Paul you're the lead "Clown" here. There were over 1,500 responsible, reasonable gun owners at this rally. We have stood by all too often trusting our legislators to act according to the MA State Constitution only to be utterly flabbergasted by their response to human behavior. No more compromises. No more laws. No more liberty taken away.

Nope I agree with Paul. You have to try really hard to beat the NRA when it comes to closemindedness, insensitivity, refusal to collaborate in any way with the majority of Americans who are in favor of attacking gun violence on every front. And no, counter to the NRA's DISHONEST propaganda, that does mean that people who favor vigilance when it comes to gun control want to take your guns away.... (Did you see that ad?: "Obama wants to take your guns!" BS!!!!!)

A little waiting never hurt anybody. But it's been proven that it just COULD help somebody...

Hmm . . . I got my LTC in 6 weeks. The process does vary with town and police department.

Lanza's mom followed the rules. She bought the guns legally. Lanza got them. He used them illegally. Ban those kinds of guns, and Lanza-types won't have a viable option to get them. When was the last time you heard of a massacre using automatic machine guns? Never? They've been effectively banned for decades...

Why not responsible public safety law appreciation day? See Massachusetts: Where Stricter Gun Laws = Fewer Gun Deaths, Boston Daily, March 19, 2012
"One of the things many conservatives just hate about Massachusetts is our gun laws. They are strict. And they make a difference. According to the most recent figures available, the gun death rate in Massachusetts was the second lowest in the nation. By comparison, in Florida, where the Republican-dominated legislature is in thrall to the NRA, the rate of gun deaths was almost three-and-a-half times higher. Florida is, of course, where Trayvon Martin died last month. Gunned down while being black and carrying Skittles. And thanks to Florida’s gun laws, that may not be a crime."

The gun laws if enforced in Mass are strick enough. Now they are proposing we carry liability insurance. I wonder how many non licensed individuals will sign up for this

Now how did he become a Dictator? Was there a coup that I slept through? Or did the guy you vote fore lose so you call the democratically elected president of your country a dictator?

Thank you Andrew Meter...you post is well said. Why does anyone need to own automatic weapons? What's wrong with background checks, fees and waiting periods. People have the right to bear arms, but there are so many guns already on the street. Lanza'a mother did own her firearm legally, but I would hardly consider her responsible.

@Kerry, NO ONE owns automatic weapons, I am so tired of hearing uneducted posts by people that don't know what they are talking about.!!! @Andrew, Your thoughts are all hypothetical how do you know someone would have been out gunned? you know the outcome of things? yes the mother got them legaly but then left them around for her son who she knew was ill could get them. She caused this. Furthermore, the type of gun has nothing to do with it. these type of guns are used in such a small amount of crimes. Most gun crimes are hand guns. You are reacting to a horrible crime in an irrational emotional manner without looking at the data and making an educated decision. He had 2 (two) hand guns that held at a minimum 10 rounds each and fire at the same rate. It just so happens he used the AR-15. If he had used the handgun would yu be saying ban all handguns? I am al for keeping our children safe. You cannot keep kid safe from this type of evil, You cannot ban or remove all guns fo the people so we need to lok at other answers. You got any? You know ones that will work? You do know you're not goign to get all the guns off the street and bad people will not turn in their guns right?

Justice Scalia would disagree with you.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.......Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570, 626-627, (U.S.,2008)

How many people understand that the right to bare arms was actually meant that people had the right to defend their country and be a soldier in support of their government.

It is the right to BEAR arms. If you can't spell it, you likely don't understand it either.

There is also the right to free speech. That has a limit on it as, to use the most common example, you cannot scream "fire" in a crowded theater. None of these rights are absolute, they are all interpreted by the various branches of our government and evolve with time. So, there is a bit more to say, as you can see...

Kira, The Brandenburg v. Ohio case basically overturned Schenck v. United States. Yet the media and folks like yourself love to try and use old case law in support of tired arguments.

OK, so it is her fault he got the gun. And there are responsible gun owners. Fine... No one is debating that... But now what? As a society we need to make sure that people do not have the option to make a mistake in that kind of fire arm keeping. We all suffer from those mistakes and it is not a risk I am willing to take.

Kira, once again you're wrong:

"As a society we need to make sure that people do not have the option to make a mistake in that kind of fire arm keeping. We all suffer from those mistakes and it is not a risk I am willing to take."

Yes, we all suffer. That's life. People make mistakes that cost others their lives, and their fortunes. That's no excuse for what you're suggesting which is that everyone is "Guilty" before they've done anything wrong. Wrong! You're innocent until you're proven guilty in a court of law.

Hi Ron. No, I am not wrong. I am entitled to my opinion just like you are to yours. Its a lovely thing... I am not content with saying: "Yes, we all suffer. Thats life. People make mistakes that cost others their lives". That doesn't work for me when children are executed in schools. Those are not the kinds of mistakes I am ok with making it easy for people to make. In my opinion, there is no need for anyone to own those weapons, with very limited exceptions.

Kira, I do not dispute your right to an opinion, so the first portion of comment doesn't even apply.

In all your emotion, you failed to understand my point. Which, stated more clearly, is that you've somehow acquired a mystical power to prevent all gun related accidents. (MA has strict storage laws already.) That you have the right to tell all licensed firearm owners, that because they MIGHT commit a crime or have an accident, you advocate taking them all away. Hence my 'Guilty' before being proven 'Innocent' comment, tongue-in-cheek. I would ask you to tell us all from what authority do you derive that ability?

Hundreds of children will be killed or injured today in car accidents today. Do you also hold that same authority to tell them they can't ride in cars? Or better yet, that we need to ban these 'Assault Vehicles'?

"Those are not the kinds of mistakes I am ok with making it easy for people to make."

Who died and left you in charge of anyone else's kids, let alone mine? You are not responsible for their safety, nor the school, nor the Police, nor society.

"In my opinion, there is no need for anyone to own those weapons, with very limited exceptions."

Many of us already own these firearms and have for years and years without issue. They were purchased with my own $ and legally. Who are you to suggest someone on your behalf and take them? Confiscation of anyone's private property will not be tolerated, or did you obtain that power too?

Ron, your point is that there should not be restrictions on gun ownership? Or am I missing it again? If that is your point, that is not the case today as there are many restrictions. And if it isn't, then great, we agree... There should be restrictions on gun ownership.

"Who died and left you in charge of anyone else's kids, let alone mine? You are not responsible for their safety, nor the school, nor the Police, nor society." Well, to start, lots of kids have died, thats who. Really? The school, police, nor our community isn't responsible for the safety of children? So only parents are in charge of each of their children?

Comparing prohibiting/restricting certain guns to prohibiting cars is just ridiculous and shows a lack of any reasoning. Do you really mean to say you can't differentiate between car ACCIDENTS and gun murders? Why do you think there isn't the same outrage over children killed in car accidents? No reason, right? They are totally comparable?

Who am I to suggest regulation and control what you do? Uh, thats how things work here. We make laws as a society deciding who can own what, who can smoke what, and even who can marry whom. We vote for those that share our opinions and thats how we enact regulation. Seems like public opinion is clear on this issue and we will see that throughout the coming months. Works for me.

I only mention the Fully auto statement due to someone above implying that banning them has stopped crime with them. And to say that a trained armed guard could not have stopped the shooting at Sandyhook in silly at best.

Boy do I agree with Roslyn. What a moment to express your "appreciation" for guns! All questions of control aside, there does seem to be a real disconnect between the NRA and diplomacy. But I suppose, if you appreciate your guns so much, diplomacy must seem rather superfluous.

It's unfortunate that most of the crimes with a gun are on the streets (muggings, armed robbery, carjackings, drive-by/gang related shootings, you get the idea) and they almost never recover the shooter or the weapon which again only punishes those who are obeying the law. I would rather just have parents insure their children's actions if they are going to expose them to violent television, movies and video games or place them on psychotropic medications. Better yet, have the doctors pay the insurance if they want to prescribe the drugs or the movie, television and gaming industry pay heavily for producing the garbage these kids are watching. I am sure there are many ways to make anybody but the individual who actually commits the crime pay.

So when someone buys or steals a car from another person the previous owner should hold some of the responsibility of the new onwers actions?

simply not true. The Newtown massacre, Adam Lanza did not legally obtain the firearm, he stole it from his mother. Oregon mall shooting, the gun was stolen from the gunman' s roommate. If law makers wanted to make a real difference they could focus on laws dealing with securing weapons better, i.e. must be in gun safe when not in use.

How many of these shootings are by good law abiding citizens? How many drinking driving deaths in the same time? But because a car wasn't designed to kill it makes it ok? Because the drunk driver doesn't intend to do it it makes it ok? We have the technology to stop guns from being used by anyone but the owner and the technology to stop drunks from driving. Why are we not discussing why the government doesn't use this technology? Gun deaths are caused by bad people for the most part with illegaly obtained weapons. We CAN stop that. Why make a law abiding citizen suffer?

Yeah but that's one guy saying something and frankly I don't believe it. Who is he? And what exactly did he say? And what was his source? I think bats get a really bad rap. Or is it rep? And anyway, guns are involved in more deaths than bats in this country, and more than stabbings, and more than all other weapons. And no, I don't include cars as weapons.

Totally agree thank you !

I agree also. I think wasting time arguing and passing laws that will not help anything takes away from the time they could be working on real issues. You know like jobs and the deficit.

NICE!!! a little levity is appreciated. well done.

What is lunacy is to think that someone with a small pistol would have made a difference in Newtown when confronting a determined shooter wearing body armor. A pistol requires skill to aim accurately at a firing range under calm conditions, let alone the adrenalin-pumped chaos of a mass shooting situation with panicked people everywhere. Someone with a rifle firing .223 ammo could take out an armed guard at a range far beyond that of the guard's gun unless the guard was similarly armed and armored. Heck, trained police in NYC shoot several bystanders when going after an armed criminal last year.

One thing I never hear from the folks like 4life4america is why there are so many military grade weapons out there now. These were not around when I was a child 40 years ago. They are out there because the gun makers advertise them as military weapons and make a huge profit selling them. Same with high capacity hand guns.

Gun deaths may be going down in the US, and yes, the number of murders with AR-15 class weapons are the exception, but why is the death rate from firearms in the US STILL orders of magnitude higher than any other first world westernized nation in the first place?

We have a plethora of gun laws in this country but they are wildly uneven from state to state and the NRA has made sure that Federal laws are hard to enforce.

And oh, by the way I have an LTC and own 3 small caliber semi-automatic weapons. My son has an FID.

Andy it's people like you who are the problem. First of all that Bushmaster AR-15 was not used in CT. Thats the first lie. Secondly anyone with any kind of handgun could have stopped this lunatic short with much less of a body count than there was. Body armour is easily defeated with head, arm and leg shots.

The comments by Mr. Bokleman are precisely what's wrong with these commentaries all too often. If I said of strenuous anti-gun control advocates ('propagandists') like him (I am aware of his Examiner columns) "its people like you who are the problem" in those terms there would be howling to the moon about freedom of speech, stereotyping, stealing rights..... Isn't it enough to argue over Andy's points? And it is a far stretch to suggest that gun owners who are in favor of some forms of control are "the problem." I don't have a clue as to whether a guard with a pistol could stop a guy possibly surrounded by kids by shooting him in the left or right ear from fifty feet away is going to stop this carnage, but I think flippant language such as this leads to a perception that many gun owners get wigged out.

Ron Goodenow One of the major issues here is that the Second Amendment states:

"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 Founding Fathers the author of this language meant this as it was written since they were constantly weary of over-reaching Government tendencies and had just fought a bloody war to prevent themselves from being disarmed at Concord/Lexington by a superior force – The British Army.

What I find fascinating is that there's any discussion at all about what "...shall not be infringed." means.

For the last 120 years we have (allowed) infringed upon our natural civil right of self defense and the Second Amendment. The Gun Control ACT of 1934, 1968, and more. Yet, "Guns" haven't really changed. Society with respect to personal responsibility has….yet we want to blame the “gun” for our societies shortcomings. (Part I)

(Part II)

Government created these ‘Gun Free Zones’ which is in of itself a perfect example of infringing upon the natural civil rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. Government created these killing zones and now wants to tell us that even more restrictions will solve the problem we’ve allowed them to create! Worse, during the Obama / Biden televised ‘Gun Control Executive Order” signing these victims are paraded out and are clamoring for even more Government control when they should be screaming at the Government for being an accomplice to killing their child in the first place!

You don’t see Police Stations being attacked by lunatics do you? Now ask yourself, “Why?” That is not to say I’m in favor of arming schools, I’m not. I don’t want TSA-like schools and neither do you. All we need to do is repeal these ‘Gun Free Zones” and let the natural course of Freedom take place. Some teachers will carry concealed, and some will choose not to. The element of surprise will be enough of a deterrent to resolve these lunatics from even thinking about trying this again. Problem solved, Freedom preserved.

(Part III)

Then to get to your point, we have too many laws on the books today that restrict firearm ownership and Adam Lanza violated all of them without a thought. Yet victim disarmament movement screams – one more law, one more law.

What I’m saying is that we have already compromised too much. We have let Government at all levels infringe too far. We have proven that these laws only affect the law-abiding, not criminals. We as responsible firearm owners need to stick together in this and tell the Legislature (Linsky/Patrick) the line in the sand has been drawn – we will tolerate no further infringement.

Thus people like Andy are the issue and need to called out whenever possible and encourage to change their mind before his LTC and his son’s FID are gone forever.

Ron Brokelman - There was a fascinating article in last weeks’ Time magazine about a seasoned policeman's experience in a shootout. Adrenalin kicked in and instinctive behavior took over - which promote accurate aim. It makes my point and shows you are wrong thinking that in such a situation, anyone would be likely to take out the shooter. This story is not anecdotal - it was an illustration of the usual response to sudden armed assault.

It takes a substantial amount of training - SWAT level, far more than a volunteer or policeman usually is going to get, to overcome instinct and react to such an assault. And all law enforcement (and military) is taught to shoot at center of mass to simplify reation in those kinds of situations. Only in the movies do the heroes shoot the bad guy in the limbs.

Heck, when I took my firearms safety class, we were put through simulations where we had to confront armed people. We knew we were going to be confronting assailants, we knew it was only a video with unloaded guns and lasers, yet the adrenalin was pumping and perhaps half the class was "dead" before they could react.

Remember – there were armed police back in 1999 at Columbine and they failed to get the nut cases. In the case of the Gabby Giffords shooting in AZ, unarmed civilians took down the shooter when he tried to reload. If the shooter had a 10-round magazine instead of a 30-round magazine, far less carnage would have occured.

Facts don’t back you up here Ron.

Second -

Finally - who gives a damn whether the rifle used in CT was a Bushmaster (which I never said it was), an AR-15 or an AK-47, it was a semi-auto rifle with 30 round clips containing 0.223 caliber jacketed rounds with the same stopping power and energy of the 5.56mm rounds used in standard US military M-4 and M-16 weapons. So, if you are trying to attack my veracity – you failed.

Correction to my second post - I meant to say "which did not promote accurate aim", not "which promote accurate aim"

Andy Koenigsberg You misunderstand. All I said was that body armor could be defeated. That's all. That fact cannot be disputed. Moreover, there's no proof yet that Adam indeed had body armor.

Ron -

No, I don't misunderstand - you said, and I quote - "Secondly anyone with any kind of handgun could have stopped this lunatic short with much less of a body count than there was"

That statement is a clear and demonstrable fallacy, whether the shooter was wearing body armor or not.

You are incorrect in thinking that it would be easy to defeat body armor. Sure, it would be easy if the shooter were standing still and you were 5 feet away - but if he/she were on the move and blazing away with a gun and you were a few dozen feet away? Only in your wildest dreams.

You are correct in stating the the Newtown shooter was not wearing body armor. I will give you that much.

Andy, I disagree, The shooter killed himself as responders moved in. Someone with a gun in the school may have forced that earlier. Plus he may have fled if shot at. It is not lunacy.

Neighbor - Sorry, I am not with you on this one. Trained police officers often have a tough time in these situations. As the article in Time stated: "Winning a gunfight without shooting innocent people typically requires realistic, expensive training and a special kind of person." The article went on to state that in NYC, officers in gun fights "hit their intended targets 18% of the time."

This is nothing new. I have been reading these kinds of analyses for years.

As I said previously, last year in NYC, officers shot 16 rounds at an armed man on a crowded street and hit bystanders 9 times. Does anyone honestly think the result would be any different in a school hall with lots of panicked children?

Would you want to be the parent of a child killed by a panicked school guard during an armed confrontation with a derranged gunman? Would you be willing to accept your child's loss as acceptable collateral damage, because, hey, the gunman eventually was killed, killed himself or was arrested in the end? Not this parent, no way.

Even after Newtown, your child is three times more likely to be hit by lightning than be killed in a school shooting, so I will stick by my opinion that more armed people in schools, as recommended by the NRA, is, in fact, lunacy. We need to look elsewhere to understand and address why the rate of firearms deaths is 1 to 3 orders of magnitude higher in the US than any other first world nation.

[Part I]

Mr. G you can crow all you want about your credentials (as they appear here on this Patch), however, sir they do not make you superior to anyone in anyway, shape or form on this forum.

Perhaps I was a bit too harsh on Andy and I will apologize as you're correct in that we shouldn't inject personal attacks here. However, let me be more direct in my 'logic' if you prefer to back up my distaste for Andy's words as a fellow firearm owner.

The United States Supreme Court in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection, nor did they have any obligation to protect her even in the presence of a restraining order. The result of this case, therefore, is in summary: The only individual that is responsible and obligated to protect you – is you.

Example: Pedestrian walks out into a crosswalk without looking and is killed by an oncoming truck. Do we ban trucks? (No citation needed on this one.)

[Part II]

A second premise is that there are various estimates on the number of guns owned by individuals - private property I might add - to the tune of perhaps 4 per every man, woman, and child in America.

Example: There are more deaths in the United States with children drowning in swimming pools than guns. Ban swimming pools?

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm

[Part III]

Third premise. Firearm owners (Andy included) will never let the Government confiscate by law or force their private property – especially their firearms no matter the type or configuration. Thus he should respect mine.

Now, explain to me exactly what your solution is here? Are you really willing to ask the Government on your behalf to kill those of us who are unwilling to capitulate to these emotional hoplophobic whims of particular firearms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia

Given the above, do you still knowingly abdicate your personal responsibility for your safety or are you willing to accept that the only thing thus far that has kept you safe has been your pure dumb luck? Some of us haven't been as lucky, sir.

[Part IV]

Mr. G. Said, "I have no idea what your actual qualifications are to do that other than being an avid advocate with conventional talking points."

I have yet to see an original thought or any evidence to defend your opinion in any of these messages. I am not repeating 'talking points'. I speak from the heart and one that has taken the Oath and sworn to protect and defend the United States Constitution (including you), from enemies foreign and domestic, so help me God.

SKK,
I might agree with you that ban on assault weapons might not do any good as they (currently) account for a small amount of gun deaths. However, there was a time before semi-automatic weapons and a time before 30 round magazines. As the technology of firearms continues to progress, where would we draw the line as to what civilians can own for sport shooting or hunting?
It seems that firearms are produced for the military then sold to civilians in a somewhat altered fashion. What is the next level of military hardware that might (is already?) being sold to civilians? I might think it is drones. Police departments are beginning to buy drones that can carry night vision cameras and tear gas and can be configured to carry a firearm. There are 'helicopters' and other flying objects that can be purchased now by civilians and controlled by a laptop or smartphone. Will it be only be a matter of time before one these flying objects is weaponized by someone intent on mass murder?
I think drawing the line at a 10 round magazine (personally, I would prefer 7) and specifying the maximum size round and its energy might halt the next round of technological advances in weaponry from being sold to civilians.
I also think that civilans do not need to be able to purchase body armour any more than they need to be able to purchase hollow point bullets which, I believe, are referred to as 'cop killers'.

Dennis is now repeating tired old arguments. A mother in Georgia recently defended her home, and her two children using 6 rounds from a revolver. If she'd had 8 rounds rounds in her chamber she'd have been a criminal under your view point. Right? A Rep. in NY recently pointed out this same thing. Are you willing to limit Police to 7 rounds and no so-called Assault Weapons too? Or are you silly enough to be so hell bent on disarming Americans that you'll allow the Government to have a monopoly on the use of force? Anytime in history that has happened...it has ended badly for those that were disarmed.

Dennis, in case you didn't know, before we had magazines for our rifles, we had Gatling guns capable of firing hundreds of rounds with the crank of a lever, and yes, civilians COULD purchase them back in the 1800's , gun technology isn't exactly as simple as steps on stairs lol

SKK, On that point I will agree 100%. it's not about 'Guns' at all...it's about Freedom and defending our civil rights. The wrong message was sent using this title, but non-the-less I stood outside the State House showing support for my fellow firearms owners. Something Andy could learn.

I LOVE guns, but I agree, It's like having a day to appreciate your car, or your hammer, why are you celebrating tools? Happy screwdriver appreciation day!

Mr. G. I see that you've offered yet another compelling argument and have refused to try and refute my previously well stated positions. Instead you have engaged in name calling and made uncalled for accusations. Excellent use of the written word, sir. Excellent.

The rally at the State House had nothing to do with the tragedy in CT. I had everything to do with the legislation introduced by Linsky and Patrick as a headline grabbing, knee-jerk reaction. It's nothing new for either of them as they have introduced these bills before...and the Joint Committee(s) on Public Safety/Judiciary have toss them into 'Study' most appropriately.

The reality here is, Ron G., that you don't respond because you have no response. Instead you want to hide behind your elitist position without backing up your point of view. I too am done here attempting to carry on a debate with those that have no interest in presenting facts in support of their well informed opinions.

I would ask one more time what part of "...shall not be infringed." do you not understand? Thus take your regulation in the public interest in your pipe and smoke it.

...and I made an apology for that comment earlier as well. I'll assume you missed it.