Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Report Inappropriate Comments

Snowshoe, if you have the opportunity ask an officer if you can see what's in the trunk of his/her car. You may actually be suprised. There's a good chance an AR-15, MP5 or something of the like will be in the trunk. Most of them are not without "adequate fire power". They a pretty sharp bunch. They had a couple run-ins where they didn't have the right tool for the job and have sinced learned.

I would echo that adding more laws aren't what's needed. Unfortunately, criminals will get guns. Unfortunately, people who want to kill people will find a way (Timothy McVeigh did it with fertilizer and diesel fuel, the 9/11 Terrorists did it with airplanes, Aum Shinrikyo et. al did it with Sarin gas...)

jtormoen, the argument of not possessing a weapon more advanced than an 18th-century musket is weak. The purpose of the Second Amendment is for U.S. citizens to be able to defend themselves against threats to their life and liberty, including an oppresive government. At that time those muskets were the typical firearms that everyone would have. Move up 200+ years and the notion of defending oneself with a muzzle loader now is... well, foolish. Therein lies the need for the Bushmaster. The Second Amendment doesn't describe the arms. You will not find any mention that the only right is to possess a gun no more advanced than an 18th-century musket. The authors were much smarter than that

I would say that the statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." is absurd but for the reason of "DUH! that's obvious." You said it yourself, "...PEOPLE with guns killed people." A gun is an inanimate object that by itself can not kill (unlike Radon gas, carbon monoxide, or nuclear radiation). PEOPLE with knives kill people. PEOPLE with cars kill people. PEOPLE with baseball bats kill people. PEOPLE with lit cigarettes kill people. Any of those objects by themselves don't kill people (well possibly with the exception of the car). They all need people in some manner. But the people don't need these particular items, they'll find a way to kill some one if they are so determined to do so (unfortunately). We need to work on the people not the objects. As has been mentioned, Adam Lanza had mental health issues (Asperger's syndrome) and wasn't given the proper care. There is an area where we need to focus. Get those people help and don't be ashamed if you or a loved one needs the help. We need to work on society to be more accepting of those with mental health issues and helping those with mental health issues. Prohibiting mentally sound, law-abiding people from possessing fire arms isn't addressing the issue.

Are those of us who have not yet been killed by guns going to allow these massacres to continue unimpeded? Are Americans that callous? Is life here so cheap? All great strawmen. Are you seriously expecting someone to answer yes to any of that? No one, by leagally possessing an assault rifle, is saying they want to allow "massacres to continue unimpeded," are "callous," or think "life here is so cheap."

From: Do you think new gun control measures are in order in the wake of the Newtown shootings?

Please explain the inappropriate content below.