundering budgets, bribing politicians and writing laws even more in your favor?”

the rest if the world says:

Hahaha and now you idiots are looking to Israel for tips on a more peaceful society. Israel and te USA, such peaceful, safe countries. Your kids already walk through metal detectors as now will have armed guards watching them through eyes of paranoia.
The land of the free. Please. You are prisoners if fear. You haven’t been free for a long time. Wake up. Violence begets violence.

Anonymous Coward says:

America’s is a culture of fear and paranoia, it is clear people want to own guns because it somehow makes them think it will reduce the level of fear they live under.

The idea that Americans ‘need’ guns in case of an invasion or for ‘personal’ protection simply makes no sense.

It’s a very simple problem, but it WILL NOT be fixed easily because these same Americans cannot get out of this cycle of living in fear from everyone else.

It’s a sad fact that such an advanced nation as the US can be so stupid and ignorant on such a simple issue. But it is a fact all the same.

There is nothing wrong with the simple requirement that you need a license and restrictions regarding where you keep you gun and if you are allowed to have one in the first place.

then if you are a true sports shooter, you keep your gun at the range, and you have a licence.

otherwise, if you have your gun out, it is for the purpose of killing someone or something.

After all that is what guns are for, nothing else, you’re are not going to be able to survive in a post Katrina type world because you have a gun !!

Does anyone honestly believe that ?? how can americans generally be intelligent, caring, loving people and at the same time hold the belief that keeping a device designed to KILL is somehow ‘the right’ thing to do.

Considering the consequences of this believe a lot of innocent people give up their lives every year so you can protect your house from the King !!!

had many Kings invade your country recently ? or your house ?

do you know about half the guns IN EXISTANCE belong to Americans!

do you know you have killed more of yourselves with guns that you have lost IN ALL THE WARS YOU HAVE EVER FOUGHT PUT TOGETHER !!!!!

do you know if you own a gun, and die by a gun (in America) it will most probably be the gun you own that kills you.

Yes, I know “but the King of England”….. “INVASION” .. !!!!!!

talk about video games and the rest of the crap all you like, video games (violent ones) are played all over the world, it’s only American with it’s easy access to powerfull weapons who are killing themselves with these weapons, that if they did not exist, they would not kill people.

it’s a simple solution, but you’ll never work it out, when you have the NRA saying “more guns will fix the problem”..

So I guess, you’ll just have to put up with living in fear and killing each other, sadly.

Gazook says:

I Blame Politicians

How those children died is horrible. It takes a sick person to prey on innocent lives.

I don’t blame the NRA. I blame the person that walked into that school and took the lives of innocent children, teachers, and his own Mother.

The problem is that it’s hard to exact revenge of a dead person. So people are looking for other things to direct their anger at.

This is perfectly understandable human reaction to a horrible event.

What I find odd, is there never used to be school shootings like this until about a decade ago. American’s have owned guns long before these school shootings started happening.

This leads me to believe that something has recently changed in American society to cause these mass shootings.

I’m tempted to say it’s the cut-throat capitalistic nature of American society, where everyone is out for themselves and driven by greed. Coupled with over population and a poor economic climate where young people are can’t find jobs, is what’s causing these shootings.

Personally, I’d probably blame government politicians and lobbyist for creating a economic and social environment that pushes people over the edge, before I’d blame the NRA.

Anonymous Coward says:

people ‘flip out’ all the time, all over the world, but it’s only in America where you can ‘flip out’ with an Automatic weapon and kill 26 people in a couple of minutes.

your never going to stop people from ‘flipping out’ never, but you can make sure when they do, they do not have access to weapons that will result in mass deaths, and 6 year old kids being shot.

why do they have to pay for your right to own a weapon of mass destruction ?

explain it to them,

so right you can make claim too is worth that price..

6 YEAR OLD CHILDREN !!!! don’t forget that, NEVER FORGET THAT, when you are crying about your ‘rights’..

it is a disgusting, black mark on America, and your response to it is equally disgusting, and terribly saddening.

ldne says:


The only ones “living in fear” are nitwits that believe any of this drivel. The overall crime rate in the US has been dropping for decades, the nuts just stick out more and are reported on more than the cases where someone stops a robbery or a crazy. Your kid has far better odds of winning the powerball during their lifetime than being involved in a shootout and far greater odds of getting killed crossing the street by a car than of being shot at.

Official Trash (user link) says:

Statistical Probabilities...

The odds of your child dying from being shot in their elementary school is so much more infinitesimally smaller than the potential for them to be killed in a horrific, mangling manner from a grizzly school bus accident. Imagine the twisted metal severing their precious little heads and ripping into their soft fleshy bodies…

Sounds gruesome because it is… The national media doesn’t focus on the hundreds of school bus accidents a year, it only focuses on the 1 school shooting every 10 years.

Maybe it’s better to champion school bus seatbelts and better driving standards than armed school guards and databases of “the insane.”

The media distorts our understanding of reality so substantially that’s it’s actually got us worrying how to stop school shootings as if that’s a considerable issue in our society.

We’re intellectual babies led by con-men we think are smarter than us. Use your brains people.

Anonymous Coward says:

NRA proposal

I disagree, in the US they are always facing an armed response, as they do not know where the nearest armed officer is.
Further, simply arming teachers is a pointless exercise, and more likely to get them killed than enable them to defend the children. Firstly they become priority targets, and secondly unless they are able to carry out regular practice, they probably won’t be able to burst into a room and shoot a shooter. They will probably be too slow against someone who doesn’t care who in the room they hit.
There is a huge difference between accurate range shooting, and going up against a shooter when their are colleagues and children at risk, as well as the risk of being shot at.

nasch (profile) says:

Statistical Probabilities...

The media distorts our understanding of reality so substantially that’s it’s actually got us worrying how to stop school shootings as if that’s a considerable issue in our society.

It’s not entirely their fault. People are just really bad at estimating the impact of extremely rare but horrible (or wonderful) events, such as school shootings and winning the lottery. Our minds make them seem much more likely than they really are. We also discount common small events (school bus accidents, paychecks) even though they have a much greater impact.

Although if this information is correct (it does read as a bit biased), even school bus crashes are not a serious problem: “Last year, 5 children were killed as passengers in school buses (one each in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas and Texas). 45 states did not have a single child killed as a school bus passenger?an incredibly good national safety record. Between 1990 and 2000, an average of just six children each year died as school bus passengers.”

Mark Vanderberg (user link) says:

Gun-Free Zones

When is the madness going to stop with the gun-free zones?

Do you think there’s a reason why crazy people take firearms to shoot innocent children? There’s no one there to confront them and to stop them. They have a plan and they don’t want someone with a gun to stop them. So they select a regulated gun-free zone to pull out their crazy insane deeds.

Stop blaming the gun, the NRA and the Constitution. Some have even blamed me on the Internet. You’re not going to stop “crazy.”

Guns are protected under our Constitution and calling for a ban is never going to happen. But lifting the gun-free zones so that law-abiding honest citizens are on equal ground with criminals and/or crazies makes a lot of sense.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Gun-Free Zones

By this reasoning, all countries and subgroups should also have nuclear weapons so that they can protect themselves from other groups/countries with nuclear weapons. And as a result, that would have prevented us from invading Iraq or messing with Iran because every country would be allowed to stockpile nuclear weapons.

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: Re: Gun-Free Zones

So long as they are registered and screened the way handguns are, no problem.

Don’t forget, not all applicants are eligible. Filling out an application does not grant you a license.
Police will have the right to come to your house at any time and see exactly where and how handgun is stored. No stalling. They want you to take them to it and show it to them, now!

btrussell (profile) says:

Re: Maybe people with guns should shoot other people with guns

Quicker to wait on cars, cigarettes…

The laws are there, they need to be used. I did some research on this about ten years ago. Weapons charges were among the first to be dropped during plea bargaining. That is how it was here in Canada at the time anyway. You get more repeat offenders(clients) this way.

Wayne says:

I have read all the posts, Awed by the lack of Intel Info!!

4 plus hours I have read the posts, some of which are pure dung, some have a little meat too. Most do not address the real problem; we are headed down a path of return to the times of our forefathers who fled from a dictatorship!! Our Bill of Rights and our Glorious Constitution were founded on more than human thoughts but on the basic Ten Commandments given to us. We as parents now rely on the TV, Video and Schools to raise and teach our children, and we as parents are the ones to blame!! I consider myself a normal individual and I deal with my problems and the rearing of my children thru the guidance of faith, law and common sense. Of the family I am from seven boys and one girl, none of us have ever been in any type of trouble with the law and all have served with honor for this nation. I do respect your right to voice your opinion and now I will say mine. I will be brief; it is really very simple; 1-Think before you act, for you are not the immortal one!! 2-Respect others as you would have them respect you!! 3-If you need some help, then ask, do not steal!! 4-When you see someone that is in need, offer your hands and not your hate!! These have served me well for the past 65 years!!

Response to Posts:
To: A. Coward-If you think for a moment that Movies, TV Shows, Talk Shows or Video Games have no affect on our youth then you are already contaminated beyond repair!! Oh yes since you seem to know so much about how we should control our weapons here in the US, Then maybe you need read a little more about the Swiss and the gun control there. Just for the record the area with the strictest gun laws in our country is DC, and Oh yes it has the highest crime rate by guns also, guess your idea works very well??

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...