Unfortunately, your analogy isn't a very good one.

Religion wasn't the "tool" that was used to kill people during 9/11 -- jumbo jets were. After 9/11 the U.S. passed a bunch of measures that restricted access and use of planes in this manner so that it would reduce the chances of happening again.

The "tool" in Newtown was a semi-automatic rifle with an high-volume clip. Now the U.S. similarly needs to pass restrictions on access to weapons of this type so that it helps reduce the chances of something like this happening again.

By your analogy you would be advocating giving Islamist Fundamentalists unfettered access to jumbo jets. No a position I personally would feel comfortable with.

Use of an airplane is not a protected right.

A Taxpayer, many on the Far Right wanted to and still do.

first, there is no such thing as an "unlimited ammo clip" as you suggest. more importantly, please show where the 2nd amendment excludes it?

bigmanny, be ready to ambushed by J2(Jack and Joe).

Is there currently a limit as to how big of an ammo clip a person could own and use in his or her weapon. And that is exactly my point it is not mentioned in the constitution because they did not exist when it was written. I guess if we want to stick to an very strict reading, then only those weapons that existed at the time that the Constitution was written should be allowed. I would be okay with that, not to many massacre with a musket.

then please show us the sentence or sentences that limits the second amendment to muskets.

Bigmanny if we are sticking to things that existed at the time that the Constitution was written there was no internet, tv or telephone so those would not be covered under the First amendment.

Well, DUH, they didn't have semi automatic guns when the constitution was being written.

So, why are gun advocates OK with fully automatic machine guns being restricted but not semi-automatic rifles or high-capacity clips?

If one gun can be restricted and still be okay under the 2nd amendment certainly the others can be restricted as well.

NH Parent; The reason is that Machine guns are pretty useless for hunting, They Destroy the Meat and hide on large animals and small caliber is prefered for small animals or varments, The also like all guns have a long distance the bullet travels making it a danger to other hunters or citizens in the area even a mile away if you miss your hunting target.

They were banned in 1934 by the way with with the (Saint Valentines Day Massacre by criminals) still fresh in the minds of people for its brutality and the use of Sub-Machine in it.

1934 was also, the first year officially handgun were issued to FBI agents Though they had to do their own training and pay for their own ammunition surprisingly.

Semi-automatic rifles and pistols and pistols use Magazines not clips, they are very different in how they work. The reason there were not many semi-auto's back then was the patent was held by only one Company. After it expired in 1942 other companies then started producing them widely.

It should be noted that the Founder new what a semi-automatic gun was. There were semi-automatic air gun in their time and before the constitution was officially ratified in 1790. It is a stretch to think it would not be long before it would be applied to rifles in the near future. After all the founder were visonaries and obviosly forward thinker in the way they wrote the Constitution.

NK Parent; On so called high capity clips the gun still fires one shot at a time. Pleaas ereview this differenc in the firing of high capacity magazines as you will see it really does not make much difference wheter you have a 30 round magazine or or a 15 round magazine, the differnce in firing is I think it was 2/10th of a second.

The reason for magazines is so you do not have to constantly reload, to include when faced with a self-defence situation, it may be more than one criminal leaving you no time to readload and to have the speed a semi-automatic rifle or hand gun gives you. Stopping a person trying to kill you rarely is done with one bullet except in the movies or TV. Most people use the (US marine) way which is fire until the enemy cannot fire back, same applies to criminals who are obviously the enemy facing you.

You have to reme,ber a criminal does not follow laws or regulation and will always have access to weapon whether they are banned from ownship of the poulace or not. That is just the reality of modern and Global society. How these post clarify a few things for you so you can make an informed disicion on this issue rather then do knee jerk reaction like NY has done that accomplish nothing and as a knee jerk law almost allways does; Creates a bad law that cannot be enforced and hurts the honest citizen who follows the laws and does nothing to prevent the criminals from continuing to prey on those honest citizens.

Oops for got the link NK Parent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

Certainly, some criminals will always have access to illegal weapons but then again, how often do you read about crimes being committed with outlawed machine guns? Not often.

Mass shootings like Newtown though are not committed by "criminals." They're committed by everyday mentally deranged individuals. Certainly in the case of Newtown the availability of the high-caliber weaponry in his household contributed to the horrendous act.

JAT, The guns were legally purchased, so it is only your OPINION that it was a poor choice. Additionally, please provide the link that show how and where a gun was convicted of any murder.

Tired of NK that is one of the dumbest things anyone has said on here in a long time.

aside from your mindless comment of course

TNKA -

If you're intent on being a pedantic drip, you're precisely right.

There do seem to be a great number of people dying near them, these inanimate guns that have no volition. They also make killing a wholesale proposition.

Don't be ridiculous - this is about gun violence, no matter how finely it's parsed.
This attitude, that the instrument of lethality has nothing to do with the carnage
is a huge part of the problem. In some circles, it's skepticism. In most, it's denial.

When did the obvious become incomprehensible? Guns are deadly.

JAT..
I think you are responding to my earlier comment that was shortly deleted (I assume for the colorful but not cleverly disguised language)..since the post was removed it looks like you have a random posting..maybe?

know I will be sorry for this one;

If her son instead had, stolen the car keys and went out and got drunk and plowed into a school bus or any bus for that matter killing and injuring 1st graders which has happen many times in this country. What is the answer to that one?

Spare us the conspiracy theories, Jack.

20 children are dead, their families grieving and you gun rights advocates try to make this all about you - as if YOU were the martyrs.

The video below includes the difference between an (assault Weapon) and the anti-gun lie calling a legal hunting rifle an (assault Weapon) which it is not!!

So really isn't much more to say on this unless people are going to start demanding handgun bans as well, since the argument that the cause of this has been (assault weapon) which was not used since this happened; for anything other than to push an agenda to disarm honest people from owning a perfectly legal rifle.

That is a sad state of affairs to take away Constitutional rights based on lies and misinformation. Not to mention knee jerk reaction using children killed in a evil act to futher an agenda that would not prevent a single life from being lost in the future, no matter the weapon used.

The tragedy here is the solutions will never be able to stop anything, and will only result in being used for getting votes by politicians who have no problem or concern for the violent act other than their own wish to stay in office it seems.

History proves when you here for the good of the people, it is for the good of the politicians and allmost always turns out to be bad for the people.

Evil is alive and well in the world. So until someone can come up iwth a solution to stop a human from being Evil, there are no other solutions. That is a sad fact of the world period.

sorry link to differences in weapons did not post. It is here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

Naome in Iraq 5000 children are dead, their families grieving why are you not calling for the disarming of the US military after all they are trained killing machines.

Hey, why is it that an AR-15 rifle becomes a 'hunting' rifle? People who hunt with these type of guns should be hunted as well.

"Naome in Iraq 5000 children are dead, their families grieving why are you not calling for the disarming of the US military after all they are trained killing machines." - Robert E

This is a logical fallacy, known as a red herring. If you're not able to address this issue, you change the subject. In your case, the original nomenclature is fitting:
Ignoratio Elenchi.

The last time I checked, our Military is active overseas.

If you want to open a discussion into the values we project in wars of choice,
feel free to start a blog of your own. I'm sure it will be well attended.

This issue concerns the possession of military hardware by poorly trained civilians.

Welcome to reality, enjoy your stay.
Slow thinkers, keep right.

@KEN Because all AR15 are not the same maybe huh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M-16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable.

This was done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic. In the late 1970's and early 80's items such as the "Drop In Auto Sear" or "lightning-link," conversion to full automatic is very straightforward (sometimes requiring machining of the lower receiver with use of a lathe and M16 Bolt Carrier Group).[12][13] Such modifications, unless using registered and transferable parts made prior to May 19, 1986, are illegal.

(The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 has redefined a machinegun to include individual components where a semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full-automatic based on a 1981 ATF ruling on machinegun parts.) Since 1993 The Bolt Carrier Groups used in AR-15 type rifles for civilians have employed additional measures to prevent modification to full auto. Colt AR-15's use a metal alloy wall separating the Fire Control group from the Sear, preventing use of such items.

Naome you are the one addressing this issue the issue is dead children. I'm sorry Iraqi children don't count as much as White American children. But it's nicet to see you admit that you don't really care about dead children you just don't want anyone to own gins and the children are just pawns to you or you would be just as concerned for the Iraqis. To you it may be a red herring but dead children are dead children.

ya got that right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dEQTOz9BUU

Joe, thanks for reminding everyone that guns kill people.

Funny JAT, nowhere did the article mention the sentence the gun received for murder.

An illegally owned Gun JAT. That's what your gun control bills do . Get people killed who should have had a chance to defend themselves . The right to carry saves the lives of the innocent .

Joe, are you now suggesting that we make it legal for 6-year olds to pack?

"Funny JAT, nowhere did the article mention the sentence the gun received for murder." TNKA

You find the murder of other people funny?

No NL, what I find humorous are numbskulls that infer guns are murderers. I think you fall into that category.

Horse pucky.

You're attempting to defuse the issue at hand.
Games are play. Guns are deadly.

Kids know the difference.

Of course I am JAT, as proof through fingerprinting and ballistic reports. The weapon is not charged with the crime. Replace the gun with a knife, shovel or baseball bat and the prosecuting attorney would bring it as evidence as well. Your argument is juvenile.

"The weapon is not charged with the crime." TNKA
Thank you for that analysis.

"Replace the gun with a knife, shovel or baseball bat..."
That's the first reasonable idea you've printed.

Nice to see we're in agreement.

LOL NL, nothing like taking something out of context...wonderful effort though.

why not put your effort on the real problem. The ever-dwindling funding of the mental health efforts and/or the sloppy car and diagnosis that is currently being given.
"The university psychiatrist who treated the accused gunman in last year's deadly Colorado theater rampage could face more than a dozen lawsuits that blame her and the school for not properly handling James Holmes' treatment."
Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/james-holmes-case-update-aurora-theater-shooting-suspects-doctor-university-face-lawsuits#ixzz2If3Hplvp

Gee I guess we will never know because he had 4 other theaters closer to his apartment and yet picked the only one in town that was advertised as a gun free zone which the others were not.

@JAT...I think you mean couldn't. Saying you could care less infers you care somewhat, which I am sure you do not. The correct phrase is, you couldn't care less.
And I am dealing directly with your message. You stated that guns are murderers. A gun has never been convicted of a crime. You are letting your hatred of the second amendment and gun owners blind you of the truth. It is not the gun, it is the person. You mistakenly believe by banning a certain style of firearm will eliminate a certain type of crime, when all it will do is keep law-abiding citizens from owning them. Criminals will always have access to weapons....always.

There's a saying that when you have to resort to correcting someone's grammar or name calling, you've lost the debate.

"There's a saying that when you have to resort to correcting someone's grammar or name calling, you've lost the debate"

..and it's also a good filter to make sure you're not talking to a fifth grader..or someone not smarter than a fifth grader.

Like I said, pedantic git twaddle.

JAT, Wasn't this you?

"Wow, all the Far Right zealots are out today."

"Only closed minded and paranoid people would refuse to acknowledge..."

"That's because Rush's audience is comprise primarily of uneducated people who don't know any better. Joe, do you fit into this demographic?"

"Since you can not discuss the question rationally, you resort to attacking the messenger."

You're not attacking the messenger in any of the above?

I'm all for women carrying weapons at home.

They're not the ones shooting up elementary schools, movie theaters and malls.
Good idea, Joe!

Your kidding right NL? All women will be allowed guns but not men now? That kinda negates you whole argument on guns does it not.? I mean really.

Tiverton Dad, You make some great points. I would just add that US vs Miller did add some clarification as to which types of weapons can be banned and the criteria for that. Although you're correct in that SCOTUS has not said much about the 2nd amendment. In Miller they at least lay sort of a framework for determining what kinds of guns should be allowed.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

They also weigh in on the Militia aspect:
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Anytime, enjoy your hypocrisy.

"my comments were in response to other posters opinions." Exactly

And I'm flattered that you think highly enough of me to be flattered. We are both flattered. That's just... great.

I didn't catch it but I TIVO'd it so don't tell me who won!