I am against gun violence. I am also against driving while intoxicated. That does not mean however that I would ban cars with high powered engines just because a few mutants abuse alcohol and then get behind the wheel. I can think of a dozen different things that would make sense in curbing stop violence. I would start with reestablishing family and Judeo Christian values the country was founded. I would also try to encourage responsible parenting and I would take a hard look at violent video games and violent moves that Hollywood seems to love. I own guns and will fight to keep them but I don't see why I should give up my assault rifle which I love shooting at the range. I do not need a 500 round or drum magazine however, and would not be opposed to a stricter background check. Nobody wants to address the real issue which is that we are losing control of our once civilized value system.

The mayor and the council-members have the right to voice their opinions as individual citizens on matters regarding gun-control. However, as representatives of the citizens of Mahwah, they have neither sought our collective opinion on this particular issue, nor asked if they can offer it. As an avid defender of the Constitution and a strong believer in the power of the ballot box, I will enthusiastically vote against each member running for re-election.

Ron, i connect the dots quite differently.
don't our councils appointments to public office by us warrant their (unsolicited) opinions on public policy... or should they be mute until some concensus vote asks them to speak in regards to issues facing us? though i understand you've written them all off as anti-constitution; i'm confused by the rationale.

It's simple GD, Ron doesn't want the council to support what 92% of the country wants (more gun regulation), he wants the council to support what HE wants. These types can't relate beyond their own front door. It's all about THEIR rights, not everyone else's.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Article VI, Clause II of the Constitution establishes the US Constitution, federal statutes and US Treaties as the supreme law of the land. Based on the Supremacy Clause, state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between state and federal laws.

State and local goverments can create gun laws that are more expansive. For example, forty-nine states have passed "concealed-carry" legislation. Also, they cannot create laws which are more restrictive than federal laws. As a matter of fact, a federal appeals court overturned an Illinois "concealed-carry" ban, and has forced the state to draft legislation allowing public possession.

Since state and local legislators must abide by federal laws, it would have been folly to force the candidates for local office to formulate campaign planks on national issues, including gun-control. However, since the mayor and council-members have decided to act without subjecting their opinions to the will of the voters, we will ask tougher and more-pointed questions at re-election.

This was a political move and an example of govenment overreach. They neither sought the opinion of the voters, nor asked if they could offer such an opinion. This political bait-and-switch will further damage the electoral process for well-intentioned candidates in the future. Fool me once...

Ron respectfully,
Let's imagine if the town council came out with the statement: 'This is an unfortunate trajedy that we feel has little to do with guns'. C'mon; You wouldn't have been outraged that they spoke without the people's consent. it's obvious noone's gonna budge here. some say assault rifles and long ammo clips are for mass murder, others say its a right from the 1700s .

They are a bunch of SHILLS !

Rich, respectfully, the america i live in hasn't stopped talking about gang shootings! perhaps greater consideration of the invisibly destitute living amongst violence would help more than an occassional opportunity to loosly use them to make a vague point. as for treating symptoms, when your child is burning with fever please ice her forehead and belly til you figure out what's wrong. and if someone machetes your arm off, put a turnicate on the shoulder... thus having been saved you can hand that assailant his machete back, with the other hand of course.

The more guns are available, and the more shots that can be fired at any given time, the more likely someone who "snapped" will be able to access those legally owned firearms by them or someone in their own household, and effect a larger number of people how have a lesser chance of escape.

Since you cannot prevent the occasional member of a household from "snapping", it is prudent to reduce the availability of the "means".

Will that absolutely prevent every single scenario? No!
But if a reduction of opportunity saves the life of just ONE child, grandchild, parent -- will it have been worth it? Would it be worth it if it was YOURs?

As far as the constitutional right...
"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."
I'm sure whatever measures will be taken will be conforming to that sentence.

When our founding fathers drafted the 1st Amendment, did they have non-stop ultra liberal rabid bloggers, TV personalities, and columnists in mind, who routinely stretch the truth, if not outright lie?

No, but the thought was that citizens have the right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. All of the major mass murders that have taken place in history started with the ban of weapons for citizens. But that could never happen here.......right.

No they didn't, and as a matter of fact, they made their own bullets. Something we should think about going back to if a person really needs to own a gun. Make bullets so prohibitive to acquire, the only gun you'll have is the one on the wall of your living room for display.

Kim - I'm afraid that "mental illness" not quite covers the problem, though:
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/firearms-death-rate
(unless, we have a mental health crisis in those "high death rate" states?)

And in international comparison - are we really 18 times as "crazy" as the U.K. to explain why our teenagers die a violent death that many times more often:
http://www.economist.com/node/21553409

Do we expect that arming MORE people (e.g., in schools) will LOWER that figure?

Or are the deadly results proportional to the number of guns, ease of access and availabilty of ammunition?

If know... "guns don't kill people". But do you give your toddlers knives and sharp scissors because "knives" don't kill toddlers? Or do you remove the MEANS for "people (to) kill people"?

This is the knee-jerk reaction, and I emphasize the word jerk. They just don't think the situation out rationally.

Bob - good questions!
The constitution doesn't say "guns" - it says "arms".

So do we take the 2013 definition of Merriam-Webster of "arms" being ANY
"means (as a weapon) of offense or defense"?
That would certainly cover ownership of shoulder fire missiled - even tanks and fighter jets for those who can afford a private army (there is no requirement that you NEED to "bear" them - just that your right to hypothetically do so is not infringed upon).

Or, do we think that the writers had a certain class of "arms", for a certain application, in mind, and that it thus is reasonable to translate that intent into a "modern context" of what is covered by the "right" granted - and what goes beyond that.

There of tens of millions of law abiding US citizens who own firearms and they have never broken a law in their lives but because an extremely small minority of people have used firearms to harm others the rights of these millions of people are being threatened. If these Sick individuals started using Gasoline to light buildings on fire would we ban the sale of fuel? How about if they build IED's, how would we ban the sale of components that can range from household chemicals to C-4? If there is a person who wants to harm others they will find a way whether it be with firearms or some other means of destruction. Guns don't kill people, people kill people and that is the problem. All of these shooters are mentally ill and though that is no excuse for their deplorable acts it is a huge factor to consider. Also, I will agree, it is the responsibility of the gun owner to ensure their firearms are locked safely away and only legally licensed people can have access to that code or key. On top of that there does need to be a more stringent background check for mental illness, safety training and there needs to a more open and reasonable way for families to help their relatives who have mental illness. I guarantee you, to take away the right of the large majority of people by banning firearms will only make it more difficult to protect ourselves and our families and increase the black market for firearms. More regulation not demonization and punishment for the law abiding majority.

People here keep mentioning weapons for homeowners on the border. But they are forgetting the case of the homeowner who just pointed a gun to attempt to get tresspassing illegal aliens off his property and to stop damaging the property. He lost the case in court and was substantially fined. I think the courts already took our rights away, or do so far too frequently.

They used to take the mentally ill away to the insane asylms, but then it was decided that they have rights that needed legal protection just as everyone else did.

So what you are saying is that the style of firearm is at question and because of how it looks we should ban it? Because many firearms you can purchase today are the same, one pull of the trigger is one bullet shot, so does that mean we should ban all firearms? Doesn't that destroy the rights of law abiding citizens? It has nothing to do with what the gun looks like, all semi-automatic firearms (which is 85% of the market) are the same and not all of them look like AR style firearms. How do you differentiate and why is it these are the guns in question? It has nothing to do with the gun itself it is the operator responsible for these deaths, if my son was shot by some disgusting excuse for a human being, I would blame that SHOOTER not the gun! Guns by themselves are harmless but when put into the hands of people who are mentally ill or are not educated about safe handling that is where the danger lies. Not in the "type" or the look of a firearm. We need to increase stringent background checks, have federally mandated safety training for all gun purchasers, increase license wait times, ensure that children are aware of the dangers of firearms, increase firearm registration and make it punishable by prison not to own and use a heavy duty firearm locker which is only accessible by people who have undergone these controls. If a person wants to get a firearm they do not need to legally, by banning certain styles or all firearms it only increases the business for black marketeers.

>> Guns by themselves are harmless but when put into the hands of people who are mentally ill <<

So a solution would be to require that gun owners submit to (and pay for) a thorough annual mental evaluation before relicensing - because, obviously, mental illness can develop (or surface) over time.

Furthermore, the shooters are not always the gun owners. Guns can be legally owned by someone else in the household.

Finally, how do you address the possibility that someone not diagnosed as mentally ill and not in any treatment - at some point is unable to control his emotions and "snaps"? Most suicides by legal gun owners are NOT of a "bad guy", but of people in their circle - and the more efficient the gun, the bigger the carnage they can "achieve" with their killing machine.

Mike, why in the world do you feel all hell is going to break loose? The only reason I can see there being problems is because we as a nation bring it on ourselves by not getting along. We're physically ONE nation, not two, but we force ourselves into two because of absurd conspiracy theories. When I see natural disasters happen like Sandy or Katrina, I see the people coming together to help each other, not fight each other as if "all hell broke loose".

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "advanced military weaponry", tanks drones etc. Those things are already regulated and not available to the general public, nor are true assault weaponry with fully automatic capability. An assault rifle is exactly that, a military rifle capable of automatic fire.
Cut down on the capacity of magazines? The perps who really want to do evil will
just buy more smaller capacity ones. The 'idea here' is that the American public has the right to 'bear arms' and those legally able to do so should not be impaired.

Your 'no limitations' argument could also apply to the liberals' always vigorously
defending the 1st amendment with NO restrictions. Touche'

Bob, "Pious Frauds" found:
This quotation, sometimes called the “liberty teeth”quote, appears nowhere in Washington’s papers or speeches, and contains several historical anachronisms: the reference to “prarie wagon” in an America which had yet to even begin settling the Great Plains (which were owned by France at the time), the reference to “the Pilgrims” which implies a modern historical perspective, and particularly the attempt by “Washington” to defend the utility of firearms (by use of statistics!) to an audience which would have used firearms in their daily lives to obtain food, defend against hostile Indians, and which had only recently won a war for independence. The “99 99/100 percent” is also an odd phrase for 18th century America, which tended not to use fractional percentages. It’s clear that “Washington” is addressing “gun control” arguments which wouldn’t exist for another couple of centuries, not to mention doing so in a style that is uncharacteristic of the period, and uncharacteristic of Washington’s addresses to Congress, both of which exhibited a high degree of formality.

It works like this:

Certified target ranges and training facilities would be able to keep as much ammo as they want. You want to go to a range and shoot 1,000 rounds out of your AR15? Fine. But you're not allowed to leave with any ammo. Its kept under tight lock-and-key and signed in and out. Accounted for. When you've gotten it out of your system and you go to leave, a cop checks your weapon and you go through a metal detector. Clean? Great. Smuggling ammo? Busted.

And for the "I keep a 9mm for home protection" crowd? Okay. Fine. Here are three bullets. With a mandatory $500 fee for registering the bullets. You want to go hunting? Okay. Here's eight. Plus $1000 fee for registering the bullets. If you can't hit a deer after eight shots, well, you suck. Done with your hunting trip? Sign back in, maybe get a refund for all the unspent rounds (if any).

Bullet-making material (gun powder, etc.) would also be confined to said certified gun ranges and training facilities and taken off the private market. For activities other than stuffing bullet casing that require the use of gun powder (like movie stunts, civil war reenactments, what-have-you), the intended user would have to file a petition explaining their exact intention.

That's is one of the dumbest ideas I have heard so far JP. So many holes in this I do not know where to begin. I am talking about your lower statement. on Jan 12.

Because it's NOT working. Times, population density and technology has changed - where someone abusing his "arms" rights is no longer limited to murder the occasional passerby at 3 shots a minute - affording the innocents the possibility to make a get-away.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, I questioned your asinine posts didn't I?

BTW Mike, your rants remind me of Alex Jones' and that screwball from Tennessee that just got his carry permit taken away because of his idiotic threats. Do yourself a favor and pay attention to what you are posting and who you address it to.

Like in every profession - there are fantastic teachers - and then there is the occasional male or female who can't keep their fingers off their students. How can they be sure that just ONE of those school personnel they want to arm isn't going to flip some day? It's must amazing how easily people will set all reasoning aside as long as the gun manufacturer mafia is funding their fun.

Actually - it's because compared to the U.S. only a small fraction of the population owns guns, within Israel (different for settlements on Arab land) - about 91% less!

And, the annual limit on ammunicaiton is 50/year.

Oh, and there IS an assault rifle ban in place.

So - why don't we get rid of 91% of the guns, limit rounds to 50/year and forbid assault rifles - and watch gun related violence drop by a similar factor.

how do you know what a shooter would think... are you that close to a shooter Amy?

Until 2 weeks ago, one of the popular themes when arguing that more guns meant less shootings was, that "look, there has never been a shooting inside a police station - because everyone is armed". Of course, haven't seen this version of the same myth repeated since the NJ shootings of December 28:
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8934293

Fortunately, officers wear body armor - so those 3 survived.
School children usually do NOT - but probably should once guns are introduced into schools.

Amy, there are also no more school shootings in Australia either. They DID take everyone's guns away. If you'd care to actually take the time you'd find that the seven states in the US that have severely restricted firearms, the incidents of gun deaths has plummeted. It works, there is no getting around the stats.

@JP - and Chicago which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country was just named the 'murder capital of the world'

Despite the hundreds of millions of guns to be found across the United States, with tens of millions of American citizens armed – some very heavily, the homicide rate of America is still below the global average of about 7 homicides per 100,000 people. The US’ homicide rate? 4.8 murders per 100,000.

A nation like Mexico – which is conveniently dismissed by gun control advocates, has – according to the UN – a homicide rate of 22.7 murders per 100,000 people, despite having vastly stricter gun control laws on the books. A visit to Mexico and the United States would, like visiting Japan and the UK, reveal a starkly different culture, education system, infrastructure, and socioeconomic landscape. Socioeconomic factors drive Mexico’s rampant violence – not a lack of gun control laws.

Here's some gun facts for you... http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/

Kim,
The "we" is the larger half of america that disagrees with you. and politically you are an angry cliche' bitching about your tax dollars... isn't that all this is ever about Commando? They have you right where you're wanted sister ;o) posts like yours and mahwahmike's are all i need to stay secure in my convictions... and if there was a real name attached to them they might even prove a 'red-flag' on a background check.

your an imbecile... one wouldnt hunt his neighbors to take their food, it would be for self protection in the event of civil unrest.... liberals are so feeble minded its sickening... just because guns scare you and your brain is the size of a pea doesn't mean every one else should suffer because your a mental dwarf

Now he's angry Kim!!! John Martson (i applaud that your name owns your words), what kinda "civil unrest" are you readying yourself for? are the imbecile liberals gonna rise up and nag you to death?

You know how many times out of the thousands and thousands of crimes committed in the USA were prevented by average citizens with a gun... 200. That's it, 200. We've had 11 to 12 thousand gun deaths a year let alone all the other crime involving guns where no one was killed. So what's your point? With all the guns out there and everyone being their own George Zimmerman wannabe, how come only 200? England has 35 gun deaths a year, we have 11,000 and more.

JP - I question where you got that number - 200. There was a report done in the late 90's that put the number at a ridiculous level, between 800,000 and 2.5 million. I know those numbers are extremely high. Most analysts and even the FBI and Justice Department estimate the numbers to be between 2,500 and 10,000 per year. There is no clear cut number or statistic.
Also, of the roughly 11,000 killed by gunfire, approximately 75% of those are gang related. Gun control will not stop that.
Why are we not looking at the root of the problem? Most of these shooters (estimated at 90%) are or were on psychiatric prescription drugs, drugs known to lead to suicidal and homicidal thoughts. Come to think of it prescription drugs lead to 100,000 deaths per year - should we not go after the FDA and drug companies. Almost 10 times more and nobody says anything - we know who really runs the country - big Pharma.

Kim, i believe you that you would protect me. and i would never turn my back on you or any victim. anyone who threatens me or my family with harm will be hurt tho i'll never feel need to own a gun. Sarcasm is a memorable way to get thru to people with satire and metaphor. anger moves thru me fast and loud. if i was angry, you'ld know it..

i lived with a girl from Haifa Israel for three years during the first intifada. she had of course served in the military. we talked at great length about her life and her country. you did a 4 minute google search to opportunisticly say some BS about Israelis... it was pretty tough to swallow, as was the rest of your demogogic heresay. still i appreciate your puiblic-relations-about-face, and that you'd lend a bullet to save me.

Bull-Sh-t that anyone would advise you to keep yor name secret from a local Patch. the only danger here is owning what you've said.

Actually, you (and people with your attitude) are the real joke John. The constant demeaning of anyone who doesn't take your viewpoint is typical of the tactic you people like to take because you can't debate the subject without throwing out insults as the first thing you say. Your side's positions on this subject are weak. How in the world do you expect people to take you seriously when you have people like the head of the NRA talking ridiculously about putting even more weapons in the hands of people who are incapable of using them in a safe and professional manor? Let's face it, most of us wouldn't trust people like you with a firearm just from the way you address people here.

The paranoid, apocalyptic talk goes in one ear and out the other. American are tired of hearing it and it's about time you accept that fact. It sounds ridiculous.

Keep posting John. You just further prove my point. Your ridiculous paranoid mentality is exactly whats going to doom your kind to oblivion sooner or later. I can understand someone who's law abiding wanting a firearm to protect themselves and their family from a crime when they are in a crime prone area, or if they work in a profession that requires security, but for other people to actually disguise their possession of a gun behind the second amendment is ludicrous. I know some people could care less about the second amendment and are either on some power trip where a gun makes them feel as if they are invincible and in control, or they fear the world around them to an unrealistic paranoia, or they have a gun to make up for some inadequacy in their lives and it makes them feel more "manly" or superior over other people. Which one are you? You know John, most little boys (and some girls) get over playing with cap guns sometime during their lives and grow up. I guess some people need to keep their "toys" as a security blanket to fondle. I really have to question their mental health. I guess you also don't care about the actual stats I posted up above, do you? Oh and by the way, I'm not really a liberal per se, just a very concerned (ex)Republican who is disenfranchised by the people claiming their conservative patriotism when in fact, they are anything but American patriots, could care less about this country's citizens, and only care about themselves.

yikes!

The "Yikes" was for Mr Manson, not u JP. i never thought i'd say this JP, but you're rather convincing on the opinions we share. you're presenting a well-informed argument while being given nothing but near obscenities in return. i do love the word "imbecile" tho (it's so 50s), and removing us from the gene pool is just f--king hysterical :O)

Like I mentioned Kim, I have no problem with RESPONSIBLE people having a gun to protect their family in the case of a possible crime, however I must remind you that Mahwah has a very low incident of violent crime every year, and while I can sympathize with you on your plight (I lived in Paterson until my late 20's and lived through riots and shakedowns myself, My wife barely survived the Panama riots of the sixties as a small child), it really is irrational fear that motivates a lot of people to arm themselves. So I do "get it". I know where you are coming from. Don't agree, but I understand. The other people who hide behind the second amendment, who claim that the government is going to oppress them if they don't have an assault weapon to defend themselves from our government is ludicrous. This isn't 1776, but I tell you, these are the people that DO divide America philosophically and bolster their own paranoia. They create the very situation they say they are trying to protect against. Do you know a gun rights spokesman on one of last nights news show actually said that the public should be allowed to own any weapon that the military could use against it's people, and he wasd serious. That includes rocket launchers, very high tech weapons, and everything in-between. Seriously, this battle for (any) gun rights is getting absurd.

If vehicles (in this case: cars), glass bottles, etc were used to INTENTIONALLY kill scores of people at each incident - then YES, you can be certain something would be done.

Example:
12 years ago, 3 planes were used as mass-murder weapons - and immediately, measures were taken regarding the equipment/configuration, on-board procedures, and ground procedures - even booking/reservations. Citizens had to change the way we buy tickets and board planes and what we can do on planes has a result of that.

When fluid in containers were possible ways to get a device on board, our right to carry those on boad were restricted. So - yes, ANYTIME a device is a weapon of choice in mass murder, we DO restrict those opportunities/weapons the best we can.

That is NOT what we're driving about with drunk driving accidents: The huge problem here is poor judgement - not intentional mass-murder/suicides.

One would compare drunk driving accidents with equally irresponsible, but accidental, gun-related deaths (some while impaired): The self-inflicted injuries when improperly handling a gun, the kids who kill themselves or playmates after accessing their parents guns, the friendly fire where someone shoots a suspected intruder - who turns out to be a family member... No one is "overreacting" to those - let Darwin take care of THAT problem.

This is tantamount to the argument that cars also kill, knifes kill, hammers kill, etc etc. I agree, those items can kill, but they won't kill 20 little children in 30 seconds or less.

Kim, the air can get thin sometimes up on my soap-box, but i'm not a hypocrit. if i didn't call JP "a coward" one-hundred times then it's because it was one-thousand. he and i have had exchanges as contentious as any on the Patch. i have always maintained a sense of humor tho. i must repeat that noone wants your guns or your rights, but most people (and perhaps most gun-owners i've heard) agree their should be greater restrictions on owning assault weapons (semi-auto, high# of rounds, gun-show loopholes etc.) this may be a necessary tweaking of the status-quo. let the chips fall where they will, all as we remember those 25 ruined families.

"Why did our town council write a letter" - because it's their job.

Sometimes they are able to protect Mahwah's interest by passing local ordinances.

Sometimes our township government will petition the county for action on dredging our waters, or for a traffic light on a county road. Sometimes the council or school board will petition the state assembly or governor on aspects of property tax limits, handling of various reserves and other aspects that the State controls.

And some issues lay in the power of the Federal goverment, such as FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers. In those cases, our township will state their case to federal entities. This time, they agreed that they needed to ask the proper authority for action to reduce the risk of shootings in Mahwah.

I commend them from looking past their party lines to act based on necessities, no politics. The gun manufacturers already own congress, so we do need action on lower levers.

Carter - no, any restrictions apply to criminals as well.

Following YOUR logic, we would not bother having any laws, because of the potential that some might not follow them?

If some criminals acquire nuclear dirty-bomb material, then we should not bother making ownership/trade in those materials illegal?

The fewer guns are manufactured and sold, the fewer are in circulation - and the fewer can be stolen/acquired by criminal elements. Simple math. Leave the gun fights up to law enforcement and criminals to conduct - works just fine in the other industrialized western nations of the world that I've lived/worked in. If you want to play with guns, join the Reserves.

Andy, as far as "If you want to play with guns, join the Reserves" I resent that as an ex Army officer in the VietNam conflict. I've 'played' with more guns than you've ever heard of. I have shot and owned weapons since I was 14. I intend to continue to do so.

Carter, thank you for your service!

Armored Artillery - yet, if I felt a sudden urge to use military weaponry once again, I would be perfectly fine to have to join up first.

Carter, you are another one who refuses to "get it" and stop for a second and see it from the other side. First of all, if you read my posts you would see from stats that there are only about 200 "victims" a year that have prevented crimes using a gun in this United States. You would think that with 300,000,000 guns in our country it would be a lot safer then that, right? Second, it's not just about banning assault weapons, it's about starting to get a handle on our violent gun culture society, gradually reduce the tolerance for possessing guns, reduce gun crime and possession by criminals, and get people to be less paranoid about crime. It's not going to happen overnight, it may take decades, but nothing is going to happen if nothing is started. With 300 million guns out there, how many more do you need to be "safer"?

Mona, so you would rather have drivers be able to drive without a license, or cars being used without being registered? Registration/licensing even applies when you buy your car from a private sale or at a car show! And while there are deadly accidents, I can't remember that last time someone drove his Honda through the hallways of a school with the intention of using the vehicle as a mass-homicide weapon against the students and staff?
Now try using the professional "big rigs" - the operators are subject to even tigher control (such as when and how often to take their breaks).

So - if that's perfectly acceptable (even in the face of criminals who drive with fake IDs and registrations) then I can't think of any logical reason why (at minimum) similar scrutiny shouldn't apply to devices that are manufactured for the precise purpose of causing mass carnage.

Well, as our duly elected local governing body, they have the right to create and enforce town ordinances. They can, if so desired, create ordinances to ban whatever they want from town. It's your prerogative to sue them if you want to after that. There is a town near Newtown CT right now considering their own gun ban.

Eileen, not true: the weapon in your sample was not the car, it was a BOMB, and those are indeed illegal already. Do you feel bombs should be permitted, just because they could be placed inside cars?

Gosh... guaranteed by God?
I'm fairly confident he'd turn in his grave (if he was mortal) for all the things that his supposedly loyal followers attribute to him.

Yep, I'm sure Christ would've been carrying an NRA card!

Hey Kim, I've got the constitution sitting right here on my desk in front of me at all times (not kidding) and I've actually READ the whole thing. Have you? I'm betting not. You seem to feel you're more patriotic then we are, I'll call you out on that and tell you that you're not patriotic at all when you don't support ALL this countries' citizens, don't support our president, don't support our government, and don't support policies to FIX THIS NATION. You only support YOURSELF! You care about the American constitution? You're full of it! You could care less about America and the people that live here.

Kim, respectfully
Relax! and don't be so "saddened and disturbed" that there's going to be a discussion on guns. Your rant is paranoid and certainly self-important. Big Brother isn't plotting to control your life. It's just a conversation that you shouldn't be so threatened by. I'm certainly not alone having a different opinion than you on our constitutional rights, or on God's wants. we can both be moral & law-abiding and still disagree. my rights and strengths are held within me. and the industry of killing machines offends me quite honestly. i am just different than you, that's all.

AMEN!! Kim, don't let flaky Andy or JP get to you. I agree, this is ALL about increased government control over rights.

I told you before Kim I am not a Liberal Progressive (not even close). I'm (was) a Republican who voted Democrat. I was in your party if you're truly a conservative.

Hi Eileen,
Nobody is propsing to ban cars, because they might be used to transport a weapon (may it be guns or a bomb) - just like no one wants to ban jackets, which could be used to conceal weapons.

Banning WEAPONS that can be used for mass carnage, is what's needed - we do it for bombs - no reason to excempt other weapons.

Having lived in countries without firearms, I can tell you: fewer guns, fewer ammunition, fewer opportunities for them to be misappropriated, fewer opportunities for someone to have access when they are ready to go crazy... = fewer victims of gun violence per capita.

As far as my comment on religion - I think it speaks against the validity of any argument, if someone has to claim that they have their "god" on their side. In most cases, the positions where "god" is invoked as the ultimate lobbyist in their favor - tend to be the positions that are the most contrary to the ideals preached by Christ. You can't takesome serious who can't think of anything better but to claim THEY have the exclusive support of their god, thus they must be right and everyone else must be wrong.

Proving you did something ain't so bad Ei. and your right, enforcing our already laws is very important. but the ability to sell multiple guns underrestricted at gun shows must stop. and many of us feel strongly that the assault weapons and large magazines are just wrong. we can hash and rehash it, but at the end of the day this is still America: one man/one vote (we hope); let the chips fall... we'll all be okay.

>> total ban on firearms eliminate gun violence. I say absolutely not. <<

Would saving 10,000 lives annually in the U.S. be "good enough" - even if that's "only" a 98.8% reduction (from third-world levels of 3.2 in the U.S., down to 0.04 in civilized countries, like the U.K.)?

Gun Homicide Rates (Source CDC, OAS, WHO)
US: 3.2 and increasing (the only higher numbers are in Central America, South Africa, Jamaica, Philippines - if you care to know!)
Italy, Ireland: 0.6
Belgium: 0.29
France, Denmark: 0.22
Netherlands: 0.20
Austria: 0.18
Spain: 0.15
Germany: 0.06
United Kingdom: 0.04

It's all very easy for you to say you don't care about those 10,000 people annually because that's ONLY "98.8%" not "100%', until one of those 10,000 happen to be YOUR child, sibling, parent... -- and I hope that never actually happens to you.

Though I wince awaiting your comments, I see now politically, we may both be on a closer plane. Long ago, was a big United We Stand "groupie," even shaking Ross Perot's hand at one event, and relished the political power we had then. We need a massive change now, and though have I've been usually voting Republican, most now stink too. May seen crazy, but I like your chutzpa.

Eileen, we all know further control is not going to eliminate violence. Of course it isn't, but that's not the goal. What people are TRYING to do by enacting new law is simply an attempt to eliminated one method for the possibility of one person being able to kill 33 people in about 10 seconds with a weapon that's legal to have and easy to get. Now if you don't think that worthy of consideration, you can be the next one to inform the relatives of the next massacre victims their loved ones are dead through an act that -might- have been prevented if the killer couldn't get their hands on the weapon. I have no problem with everyone in this country buying ONE revolver or shotgun, but there's no need for any of us private citizens to have semi-automatic assault weapons. What should we allow people to buy next, grenade launchers? Where does it end?

Kim, respectfully... It's about assault weapons and gun laws, not you.
Your earlier post i reponded too was outrageously offensive and an exhausting political cliche' (including your tragic invocation of God). You do in fact 'have a problem with differences from your opinion'. you have an infatuation (at best) with powerful weapons designed for quick efficient murder. And you will rationalize the aberations of your particular archetype to suit your desires, and moreso to never realize you can be even the slightest bit wrong. Your "nanny-state", "God-bestowed", "big-brother" rant that says we are frightened puppets of a government scheme is angry, trite, and delusionally self-important... and your assertion that i and anyone like me is living in fear of guns is small-mindedly convenient to serving your desperate argument. you in fact are the frightened one sweetheart. "life of the party at the shooting range": maybe? "balanced masculine and feminine side": maybe? "crusader for our great country": maybe? "Afraid of the vaccuum beyond this ego you've created for yourself": definately! Dumb as they/we all are, other people will have a say in the America they want. Get used to it Commando!

"Does it bother you in the least that Eric Holder has stated the President has the right to target and kill American citizens on American soil without due process???"

Kim, your question is a little too steeped in political soundbite connotation. However, i'll respond this way: you should have a enough of a sense of my humanism to answer that question yourself (if in fact you really care at all about the answer). i'm the guy who never waivered once on our going into Iraq after fabricated WMDs. Even though Pres. Bush and company kept adding more lies and most of the remaining opposition caved, i kept saying "bull-shit". i wish we could get those thousands of innocent lives back and put limbs and brain tissues back onto the damaged survivors... the trillion dollars would help with our national debt too. Does that help you answer the question you may be asking? or are you just scoring malitia points?

Good, so I was not the only one listening to Colin Powell's heresay at the U.N. and saying: WTF??? The only ones with a backbone were the French that day.

You stated: "I do have a problem with people wanting to change our Constitution based upon opinions."

Do you only have a problem when the change in the Constitution is NOT based on YOUR opinion? Remember, the "right to bear arms" was only added as an AMENDMENT to the original constitutation. So, if there were circumstances and opinions at the time that made that seem desirable - why would it be problematic if todays opinions and circumstances would lead the country to bring this in line with civilized times (like so many other very necessary amendments have done over time...)?

I don't mind that we disagree... but this issue is not edged in stone, it was added after the fact, so it can be removed just the same if the country decides?

I wouldn't bet on that Jon. They turned in two (working) rocket launchers in one town.

AMEN!!!

John M.
respectfully, take a chill pill! there is nothing 'in the closet' about JPs political ideas. He is like more and more repubs. i know who are far more threatening to the GOP than a closet liberal. JP is a tried and true republican burnt-out by the strange bed-fellows his party has made over the last 3 decades... and the straw that broke his back was the abominably angry, conniving, sanctimonius & hypocritical tea partiers.

Some idiots can't see beyond their own nose John (if you get my drift).

It's not the "criminals", per se, that are shooting 5 and 6 year olds John. It's white guys with too much fire power and angry attitudes. Let me ask you directly, do YOU have a semi-automatic assault weapon? If you do, what in the hell do YOU need one for in Mahwah? Waiting for some kind of apocalypse too? Join the others in a cave and wait for it. It ain't coming.

Wow Andy, way to not take that bitch-fest personally. i understood you perfectly that it was not in the original document and so could end up not being a part of it 'again'. And for the record 'etched' and 'carved' are used equally in that permanence of stone phrase (see also 'set in stone'). Holy Shate; is she for real!?!?!?

What may have seemed appropriate in one era, doesn't mean is the "absolute truth" as humanity and society develops.

Otherwise, just because in the 1700s they failed to address slavery, due process, women's suffrage, voting rights,... doesn't obligate us to remain stuck in the 1700s!

Certainly, these omissions should NOT be left in place in more enlightened eras, or when circumstances (such as technology) have developed beyond what anyone could have reasonably foreseen 300 years ago.

Consequently, we added the 13th, 14th,15th, 19th, 24th,... amendments - to address these "bugs". Also, we repealed the 18th amendment, because of its effect on the country.

So I think there is plenty of precedence to review the 2nd amendment, IF the country should choose to do so (which I don't expect in my lifetime - but, then again, I've seen the Berlin Wall come down which I would have not thought possible in my life time 5 years prior.)

The problem with you and Andy with regard to this issue is that you both think that by muddying the waters and throwing in this and that amendment amounts to clarity. We were to the best of my knowledge discussing the 2nd amendment, The Bill of Rights and not the 13th through the upteenth, and yes, a fact today is not necessarily a fact tomorrow. However, I must award you the Black Belt in Linguistic Jujitsu for your statement on how something "not in the original document and so could end up not being a part of it 'again'". Imagine, something not thought or initially included can be thought of and included and end up not being included again!

GD, I've often wondered if people like this actually think this way and believe it, or just say this stuff when they know it's wrong and have to continuously save face. If they actually believe it, then there seems to be a lack of inherent ability in them to instinctively know what's right for our society (as a whole) and what isn't. Is it that they can't look beyond themselves and only care about their immediate inner circles and can't reach out? Is it that they must personaly "profit" in some way from every decision that's made? What kind of human being is that self centered?

Carter - your statement is universally true for every person. One will support the measure that they find "correct" and oppose measures they consider "wrong". I don't think that's tied to any political orientation.

In fact, it's hard to imagine someone being supportive of measure they object to and objecting to the ones that they support?

However Andy there are certain situations where the solutions are inherently and universally correct no matter what the position someone takes for or against, for example, everyone requires routine health care at some point in their lives so they should (at a minimum) have access to it. Or, no one should be gunned down innocently by someone for no reason at all. Or, all human beings should have the right to live their lives in peace without oppression and harm, etc. etc. etc. People who oppose such common sense human needs out of some strange philosophy or agenda are just... wrong and irrelevant.

Yikes! GoD's going postal... quick, hide his car keys.