The Newtown Shootings: Patch, State of Michigan, to Take Part in Moment of Silence

M Osburn December 21, 2012 at 01:43 pm

We should all use that moment of silence to pray they'll never be cause for another.

Janet Lawless December 21, 2012 at 02:59 pm

Participated. Nice to take a minute aside and pray for healing for our country.

Frustrated Old Man December 23, 2012 at 05:25 am

Simple as that, huh? LOL!

Eugene Gannon December 23, 2012 at 02:46 pm

I just started a gun violence petition on the White House petitions site, We the People. Will you sign it? http://wh.gov/Q2v3

Bruce December 23, 2012 at 06:29 pm

"Except for licensed hunters ban the ownership of guns by civilians. Repeal the 2nd amendment, it is not appropate when we have a military..." Huh?
Disarm America except for hunters? You, Euge, have NO RIGHT to infringe upon anyone's right to life or self defense. You have the right to not own a gun but that is where your rights end..with you. Disarming 80,000,000 Americans is not the solution. It will only exacerbate the criminal element. Do yourself an educational favor and seek out the historical documentary, "Innocents Betrayed".

Bryan Bentley December 23, 2012 at 10:36 pm

Absolutely not...

Lianne Mathie December 23, 2012 at 11:07 pm

Hey Euge, don't take Bryan's remark to heart.He's about to tell all the little kids there's no such thing as Santa Claus.

Dibblevilleresident December 24, 2012 at 09:06 am

Well done Euge and keep trying to eliminate guns. Except for a few anachronistic gun owners and the self-serving NRA, the majority of Americans agree with you. The 2nd amendment is not about individual gun rights. It was adopted from an English precept that was written at the time of monarchy rule. The founding fathers recognized the need for this amendment to protect the right to assemble, form a militia and bear arms in a militia. It has nothing to do with "protecting your home" and certainly nothing to do with arming kindergarten teachers but unfortunately vested gun interests in the US continue to hide behind this argument. Just as MADD changed legal consequences and social attitudes towards drunk driving 20+ years ago, we need to change our collective national attitude towards gun possession. More regulation is needed for those who wish to legitimately own them and more severe consequences for those that don't.

Harlan Hatcher December 24, 2012 at 02:45 pm

Dibblevilleresident, your comment is sadly incorrect and most unwise. Nobody wants to ever see another Sandy Hook incident, but a quick-fix solution is not realistic. An honest and overall social perspective is needed. May Santa bring you a generous helping of enlightenment this Christmas.

Brad Jensen December 26, 2012 at 03:44 pm

No, there is no quick fix that will instantly prevent another Sandy Hook. There will unfortunately be another Sandy Hook, and probably another after that. Already two firefighters have lost their lives because of a nut using another Bushmaster assault rifle. That doesn't mean we should sit back and do nothing. Norway and Australia have instituted gun control. Why can't we? It will be expensive and will take a long time, but isn't it worth it in the long run? Do we want a society where when someone says " Hey, did you read about the mass shooting?" our answer will be "Which one?".

Brad Jensen December 26, 2012 at 03:49 pm

You have a "right" to self defence because of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. Euge also has a right to use the democratic process to call for a repeal of the Second Amendment as outlined in the Constitution. Amendments have been repealed in the past. Owning a firearm is not a Human Right

Brad Jensen December 26, 2012 at 05:40 pm

Yes, please let us know as soon as you find out - also what clubs were they using and what was their handicaps. I am sure it will be bigger than Watergate :/

Bruce December 27, 2012 at 02:16 am

Not that it matters, an assault-type rifle was not used in the Sandy Hook horror. The scumbag did try to purchase one prior to Dec 11 but was denied, however, his negligent mother didn't keep them in a safe...incomprehensible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sjtuXcvOE&feature=youtu.be

Bryan Bentley December 27, 2012 at 04:21 am

You are correct Brad. Owning a firearm is an American Right...

Bruce December 27, 2012 at 12:18 pm

You agree we have a right to life (self defense), liberty and property but not the right to own a firearm? Owning a firearm (bear arms) is an individual right that is more than enumerated under the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments.

laplateau December 27, 2012 at 06:49 pm

Hey, Euge...so what other amendment to the constitution do you want to use you eraser on? Perhap the freedom of expression...so you can't start mouthing off about taking away other freeedoms from law abiding citizens of tjhe United States! Your stupid, but absolutely lawful petrition is also guaranteed under the 1st amandment to our Constiution of the United States. Let me write iyt out to you Euge...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. PLEASE, catch that last part Euge. So, we don't need any guns in the hands of the people as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment (and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court) because we now have a military. Okay Euge, next time someone breaks down your front door ready to rob, rape, pillage and kill...why not try callling the Pentigon for the military response you think is appropriate now. Forget about calling 911, because by the time you get to the phone, you're dead. Better to have that 9mm in the night stand, Euge. Yes, you are an absolute ignorant, anti-gun, liberal, progressive...but so far, you have the right to be so...unless someone else has a bigger eraser than you to wipe your rights out as well.

laplateau December 27, 2012 at 06:52 pm

Hey Dibble---just keep writing...your absolute ignorace is showing. Try reading the Fedarlist Papers if you think our founding fathers had any ideas like yours. And...I have no idea where you get the dunderhead idea that the MAJORITY of Americans agree with you. It is just the opposite!

laplateau December 27, 2012 at 06:56 pm

Oh Brad...wow-- again..another idiot that says we don't have gun control laws. Why not try to write about something you have at least a foggy idea or knowledge about. Apparently you have no idea of what is required to own a handgun in Michigan, or many of the other 49 states. Tyr reading and learning before writing...it makes you look at least a bit less empty headed!

Brad Jensen December 28, 2012 at 01:30 am

Look into the laws of Norway and Australia and see if we have anything approaching the scope and depth of their laws. To me gun control means that we have guns under control which is obviously not the case in the US. If you think that answering 70% correct on a questionnaire and not being deemed legally insane before being allowed to buy a handgun, or filling out a a form before buying a rifle is "gun control" then I guess we differ on the the meaning of the concept.

Brad Jensen December 28, 2012 at 01:37 am

Bryan, our rights are what we define them to be. Slavery was also once an "American Right".
Bruce, you have the right to own a musket to join a militia to fight the British. All else has been interpreted into the Constitution over the years and was not the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately due to bad wording of the Second Amendment this was not made clear and needs to be corrected. You have a right to join a State Militia (National Guard), nothing else. Even under the current interpretation, it is clear that you do not have the right to own ANY gun you want. What about hand grenades? Why are they illegal? What if I feel threatened and would like to have some for my protection? Machine guns? RPGs?

Bruce December 28, 2012 at 03:38 am

Brad-- The 2nd Amendment does not give anyone the right to anything. That right is reserved from governmental control in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Further, if one were to go back to the notes of the First Congress’ deliberations on the Second Amendment one would find that initially the Amendment was written to include such personal Arms rights but the Delegates determined that if they mentioned those rights eventually they would get legislatively controlled. They chose to change the Second Amendment to exclude mentioning such private rights thereby excluding them wholly from governmental legislative control by leaving them under the blanket protection of the Ninth Amendment.
Your individual rights end with you. You have NO RIGHT to infringe on another individual's rights. I guess we agree to disagree. So be it.

Jerry Barton December 28, 2012 at 10:47 am

Repeal the rights of U.S. citizens? Great idea, Eugene...NOT! Have you ever actually read the 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There's enough reading material out there, if you care to take the time to research it, that documents the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment. At that time England had stripped the right of gun ownership from its people and the people were powerless against an oppressive government. The 2nd amendment was to ensure that never happened in the U.S. There are various writings which further indicate that it was every person's right, not just active miltia member, to bear arms for self defense.
Furthermore, according to the ATF 93% of violent crimes committed with a firearm were done so with an illegal firearm...by criminals...you know, the people who don't obey the law. The only thing that gun control laws do is strip away the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families from the criminal element. Maybe someone should start a petition to have your U.S. citizenship revoked...

Ron December 28, 2012 at 01:40 pm

Jerry, You quote the 2nd Amendment to press the point that guns are for the SELF DEFENSE. I'll give you that only when guns are used for protection. Too many times and especially THIS time in Newtown the gun was used to KILL as an OFFENSIVE weapon. The gun used in this massacre is called an ASSAULT RIFLE. Why? That is it's PRIMARY job, to lay down as many bullets as possible in as short a time frame as possible to immobilize the threat. In this case, the "threat" was 20 children no older than 8 and 6 adults.
Gun control PROTECTS innocent lives from these types of crimes AND weapons. Allowing anybody to avoid background checks for any reason is appalling. NOBODY should own a weapon if they do not meet the standards set by society for doing so. Yes, owning a gun is a "right", however HOW you get to own the gun is NOT a "right" so stop pretending it is. Lobby groups and the NRA should be ashamed of themselves for their response to this tragedy. Open your eyes and see that you are being used as a pawn by an INDUSTRY for THEIR cause. $$ If you and other don't all want to be labeled as "gun nuts" along with those that commit these heinous crimes don't line up to defend their "rights". Instead stand up, think for yourself and demand that every means possible be used to STOP these types of crimes from being committed with these types of weapons. It won't stop anyone intent on doing harm from acting out, but it certainly will limit their ability to commit mass murder so easily

Bruce December 28, 2012 at 02:33 pm

Ron--Not that it matters, according to an NBC News Update, an assault-type rifle was not used in the Sandy Hook horror. The scumbag did try to purchase one prior (on Dec 11) but was denied. However, his negligent mother didn't keep any of her firearms locked in a safe...incomprehensible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30sjtuXcvOE&feature=youtu.be

Laura Vogel December 28, 2012 at 02:34 pm

can we shut down this thread for comments? I'm not really getting the sense that the discussion is fruitful for anyone anymore

Ron December 28, 2012 at 02:41 pm

Bruce, Thanks for the update,,, I had not heard that information until now. It seems the "system" worked to keep the shooter from getting his hands on another rifle. My feeling regarding these types of weapons remains unchanged. NOBODY "needs" an assault rifle to hunt. If you "need" that many bullets to bring down your prey,, you need to practice at the range more.
We all need to be vigilant and keep the guns out of the hands of the wrong people. I refuse to see your rights taken away as a gun owner, but common sense must be applied and all efforts made to stop guns from getting into the wrong hands. Simply adding more guns into the equation will solve nothing.

Brad Jensen December 28, 2012 at 03:06 pm

Of course you have the right to infringe on other's right. Every time we throw someone in prison, we are infringing on their "rights". If you join the military, you give up some of your rights. Again, why are they infringing on my "right" to own hand grenades, if I find it necessary to own them to defend my right to "life and liberty"? Right are what we define them to be and if, as a nation, we decide that the 2nd Amendment was originally set up to create State militias and we decide to have a constitutional amendment clarifying it as such, then we are not infringing on anyone's "rights" because their "rights" have been redefined. Most nations have defined Human Rights as rights that cannot be changed by law but that are rights that every human should have. All other "rights" are defined by law. Laws can and should be changed if they do not serve society. Owning any damn weapon you please with any size clip you want and carrying it any damn place you want is not a human right. Not even close.

Eugene Gannon December 28, 2012 at 04:18 pm

There are a lot of metaphors, cliches and comparisons to other countries going on in this gun violence discussion. I just saw some dog excretement on the the street and my knees jerked. I thought damn those dogs and damn those dog owners. But not all dog owners are irresponsible and the majority do clean up after their dogs. Just like the majority of gun owners are responsible, or our death by gun rate would be even higher than the 20,000. But it is the minority that are killing our children, students, fellow workers, their families and themselves. They are leaving a mess but not all gun owners are to blame or are they? The pooper laws worked to improve our streets the same requirement for dog owners as for gun owners. Gun owners and manufacturers should be made liable for the damage caused by guns.
Gun lovers are very vocal and defensive when they think that the big bad government is going to take away their weapons. Besides a gun buy back program there needs to counselling offered. It could be part of an application for a permit to see what it is missing or lacking that requires a gun as a substitute.