Connecticut lawmakers take a stand for Newtown victims!

Since the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, the gun-lobby has been squaring off with advocates for stronger gun regulations. And while Congress has barely managed to squeeze in an upcoming vote on modest restrictions, a bi-partisan group of Connecticut lawmakers have reached a deal to implement some of our nation's toughest gun laws.

Yesterday, legislators in that state put forward legislation, which will close the private-sale loophole, implement a ban on high-capacity magazines, and create a new certification process for the purchase rifles, shotguns, or ammunition. However, the new law will allow individuals who currently own high-capacity magazines to keep them. Connecticut lawmakers are expected to vote on the legislation on Wednesday.

Governor Dannel Malloy, expressed concern about the law's “grandfather clause,” and said, "I have been clear for weeks that a ban on the possession and sale of high capacity magazines is an important part of our effort to prevent gun violence -- simply banning their sale moving forward would not be an effective solution." But, advocates of gun control hail the proposal as a landmark package, and they say it's an appropriate response to the Sandy Hook shooting.

Ron Pinciaro, of the group Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said, “when you take all the elements and compare it, I think you could judiciously say this is the strongest bill in the nation.” After a year of what seemed like endless mass shootings, it's refreshing to see lawmakers standing up to the gun-lobby, and implementing some real regulations. Connecticut is working to take weapons of war off of our streets.

The law may not be perfect, but it's a great start. If only lawmakers around our nation were brave enough to do the same.


Outback 10 years 9 weeks ago

News flash from the past week:

(Don't know if my original post made the cut, so I'll correct my bad grammar and post it again) ....

"One person was injured when a red Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon crashed into the Wal-Mart in San Jose, California, about 50 miles north of San Francisco, the San Jose Mercury News reported. The driver got out of the car and assaulted three people, the paper said." As it turns out, the assailant used a "blunt object". As it also turns out, most assaults, including those resulting in death to the victim, are committed with "blunt objects", including clubs, baseball bats, and yes, fists. So I really do believe we need a ban on "blunt objects" as well as high capacity magazines.

Listen people, the problem is not high capacity magazines. It's not even guns. It's the fact that The United States of America is an exceedingly violent society and has been since it's inception. Use just a modicum of reason and look at the evidence! Look what we did to the Native Americans from Plymouth westward. Look at how we treated black slaves, right up through the Jim Crow South. (For that matter, look at how society treats blacks today.) How about our treatment of the Mexicans on our push toward "manifest destiny"? Viet Nam. Iraq. Afghanistan. On and on and on .... You want serious violence? I give you United States foreign policy, past and present.

Fact! Guns are never going away in this country, even assault weapons with 30 round magazines, because there are already so many of them in the public domain. Any attempt to make them illegal will simply create a huge black market, like every other attempt the government has ever made at prohibition. Only this time, only the "bad guys" will be well armed.

Fact! guns don't kill people. People kill people. And as long as there are enough people in this country so gullible as to believe otherwise, willing to roll over for what they've been told is "politically correct", we all stand a very good chance of losing what remains of our civil liberties. And in support of that statement, I harken you back to Germany, 1939!

Yes, what happened in Newtown was a tragedy. But as one legislator in CT put it (to paraphrase), the problem wasn't guns. The problem was the individual and his mother.

I hope to hell the wheels never come off of this country. I hope we can collectively steer around the abyss our corrupt institutions are steering us toward. But the prognosis is not good, folks. And if that day ever comes, I intend to be fully armed. It's your right not to be. Good luck.

PeacefulPatriot 10 years 9 weeks ago

The problem is guns and the people who own them and use them.

Those kids in Newtown weren't killed by blunt instruments. If it had been illegal for Mrs. Lanza to buy an assault rifle and extended clips, might her son have still killed her and those children? Perhaps. We'll never know for sure, but what we could have prevented was Adam Lanza firing as many rounds as he did in such a short time.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

If I may, I'd like to share some facts I posted just yesterday at


If it feels like gun violence has gotten worse since the expiration of the assault weapons ban, it has.

This Facebook meme was the topic of some discussion today.

Predictably, there were opinions in support of and in opposition to the proposition that mass killings are up since the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire.

Is there a cause and effect as the meme clearly implies? I don't know so let's put that debate aside for the moment and just look at some facts and some data.

I love facts and data. They don't lie and they have no agenda (except in the hands of those with one).

I don't deny that I support some pretty significant changes to gun laws as a way to have an effect on gun violence. As for the data, here's the most extensive analysis I've found so far. Most of it comes from Mother Jones. (Sources are listed below.)

FACT: The Assault Weapons ban was passed on September 13, 1994. It applied only to weapons manufactured *after* that date.

FACT: There were 15 mass shootings in the 10 years it was in place.

FACT: In 3 of the shootings (20%), an assault rifle was used. In 13 shootings (87%), semiautomatic handguns were among the weapons used.

Now contrast that with the last 8 ½ years.

FACT: There have been nearly twice as many mass shootings at 28 and counting since the assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004.

FACT: 27 of them occurred since 2005. Counting all 28 would be almost one-half of all 62 mass shootings dating back to 1982. (Clinton's taking a politician's liberty with the math, but he's not that far off.)

FACT: In the mass shootings since the assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004, assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns were used in basically the same ratios as during the ban; assault rifles were used in 6 (21%) of those shootings, while semiautomatic handguns were used in 23 (82%), including 3 of the shootings where assault rifles were also used.

Cause and effect? It's hard to say with certainty, but there's no denying that there are more mass shootings overall and more mass shootings involving assault rifles after the ban than during the ban. In fact, there have been twice as many mass shootings in just 85% of the time. That ought to trouble all of us.

It ought to be obvious, too, that more guns in fewer hands has not made us safer. (See "Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline") The data seems to point to just the opposite.

Perhaps the real point to this meme is best (and to your post, Outback, is) captured by this passage at Mother Jones:

“More than half of the killers we studied in our investigation of 62 mass shootings over the last three decades possessed weapons that would be banned by Feinstein's bill, including various semiautomatic rifles, guns with military features, and handguns using magazines with more than 10 rounds.”

Will a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines *stop* all mass shootings? No, nothing will do that. Sadly, disturbed individuals will find ways - legal and illegal - to kill people with and without guns. We're a violent society that embraces violence in far too much of our culture. There are no simple solutions for changing that.

There is, however, data that points to a meaningful degree of change.

If Feinstein's bill were enacted and the weapons used in half of the mass shootings of the last 30 years had a chance of being completely unavailable to Americans, wouldn't that be worth it?

Even if all we banned were assault rifles, the data indicates we would seem to have some potential to eliminate about 1 in 5 mass shootings.

And even if bans on assault weapons and large magazines don't eliminate every mass shooting, at least it would criminalize their possession. Future mass murders wouldn't be able to legally obtain such lethal weaponry *and* they'd have a harder time killing so many people so quickly without reloading.

Somehow our democracy survived when automatic weapons like machine guns were made illegal. Unlike those who live in fear of tyranny or invasion, I believe that my country and my fellow citizens will endure without military-style assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

I'm also completely confident that if it means even the chance that we'll have fewer mass shootings our fellow citizens who are assault weapon aficionados will survive surrendering (yes, I said surrendering) those firearms and learning to live with shorter adrenaline rushes while they target shoot on weekends. They've managed to get along without Tommy Guns. They can get along without AR-15s and 30-round magazines.


akunard's picture
akunard 10 years 9 weeks ago

The 2ed ammendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. It is about the people protecting themselves from tyrants both foreign and domestic. In order to control the people they must be disarmed.

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 10 years 9 weeks ago

Outback says....."And if that day ever comes, I intend to be fully armed."

I remember as a kid I made a similar comment to my father about our, "his," gun collection. I was referring to the possibility of having to protect the family from an intruder. He looked me straight in the eye and you really think you could shoot someone? I was silent and he just walked away shaking his head. I felt shame and as I thought about it I came to realize my comment was more based on fear than the actual reality. I never brought it up again but never forgot his reaction either. His guns were simply tools for hunting and nothing more.

I agree with you that society has become exceedingly violent. I believe this violence has roots being nourished by a republican ideology that states our main problem is, the rich don't have enough. To fix this problem the rest of us have to keep giving up more and more until the rich have it all..... This comment inspired by something David Cay Johnston recently said.

"In history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; there you can find for yourself and your COUNTRY examples and WARNINGS; fine things to take as models, and base things, ROTTEN through and through, TO AVOID."

Livy , 2000 years ago!

Outback 10 years 9 weeks ago

PeacefulPatriot: I didn't read all of your reference post, only far enough to see several holes in your logic, like "And even if bans on assault weapons and large magazines don’t eliminate every mass shooting, at least it would criminalize their possession. Future mass murders wouldn’t be able to legally obtain such lethal weaponry *and* they’d have a harder time killing so many people so quickly without reloading."

Well, no, the criminally deranged mind WILL find a way to obtain an assault rifle and large magazines if that's his/her chosen method of assassination. We can't even keep commercial aircraft out of the hands of Saudi Arabian terrorists, and you think making assault weapons "illegal" is going to change things significantly?

Your argument smacks of the old saw "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs...."You also throw out a lot of numbers and then back into the conclusion that the numbers support your premise. But what if we make the statement that violence on every front is up significantly since the Assault Rifle Ban was lifted? What if the national psyche has been so numbed by the gratuitous warfare we've inflicted on the world since Gulf War I (elevated to a reality show series on our evening news) that something has "snapped"? Right. Let's fix it with gun control legislation. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

And by the way, ten round magazines can be swapped out in less than a second with just a little practice (I'm not enough of a "gun nut" that I've actually tried it, but I could send you a you tube video if you're interested). So a maniac with an AK-47 can fire 30 rounds from 3 ten round magazine in just slightly less than two seconds more than with a single 30 round magazine. Do the math; at 3 rounds/second he could have expended 30 rounds in 12 seconds instead of 10 seconds (with a 30 round magazine). I don't think the killer's being limited to 10 round magazines would have altered the outcome at Newtown significantly.

I read that 11 kids made it to safety while the killer was reloading. If true, this simply doesn't support the theory that an extra two reloads would have saved multiples of eleven lives. Not in a worst case scenario, and if Newtown wasn't a worst case disaster, how would you define one? Probably by making the shooter a highly trained ex-GI that had gone around the bend....

I don't mean to trivialize this thing. I'm just objecting to all the hysteria that surrounds this issue and objecting in particular to the faulty "logic" on display here.

Outback 10 years 9 weeks ago

2950 - Interesting quote at the end of your post. I think humankind's inability to learn from history is documented just about every generation.

Regarding the question your father asked you, I've asked myself the same question; could I actually kill another human being? I've never shot anything bigger than a robin, guilty of eating cherries in my tree (and then felt overwhelming remorse). I own several nice bolt action hunting rifles with scopes, but have never hunted. I really do enjoy target shooting, though. But back to the question, I'll tell you the answer I came up with: Probably, if a) I was convinced this person was intent on doing me or my family grave harm and b) if there was no other solution such as bluff, reasoning, whatever. It would be very difficult and would be an event that would scar me forever.

Now let me ask you another question. What if you had a gun in your hand and an intruder in your home was threatening your wife with a knife?

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 10 years 9 weeks ago

I think it was last Thursday that Thom had an interesting conversation with Mike Papantonio. They talked about how the Democrats as a rule tend to be more fragmented as a political force while the Republicans seem to have the ability to unite as a team around issues of the utmost importance to them. These issues of course relate almost entirely to billionaires and Corp. America.

As usual the most important part of this unified effort by the Republicans is control of the national dialogue. With the corp. media as partner, this dialogue is usually their venerable distraction of God, Guns, and Gays. It always gets a lot of attention and favorable voter results at least in the red states. Control of this dialogue needs to shift. Don't get me wrong, gun control and same-sex marriage both are very important issues, but why in hell aren't the Democrats going on the offensive with the particulars of the Ryan budget plan, the Teabag terrorism, and the resulting sequester. Make the voters aware of what their so called Republican Reps. voted yes on. Polls clearly show the vast majority will be horrified at the details of Ryan's path to poverty. Remember, 2014 is just around the corner.

2950-10K's picture
2950-10K 10 years 9 weeks ago

Outback: I expected your question and my answer is in the form of additional questions I've already asked myself.

What are the odds I'll face that situation? What are the odds I will have a gun in my hand at that very moment of intrusion? Why live with the fear? We all have to live with our own conscience/thoughts about these things and I'm comfortable with my conclusions. I'm not judging your thoughts, they may comfort you and that's fine. I simply refuse to dwell on something negative that most likely is out of my control anyway.

megalomaniac's picture
megalomaniac 10 years 9 weeks ago

There is a deeper philosophic reasoning to this gun stuff. The media has American’s in a looping iteration of hate, war with everything, economic stress about any future, and of current times all this cultural stuff points to politics the people behind it along with the real reasons for the scandals that surface in politics, money or property or life lost because of the obvious corrupt profiteering going on in rampant rate. Obviously illustrated by the latest report America will have to pay for the last two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for the next forty years, a loss of six trillion dollars.

Rachael Maddow defines the idea that Democrats peel themselves off to Republicans, to help Republicans keep control of certain government sectors. Corruption is expected to be happening in the banking and Securities and Exchange Commission. Money is what greases the wheels. That’s why we have hell on wheels across the country. Money is flipping around like real loud free speech but suppressed from the average person. Then America has trickle down stress and hate that evolves festers and permeates in the poor and middle class. No jobs and poor pay. The perfect Wahhabi Republican algorithm.

BMetcalfe's picture
BMetcalfe 10 years 9 weeks ago

With the internet growing so rapidly, the only way to keep us safe (which a lot of you will diagree with) is to:

One: Register everyone's medical reords, looking for violent tendencies, medical diseases & drugs being described, and list all members of the household who own and keep guns and ammo on the premises. Every state that sells and allows citizens to own weapons & ammo must comply, or that state will not be allowed to let it's citizens own any weapons at all!

Two: Require all persons who now own weapons to list all they currently own, whether required to be registered at the time of purchase or as a gift, or not.

Three: Give gun owners with unregistered weapons, 30 days to register them, and after 30 days without registering, either confiscate the weapons, or allow them a "collector's status" promising they will never be taken off the property or used with live ammo.

Four: When someone in the household is later arrested for violence or threatening to commit violence to another person or legislator, or being under suspicion of taking new presriptions which may lead to unusual psychotic behavior, confiscate ALL weapons in the household until the owners can be resolved of those arrests or pay a fine for keeping the weapons while being under Court Order or being investigted until the problems are resolved.

Five: If someone has children under 18 on the premises, all guns and ammo must be locked up until the children are 21 and are proved to be of stable mind and body.

Six: Register ALL private exchanges (whether for cash or just a trade) so weapons can be tracked from person to person, or list immediaely when a weapon is lost or stolen.This will not be perfect, but it's a great start...Sorry so many of you won't agree, but if more deaths are to be prevented. this is the best way to begin.

Seven: When a weapon is taken to be cleaned, or ammo is purchased, the person requesting this must register the weapons and all new ammo purchased.

Eight: No one with criminal backgrounds - even pardoned ones - must go through a secondary re-check to make sure their psych reviews shows they are now stable & legal to own weapons and ammo.

Nine: Don't allow children to hold or discharge a weapon, even with parental supervision, without proper training by a bonafide shooting range which can be verified by a Certificate. Often parents are not the best teachers.

This will not top all crimes, but it's a head start... And we can build on these recommendations in years to come.

Green_TZM's picture
Green_TZM 10 years 9 weeks ago

yYou asked "are you your politics?" First one would have to deternime what your definition of "politics" means. if your politics come from your philosophy, which in turn determines or is defined by the way you behave

For example if believe that everyone should be treated fairly, then I can expect to see my politics as getting People the right to vote and to earn a living wage

If you are talking about how to be have while discussions about politics, again my politics govern that as well, as I believe in discourse.

I am my politics. I AM GREEN PARTY.

Outback 10 years 8 weeks ago

2950 - So your answer is that you'll remove yourself from having to make that decision by claiming the odds are low or zero of the event happening at all. In fact, zero if you don't keep a gun on hand. But I'll respond that I regard this as denial, if you acknowledge that violence is not infrequently committed by criminals and the deranged in the homes of decent, unsuspecting citizens. There are several hundred people killed by lightning in this country every year (interestingly, many on golf courses). I know people who are quite comfortable going outside in a thunder storm. They'll claim that their odds of getting hit by lightning are near zero. Not me! My solution is to stay indoors. That alone won't necessarily save me from Thor's wrath, but it sure cant hurt.

Megalomaniac - I believe you are right when you bring up "American's in a looping iteration of hate...." as a potential cause for increasing violence. Never in my nearly seventy years have I seen such deep divisions between people; the callous disregard for the welfare of fellow human beings both at home and abroad, the pervasiveness of greed flowing from the top down. And the same old tools of oppression are being put into play here as have been employed countless times in the past: instill fear, divide the populace on issues, control the media, disarm and subjugate the people and then have your way with them. Bush's taking liberties with our civil liberties, but then especially, Obama's expanding upon them. Would anyone have expected this as a remote possibility even 20 years ago? (I don't want to hear about Lincoln. The country was in a state of civil war at the time.) All of this just reinforces my paranoia about the future of this country. All of this and the dumbing down of the population at large gives me very little choice but to plan for the worst, not that I think my meager preparations will make a difference in the grand scale of things.

BMetcalfe - My only comment is that you've described the perfect nine point formula for total government control of the people. Please, don't change a word!

Global's picture
Global 10 years 8 weeks ago

BMetcalfe, I had to chuckle at your post, you are kidding I hope. You are kidding? Right? If you are not then you are the poster child of why freedom loving people despise the liberal mindset. What is next- population control, re-education camps, cameras and drones in every neighborhood. I guess in your world life would be so easy if the all knowing benevolent government protected your every move. No need to make decisions and your mind can just dream up more rules and regulations for utopia.

MMmmNACHOS's picture
MMmmNACHOS 10 years 8 weeks ago

Hi-O OUTBACK, Had to pop in on this one.
You are the right person to carry the tourch of Liberty. You are well read, well versed and what you have said here is the type of attitude this country needs from a leader.
The "equal" right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is for ALL. Unfortunatly there are a "few" people who prove themselves not worthy of such rights. That being said, those of us who are responsable and live as best we can as law abiding U.S. citizens should not be punished for the ill minded behaviours of the few who deliberatly disrecard the wellbeing of others and have no respect for life. Be it by gun, "blunt object, or fist.

Coleman McCarthy - retired Washington Post Journalist - started Classes On NonViolence (online), and wrote a book titled I'd Rather Teach Peace. I highly recommend reading his book; it is quite an eye opening read. Classes on Non-Violence is free to download and consistes of 16 classes each with 4-5 essays by an array of authors, and nonviolent peace and freedom activist like; Gene Sharp, Gahndi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, Janis Jopplin, Dorothy Day, Albert Schweitzer, just to name a few.

We learn
We practice
We correct
We pass it on.

MMmmNACHOS's picture
MMmmNACHOS 10 years 8 weeks ago

Patriotism is the last refuge for the scondral. (Gore Vidal)

Fact; Violence is a byproduct of an economic system that divides classes, creates fear and hysteria, and promotes surfdom.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 10 years 8 weeks ago

Oh well! I tried to stay away. So much for that plan!

PUBLICLY FUNDED MENTAL INSTITUTIONS!! Not one of you mentioned this. I'm ashamed of you.

Quite frankly, blaming mass shootings on guns is like blaming an auto wreck on the car's bumper. Well, gee, if the bumper was bigger and had more padding the driver wouldn't have been hurt so bad. Yeah, well if the driver was looking where he was going the accident wouldn't have happened in the first place!

When a murder occurs in society, the first thing investigators look for is motive. Who had a motive. In mass murder there is no sane motive. Resolving any issue through the death of innocent strangers is an insane motive. Insane people, or severely mentally 'disturbed' people if insane is a word that bothers you, are the real cause of this problem. Until this cause is directly addressed their will be no solution to this problem.

The only 'FACTS' I will use to support this argument is to ask for how many mass murders occurred in this country before President Ronald Reagan defunded public mental hospitals? Ask yourself that question and remember, machine guns were readily available since the Prohibition era of the 1930's.

Outback 10 years 8 weeks ago

Nachos - Thanks for your kind (if too generous) words regarding my post. I certainly don't think of myself as anything other than a concerned citizen, alarmed at what I see happening and doing my best to encourage a few people to open their eyes.

Neither am I a gun slinging conservative. I'm actually a slightly liberal leaning progressive that happens to believe the Founders correctly anticipated an unfettered government eventually sliding into the kind of decay we are presently witnessing. By "government" I don't mean the three branches, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial, which constitute our formal system of government, but the oligarchy which now owns all three, lock, stock and barrel.

Neither am I an anarchist or or proponent of violent civil action. In fact, I would much prefer a peaceful reversal of the decay now in process. There is a pretty good book that documents the power that people have to change things through non-violent civil disobedience: "A Force More Powerful: A Century of Non-Violent Conflict" by Ackerman and Duvall. It's good reading if you haven't already read it, and here's a link:

I will certainly check out the courses you mentioned, and thanks.

I guess to sum it up, I'm conservative only in the sense that I believe in "belt and suspenders". There are ample historical examples of people submitting to brutal repression through giving up their "options". Let's not make that mistake!

Now, I'll shut up about it (until Thom posts another idiotic statement regarding gun control;-)

Outback 10 years 8 weeks ago

D'AnneMarc- Well up jumped the devil! ;-) And welcome back into the discussion. I do believe you've come close the the root cause of all of these mass shootings. It IS insanity. But combine the loonies set loose previously with all the seriously traumatized veterans returning from the unspeakable horrors of wars that the puppet masters are intent on perpetuating, and I believe we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. Don't disarm rational citizens now, of all times!

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 10 years 8 weeks ago

BMetcalfe ~ The same thing I have to say to you I say to everyone including Thom. This problem cannot be solved by changing the law. The reasoning here is simple. Laws only affect the behavior of those who respect them. No potential mass murderer has any respect for Laws. Consequently, any change to the Laws will not impact the behavior of any potential mass murderer.

In fact, the only impact of such legislation will be on law abiding citizens.

I agree with many of the posts here that violence in our society has a numbing effect on many of us. It also leads many of us into a false sense of security with the use of violence. Perpetrators of violent archetypes in sports and entertainment are particularly responsible for this tendency. The movie industry in particular justifies a film's success in by how many explosions it can render in a 2 hour period. This tendency is expanding exponentially as the public becomes more and more numb to violence.

The industry claims that together with the first amendment that the box office profits more than justify this tendency of violence. They claim that this is what the public wants. The public always gets what the public wants in a free Capitalistic society. Strange! A responsible parent doesn't give a baby everything it wants. If they did, they would wind up with a very spoiled child--if they were lucky--or a very dead infant--if they weren't lucky.

If we value our rights we cannot pursue any legal action limiting the freedoms of the entertainment or the sports industry. They should hold themselves accountable for their own actions. We the People however can certainly influence that industry by simply boycotting the most violent aspects of it. I personally have been doing this myself for years. I suggest more of you do so as well. Don't be in such a hurry to see that new high budget Van Damme movie, or invest in pay-per-view Boxing matches. Wait if you must see it. You'll be able to see it for free eventually; and, you'll discourage the glorification of violence at the same time.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 10 years 8 weeks ago

Outback ~ Thanks for the welcoming! Holding my tongue isn't as easy as I thought.

You've touched on a very 'touchy' subject--seriously traumatized veterans. The Government doesn't seem to want to take care of these people anymore than they want to take care of our unkempt population of mentally disturbed citizens. Of course, the shear numbers of traumatized veterans returning from all these illegal wars is certainly going to cost the Government a great deal of money and resources. If they address one issue they will surely be held to address the other issue. That is probably why they prefer to shift the attention away from their commitment to these disturbed people and put it on gun control. It's a win win policy for the policy makers.

It's also a contemptuously irresponsible mistake for the rest of the country! I hope We the People wake up in time to demand Public Funded Mental Institutions be reinstated before the unnecessary shedding of more innocent blood occurs!

PeacefulPatriot 10 years 8 weeks ago

I don't disagree that gun violence is attributable to a lot more than just assault weapons and extended magazines. I still would like to see them banned completely and surrendered, just as automatic weapons once were.

Places like Australia, England, and New Zealand seem to have avoided a complete collapse of their societies and enslavement by tyrannical governments run amok despite having some of the toughest gun restrictions in the world.

As for my post, what I presented is data. It can't be disputed for what it is. I didn't back into anything. There were twice as many mass shootings after the ban expired as during. There were more shootings with assault rifles after the ban expired than during the ban. Yes, I'd like the ham AND eggs back, thank you very much.

BTW, if, "... the criminally deranged mind WILL find a way to obtain an assault rifle and large magazines if that's his/her chosen method of assassination", how come they don't just step it up and find a way to obtain automatic weapons? The answer is simple. Automatic weapons aren't readily available. Assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns are. I want to make it just as hard to find both of them as it is to find machine guns.

And if someone wants to practice swapping out 10-round clips in under a second and then posts that on YouTube, frankly, they need to outgrow the GI Joe phase of their life before they get a visit from the ATF.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 10 years 8 weeks ago

PeacefulPatriot ~ I, for one, agree with everything you wrote.

As a pacifist myself I have nothing more than a broken slingshot and a polite smile to protect myself. I have prevailed against crime now in one of the most crime ridden cities of the country for half a century. However, you, like myself, lack the perspective of the mentally 'challenged'. Remember my friend, cocaine isn't 'readily available' either. Yet nothing stops countless thousands of poorly educated addicts from obtaining the substance every year despite the legislation against the practice.

Believe me when I say without sarcasm, "Where there is a will there is a way!" Join me in addressing the true cause of these heinous crimes and not the popular one. You'll be glad you did!

PeacefulPatriot 10 years 8 weeks ago

DAnneMarc, you're position on mental health is valid, and I support it. I'm simply trying to make sure we address the gun side of our gun culture in some meaningful way. After all, in every shooting there are two undeniable components - a shooter and a gun. I want us to do something about both.

DAnneMarc's picture
DAnneMarc 10 years 8 weeks ago

PeacefulPatriot ~ Agreed! 100% Like I said, I don't feel it necessary to own guns. I'd probably shoot myself first if I did.

I'm totally in support of Gun Control. We the People can't match the fire power of the Government anyway. Let's be real.

Still, I feel that to solve this problem we have to seriously address mental health in this country. If we can agree on that, I'm in agreement with Gun Conrol. Let's stop the INSANITY!

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 10 years 8 weeks ago

So, yes, let's trust the government to control every facet of our lives. Register everything...register your thoughts and (oh, excuse me...I guess many of us already are...especially the ones who blog and even worse...tweet and twitter revealing every tiny detail of their lives). Yes, let's support a government that, incidentally, is controlled by the ruling elite...corporations like GE who got the FDA to approve Colonoscopy and Mammography imaging devices that were found to be endangering patient's lives with excessive radiation. Then when about 6 or 7 doctors and other FDA whistle-blowers (WB) blew the whistle...they were fired and it was later discovered that the FDA had hired one of those "civilian" companies to spy on the WBs. They collected all kinds of "dirt" (ie: embarrassing personal data) on the WBs that one WB shockingly discovered when he did an internet search on his name. He found lots of his personal email that was made public on the internet. The spies used spyware to monitor every keystroke the WBs made on their computers when they typed emails to members of congress, and others, detailing the FDA/GE wrong doings.

The government is not there to protect us. The government, as it is now, is working on the side of criminals. Better hang on to your guns people...

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 10 years 8 weeks ago

"There is a pretty good book that documents the power that people have to change things through non-violent civil disobedience: "A Force More Powerful: A Century of Non-Violent Conflict" by Ackerman and Duvall."

Well, it may or may not be a good book to read (I haven't read it). But one should judge a book not by it's cover, or title... but by it's authors. Do you have any idea who Peter Ackerman is? Michael Milkens right hand man? This, it seems to me, is a case of really deceitful people trying to act like good people (non-violence my @$$) when they actually create situations where lots of people get killed and the majority of the people get "used" to further the increased powers of a ruling elite. It's a good thing that Ackerman's creation, Americans Elect, failed otherwise he would have helped some very evil people get their claws even deeper into a dystopian America. If you don't know much about Peter Ackerman...before you read the a search on'll see. The CIA, the military, and other quasi-governmental organizations use "civilian" companies and organizations to do the dirty work that they once did...but came under scrutiny for. They use pleasant sounding names like International Center for Non-Violent Conflict to foment unrest and organize internal strife and dissent and call it "peaceful". The CIA used to do all this...including rigging elections.. assassinating uncooperative leaders... now, they just farm out the business to covert "civilian" organizations.

Would you read a book about peace from an author like Charles Manson? It wouldn't be very credible, would it? I am not saying that Ackerman has ever killed anyone (directly, anyway... heck, even Bush didn't kill anyone directly...but he was responsible for hundreds of thousands, and more, of innocent people losing their lives through his lies and decisions.)

Ackerman got very wealthy ($300 million) from being "junk bond king" Michael Milken's "right hand man".

MMmmNACHOS's picture
MMmmNACHOS 10 years 8 weeks ago


GUNS -in general - ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!!!

Irrational people (sane or mentally disturbed) with ill-minded agendas who have no regard for law, or the wellbeing of others are the problem. Go ahead and ban ALL GUNS, but that won't cure the core problem.

About 25 years ago a Florida man walked into a grocery store with 2 mason jars of gasoline and doused 6 people and lit them on fire with two match books. The incident took less then 1 min. Four of the six victims died, the other two were left with 2nd and 3rd degree burns on more than 50% of their bodies.
Should we ban gasoline, mason jars, and match books???

Everyday hundreds of people are killed, or injured by drunk drivers, or someone texting while driving, or someone just being careless in general. Should we ban cars, booze, cell phones, and general carelessness???

Everyday people die from obesity...Should we ban bacon double cheese burgers, pizza, ice cream, and cookies? Maybe even McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell, KFC, Wendy's, Sonic, Jack In The Box???

My point is that more laws only deminishes our expectations, rendering us draco-prisoners in our own land. To live free means one must live with responsability as an "individual"...Unfortunatly not everyone lives up to that benchmark, but such irresponsable behaivour by a few should not diminish the rights of the many who do live responsabley and respect and uphold the wellbeing of others.

There are more than just one or two reasons for why we are experiencing high rates of gun violence in the U.S., but none of them is because of assault rifles. To beleve differently is like buying the bullspit that marijuana is a gate way drug and will make you a criminal...It isn't and it won't! But it is just easier for the ill informed and bigoted public in general to wrap their homoginized brains around.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 10 years 8 weeks ago

Good points, Nachos and Outback. The several incidents in China schools, in past years, show that guns are not needed to kill lots of school children. Clubs and knives work just as well. And good point about the gasoline...what are we going to do...ban gasoline? What about acid? Household cleaners that, if thrown in someone's face could blind and disfigure. You just can't ban guns and expect it to make much of a dent in the horrors that could befall innocent people by deranged people with the ability to express his/her violence.

Even dangerous biological agents are not impossible to obtain. All it would take is to release those in the vent system of any public place like schools or shopping malls or airports and you have a real disaster with mega-deaths. We have more reason to worry about this than we do North Korea hitting us with nukes. And that is a real possibility right now. Even if N. Korea, or even Iraq, didn't have the long range capability, who knows whether or not nukes have already been placed in key strategic places in US cities..having been shipped in over the years...just waiting for detonation. They might have been placed long ago as some kind of insurance against US hegemony. I've got an idea!!! Let's make nukes! Take them away from mad men...including the only mad man terrorist country to ever have used them to kill masses of people...the that's real terrorism!

MMmmNACHOS's picture
MMmmNACHOS 10 years 8 weeks ago

Did you say the "N" word!?!?!?Shhhh don't say that you may get targeted!

All silliness aside...You make the bigest and most profound point yet...The U.S. with all its Nukes and military might is the biggest threat to everyones safety and wellbeing. I'd even go so far as to say that the reason ( er one of the reasons) that N.Korea has/is beefing up it's military is mostly becasue of the bully U.S. governments hostle Foreign Policy.

And guns or no guns, if WE the People of the United States of America do not collectively organize and fullfill not only our right, but our duty as the People of the U.S. to ..."alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive" of the basic principles stated in the Declaration of Independence - the Equal Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - then we just may be witness to mass destruction here within our own country...One that would be 100x's worse than that of Sept 11th and Pearl Harbor combined.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 10 years 8 weeks ago

And if we don't get nuked with thermonuclear devices, we are likely going to be "nuked" financially (again..but worse this time) on the same order as is happening in Cyprus.

The rich people (over 100 multi-nationals...likely tipped off by the IMF) sent their money abroad... including the Cypriot President's family member. They all evidently knew what was about to happen and they pulled all their money out of Cyprus banks. And now, Cypriot people's bank accounts are being raided to pay for the country's debt...anywhere from 40-80%...will be robbed from savings accounts...they claim from anyone with over $100,000 in the accounts. Yeah, like those people haven't already pulled out their money? The less well off will bare the brunt of this fiasco as they always do.

And on the Breaking the Set show today they posted this statement (but as I did not have today's show on the internet yet, I found it here**):

"Rest easy, Canadians, for your bank accounts are going to be made as safe as those bank accounts in Cyprus. Just take a look at the Canadian government's budget plan for 2013, particularly pages 144 and 145 of Economic Action Plan 2013. There the Canadian government promises to use Canadian deposits to save "systematicaly important" banks (emphasis ours).

The Government proposes to implement a "bail-in" regime for systemically important banks.This regime will be designed to ensure that, in the unlikely event that a systemically important bank depletes its capital, the bank can be recapitalized and returned to viability through the very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital. This will reduce risks for taxpayers. The Government will consult stakeholders on how best to implement a bail-in regime in Canada. Implementation timelines will allow for a smooth transition for affected institutions, investors and other market participants."

"very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital" people's saving in Cyprus?

It will soon hit the US as well. The banksters are not through financially nuking us all.

Palindromedary's picture
Palindromedary 10 years 8 weeks ago

Before you rush out to buy up bitcoin check this out:
Hack attacks hit Bitcoin exchange rates

And before you rush out to invest in Gold or Silver...rumor has it that Gold and Silver may be confiscated by the government to scare people into putting their money back into the that the banks can rob you.

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Never one to shy away from the truth, Thom Hartmann’s collected works are inspiring, wise, and compelling. His work lights the way to a better America."
Van Jones, cofounder of and author of The Green Collar Economy
From Screwed:
"The powers that be are running roughshod over the powers that OUGHT to be. Hartmann tells us what went wrong — and what you and I can do to help set American right again."
Jim Hightower, National Radio Commentator, Writer, Public Speaker, and author of the bestselling Thieves in High Places
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"If you wonder why and when giant corporations got the power to reign supreme over us, here’s the story."
Jim Hightower, national radio commentator and author of Swim Against the Current