Robert Ariail for July 25, 2012

“Assault” on the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, that’s were doing when we slow the flow of guns to psychos or restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines. We’re assaulting part of the Bill of Rights.

Yeah sure, let’s talk about gun control instead of mental illness. It is election season after all LOL! Just like we preferred to talk about “cyber bullying” when a gay college student commits suicide instead of suicidal depression. We’ll even put an innocent kid in jail before we’re ready to talk about this. This guy is nuts to the point he decided he’s the joker. He’s broken and there’s something wrong with our society that we don’t pay attention to these issues that lead to this massacre. The signs are there and we need to start paying attention to things we’d rather not talk about.

I agree that we should follow the law, based on the Constitution. So, where is the observance of the part of the second amendment that speaks of a well-regulated militia? If you are going to support one part of the second amendment, shouldn’t all of it be supported? I own long guns, and reasonable regulation is necessary. Nobody needs the kind of high-capacity magazines used in the movie massacre except for criminal behavior.

SCOTUS in the D.C. case affirmed a “personal right” to possess firearms, AND REAFFIRMED that the STATE has the RIGHT TO REGULATE such possession, but not outright “ban” ownership without cause.

Very good response, nicely written. However, you forgot to speak about the well-regulated part again. Please comment on what you feel reasonable regulation to be. I am a long gun owner and support the right of citizens to own firearms.

By the way, I agree that the Founding Fathers were wise and far-seeing men. I think that we should support all parts of the constitution as amended, not just those parts that suit you or me.

Just as a footnote (but obviously not a footnote to Caleb and his family), this is from a story about the aftermath of the shooting: “Caleb Medley, a 23-year-old aspiring comedian, was listed in critical condition on Tuesday at University of Colorado Denver Hospital. A website set up to raise money for his care because the Medleys have no health insurance, www.calebmedley.com/help, said he had lost his right eye, suffered brain damage and was in a medically induced coma.” No health insurance. The story went on to say that the bill could be more than $2 million. Of course people will donate, but isn’t there a better system?

As the GOP keeps re-doing the argument against ACA is NOT WORKING. It isn’t working and THEY are NOT doing WORK!

In Ontario, those judged by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others can be confined against their will for a specified time. Such a person has a right to a hearing, so no one can simply be put away without recourse. There’s more, but I don’t know the details.

Oh yea, we are! The various and sundry belief systems of unlimited automatic guns and 100 round magazines is one of of your simple-minded “nation of LAW” silliness speaks volumes about you.

Were you EVER close to a Law Library? Your statementents don’t support your blather.

I like the Ontario solution. And as for the gun registry, it did squat because Harper killed it. There was still use for the database to help law enforcement…even if it did cost too much.

I’ve read up on the Swiss. I admire their system, and that they have much less gun violence than we do in the United States. Since we have a great military, and spend huge amounts of money for it, I don’t lie awake at night worrying about another country invading us. If one does, I’ll be right there, firing aimed shots with a bolt action rifle. Much more effective. I’ve read the Constitution, and authentic quotes from our Founding Fathers. I don’t find anything in them that suggests we civilians should have the kind of firepower you suggest. I’m willing to learn though, if you can refer me to some.

BTW: The Constitution says “arms”, not “FIREARMS”. That includes swords, knives, maces, cannons, and “others as not described”. Burr killed Hamilton with a weapon only slightly more accurate than throwing a rock, duels with pistols were “generally survivable”. NOT SO with swords! Things have changed.

Thank you for a reply that certainly required thought and effort. I will need to re-read and think about your post in order to respond justly. I hope you won’t mind waiting until tomorrow. It’s been a long hard day. At first reading, though, I would agree with many of your points.

I call you a liar.

Nice. Calling me a liar is easier than doing a simple Google search, isn’t it. Here’s Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel, a REPUBLICAN, posing with a voter who had been erroneously struck from the rolls.

https://twitter.com/MikeErtel/statuses/204678285383307264?tw_i=204678285383307264&tw_e=media&tw_p=tweetembed

Dear Sir, I have read your recent post to me several times over, with a growing sense of admiration each time. I admire your thinking, which seems common sense and with which I am in very strong and nearly complete agreement. I congratulate you on being the first poster I have read in any of these columns who has put forward a framework for a solution to the problems we see with guns today. Thank you for that! I agree with you on nearly every point: Early education and training in gun use is a great idea. It would save a lot of lives, and make our country that much more secure in more senses than one. Armor-piercing bullets are beyond the pale. They are just not needed by those without criminal intent. Fully automatic weapons are wasteful of ammunition. Aimed rounds from a semi-automatic or a good bolt action rifle are more effective anyway. Magazines holding 10 or 15 rounds ought to be enough for anybody. The one point I would quibble with you about is letting target shooters have larger magazines. Let them change magazines. They really don’t need to fire off a hundred rounds at a time without bringing the weapon down from their shoulder. This is because: A. Their arms will get tired and their aim deteriorate, wasting rounds. B. In a real life-or-death situation against armed opponents, anyone with a weapon on their shoulder that long is neither aiming, nor taking advantage of cover and movement, and won’t live long enough to use 100 rounds anyway. I also agree with your thoughts on keeping weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records, mental problems and the like. I agre with your thoughts about all firearms owners being susceptible to mental illness being nonsense. I say, yes, we’re all susceptible, but innocent until proven guilty. We can’t go around locking people up or taking away their rights for what they might do some day. I agree entirely about trigger locks. On the other hand, weapons need to kept out of the hands of children. A suitable gun rack and proper instruction works. Parents who think their guns are hidden, if they have young boys in the house, are kidding themselves. (Not that girls aren’t capable too.) I think that when a crime is committed or an accident happens with a minor and a firearm, the parents should be charged as complicit or negligent or both. Some personal notes: My father (a World War II combat veteran, and the son of a World War I combat veteran) taught my brothers and me to shoot, beginning with 22 caliber and working up from there. He gave us careful, solemn safety instruction along with the skills. He and my Mom also gave us serious moral instruction, something that is a serious lack in today’s society, on all sides of the political spectrum. As an elementary school teacher, (more than 25 years), I would welcome the opportunity to teach my students how to use a BB gun safely. There would be many challenges, but it could save them from serious injury or death someday. Our nation’s security would be enhanced, and society safer too. Thank you again for the effort you went to and the thought so evident in your post. I am grateful, and so will other reasonable people, even if they disagree with you. If you are new to these columns, don’t let the tone of some of the posts put you off. Just ignore them, if you can. There are many people here who, being hidden at the other end of the internet, behave deplorably. There are those, on the other hand, who engage polite discussion, even when they disagree. Please excuse me if I have made any error of interpretation or incorrect assumptions. I assumed that I should address you as ‘sir’, and if that is not the case, I apologize.

I believe that Regan put an end to the psychos being committed. He thought it would be cheaper to put them on the streets.

I hope I am correct in thinking that you are referring to me.

Thank you. Coming from someone of your nature and ability, I am especially honored.