The Duties And Responsibilites of Nancy Lanza

What an unconscionable act it is to kill an innocent child. This is not an excusable act of a mentally ill person, one who was not much more than a child himself, this was evil.  Adam Lanza may have been mentally ill but is difficult to argue that this is nothing other than just pure and senseless evil. Killing his mother may have been a symptom of illness but getting into her car, driving to the school and killing defenseless, innocent children goes far beyond that.

The pain the parents of the dead children must feel is beyond my comprehension. For this to happen a little over a week away from the happiest, most anticipated and most hopeful time of these young children carries a special viciousness. Now do the grieving parents not only have to deal with the immediate shock of losing their children, they have to go home to a Christmas tree with presents for their dead children underneath it as reminders of loss, presents from Santa hidden away or being shipped have become instruments of despair and there will be another trip to the depths of Hell on Christmas morning when daybreak is greeted with silence instead of the sound of laughter and joy.

I can hardly write this, I can only imagine the pain and anguish that must cause. It is unbearable just to contemplate, much less to experience. I just want to hug my kids.

I don’t even want to write what I’m about to write but rather than focus on the real issues here, the morbid ghouls on the left are already using this tragedy to call for gun control…David Frum took to Twitter only hours after the murders with a callous and obscene tweet:

Frum Tweet

He’s now furiously walking it back

Ace at AOSHQ noted:

NYT Reporter: 1:47 PM Is Not The Time To Begin Discussing The Politics Of The Killing. It’s Sick.
The Correct Time To Begin Discussing the Politics of This Is 4:47 PM.

Making a Second Amendment argument in the aftermath shouldn’t be one of the immediate responses but since you know that it is coming, if you own a gun, that is unfortunately the thought – I’m ashamed to say that it entered my mind almost immediately after I heard the initial reports yesterday. I knew that the bodies would not get cold before the chattering classes started turning up the rhetoric on gun control and How Something Must Be Donetm, meaning that guns must be taken away from the public, another article of faith of liberals.

I will agree with them about gun control, it strikes me as that kind of issue, just not the way that they are using it. As far as has been reported, these weapons were legally obtained and owned by Lanza’s mother, Nancy, who also appears to be his first victim. I have to ask, if it is known that Adam Lanza was autistic or did have Asperger’s Syndrome, why did Nancy Lanza not either secure her weapons or make the choice to get rid of them? How is it that it is the government’s responsibility to assess her situation and not hers?

BBC Health notes that there are three main aspects to Asperger syndrome:

Difficulty with communication. Although a person with Asperger syndrome may be able to speak fluently, sometimes there are difficulties judging or understanding the reactions of those they are talking to. Common problems include:

  • Failing to notice the body language of others.
  • Appearing insensitive to the feelings or views of the listener.
  • Continually talking, unaware of the listener’s interest.
  • Appearing over-precise in what they say.
  • Taking comments literally (for example, misunderstanding jokes, metaphors or colloquialisms).

Difficulty in social relationships. People with Asperger syndrome often enjoy or want to develop social contacts but find mixing with others very hard. In particular, they have problems with:

  • Understanding non-verbal signals such as body language, gestures, facial expressions and tone of voice.
  • Obsessions with objects, interests or routines which tend to interfere further with building social relationships (this is known as stereotyped or repetitive behaviour).

Lack of imagination and creative play. Children with Asperger syndrome are often of average or above intelligence, and may be particularly good at learning facts and figures. However, they may also lack imagination and find creative play or thinking in the abstract very difficult.

This means they may be particularly good at topics such as maths or history, but struggle with subjects such as philosophy, religious education or creative arts.

Autism presents even more severe aspects of Asperger’s, including a distinct lack of empathy. Is this the kind of person who should have access to a firearm? Who in their right mind believes that?

There will be rants that if guns just weren’t available to the public, this would never have happened. I agree – but where we differ is that Nancy Lanza should have been the control point and secured these weapons away from a person clearly not mentally capable of handling them outside of direct supervision, not the federal government. Period.

If we are going to support the Second Amendment, and I do, we also have to recognize the role and responsibility of the gun owner to keep our weapons out of the hands of people like Adam Lanza.

But the same people who will call for the confiscation of guns will also be the first in line to “mau mau” anyone who tries to judge a mentally ill person for their actions, they will excuse every action of criminals because they were not hugged enough as a child and will tell the world that the National North American Man-Boy Love Association is just another lifestyle – that we can’t judge because there is no good or evil. They will not ever take responsibility for destroying the ability and responsibility for society to separate good and evil, to discriminate and call a spade a spade.

Bullshit. We can’t be so stupid to think that we can put an open, gallon paint can full of gasoline next to a campfire and not expect an explosion. If I have a kid who shows a distinct lack of empathy, there is no rational way I could support that person having a gun – or even access to one. We have to make a choice; we have to say to ourselves that we are going to put the lid back on the can.

There is simply no logical way to make the argument that if Adam Lanza did not have access to these guns that this slaughter would not have happened – and those who do are being dishonest. There is also no way to tell a grieving parent that if only the teachers were carrying a side arm that this would not have happened – no doubt that would have been a deterrent but Lanza was clearly insane and undeterred by any level of personal risk…but if the liberals want to make arguments that the absence of weapons are the answer, we must also assert that if Lanza were not there, there would have been no shootings and/or that if these weapons had been in a gun safe that only Nancy Lanza knew the combination to, that it wouldn’t have happened.

Should we just institutionalize every person with autism or Asperger’s? That’s makes as much sense as removing guns from society. The guns were the tools of the insanity of Adam Lanza, not the cause of it. Sure, the guns made it easier for him to kill, but they are not the reason. Nancy Lanza paid for her lack of responsibility with her life – unfortunately so did 20 innocent children.

My heart bleeds for the families of these blessed little children and my rage is reserved for Adam Lanza, who pulled the trigger, the mother who enabled him, the liberals who are politicizing this tragedy and the evil that drives people to kill innocents.

114 thoughts on “The Duties And Responsibilites of Nancy Lanza

  1. would have been a good article, except for your lies about liberals. I don’t know a single liberal who would condone the man-boy live association etc. you are a sick, twisted individual yourself

    • Because you don’t know it, that doesn’t make it untrue. Before you pass judgement on someone you don’t know, you might want to do a little google search. From the Washington Post in August of 2000:

      ACLU To Represent NAMBLA
      By Martin Finucane
      Associated Press Writer
      Thursday, Aug. 31, 2000; 5:19 p.m. EDT

      BOSTON –– Saying important First Amendment issues are at stake, the American Civil Liberties Union is stepping in to defend a group that advocates sex between men and boys against a lawsuit brought by the family of a murdered 10-year-old.

      The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge claims in its lawsuit that the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its Web site incited the molestation and murder of the boy in 1997.

      The Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU said Thursday it will defend NAMBLA because the group’s activities are protected under First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

      So unless you want to argue that the ACLU isn’t a liberal organization, you owe me an apology.

      • ACLU does not represent most or all people of liberal thought. It does represent abstract conscepts found in the constitution you 2nd amendment types like to tout all the time, like freedom of speech.

        • Still doesn’t change the fact that they represented NAMBLA…and a tu quoque/me too argument doesn’t make you right, it makes your argument weaker.

          I never stated that it represented ALL liberals, just the ones who decry standards of behavior on the one hand while regulating things they don’t like on the other.

          • I’ll amit I was with you except I can’t get past your logic on this nambla bit. The mere fact that they represented nambla in a first admentment case does not support your claim that a judgement was made on their personal philosophy and endorsed as “just another lifestyle”. A jewish lawyer represented neo-nazis in another first admentment case agaist a city outside Chicago, does that mean he believed Mein Kampf to be “just another book” or perhaps he was simply not a Cubs fan?

            It is kind of like how pointing out a flaw in your logic doesn’t mean I support the ACLU but I’m sure it will be misconstrued that way.

            • It is actually pretty simple. The ACLU is known for its leftist stances, therefore it has that in common with people who defend the ACLU defending NAMBLA on the constitutional grounds of free speech and free association. If liberals can defend a group who presents such an aberrant and abhorrent behavior on First Amendment rights, claiming that the constitutional rights trump even the most disgusting of behaviors then it is hypocritical for the same people to oppose Second Amendment rights because it covers something that they don’t like.

              It is actually very, very simple.

              • I tried to nip it in the bud but I guess it’s a rule of the internet that if you disagree with someone on any one point then you’re against (or don’t understand, apparently) the entire ethos. There was never any confusion over how “simple” your attempted connection was. As I stated I don’t support the ACLU and that’s because I 100% agree that they are hypocritical on 2A rights. My disagreement is that you wanted to elicit and emotional response to the morally reprehensible beliefs of nambla and use that to create an ipso facto connection to those you disagree with. It’s very similar to the appeal to emotion the liberal pundits use when they try to conflate this latest tragedy with a need for gun control.

                You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Which is it? Is it ok to cherry pick which rights to defend or is that hypocritical? Either call them out on their hypocrisy for not supporting all constitutional rights or if as you claim the cases they choose are always based on defendants they align with morally then, while monsters, at least they’re being consistent.

                Don’t want to get too sidetracked, I agreed with the majority of your post. Keep up the good work.

        • Linda…the ACLU Uses SELECTIVELY the parts of the Constitution it wants and needs to push the Agendas of the Groups in CHOOSES to represent. It is an apologist for Special Interests…..most of which have agendas to take DOWN the Constitution from the inside…..by using the Constitution’s provisions in w warped way.

          In essence many times the ACLU uses Alinsky’s 4th rules to try and bring down the US.

        • Linda,

          The ACLU uses a Progressive understanding of the Constitution, which means it typically defends a LEFTIST (i.e. “liberal”) perspective of our rights. There is a reason it is seldom — if ever — complimented by those who REALLY know and understand the Constitution the way it was intended to be understood.

    • I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, owned a biz on Market St for many years, the Gay Parade passed right in front of our office. I personally was handed a brochure for the Man Boy Love Assn and heard the applause and cheers from the crowd for this organization. I took the brochure, but was stunned when I got back upstairs to my office and actually read it. A gay, male friend explained to me exactly what this group is about and why he opposed them. So please don’t call Utah a liar, he is not lying, many liberals in SF support this group.

      • I worked at Kearny and Market Street in SF too……I saw the Gay Pride marches…..never got the “literature” but certainly experienced the Attitude from the Parade.

    • IKJ…….I have known quite a few who are seemingly rational people who DO support NAMBLA….Not on a life-style choice argument, but on the basis that to stop this action represents a stopping of the Perverts “Freedoms” and that “kids” have sexual urges which shouldn’t be controlled by the Gov’t.

      THAT is the kind of twisted perversion that passes for the discusion of Freedom within the Liberal camp today. These are PERSONAL conversations I’ve had….from folks who are pro-1st AND pro-2nd amendment mind you.

      There is all this talk about how the GOP / Conservatives need to have a “Dialogue “with the left and come to understand you. I would submit that YOU LIBERALS need to go within your OWN Constituency and have “Dialogues” and get to know just who in fact makes up your own Party today !!

    • Some one has to say this; what about the 8 Million babies who have been aborted (killed). Who will stand and speak for them? Choice? whose choice? Certainly not theirs.

      • Ken … PERFECTION!

        I would if Professor McPhatty McPherson would care to answer those questions.

        How about it McPhatty? Since you love to ask em, how about you answer these?

    • ljk,

      If you don’t know “a single liberal” who endorses them, you must not know many liberals. That entire organization is made up of them.

      If you do not like the company you keep — CHANGE YOUR VALUES! Otherwise, be prepared for those who seek truth to call you by name.

    • “love association. and not all liberals are agianst guns. In fact, some far lefties are all for them”

      “Some”, huh? Some? Yeah buddy, where are they in the middle of all this hyperventilation by your glorious and benevolent party?

      Oh yeah, that’s right. They are all up Detroit beating the hell out of women in tents, and news reporters.

  2. Amen, Rio. I have a brother with Asperger syndrome, and my teaching career involved working with children who have emotional/behavioral disorders. If you’ve a moment, check my blog post for today; I think you’ll find some reassurance there that you’re not the only one saying that the laws are not the problem. Peace be with you. — Kelly

    • Irish – a small nit to pick, but my nom de plume is “Utah”, not “Rio”…and I’m headed over to your site right now.

      May God bless and hold all children in his arms and may He grant the parents of these 20 innocents a special peace.

    • Kelly, You should be ashamed to imply that AS is a behavior disorder. I feel sorry for your brother and your students. It has not been confirmed that Adam Lanza was diagnosed with AS and even if he was, the diagnosis helps to understand the pain he suffered but it does not explain his actions yesterday. AS is as relevant to his motive as being left-handed or having blue eyes. Correlation does not imply causation. Thomas Jefferson, Carl Sagan, Sir Isaac Newton, Marie Curie, and Albert Einstein all displayed traits of AS.

      • And you don’t think that the obsessive focus of an autistic or a person with AS could have played a role? Your response is exactly what I was posting about. There is not one single iota of evidence that anyone said ALL who exhibit these mental “situations” were going to go on a mass killing spree but there is anecdotal and clinical evidence of acts of violence that are perpetrated by people who are diagnosed with autism and AS and many of the cases are because of an event that they are upset about and obsess over until violent reactions are the only outlet they can conceptualize. The more that comes out about this situation, the more it appears that Lanza had an altercation at the school a day before as he tried to locate his mother – he didn’t forget and sought to resolve the anger through violence – he wanted to get even.

        Correlation is not causation but causation exhibits correlation. Your comment is just another of the arguments against pinpointing a cause because “other people have it and don’t kill” when in this specific case, Lanza’s autism/AS may well prove to actually be the causation. In this case, with this person, it appears that this mental state did, in fact, play a significant role.

  3. The sad thing is that you don’t even know if Adam Lanza was insane, you are just assuming that. A bullet has clear intent, perhaps the gun happy world you support is insane. Go ahead and blame the crazy person, god knows you deserve to.

    • Well, moron…and I do think the term is accurate in your case, if you had actually, you know, READ the post, you would see that I didn’t blame the crazy person – I blamed his mother for not realizing that he was crazy.

      I think shooting 20 5 through 10 year-olds pretty accurately fits the clinical definition of “crazy” though, don’t you?

      Unless you presume to argue that it doesn’t, of course.

    • “The sad thing is that you don’t even know if Adam Lanza was insane, you are just assuming that. A bullet has clear intent, perhaps the gun happy world you support is insane. Go ahead and blame the crazy person, god knows you deserve to.”

      Well, let’s see … Adam’s brother Ryan is reporting to the FBI that Adam was austic, and had a personality disorder.

      I would tell you that in taking a Medical History & Physical, those statements would be entered under mental disorders.

      Now, let’s look at the obvious, shall we?

      Twenty-eight people are dead:
      – 20 are children under 10.
      – 6 are adults at the school.
      – 1 is his mother
      – and the last is himself.
      – (his girlfriend is still missing).

      Yeah buddy, Adam was pretty fucking nuts. Sorry if you do not have enough intellect to see that, but then again, I doubt anyone has ever accused you of being a intellectual heavyweight.

      • Let’s state the obvious shall we? Shooter in Aurora? Crazy
        Virginia Tech? Crazy
        Columbine? Crazy
        Portland ? Crazy
        Cheap and easy access to guns for these men? Crazy

        • “Cheap and easy access to guns for these men? Crazy”

          Much harder to buy a gun versus a Machete. Are you proposing all mass murders chop their victims to death with a machete?

          You silly dolt. Criminals will always have the weapons. You choose your own poison.

        • What about this one: people around with concealed carry permits and a 9mm Glock 19. Crazy person fires one shot, misses and the person with the Glock puts a slug in their chests.

          Shooting over.

          Or let’s put up placards stating this is a “gun free zone” where people like the ones you named know that they won’t meet resistance.

          Which is better.

          Let’s depend on the police when seconds matter and help is only 15 minutes away.

          Getting a gun legally is not cheap nor is it easy.

          • The solution to an armed man, intent on committing evil, is a similarly armed man… a man with better training, and the will/determination to take the fight to the enemy. Everything else just buys time until that armed defender arrives. We would be well-advised to consider ways to shorten that time interval.

            We saw the power of privately armed citizens in Bay County at a school board meeting when that raving lunatic showed up with a gun.

            Wish I could remember the article, but it makes a profound statement for this topic.

          • “Getting a gun legally is not cheap nor is it easy.”

            Absolutely true. My weapons are expensive, and I will say this, guns are about to become a whole lot more expensive. If Obama and Company can’t find a way to ban them outright, regulations on ownership will become more stiff and taxes will be raised on weapons and ammunition to make them even more expensive than they are right now. I fully intend to go and purchase my AR-15 Monday, while I still can.

            • A number of years ago, my former attorney made a deal with a gun store in Dallas to get a Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader and I discounts on guns for our personal protection. In addition, he steered us to a shooting range where we could get self defense classes. This is what schools need to be doing for principals and teachers, perhaps all school personnel. Less lives will be lost, and our self defense will not be compromised.

    • Blake,

      You might have a point — IF so many crimes were NOT committed by SANE people with guns. But since they are, you have nothing — NOTHING!

      The facts actually stand in opposition to the anti-gun TYRANTS!

    • Blake – A bullet has no intent, none, not any whatsoever. It doesn’t leap out of the barrel or box on its own accord and look for someone to kill or injure. It simply resides in a gun cabinet or the magazine of a weapon until a human being pulls a trigger to send it on its way.

  4. I’ll tell you whatt’s bullshit. Your reductionist assumption and assignment of so called liberal thought. Yes I and all other reasonanble people who believe in logical gun control think man love NAMBLA is perfectly fine and will defend it to death. NOT.

    Or how about your inane comment as to “why is it the Government’s responsibility” to decide Nancy Lanza should have kept her guns from her crazy kid? Why? Because if they did 20 children under ten would be alive today, Because Nancy Lanza, deemed perfectly okay by today’s existing laws to buy guns, was, obviously one picnic short of a sandwich herself. Because if she allowed say, her blind child to drive a car, I doubt you and all the other gun apologists would have a problem with revoking that privilege. Because it is a PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.

    Why do seemingly reasonable people get stupid when defending their sacred guns?

    • I guess for the same reason as people like you that miss the point. I grew up in a time when guns were in the gun racks of pickups in the high school parking lot and there were no school shootings.

      Ever ask yourself why, or does your stupidity and ideology get in the way?

      Could it be that society has changed to produce people with such a lack of control that they can’t be trusted with a butter knife?

      And just which ideology do you think promotes that kind of responsibility and consequence free society?

      • “And just which ideology do you think promotes that kind of responsibility and consequence free society?”

        That’s just the thing with Liberals Utah. They never accept responsibility for their own history or actions. How do you think we could ever imagine they could grasp personal responsibility amongst anyone else … other than Bush. It’s all his fault after all.

    • “Why do seemingly reasonable people get stupid when defending their sacred guns?”

      Why Linda? Are you certain you can handle the rational answer?

      It’s really simple …

      Anyone can kill 28 people with a baseball bat, an axe, a sling-shot, a knife, some rocks, gasoline filled bottle, or any other inanimate object you can imagine as a weapon.

      However, I believe you might have a bit of a problem understanding the concept of inanimate objects vs people with criminal minds.

    • Linda,

      I used to be for gun control, I used to be a registered Democrat too. Living in Oakland, CA changed my perspective. I experienced first hand that the more controls were put on guns, The more guns appeared on the streets. I didn’t in my wildest dreams ever think I would ever possess or shoot a gun, but people change when the time comes for them to decide if they want to be a gun owner or a gun victim. I’ve never been the victim type.

      I remember the June evening 2 cousins, both gang members got into a fight over a pair of tennis shoes. I don’t want to go through all the gory details, but the result was a dead 17 year old lying in front of my house. I can still see his blood running down the street in my nightmares. Oakland is one of the most liberal cities in the US, it is also one of the most violent, but I have come to see the fault does not lie with guns, it’s the people who use the guns. Life has taught me that Utah is right.

    • Why do SOME seemingly reasonable Liberals get stupid when discussing our Rights?

      What is Sacred is our right to defend ourselves….not the inanimate object. Defend ourselves from Criminals and defend ourselves from Tyranny from outside our Borders and from our own Home-grown Tyrants !

  5. With over 90 lawful guns per 100 people (or roughly 300 million registered guns), you tell me how tweaking the gun laws are going to stop unlawful gun crimes?

    The problem isn’t the weapon, weapons can be replaced. The problem lies elsewhere … don’t you think?

    “Banning guns would make it more difficult for a criminal mind to acquire such weapons.”

    We’ve already proven through gun bans in prolific cities such as New York, Chicago, and others that the totalitarian idea of banning all guns did nothing but increase the incidence of gun related violence … leaving yours as a false syllogism. However, statistics show that were guns are permitted, that very deterrence has lowered not only gun related crimes, but almost all crimes.

    Even if you could irradiate every power charged weapon off the face of the Earth, those with criminal intent will just simply use a different weapon. You going to ban rocks as well?

    Let me spell it out for you my friend. It’s not the weapon. It’s the culture. The difference lies in the morality. It’s that morality here that needs a change.

  6. I have an autistic niece and nephew. I cannot fathom either one of them ever doing this.I do know that my brother-in-law keeps his weapons locked up. I also know that they attend church every Sunday. When you said this was evil, it is something I believe to be true.

  7. Are we giving the divorced dad who left the mom with this autistic boy’s care a pass in responsibility? I realize he was not a child, but daddy dearest also has some responsibility in letting this situation happen. Broken, divorced family, mental illness, violent mind-numbing video games….it adds up.

  8. Good article. This portion stuck out for me: Post-accident attribution accident to a ‘root cause’ is fundamentally wrong.
    Because overt failure requires multiple faults, there is no isolated ‘cause’ of an accident.

    I say this because my sister places all the blame on violent video games which desensitize and reward a child for “killing” by giving points per kill. Many people blame guns.Many blame his mental illnness, the divorce, &c.

    I still feel that when society’s morals go down the crapper, Rome burns, and we burn with it. Reckon I’m still stickin with a root to the problem which in turn fascilitates another problem, thereby enabling it to grow.

    • Good Post.

      The Senior Research Scientist at University of Maryland, John Lott has written about this Very phenomenon. Marl Levin interviewed him Friday about all this.

      ALL of the recent gun shootings….like those listed above….have been in Gun-Free Zones. Because these Evil-doers KNOW they have helpless victims in those Zones. There were 7 theatrers within a 20 minute ride to the Recent Colorado Shooters Apt…..He didn’t choose the Closest, NOR the the Largest……Only ONE of those 7 had a GUN-Free designation…and THAT is the one he chose. It is the same for the Sikh Temple and the School shootings ( including Univ of Virginia). It was also true of the Mall in Oregon.

      Gun-Free Zones…esp. forbidding CHL creates Zones of clear help-less targets for would-be mass muders. Which are also proven to be planned well in advance.

      As Lott says would any of us (esp you Liberals) WILLINGLY put a sign outside our houses which says……”This is a Gun-Free Zone “……???

      But this is exactly what the Liberal Anti-2nd Amendmets want to create by banning Guns……and ARE creating by these Gun-Free public Zones.

  9. The solution to this problem is PROPER “Gun Control.” I define “proper” as being CONSTITUTIONAL, which means the right to keep AND BEAR arms — as in OPEN CARRY! Then, the only “control” one needs is a tight grouping on the center mass of the bad guy.

    the Left would be amazed at how well this works in those parts of the world where it is has been implemented as official policy. You’ll even find places like this here in the U.S. But then, facts don’t really slow down a tyrant, do they? 😦

  10. So the answer to this problem is to have evryone carry a gun? The more guns you put into the hands of the average citizen, the more likely someone is likely to use it when they are enraged or someone “snaps”. If you have tight gun laws, yes, there will always be someone who obtains one illegally and uses it for a horrible murdur, but they at least have to premeditatively do this. If everyone has one, there doesn’t have to be any premeditation involved. Just get really pissed off and someone close to you will have a gun that you can use; even your own mother as in the case of this latest shooting. And then they even use your gun to shoot you as was also done in this latest case.

    • Nina,

      I’m sorry, but the objective evidence does NOT support your claim. In fact, it supports just the opposite claim. The way this actually works is, if we are all allowed to open carry, the people who decide to do so tend to be (tend, not always) the more stable tyers who also know how to use their weapons. What’s more, those of us who are comfortable around weapons can spot those who are not very quickly, so we instantly know who to keep an eye on.

      As for the notion of using a weapon because you loose control, I have 2 thoughts. First, it will make you a much more civil person — so you DON’T “piss anyone off.” Second, if you are going to try to shoot me because you get pissed, YOU BETTER BE FASTER AND SHOOT STRAIGHTER!

    • No, what I want is a moral society like the one I grew up in, one free or relativism and post-modernism, one where God was loved, feared and honored and where people valued human life enough not to kill children with a gun or forceps. What I want is a society where guns are not feared but are respected and where criminals know that any person that they might accost could just be able to stop them without waiting for the police. More crime is committed through they use of mobile phones than guns and it isn’t unthinkable for everyone to walk around carrying one. Why should a gun be any different? A moral, responsible society should be able to self-govern the use of deadly force by self-regulation of individuals. I own multiple guns – both long guns and handguns and I have never been motivated by any emotion to kill.

    • Nina, keep in mind that you’re talking to folks here that actually believe in the right to carry fully automatic weapons and hand grenades. Think how much fun a wackjob could have in a school or movie theater with a few grenades.

      I happen to agree that tighter gun control laws would have made no difference in this case–but some of the folks here are so far out that for them any form of weapon control short of banning personal nuclear weapons is off the table. Right, Joe?

      • James believes that, if we make guns illegal, then there will be no more school shootings. I guess he is ignorant of the fact that the worse school massacre in this nation’s history involved several bombs in addition to the guns used, and that the bombs inflicted nearly all of the casualties. If memory serves, didn’t the Columbine shooters try to use bombs, too? So I guess we should outlaw bombs. OH! Wait! That’s right, they ARE illegal — and yet, they were still used. Hmmm.

        But not to worry, the government would never used guns to shoot up a school, so we’re safe:

        Oops! Crap, forgot about that. Aint history a biotch? Well, none the less, weapons are people — just like SUV’s. If we didn’t have guns, they wouldn’t shoot anyone. And if we didn’t have SUV’s, they wouldn’t be causing global warming.

        When will those silly conservatives ever learn that people are never responsible for anything bad — well, LIBERAL people, that is (you conservatives are the cause of ALL ‘bad’ things in this world.)

        [The sad part is, this will actually make sense to these idiots on the Left. It’s why they feel justified in advocating Obama to just arrest us if we get in his way.]

        • How predictable–Joe lying about my position, while refusing to answer a simple question. I specifically said, “I happen to agree that tighter gun control laws would have made no difference in this case.” But I guess more than 15 words makes a sentence too long for you to follow, huh, Joe?

          And yes, I’m fully aware of the Bath school massacre–which occurred back in a period when we had plenty of “God in schools,” proving (as if any further proof were necessary) that Mike Huckabee is an idiot.

          But please, go ahead and explain your stance on fully automatic weapons, hand grenades, etc., Joe–if you have the guts to say it. Obviously Don hasn’t been reading long enough (or closely enough) to remember your position.

          • James,

            I happen to understand that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect weapons of war — not hunting or sporting weapons as you want it to. This is a fact — not because I say so, but because the founders said so. You do not support it because you do not support the notion of liberty, or individual rights. You are perfectly willing to cede those tot he government — most probably because you see yourself as being among the self-appointed and self-anointed elites. That, in itself, is enough to demonstrate your disdain of Natural Law, which then makes you an enemy to Natural Law, which then makes you an enemy of individual rights and liberty. and YES< this IS the logical extension of the sum total of your comments on this forum. I do not care if you disagree, I know it to be the case because I can reason for myself.

            Case in point: you admit laws will not stop the decay of society, yet you then imply that having automatic weapons will make it worse. THAT IS A FAILURE IN REASONING! Which makes me — once again — weep for your students. One need look no farther than Mexico to see that automatic weapons will eventually end up in the hands of American criminals (probably already have, the media just doesn't tell you about it).

            Finally, the implication that kicking God out of the public arena has NOT had an effect on our society because of the 1927 incident is just another of your fallacious assertions. Rogue persons (atheists) have ALWAYS existed. They just weren't as common in the 1920's, so these things didn't happen several times a year as they do now. The truth is, the social stats on what we call indicators of social decay show a sharp spike from the exact years we kicked God out of society. In sociology, we call that a causal indicator. Looking to the full record of history, the causality is clear. It has been the same story — every time. And all your bloviating will never change this because man can't impose his will over Natural Law.

            • Blah, blah, blah. Keep misrepresenting my positions, while refusing to openly state and defend your own, Joe–that there’s some good “reasoning.”

              I’ll try once last time, before giving up on you as obviously too cowardly to answer a simple question. I’ll ask in the form of yes/no questions, short enough that even you and Don should be able to comprehend:

              Should you, I, and most Americans have the right to freely own hand grenades?

              Should you, I, and most Americans have the right to freely own bombs?

              Should you, I, and most Americans have the right to freely own machine guns?

              Should you, I, and most Americans have the right to freely own mortars?

              Are there any weapons that you, I, and most Americans shouldn’t be able to own, without the government keeping track of that ownership? OK, I know that was a long question that you probably couldn’t follow–but I’ll be happy with answers to the first four.

              • Hey asshat, I’m not afraid of your intellectual peanut. I will bite.

                Should you, I, and most Americans have the right to freely own hand grenades?
                Under the National Firearms Act of 1934. which recognized these firearms could not be banned outright under the Second Amendment, my answer is that the regulation on them is adequate enough to provide the necessary regulation required to ensure the safe handling and transfer of these weapons as evidenced by a lack of massacre you so would imagine upon.

                Should you, I, and most Americans have the right to freely own bombs?
                Under the National Firearms Act of 1934. which recognized these firearms could not be banned outright under the Second Amendment, my answer is that the regulation on them is adequate enough to provide the necessary regulation required to ensure the safe handling and transfer of these weapons. And additionally I was ask precisely to what type of bomb are you referring? For example, nuclear weapons are banned. Maybe you should read the law prior to asking such ambiguous questions. Thank you.

                Should you, I, and most Americans have the right to freely own machine guns?
                Under the National Firearms Act of 1934. which recognized these firearms could not be banned outright under the Second Amendment, my answer is that the regulation on them is adequate enough to provide the necessary regulation required to ensure the safe handling and transfer of these weapons. Additionally, I would ask you to specific which “machine gun(s)” are you referring too. Phalanx Gatling guns are banned under this agreement for example. Maybe you should read the law prior to asking such ambiguous questions. Thank you.

                Should you, I, and most Americans have the right to freely own mortars?

                Same as above. I should think by giving you three chances to read, you might actually have done so.

                • “I’m not afraid of your intellectual peanut. I will bite.”

                  Funny, auggie, I don’t remember directing those questions at you. But Joe apparently is afraid to answer them, so congrats to you for having at least marginally more courage than he does. So you’re saying that the National Firearms Act of 1934 is OK as gun law?

                  “For example, nuclear weapons are banned.”

                  Not expressly by the Constitution, which was the document YOU brought up with your feeble response about automatic weapons.

                  “Phalanx Gatling guns are banned.”

                  Not expressly by the Constitution, which was the document YOU brought up with your feeble response about automatic weapons.

                  “I was ask precisely to what type of bomb are you referring?”

                  It doesn’t matter. I was asking Joe what “weapons of war,” if any, HE thinks we can outlaw. And so far, he apparently doesn’t have the guts to answer. That’s no more surprising, of course, than your inability to focus on the subject. I suppose it’s comforting to know that nothing seems to have changed here in the several weeks I’ve been ignoring the RNL.

                  • I quoted you a law. Cope with it.

                    And please by all means … put us back on ignore McPhatty, and for Christ’s sakes. Do something with yourself. You look terrible.

                • Augger,

                  he’s just a want-to-be tyrant who imagines his would-be allies will allow him a hand in directing the rest of the world when they finally take over. ignore him, he doesn’t possess half the intellect WE think he has.

                • Joe, copy and paste my answers to shut up the hyperventilating McPhatty before he has a f*****g stroke or something please.

                  I’m worried about the EMS staff, or nurses who will have to move him. Their backs matter to the rest of their community.

                  Just saying.

          • James McPherson is anti-Religion ( actually Anti-Christian ) as well as Anti-2nd amendment.

            The Typical Progressive Profile…….Anti-God / Relidgion……Anti-Guns ( except for the Authority figure of his choice).

            Basically Anti-1st and Anti-2nd Amendment………..Like Bloomberg and the rest of the Socialists.

            YOU didn’t answer MY questiom….JAMES……Are you a Union Memeber / Employee / Sympathizer..??? Since you’re into asking Questions ??

            • “James McPherson is anti-Religion ( actually Anti-Christian ) as well as Anti-2nd amendment.”

              Hardly, Don. I am a Christian who teaches at a Christian university, a deacon at my church, and a multiple-gun owner who used to teach gun safety courses. I am not, nor have I ever been, a union member–which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the discussion here but I know you’ll reach for anything you can to try to demonize someone who disagrees with you. Pitiful.

              • For a “Christian”…..Your posts are Hostile, with a violent edge…..and for a “university teacher” and a Deacon….you dismissed God in the Schools,….and you dismissed the 1927 death of 38 Children and 6 adults with the wave of your hand so fast that it would have Earned you a North Korean Medal of Honor and perhaps even a Smile from their Glorious Leader.

                If you are NOT a union member ( as a Teacher that’s almost a given )….you certainly have learned their bullying tactics well….

                Finally I have to call BS on your claims as you arguments are Consistantly Hostile to BOTH the 1st and 2nd Amendment…….with such hostility on your part I have to wonder just which “Christianity” you claim to be a member of.

                • So I guess it’s fortunate for me, Don, that your opinion means absolutely nothing to me–and wouldn’t even if you had managed to focus even briefly on the issue that the post is about.

                • What is fortunate….Deacon……Is that people can now see for themselves that you are a fraud. You weren’t that hard to figure out.And your posts in fact address nothing but your own Hostile Agenda.

                  Anti-Gun
                  Anti-God in the Schools
                  The Demonization of those who are Pro Bill of Rights and a return to a Moral standing.

              • James,

                Scripture teaches us that there are many who claim to be Christian who are not. I would venture that — if we went on SCRIPTURE — you should be worried that you fall into this category. Your words do not count, your actions show the true devotion of your heart. And since you support child sacrifice, theft and a host of other non-scriptural agendas, your actions would seem to stand in opposition to Christ’s Gospel message — not with it.

                I suspect you are as much a Christian as Obama is…

                • “I would venture that …”

                  Venture on. And keep lying about me, while being too gutless to answer simple questions–you make it pretty clear what you are. Child sacrifice? Pitiful even for you and your cowardly ilk.

      • This is a Typical Leftist post……Bordering on Violence …( are you a Union Thug From Michigan or Wisconsin Perhaps ?).

        Noone here said anything close James asserstions….. Typical Demonizing Liberal Progressive Hate-speech,.

        Posts like this. Liberal Talk like this is why no dialogue takes place.

        • “Noone here said anything close James asserstions”

          Just because you missed it or don’t remember it doesn’t make it so, Don. And since you don’t know what you’re talking about, why bother?

      • @ Professor McPhatty …

        ” you’re talking to folks here that actually believe in the right to carry fully automatic weapons ”

        Can you please show me in the US Constitution where the weapons you describe are listed as unconstitutional please? Here’s your big chance to change my belief. 🙂

        And FYI jack-off. “Think how much fun a wackjob could have in a school or movie theater with a few grenades.” is utter horseshit buddy ole pal. You go out there and try to purchase a hand grenade, and then report back to us about how difficult it was.

        • No, auggie, I can’t even show you anything in the Constitution that says I can’t own hand grenades, chemical weapons, or a nuclear weapon. I notice that you chose to ignore the rest of my sentence.

          And since I can’t imagine that your beliefs matter to anyone outside of your proctology patients, I see no need to try to change them.

          • Don’t worry McPhatty — scroll up. I have given you the law, so that you don’t have to hurt your few remaining braincells looking it up. 🙂

            • Augger…..”Deacon” James is about as warm and fuzzy as the Deacon played by Dennis Hopper in “WaterWorld”.

              Except without Hopper’s personality….

              • Don, I actually met Dennis Hopper on the set of Water World. Helluva guy. My sailing buddy sailed the trimaran for the movie.

                Like McPhatty, Gibson was a sh*t-head too. You know … really benevolently religious and all …

    • Nina, two quick points (I need to see what Prof McPhatty has to say about this subject):

      1. You need to actually read the Constitution, and if you cannot agree with it, you need to re-think why you live here.
      2. ” uses it for a horrible murdur,” — come back to us once you learn how to spell murder, please, and thank you.

  11. Has it occurred to you that Nancy Lanza may most likely have had a degree of Aspergers herself? Inappropriate behaviors are not uncommon to all people with adults with Aspergers, and carrying guns in the house when your son has a form of autism, or taking him shooting are certaibly inappropriate behaviors. It’s highly unlikely than a neurotypical parent would expose their disabled son to an environment in which guns are freely available, or even train their son to use on for recreation as Nancy did. Aspergers is not a disorder that will necessarily reveal itself to a gun shop owner when he’s dealing with a customer. Nancy Lanza, I doubt was irresponsible. I suspect we’ll find out she was a woman who had Aspergers herself, even if to a lesser degree. And there’s your issue: if guns should be available to all adults, then they should be avaialable to people like Nancy Lanza – who may well use them and leave them in inappropriate ways because her disability was so mild as not to be evident in brief social interaction. Then what?

    • You are making a HUGE assumption.

      What is your ultimate point? That Everyone has some potential for a “mild” mental disorder…..so there fore in order to be safe no-one should be allowed to have Guns ? Or that everyone should be “tested” for some mild form of Mental / Social / personality disorder as a requisite for obtaining a firearm.

      Or is it ultimately that only those in “authority” should have Guns….to keep us all safe from ourselves ??

      • This article was written with the finishing premise being that: Nancy Lanza was an irresponsible person and therefore this atrocity can be traced back to her. It’s likely to be a false premise because it’s quite likely not the case. Nancy Lanza was most likely a person affected by AS herself. And therefore the responsibility’s not hers. The responsibility is with a society which believes that guns should be easily available to and sold to members of the public. Because yes – there is no way for a someone selling a gun to know the mental condition of someone buying it, or the people to whom they are likely to make it available.

        But on the other hand, if the premise of the article is correct: then I still don’t understand what is YOUR point? Are you saying that of course it’s always possible that a gun will be sold to an adults who can be irresponsible, and which can lead to tragedies such as this – but that’s just the price we all have to pay (the price innocents pay with their lives) for other adults to have the rights to bear arms?

        Really? You’d rather live in a society where it’s always a possibility – a potential outcome – that someone could pick up 3 handguns from their family home and go shoot infants in a class room, rather than a society in which there is no possibility – absolutely no potential- for someone to access 3 hanguns from their family home to hurt themselves or anyone else with?

        Really?
        How would you address the parents of a child who was murdered in this way who have this to say?
        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/opinion/why-we-let-the-school-shootings-continue.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

        • You didn’t answer my questions directly.

          You are for banning Guns and doing away with the 2nd amendment ? Yes/ No ?
          You are for mandatory mental examinations of all adults Yes / No ?
          You are for only Government agents ( which includes LEOs) to have access to guns Yes / No ?

          • I don’t have answers to your questions.

            In so far as the police being armed – I think that’s dangerous: 50% of people shot at by police every year have mental health challenges, and these shootings could be avoided if there was education, awareness and training within the police force: http://thegrio.com/2012/12/12/study-half-of-people-shot-by-police-every-year-are-mentally-ill/2/

            All I know is that I am for a society in which others – the vulnerable and the innocent – are not at risk of being harmed by those carrying guns: whether they’re police officers or members of the public. And the complexisties of law keeping aside, I am absolutely for a society in which there can be no possibility – zero potential – of infants, or any innocents, being slayn by members of the public who bring in guns that they’ve legally gotten access to through direct purchase or through their family homes.

            That’s what I am for. Aren’t you?
            I’d sincerely like to know how you’d address the father of the child murdered 20 years ago in a similar incident.

            • I’d sincerely like to know if you are for or against the 2nd amendment.

              How do you Seriuosly not have an answer to that question ?

            • “All I know is that I am for a society in which others – the vulnerable and the innocent – are not at risk of being harmed by those carrying guns”

              So you would rather seen them bludgeoned with billy-clubs, and or rocks.

  12. Don’t forget to blame the Psychiatrists. Unless the public starts making Psychiatrists pay, the solution will never be put in place. Allopathic Medicine has no cure for mental disease. That is the problem. Ancient Natural and Alternative Medicine had cures for chronic disease; however, treatment of chronic disease starts with expert diagnosis and ability to evaluate treatments. Allopathic Physicians, including Psychiatrists, have no diagnostic techniques, relying exclusively on limited laboratory tests and patient statements for diagnosis. Pretending to handle the problem of mental illness is not going to get the job done no matter how much more money is put into the mental health system. Nothing will be done to change the outcome for those suffering from mental illness or their victims because Psychiatrists do not have the skills to solve the problem. In order to solve our societal problem, the solution below needs to be implemented to end chronic disease for sufferers of mental disorders and their victimization of others.

    Natural and Alternative Medicine uses 3 diagnostic techniques very successfully: Those techniques are Iridology, Kinesiology (Saliva DNA Testing), and Expert Oriental Pulse Diagnosis. Iridology is accomplished via a camera linked to a computer. Kinesiology (Saliva DNA Testing) can even be done from a distance by mailing DNA swabbed cotton balls to a physician experienced in the art. Expert Pulse Diagnosis can either be Chinese or Indian Ayurvedic, but I much prefer the Chinese method because the Chinese physicians appear to have never accepted the ancient dirty spiritual practices into their medicine, unlike in Ayurvedic Medicine. Expert Pulse Diagnosis takes the most time to learn, but is absolutely necessary for any physician who wants to diagnose chronic disease or assess a patient’s status and the efficacy of treatments. A combination of these diagnostic techniques gives cross-verification to the physician. And, the first 2, Iridology and Kinesiology (Saliva DNA Testing), will aid the physician’s diagnosis, until he is expert in Oriental Pulse Diagnosis. (Distance pulse diagnosis can be accomplished via a lock of hair by keying in on [DNA], just as can be done in Kinesiology Saliva Testing.) Allopathic Physicians face severe incompetence in every area besides the Operating Room and treatment of infection, demonstrating a Dark Age lack of knowledge. Many people believe this ineptitude is due to a stranglehold on Allopathic Medicine by the pharmaceutical industry, but this problem is also due to ingrained arrogance and incompetence on the part of Allopathic Physicians. The State of Texas refusal to accept a mental health diagnosis from anyone other than an Allopathic Physician bears witness to entrenched ignorance on the part of state regulators.

    Federal Government involvement in Medicine and Medical R & D is also a major factor in the lack of cures for chronic disease. First, Allopathic Physicians need to learn the Natural and Alternative Medical diagnostic techniques then all of the old ancient medical formulas and techniques need to be researched. It is impossible to research efficacy of treatments without expert diagnostic techniques for value assessment on patients. I use an almost completely unknown acupuncture protocol (self-administered much like a diabetic gives himself insulin injections) that treats many chronic diseases, as well as other little known medical knowledge for the majority of my health care needs. My understanding of Natural and Alternative Medicine is both in depth and personal. Friends are now asking me to share my medical knowledge because there is no treatment available for chronic disease. Chronic disease treatment is “Do it yourself healthcare, or do without because Allopathic Medicine provides absolutely “NO” cures.”

    The major solution to high health care costs and successful treatment of mental disorders is for states to mandate medical schools to teach expert diagnostic techniques to first year medical students. If students are lacking in proficiency in expert diagnostic techniques at the end to the first year of medical school, they need to be washed out of the program. We can eliminate the majority of the expense and failure in our medical system by insisting our states get tough on the way physicians are trained.

    Congress and State Legislatures can get Dr. Vassant Lad of Albuquerque, NM and, or other pulse diagnosticians to give demonstrations in Washington and the various state legislatures by diagnosing Congressmen while they are sitting in their seats in Congress. Dr. Lad may have a trusted colleague who would participate. House members can send a saliva sample to Healthy Bodies in Wills Point, TX to be diagnosed and receive treatment, in order to test the efficacy of these diagnostic methods. Since these diagnostic methods can be demonstrated, our Allopathic Medical Establishment can make no excuses for current inept and expensive medical diagnosis and thoroughly inadequate palliative care. Psychiatry has not progressed beyond its infancy, and it will only progress when the public insists on competent diagnostic techniques. In other words, we have the ability to make our state and federal governments give us better health care, so let’s do it. There is no excuse for mass murders.

  13. Just out of curiosity, who here believes the “AR” in AR15 stands for “Assault Rifle” or “Automatic Rifle”? Don’t raise your hands. If you do believe this, you are wrong. Look it up.

    • Thank you for making me search. I don’t think you realise the trouble it causes me……as much as your cliffhanger! Here is your answer:The “AR” in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name. It is a semi-automatic rifle.

      What is my prize?

  14. Pingback: Are We Creating The Monsters? Questions We Should Be Asking In The Aftermath Of Shady Hook | The Rio Norte Line

  15. Way to go, kells. It does stand for the first two letters of the “AR”maLite company that invented the rifle and sold it Colt. How ’bout a night on the town as . . . well, your choice. 😉

  16. You clearly know nothing about Autism or any related syndrome and should by all right shits your mouth before you get mobs to hurt innocent people with Autism. There is no link to Autism and violence. There isn’t any proof that he was Autistic or had Aspegers. It’s people like you who turn an already bad bad situation worse. Shut your mouth and stop ranting till you have knowledge of what you are ranting about. Whatever the reason is that this man shot these babies is by All means evil but you broadcasting that an Autistic person’s parent should trust them is just as evil. The words you post are your responsibility and by putting crap out there like this you could set some mentally unstable person off on a kill handicapped people rampage. Idiot!

    • “You clearly know nothing about Autism or any related syndrome and should by all right shits your mouth before you get mobs to hurt innocent people with Autism. There is no link to Autism and violence. There isn’t any proof that he was Autistic or had Aspegers”

      Only the testimony of his older brother who has intimate knowledge of the shooter and his life’s history.

    • @Ruckasraising and Going Green:

      Don’t know who you are or what rock you have been under but the national media has been reporting this for days now. As for my post, I never said that this mental condition caused it. If you hyperbolic people will read the actual post, you will see that there was no blame specifically attached to the disorders – I placed the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of Nancy Lanza because she knew the condition and the limits specifically associated with her son. Based on the pathology of the condition, I find it highly unlikely that this was the first time that her son had exhibited an inability to control his rage and to have guns where he could access them is unconscionable.

      Also according to the media reports, she taught him to shoot, this is another reason that it is my belief that she is responsible due to the face that she had to have known that there was no way that he could pass the legal bar to actually own a gun on his own.

      I would respond to your comment by stating that it is far more likely that your inability to discern what I have said and instead adopt the “you can’t judge” position is far more risky than the fact that I stated that these mental disorders could have been a contributing factor – because it discourages even the thought of any critical examination of the facts, facts that might just include a conclusion that you appear to be extremely unwilling to accept.

  17. There are also no links to Autism and violence. The rock I crawled out under as you care to say put a doctorate degree in my hands that can tell you the uneducated person that there is no link. We don’t know what happened in her house. Maybe she had the guns under lock and key and he found the key. Maybe he broke a glass to get to them. Anything we say is speculation. Maybe instead of blaming a victim for this tragic crime you should blame the person who did this. After all he was not a child, he was 20 year old. You act as if she gave a toddler a gun and said go play. I have a friend who has Autism who serves our country and is a college professor. He also writes for a newspaper. He recently lost his daughter and I can tell you he was not emotionally unattached. You just speak to hear yourself speak. Uneducated people talk and lead to more violence. So now any mother who has a gun and teachers her children to shoot deserve to die and be careful for all children with Autism they can not be trusted around weapons. You truly are a disgraceful person with your own agenda.

    • “There are also no links to Autism and violence. “

      Only the testimony of his older brother who has intimate knowledge of the shooter and his life’s history. In this case, there certainly appears to be a link.

      “Children who are autistic may have repeated body movements such as rocking or hand flapping. They may have unusual responses to people, attachments to objects, resistance to change in their routines, and/or aggressive or self-injurious behavior. At times they may seem not to notice people, objects, or activities in their surroundings. Some children with autism may also develop seizures, in some cases not until adolescence.”

      http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/understanding-autism-basics

      Maybe you should get your basics down before posting falsehoods before medical practitioners.

      Have a nice day.

  18. This event is different than other tragedies that have occurred in that this disturbed young man gained access to weaponry through his parent. Nancy Lanza obviously used very poor judgment in teaching her son how to use the guns and by not securing them. As a “liberal”, I am not asking that guns be confiscated; however, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for realistic safeguards. How about gun registrations which have to be renewed annually an shown to purchase ammunition? How about all gun sales being subject to mental health/background checks? How about blocking gun sales to homes where their are disturbed people residing? And finally, enough with the high powered rifles that mow down masses of people?

    • The problem isn’t with the weapons, but with the treatments for mental illness. As someone who is interested in establishing Standards of Best Practice for Natural and Alternative Medicine, I have a number of protocols and access to more that treat chronic disease. One protocol cures mental illness. Allopathic Physicians are in charge of treatment for mental illness, and they do not have the diagnostic techniques to discern the effectiveness of Natural and Alternative Medical Protocols, so they will not use them. If an Allopathic Physician is handed a protocol that works, he looks at the person with a blank stare. Only the incompetent expensive palliatives that come from pharmaceuticals are readily accepted by Allopathic Physicians. Allopathic Physicians must be required to learn all of the Natural and Alternative Medical Diagnostic Techniques in order for them to define the cures for the various illnesses and determine the efficacy of treatments. Our world is suffering miserably from all chronic disease, and we pay Psychiatrists fabulous sums just for substandard maintenance of mental patients – maintenance that isn’t working. In my other comment, I outlined the diagnostic techniques and the procedure for getting them into our medical schools by demonstrating the techniques to state legislatures and to Congress. Until Allopathic Medicine regains its collective mind, we will be victimized by other people who have lost theirs.

      • Dear AW Kingsley: Thank you for your reply. I’m certain that mental health played an issue in this incident. Only time will tell what measures/precautions were taken. At this time, all we know is that the wrong person got their hands on very powerful weaponry and caused great harm. I’m simply asking if their isn’t more that we as a society can do to ensure that guns stay in the hands of law-abiding citizens only.

    • Concerned,

      Thanks for a genuine post. I feel your agony over the subject. Let’s talk. 🙂

      “I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for realistic safeguards.”

      I agree completely, and fortunately we have some pretty realistic safeguards in place. The federal government has a good set of laws (although there is a whole mass of them) that I have made reference to above. Then there is state layers of further regulation. I would tell you that as a person who holds a Class III, it is no easy lisc to get. Took well over 10,000 dollars, and more than a year to obtain. There was a lot of screening involved.


      “How about gun registrations which have to be renewed annually an shown to purchase ammunition?”

      I could not see a family having to re-register (i.e., pay taxation) for yearly registrations on an heirloom weapon. Though, I would not necessarily be opposed to requiring a gun dealer to handle a private sale transaction for the purposes of background checks, and registration following a sale. Or maybe a bill of sale submitted to the local courthouse is not a step too far.

      “How about all gun sales being subject to mental health/background checks?”

      Already screening for that.

      “How about blocking gun sales to homes where their are disturbed people residing?”

      Too open to subjective physical/mental assessment, and too much of a burden on a law abiding citizen.

      “And finally, enough with the high powered rifles that mow down masses of people?”

      Misnomer. Again, what defines a “high powered rifle”? Have you seen the ballistics report on a .22 Long Rifle, or a .44 Magnum? All powered weapons are “high powered”, just ask those who’ve been hit by one. As stated above, we do have constitutional laws that regulate the sale/ownership of machine guns, military weapons, explosive devices.

      Again, the problem is not the inanimate object, but rather the morality of the person who wields it. I once took care of a patient who had a dinner fork impaled through her forehead by an angry girlfriend. Do you honestly think we should ban or regulate dinnerware as well?

      I don’t.

      • Dear Augger:

        Thank you for your courteous reply. As a lawful, gun owner, I’m sure you cringe at that the thought of more regulations, laws etc. I myself feel that way about certain things I encounter. Laws or policies which are clearly written to address the most ignorant in society are aggravating to those of us who are intelligent and do the right thing.

        Let me re- iterate, I’m not asking that anyone be required to give up their guns. But, clearly, we are having a problem with the wrong people getting a hold of them and using them in a mass terror situation. This is why I’m wondering if an extra step might be helpful. Would the requirement of producing a gun registration for the purchase of ammunition be helpful in controlling the use of unlicensed/stolen weapons by criminals?

        With regards to my comment about high powered rifles, I’ll be the first to admit that I am no weapons expert. I was referring to the types of guns being used in situations like Virginia Tech, Aurora and Newtown where dozens of people are killed in minutes. Agreed, a fork and many other inanimate objects can be deadly and should not be subjected to licensure; however, I don’t foresee a lunatic successfully killing a theatre or classroom full of people in minutes with a fork.

        Once again, thank you for your thoughtful comments.
        Sent from my iPhone

        • “Thank you for your courteous reply. As a lawful, gun owner, I’m sure you cringe at that the thought of more regulations, laws etc. I myself feel that way about certain things I encounter. Laws or policies which are clearly written to address the most ignorant in society are aggravating to those of us who are intelligent and do the right thing.”

          You are quite welcome. Yes, I can be just as flippant as folks like McPherson when that type of response calls for it, but I do not enjoy, or appreciate having to do so. Civil, and genuine discourse is much more preferable.

          I do not cringe per-say. However, I also do not see the use of even more regulation stacked upon more regulation, and then stacked upon even more regulation where it concerns “gun control”. We’ve passed numerous “gun control” regulations throughout the years, to no avail. Would you not agree?

          The problem lies elsewhere. As I said earlier:

          “Again, the problem is not the inanimate object, but rather the morality of the person who wields it. I once took care of a patient who had a dinner fork impaled through her forehead by an angry girlfriend. Do you honestly think we should ban or regulate dinnerware as well?”

          “Let me re- iterate, I’m not asking that anyone be required to give up their guns. But, clearly, we are having a problem with the wrong people getting a hold of them and using them in a mass terror situation. This is why I’m wondering if an extra step might be helpful. Would the requirement of producing a gun registration for the purchase of ammunition be helpful in controlling the use of unlicensed/stolen weapons by criminals?”

          I know that, and I appreciate the sentiment. My conundrum is … what extra step is plausible under the Constitution? I do not think proving registration of a gun is going to deter anyone from purchasing ammunition either in person, or on the internet. I think what it promotes is yet another black-market situation that we see in things such as “Fast and Furious”. Remember, locks only keep honest people honest. They do nothing for the criminal mind.

          “With regards to my comment about high powered rifles, I’ll be the first to admit that I am no weapons expert. I was referring to the types of guns being used in situations like Virginia Tech, Aurora and Newtown where dozens of people are killed in minutes. Agreed, a fork and many other inanimate objects can be deadly and should not be subjected to licensure; however, I don’t foresee a lunatic successfully killing a theatre or classroom full of people in minutes with a fork”

          It’s interesting you should apply the moniker “high powered rifle” to a .223mm semi-automatic sporting rifle. With only 3,000ths of a diameter larger than a child’s .22 caliber sporting rifle, I would find it difficult to consider that weapon a high powered rifle considering the various other large bore military sniping rifles out there (.50 caliber comes to mind).

          About the fork, I see your point. However the point still stands. But taking that retort one step further, how many were killed recently in China to a knife? (I know someone used it as an example in an earlier thread, and the number was quite a few if I remember correctly)

          The point is, just about anything can be considered a dangerous weapon, and in the right hands, can be used to kill one to many people in rapid succession. The problem does not lie with the object. It lies within the criminal mind.

          Do you honestly think we can regulate ourselves in to utter safety, and benevolence?

          I would hope we wouldn’t have too.

          • Dear Augger:

            The knife attack in China resulted in 22 children being slashed. At this time, I was unable to find info indicating any had died. Still, a horrible situation nonetheless. I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t know what the answer is. Perhaps intelligent dialogue like this will result in agreeable ideas.

            • Why do people insist on blaming inanimate objects for acts that require a free will to commit? And wherever we find free will, we find a morally accountable person. THAT is where “blame” lies: with the individual — not with the inanimate object.

              When did our nation get its thinking and understanding flipped upside-down??? 😦

  19. Pingback: Taking The Bait | The Rio Norte Line

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.