Friday, December 14, 2012

Unspeakable Evil...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-vs- Tyranny

Connecticut State Police walk near the scene of an elementary school shooting on Dec. 14, 2012 in Newtown, Conn. (credit: Douglas Healey/Getty Images)

Today, in Newtown Connecticut an act of unspeakable violence against innocent children occurred. As unfathomable as this act was it occured.

As I sat numbed by the realization such a grotesque and deranged act could actually occur, I could not help but to contemplate what it is that would drive a 20 year old individual to commit such a heinous crime against innocent children.

Having a 4 year old grandson and a 1 and a 1/2 year old old granddaughter the events of today hit very close to home. My heart, as well as that of Mrs. Rational Nation goes out to the parents and families who lost loved ones in today's tragic shooting.

Now is the time for all Americans to come together in mourning the loss of innocent young lives. After the grieving we must look for answers as to how we may, as a civilized people prevent future occurrences of such horrific violence against the innocent.

There are those who will use the tragedy of today to further their political agenda. Such politicizing of today's tragedy is despicable and deserving of the strongest condemnation. Rational Nation USA urges all conservative and libertarian site to join me in vocal condemnation of such naked political whoring of today's tragic events.

Local news of the today's tragic event can be found here.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. I think that, with the death of at least 18 babies, its time for all of us to grow up and come together and to acknowledge that we are a civil society.

    Whatever ones political beliefs and whatever beliefs this insane young man may have had has absolutely nothing to do with the events in Connecticut.

    As John Donne stated (which Ernest Hemingway used as the title of his book):

    "No man is an Island, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."

  2. How about religious whoring like Huckabee did today? Who eliminated the assault rifle ban we did have?

  3. I'm not sure what the answer is. CT already has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. That and the douche-bag stole the weapons from his mother anyway, who obviously passed the background check. I mean, what, what do we do?

  4. When automatic weapons are easily bought and brought across state lines, there is no "stringent gun control laws." There is no reason on earth why this country, with its violent culture, would allow such weapons to be bought and sold.

    The Second Amendment talks about a "well regulated militia." Where's the regulated sale of arms in the general public? The NRA and the gun lobbyists have made it so that the gutless politicians are afraid to address this issue. I think with this latest massacre, people will find the courage to push back against the evil NRA and the people who think the Second Amendment means what it doesn't.

    1. Shaw, the woman bought the guns IN CT legally and obviously passed the background check. But, yeah, maybe your right, maybe we DO need a more uniform policy, but when (according to USA Today) 80% of the violent crime in this country is perpetrated by gangs (less than 1% of the population) and most of those people buy their weapons ILLEGALLY AND the fact that we already have close to 300 million guns in circulation, lotsa luck.

    2. Also, automatic weapons are not "easily bought." They are illegal to purchase and possess unless you meet very stringent federal requirements. I think Shaw means semi-automatic weapons.

      Will makes an excellent point.

  5. There will continue to be a basic difference in interpretation. Law abiding citizens have a right to bears arms for hunting and sporting activities. Automatic weapons are not required for these activities.
    As long as liberals take your position to it's natural end point Shaw liberals, and their position can expect push back against it. Both sides are part of the political problem and as such contribute to its continuation. IMNHO

    1. Actually, RN you agreed with Shaw, and 90% of most liberals when you say, "here will continue to be a basic difference in interpretation. Law abiding citizens have a right to bears arms for hunting and sporting activities. Automatic weapons are not required for these activities."

      If we take your own logic to its "natural end point" you also have to be against concealed weapons because they are not required for hunting and sporting activities.

      In regards to the Founding Fathers and their intent, lets not forget that back in those days vast majorities of Americans hunted for their food, lived on frontiers with hostile indians (the most pressing need for militias) and had access to little or no police services.

      The reality is we pretty much have a consensus when you and Shaw agree. So what's stopping us enacting legislation? The NRA!

  6. RN,

    As you suggested, I visited the blog, Libertarian Republican, and read Dondero's comments. What a cesspool! The amount of anger, vitriol, and sheer partisan hatred does not honor the dead and does nothing to assuage the tragedy that took place yesterday. I can think of far more uplifting things to do ... like calling family members on the telephone just to say hello and hear their voices.

    1. I agree. However, being a man of the fiscally conservative mindset with libertarian social leanings I simply could not resit the temptation to push back,and relatively hard against Dondero's self proclaimed rEpublican libertarianism.

      It is IMNHO he is talking bulls*it out his a**.

  7. The founders were not addressing fishing and hunting with their second amendment. They were addressing defense of their new country. They clearly state, that the right to own a gun was for the intention to form an armed militia, to defend the new nation. The amendment mentions nothing about the right to own a gun for recreational, or other purposes.

  8. as clearly as I can, in as soft a voice as I can muster....NOW is the time to discuss and act on what has become a national disease. After the next time will not do. Listen, through my tears, I tell you....twenty young citizens, of absolutely no political affiliation, unless love and fun and laughter can be called political affiliation, have had all their rights revoked...forever. Some one must speak for them.

  9. okjimm, Today I saw a father speak about his kindergarten little girl who was viciously murdered by a maniac who was able to take possession of his mother's unsecured guns. That little girl looked just like my little granddaughter--in fact, I saw them as one and the same and my heart broke. Now is the time for all reasonable people to understand that automatic weapons and extended magazine weapons have no use in hunting. Just because someone wants to own these lethal weapons is not a reason for them to do so.

    No one has addressed my point: the first amendment right to free speech and religion both have restrictions on them. Why should the 2nd amendment be different?

    Also, we should have a federal uniform code for gun ownership and weapons sales should be controlled by the government.

    1. Whoa Shaw, call me unreasonable if you like, and TAO, Octo, Anon, and okjimm you can join in of you like.

      As I said there exists honest, and IMNH justifiable difference of opinion. What you suggest, most specifically control of firearms sales by the federal government is a step to far in the direction that ultimately will lead to confiscation of personal firearms by the feral government. Again, IMNHO anyone who thinks or believes otherwise is extremely naive. Or perhaps it is really just part of a grand design to accomplish just that. Certainly there are many supporters of exactly that, confiscation of all personal firearms. And your choice of the word weapon indicates, in my opinion where your thoughts really are.

      So, while I see no need for automatic rifiles and pistols, or extended magazines, your suggestion is not one I would be willing to abide. Period.

      Knee jerk reaction from either side on this is undesirable and ultimately will not solve the problem of a lone raving lunatic. It is true that even with outlawing guns there will always be a black market and those who desire a firearm for nefarious reasons will find an avenue to secure them.

      The potential for a huge loss of general liberty Shaw is just to great, IMNHO. This I cannot support, not will I support it.

      Yesterday I took issue with the extreme on the other side. Today I take issue with this extreme.

    2. "The potential for a huge loss of general liberty...."

      I know 20 babies that suffered "a huge loss of general liberty" on Thursday: When does their absolute loss of general liberty outweigh your potential loss of general liberty?

    3. I understand your desire to play with words and play on pure emotion, it is a natural human reaction following tragic events. Hell TAO, I cried with the rest of the nation Friday. This tragedy occurred very close to home and made me realize the vulnerability we all are subject to. We have two beautiful, wonderful grandchildren.

      The reality however is that what Shaw and so many others would force on the nation will not prevent sick, or deranged evil monsters from performing senseless acts of violence against fellow humans. Those who have no respect for themselves have little or no respect for the rights and liberty of others. Such people will continue to exist and perform horrific acts of violence.

      I do support reasonable laws restricting the sale of fully automatic firearms and carry laws. I do not support total control and regulation as suggested by Shaw and others.

      You are certainly free to disagree. Neither you, Shaw, or anyone else will convince me to advocate for or support what is ultimately designed to lead to confiscation of, and complete restriction of firearms on the general population.

      Further, with respect and reference to the reason for the 2'nd amendment. Had the founders intended only for a well regulated militia to have arms they certainly had plenty of time following formation of the union to enact gun laws controlling restricting their use amongst. They did not, and for good reason.

    4. The founders had discussions about the second amendment, like every other amendment. They decided on those words. Lets not all of a sudden pretend they were not intelligent, or did not chose their words carefully.

      "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."

      The sentence starts with the reason for the right to keep arms. The definition of the right is noted before the declaration of the right itself.
      Personally, I think people should have the right to own guns, but the reason for that right, is made clear. I can't say people have a right to own a gun for recreational use, since the sentence is clear, and makes no such provision.

    5. Are you pretending they weren't intelligence since you brought it up? I did not say anything about there intelligence. Your inference is quite obvious Anon.

      It is a matter of context and interpretation Anon. I am quite certain you realize greater minds than you or I have undoubtedly discussed this matter and remain split om it. You know wher I stand, It is nice to hnow you at least straddle the fence.

      For what it is worth I understand your reasoning and interpretation, I just don't happen to concur. Doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong. It means there will likely never be universal agreement on this.

    6. An English teacher could explain it better than partisans wishing it says what they want it to say.
      "Are you pretending they weren't intelligence since you brought it up? I did not say anything about there intelligence. Your inference is quite obvious Anon."
      Another attempt to twist words. They were very intelligent, and said what they meant, which did not include any recreational use expression.

    7. There will never be universal agreement as long as some insist on an interpretation, which clearlt is not mentioned in their carefully chosen words

    8. I explained my position using their words. To bad you will not, or can not do the same.

    9. I have explained my position and understanding of the 2'nd. It is to bad you won't or can't understand this. If you wish to convince someone to follow your reasoning go talk to a child. After all, even your hero Vladimir Lenin understood this.

      Since your mind is obviously closed it is best we consider this discussion closed.

    10. RN,

      There was no emotionalism and or play on words on my part but rather, as you are an astute reader of our Founding Fathers, you more than anyone should realize that this was the type of fundamental question they dealt with.

      Further, as I know you are well read, you realize that our Founding Fathers were also dealing with the question of whether men can government themselves. Remember, we were an experiment, based upon the starting point that was defined by Thomas Hobbes, using the logic of Locke and Rousseau, to come to a different conclusion than Hobbes did.

      The reality is that the concepts and the reality of when the 2nd Amendment were written were totally different then than they are now. It should also be noted that the Constitution actually is the result of an initial FAILURE on the part of the Founding Fathers, because initially the Declaration of Independence was followed by the Article of Confederation, which were replaced in 1789 by the US Constitution, which created a much stronger Federal Government.

      Thus, there is a strong possibility, that our Founding Fathers were busy putting out fires in lots of different areas and honestly had no idea, or could not envision, guns used for anything other than what they were used for at the time.

  10. I have never seen or heard of evil - ya' know, some mystical force like the Dark Side, right? Only from Hollywood, politicians, and/or religious people, have I heard of such a thing.

    In the real world there is stupid and there is crazy. Those are the bad elements in any society. They overlap, too. They manifest in all sorts of ways, but in the end, it is some combination or one of the two that are at the heart of all malice.

    I could write for a million hours on the subject, and I'm no psychiatrist, or theologian, but suffice to say, if you believe there is evil in the world, you may be stupid enough to suffer it. Be careful what you believe in. You can undo stupid. Crazy is a harder thing to beat.


    1. You've confirmed it jmj, you're nuts .

    2. You've confirmed that you suffer a cognitive dissonance, Les. I thought you were an Objectivist? What happened?


  11. RN, what in hell did JMJ write that makes you characterize him as "nuts?" He didn't attack you or anyone on this thread, and yet your knee-jerk reaction is to malign him and his opinion? I've read his comment over several times and see nothing that deserves that treatment. With that slanted attitude, there is no way any sort of rational discussion is possible here.

    1. Well, since you obviously have not been paying attention jmj has referred to me and others on numerous occasions as stupid, delusional, crazy, and other adjectives of his affection.

      It is not a knee jerk reaction, it is merely once again acknowledging my differences with jmj. he seems not to have a real problem with that, just as I have no problem with his usual and vocal disagreement with me.

      I have even told jmj I recognize his intelligence. Recognizing his intelligence does not mean I agree,nor should I agree with him just because he is intelligence. Lenin, Stalin,Hitler, and Mao were intelligence also, it DID NOT MAKE THEM RIGHT.

      I am not maligning jmj anymore than many liberal have by your logic maligned me as well as other conservatives/libertarians. On this site and others. Yours being one to be specific.

      It would seem Shaw the issue is not so much that there is no way a rational discussion can be had here. Rather it is that you simply do not like that I, in this specific issue do not fully conform to and accept your personal worldview and agenda. Sorry, that's just the way it is Shaw. At least it is the way I see it.

      Perhaps jmj will weigh in on my comment. I realize emotions and sensitivities run high in the emotional liberal set. I actually have grown to fully expect and accept it. Your comment, in IMNHO confirms the correctness of my analysis.

      IMNHO opinion Shaw you are the one with the knee jerk reaction to which it is hard, if not almost impossible to have a rational discussion.

  12. Here's the thing, RN, I know nothing about JMJ's past history and comments here. I merely read his comment on this thread and then read your reaction. And THAT's what I wrote about. Nothing else.

    Your bringing up past histories doesn't change the fact that you decided JMJ is "nuts" because he gave a reasoned opinion here.

    Your reference to what others on my blog have written has nothing to do in this matter. PS. Notice the trolls are gone. And notice I don't call you "nuts" when you write your opinions.

  13. Replies
    1. I realize this is a trick question. Questions such as this one, when asked by liberals always are.

      As such I'm really not inclined to respond. I' ve come to realize most flame throwing liberals cannot be trusted. Shame on me for being, for a breif period of time foolish enough to believe it possible to ne trusting of the flame throwing progressives.

      I've tired of my words being taken out of context and or twisted. So you'll forgive me for declining to respond to your question. I leave it to you to form your perceptions however you will.

      I'll close by saying, it is what it is, and things are what they are. There are those with principles and there are those without. There are those with tolerance and there are those with none. And, perhaps most critical is... Perception is reality for the person perceiving.

      Good evening, and do enjoy the holidays. You'll forgive this conservative/libertarian atheist I trust when I say Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year.

      The search for knowledge and answers is eternal. Except for the Neandrathals of the world. I mean that rhetorically, and I'm sure you understand what I mean.

    2. JMJ,

      It doesn't matter if any of us believe in evil. It surely believes in us and likes to show us what it can do. Evil does not need our belief to be what it is.

  14. My I answer Jersey? I don't believe in Satan, the Devil, Beelzabub, or any such entity, but I do believe people do evil. I understand we humans can do evil and can do good. What I don't understand is what it is withing us humans that makes us choose evil over the good. In some cases, to be sure, it is mental instability and rage. But not in all cases. So yes, there is evil that men do.

  15. I don't have a gun, I don't have a desire to purchase one, and I'm not philosophically opposed to common sense gun control. But can we at least take a reasoned approach to what we're talking about here (this, I'm saying, to the partisan left)? 1) Justice department data shows that nearly 80% of criminals purchase their weapons ILLEGALLY (a large chunk of which aren't even manufactured in this country) and that less than 1% (.7% to be precise) of them purchase their firearms at these (admittedly scary) gun shows. And 2) this mother purchased the guns legally and also passed a background check. How, pray tell, would the things that people like Rachel Maddow are spitting and drooling over have prevented this crime when they were already in place? I mean, yeah, maybe an assault weapons ban would have prevented the mother from purchasing the rifle but do we even know that (whether or not the weapon in question qualified) with certitude?

  16. Living in Bethel, CT, this tragedy hits way too close to home. One of the teachers at my daughter's pre-school lost her son in this nightmare. There is a heaviness in the air that is noticeable and unsettling.

    Now that the major shock is wearing off, the gun-control folks are coming out of the woodwork, saying that if guns were banned outright, this wouldn't have happened. I don't need to respond to such drivel, and none of us do who support The Second Amendment. It is being presumed, PRESUMED, that this disturbed young man was able to willy-nilly grab the LEGAL weapons of his mother and then kill her and go on to kill other innocents. Notice I said PRESUMED. No one knows if these weapons were locked-up or not locked up within this woman's house.

    These were LEGAL weapons, and in the State of CT, getting a LEGAL weapon is a major pain in the ass. (Sorry for the profanity, Les) Even as a combat Vet with a verifiable DD214 and NO criminal record, I have bee forced to jump through hoop after hoop thanks to the CT liberals in attaining a gun permit. So any calls for stricter gun regulations are moot here. These guns were legal. They were used illegally, and not by the registered owner. There is no gun control argument to be had here, since Lanza's mother broke no laws.

    Her son was out-of-balance. He was a social retard, a loner, a recluse. He played way too many video games that allowed him to kill others in a fantasy environment. It is said he had either Aspberger's or Autism, details are not concrete yet. I have personally worked with that population, teens who have diagnosed Aspberger's or Autism, and have seen how they are drugged up to be nothing more than living zombies. When off their meds they are socially inept and basically live in a world all within their own minds.

    The thing is, liberalism will refuse to blame him. They will say he needed better medical treatment, or should have been in a program to assist him in adapting to society. They will say the mother dropped the ball and failed to properly guide him, and so on and so on. Liberalism never blames the perpetrator. It is always SOMEONE else who caused tragedy.

    The mental health community is now using this event to preach their message of treatments, drug-modification, and counseling, saying that their craft alone could have prevented Adam Lanza from killing so many.

    The liberals are now using this event to somehow seek to vilify guns, because they refuse to blame Adam Lanza for his crime.

    I have no time to play the blame game. There are other matters to attend to caused by this horrific crime. We can get to that other stuff later.

    As to Dondero, he is a repulsive maggot of hatred and vitriol, using the libertarian label falsely and with impudence. He is a jackass.

    Guns do not kill people. People are killed by social retards, social deviants, idiots, morons, and those who are weak-minded and emotionally immature. Vilifying guns changes nothing about that.

    1. Feel better now?

      So you fired off your rant about liberals and liberalism oh and then you follow up with, "Guns do not kill people. People are killed by social retards, social deviants, idiots, morons, and those who are weak-minded and emotionally immature. Vilifying guns changes nothing about that."

      Then you have this brilliant piece of logic, "There is no gun control argument to be had here, since Lanza's mother broke no laws." So, since mom bought the guns legally there is no argument for gun control.

      Lets see, an emotionally unstable woman can legally buy not guns for self defense but rather a whole arsenal to wage war, so that she could feel safe, pursue her survivalist hobbies, and or have something her and her son could do together (which have all been mentioned by friends, neighbors, and family as to why she purchased the arsenal) you don't see anything wrong with this picture?

      Oh, because she never sought treatment for her illnesses, she could legally buy an arsenal so her son could wage a massacre.

      But you don't see anything wrong with this picture because of your own issues with liberals and liberalism.

      Nice thing about people like you, you never blame guns but always blame someone else for everything, like liberals and liberalism. As you say, "It is always SOMEONE else who caused tragedy." Which pretty much sums up your own thinking also.

    2. "Lets see, an emotionally unstable woman can legally buy not guns for self defense but rather a whole arsenal to wage war, so that she could feel safe, pursue her survivalist hobbies, and or have something her and her son could do together (which have all been mentioned by friends, neighbors, and family as to why she purchased the arsenal) you don't see anything wrong with this picture?"

      Prove this. Prove she had an arsenal. Prove she herself was emotionally unstable. Prove she was a survivalist (which is code, of course, for white supremacist, TEAbagger, and redneck). Prove she specifically bought guns to spend time bonding with her son.

      You cannot.

      Adam Lanza killed those people. He is to blame. Not guns, not his mother, not anything else. I blame Adam Lanza. If not a gun, he possibly would have used something else to kill. Killers kill. That's what they do. The method is irrelevant.

    3. Donald, you stated earlier that you work with children with autism. You SHOULD know that these children do not bond.

      Second, you SHOULD also know that loud noises and sudden shocks, like the recoil on momma's arsenal would have been quite a negative and unpleasent shock to her son; and he would have only have done it once and moved on.

      Other than that, I will PROVE my point on my own blog tomorrow. Which will conclude that momma was either nuts and not being treated, which would make it legal for her to buy guns, and or there was something very wrong in that household.

    4. @taospeaks,

      I have worked with children who have autism and/or Asperger's. I no longer do so. I hope I did not mislead you in that, as it was not my intention to. I worked with them for two years, receiving a broken finger, multiple bruises, and more questions than answers.

      The thing is, by your words above you have purposed it in your mind to vilify Nancy Lanza based on what, exactly? Before you so willingly attack this dead woman, please take the time to read these, if you would.

      Before you seek to sully this dead woman's memory, why not wait until more facts come to light? That was not an accusation. That was a request.

    5. Coming from a guy who does nothing but vilify liberals and liberalism for everything in life; someone who spews hate in everything he writes.

      For your information I have a nephew who is 23 years old and was diagnosed as nonverbal autism over 20 years ago. I am intimately aware of what living with autism is all about, from the denial of the diagnosis to the reality that at adulthood, this is just the way things are and nothing will change.

      Trust me, my sister and I have read every single news article since the "personality disorder" was changed to "aspergers" and we talk everyday.

      I would not sully this women's reputation as I have a bond with her; the bond of broad spectrum autism.

      But its time this nation quits lying to its self, guns kill. Anyone, such as yourself, who wants to claim that guns do not kill, are not being responsible gun owners.

      Yes, children with autism love video games and love watching DVD's. So, guess what, as a responsible parent you don't buy "Call To Duty" for a child with an autism diagnoses.

      Oh, and on the issue of conservatorship, guardianship, or ward of the state, I have been through that psychological roller coaster with my sister and husband.

    6. "Coming from a guy who does nothing but vilify liberals and liberalism for everything in life; someone who spews hate in everything he writes."

      *facepalm* Okay, tao, whatever. LOL! What a loser. Your victimhood mentality is on full display.

  17. I hope you post my last post.

    Thanks, JMJ

    1. See Shaw's comment directly above. Therein lies the answer to the question. Perhaps you might think it not "stupid" coming from a fellow progressive. At least I would hope not because it isn't.


  18. "The liberals are now using this event to somehow seek to vilify guns, because they refuse to blame Adam Lanza for his crime."

    Not quite. Even conservatives--see Joe Scarborough for example, and there are others--are speaking out. And you're not correct to say liberals want to ban guns. No one is saying that. What sensible people want is gun control. That's not a dirty word. If Lanza's mother had her weapons locked up with no way for her mentally ill son to get at them, this would not have happened. And if we reinstate the ban on automatic weapons, that would be a sensible thing to do as well.

    This isn't a liberal vs. conservative vs. libertarian issue. Do some reading on how violent we are as a nation and lax our gun control laws are vis-a-vis other advanced societies:


    We have a problem, and pretending that we don't isn't a way to solve it. I'm going to repeat something I've been saying for a long time:

    We have restrictions on our freedom of speech and our freedom of religion. Why should the 2nd Amendment be different?

    The NRA has been a bully in preventing our cowardly politicians from enacting needed restrictions on gun ownership and laws.

    1. Shaw,

      We actually agree on the culture of violence we have in America. I see it daily, as I am sure you do too. But I see it in entertainment, video games, books, imagery, etc. I do not see violence when I see a picture of a gun, or when I hold my own guns in mine own hands. I see violence celebrated in Hollywood movies, video games that children play, and so on. So we agree, Shaw, that America has a problem with violence. Indeed.

      I wouldn't say Scarborough is a Conservative. He's MSNBC's token "conservative". Some people say the same about Juan Williams on FOX that he is their token liberal. Yawn. But I wouldn't say Joe was true Conservative.

      How would stricter gun control have stopped this shooting in Newtown? Were gun laws violated? Did Nancy Lanza have illegal weapons in her house? No. Obviously, Adam used these guns illegally, to be sure, but there were no laws broken on the part of Nancy Lanza's gun ownership. CT is one step below a fascist state when it comes to private gun ownership. For Nancy to have legal weapons in her house required many hoops being jumped through.

      We also do not know, either of us, if or if not Nancy had those weapons secured. For all we know, Adam forced Nancy to give her the keys to the gun lock boxes. People have been painting this picture that her weapons were merely laying around the house, on the coffee table or the kitchen counter. Yikes. None of us know the truth about that. The truth is, aside from very expensive gun safes, any of us could break open a gun lock box if we were determined to get that which was inside. The leftists are seeking to paint a picture of Nancy Lanza as if she were a gun-freak who taught her son, inadvertently, how to be a killer. I find that repulsive and knee-jerkish.

      And believe it or not, Shaw, I see no need for semi-automatic/full automatic weapons in the hands of private citizenry, and I fully 100% support The Second Amendment. I see no need, but then again, it is not totally illegal for citizens to legally own such weapons. I reckon we should have that discussion, shouldn't we? However, say there is a ban put onto assault weapons. Will the ones currently in the hands of citizens have to be turned in? What say you?

      Shaw, I am a rightist. You know this. I know you are a leftist. I am glad you are not telling me that guns need to be banned outright. I appreciate that, because it is common sensical of you. I would also agree that like you mentioned, we should have certain restrictions on the Second Amendment. Obviously. The thing is, I can think of no pro-gunner like myself who would say it is acceptable to allow the mentally deficient or those with criminal records to own private guns. I support the Second Amendment, but not blindly or without discretion.

      Looking forward to your thoughts on what I have said.

  19. Shaw, I wasn't using "evil" as a verb. Please, for Christ's sake, tell me someone else here understands what I'm asking when I ask, "Do you believe in evil (the NOUN, for those who haven't grasped that yet.). "

    Obviously, no one here wants a discourse on the convenience of "evil" as a way of avoiding complex problems.


    1. JMJ, evil is indeed a noun, and it isin the dictionary.

      If you are referring to evil spirits, the devil, or orcs then my answer is no.

      Next question...

    2. Jersey,

      I would say that Adam Lanza was Evil, with a capital "E". The guns he used were not. The guns were merely tools.

    3. JMJ, my answer was NOT about "evil" as a verb. In my last sentence, "the evil that men do," "evil" is NOT a verb.

  20. Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban. Apparently this weapon didn't qualify - Sec. 53-202b. Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited. Class C felony. (a)(1) Any person who, within this state, distributes, transports or imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives any assault weapon, except as provided by sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which two years may not be suspended or reduced.

    (2) Any person who transfers, sells or gives any assault weapon to a person under eighteen years of age in violation of subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years, which shall not be suspended or reduced and shall be in addition and consecutive to the term of imprisonment imposed under subdivision (1) of this subsection.

    (b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:

    (1) The sale of assault weapons to the Department of Public Safety, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties;

    (2) A person who is the executor or administrator of an estate that includes an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d which is disposed of as authorized by the Probate Court, if the disposition is otherwise permitted by sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a;

    (3) The transfer by bequest or intestate succession of an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued under section 53-202d.

    1. Will,

      Had a great conversation with Tom Whitcomb, over at Housatonic Valley Firearms, and asked him what the deal really was regarding any kind of weapons ban in CT. Tom is former Army Infantry, retiring as a First Sergeant, and has been dealing guns for 14 years. He knows what's what.

      According to him, you can buy a semi-automatic rifle (one shot per trigger squeeze, as in a common AR-15), by supplying a legitimate driver's license, payment for the weapon, and a 14-day waiting period.

      You can also buy a full-auto rifle. The paperwork involved with buying a full-auto weapon is deeper, of course, and you will need the written consent of your local Sheriff's Dept, and you will also have to send your fingerprints to the FBI and pay a 200.00 fee to The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Obviously a lengthier process for a full-auto. But you can buy a full-auto weapon in CT legally. It is possible.

      Folks with criminal records or record of ever having been committed to a mental institution are not eligible for legal gun ownership in CT. I believe this is a Federal law.

      Like I said, this is info given directly to me by Tom Whitcomb at Housatonic Valley Firearms in New Milford, CT. Oh, and for what it is worth, Tom decided to not do any radio advertising right now due to the incident at Sandy Hook, not wishing to appear like he was seeking to stir anything up. Class act.

      I will be purchasing my next weapon from Tom because of his insight and competence.

    2. The statute says, "Sale or transfer of assault weapon prohibited" and I took it directly from the state's own justice web site. There must be a lot of guns that do not directly qualify as assault weapons.

    3. Will,

      Well, it depends of course on what you would consider an 'assault rifle/gun'. Technically speaking, an 'assault rifle' is any rifle that can utilize a three-round burst or full automatic fire. A semi-automatic gun, be it shotgun, rifle, or handgun, is not considered an 'assault gun'. The statute you mentioned bans the transfer of full-auto weapons between private citizens without any background check. Like if you were to sell me a full-auto rifle in my driveway if we were neighbors. They kinda frown on that sort of activity for obvious reasons.

  21. Try this one:

    When it can be proven that an inanimate gun can squeeze its own trigger and kill people, then I will be the first to say that guns kill people. Until such time as that happens, I will say that people kill people. Killers use knives, guns, rope, plastic bags, their bare hands, hammers, cars, water, etc. to kill others. It's what they do. Shoot, I remember some killers who used three American airplanes to kill people. Did we have a 'ban airplanes' conversation, then? I mean, flying in a large metal tube with wings and several hundred gallons of fuel is not a Constitutional right, now is it?

    I honestly believe the endgame goal of this whole 'debate' is for all guns to eventually be outlawed from private and legal ownership. We will start with a Nationwide ban on assault rifles and it will slowly spiral into a total ban on all privately owned firearms, to include shotguns. Just a theory, mind you.

  22. @taospeaks,

    You claimed you would PROVE that Nancy Lanza was mentally incompetent on your own blog. This has not happened. I'm still waiting for this blog post to materialize. Tic toc, tic toc, tic toc...

    You have NOTHING besides knee-jerk liberal angst. Typical and predictable.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.