People everywhere DEMANDING change

I'm watching ESPN and basketball coaches, football coaches, former players, everybody is speaking out demanding change. Who would have thought that Republicans insistance on not providing mental health care to people has cost them their assualt rifles...Kinda funnty if you think about it

Demanding change? How many incumbents were re-elected?

And just because they are vocal, doesn't make them a majority.

And unlike you who likes to react without thinking, it is better to think carefully before new rules are implemented.

Which rules you are proposing would have prevented CT?

FredHayek wrote: And unlike you who likes to react without thinking, it is better to think carefully before new rules are implemented.

Which rules you are proposing would have prevented CT?

Unlike YOU, who tried to suggest that the babies and adults were NOT executed with an AR-15, (when they were), before checking your facts; Unlike YOU who tried to suggest that a "US Marine" was being held in a Mexico jail, (when you completely neglected to say that he was a "former Marine" who did something illegal in Mexico), etc., etc. Lies, or "reactions without thinking"?...Which is it? You want to "think carefully" before you try to distort any more FACTS?

Spare us your friggin' condescension.

No one rule would have prevented it. But we're going to start whittling on them, and one by one, they will make it harder.

Our Big DOUCHE of the day.

Why, thank you... Coming from you that's a compliment... Pointing out the stinking hypocrisy of the Righties is what I live for.

What was it FDR said, "I WELCOME your hatred."

Demand A Plan Campaign: Support Swells Following Newtown Shooting

The impact of last Friday's tragedy in Newtown, Conn., on gun control reform remains to be seen, but gun control advocates say the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School is spurring a broad push for change.

Demand a Plan, the online campaign to reform gun laws that was founded in July after "The Dark Knight Rises" theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., has seen its support swell by 100,000 people in the last week alone, according to Mark Glaze, executive director of the campaign's partner organization, Mayors Against Ilegal Guns.

This push for reform comes with the help of several venture capital leaders from the tech world, including Kenneth Lerer, a partner with Lerer Ventures and a co-founder of The Huffington Post. The Demand a Plan campaign released a full-page advertisement in Wednesday's New York Times featuring signatures from other prominent people, including entertainers such as Lady Gaga and John Cusack, and media titans like Martha Stewart. The Huffington Post's President and Editor-in-Chief Arianna Huffington, and AOL's Chief Executive Officer Tim Armstrong, signed on as well.

The primary goals of Demand a Plan are to make sure that every gun buyer faces a background check, and that assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips are banned. The campaign is also pushing for stricter penalties against people who purchase guns on behalf of others who might not be able to obtain them otherwise.

Lerer said that a team of people have been working around the clock to draw attention to the Demand a Plan campaign, both by releasing the Times advertisement and through a broader Internet initiative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 29542.html

For the low-intelligence gun-nuts....Read and weep....

I accept that many are demanding change for gun control, even if you don't want gun control, there is no reason to deny that people want it?

The important question to me is what if? What if you change our world and you are wrong? This question needs to be asked anytime you try to run other people's lives, and their potential interaction with you, via the govt.

What if we do like we did with the drug war and make it illegal to own certain things because we want people to be safer and it backfires and creates more issues?

We all know that policy is hard to change, the current policy of being allowed to own many types of guns is obviously hard to change.

So what if we push forward, do all kinds of gun control and then look at the data over the next 1 or 2 or 5 years and the mass killings increase? What if those that are willing to kill lots of people at random actually don't respect gun laws?

What is the action then? Do we pull back our restrictions to try and get back to this lower level of gun violence or what, and what will be the trigger for that action?

I can accept that lots of new gun regs may reduce violence, but don't want gun control. If this happens I may need to accept it.

For those that do want more gun control, if you plan shows to not work, with causality or not, will you be willing to roll us back to these safer times?

I start many businesses and I have learned a few things about trying things that don't have assured results with dynamic groups and restrictions, you need to have a plan for failure. If you don't, you are stuck with emotional reactions to practical problems with larger than life consequences....kind of like all the discussions we are having, we all knew the day before the shooting that it was more than possible, but we only react on the emotions after, not on the knowledge we already had before, that is an emotional reaction so we can be assured we will get less than optimal results, we are lashing out and that typically does not go well, it only satisfies and short term emotional need.

So, in brief, what is the plan of those that want more gun control if more gun control backfires and creates more violence like the drug war, which seemed even more logical to more people at the time. Can you even admit that it might not work and have such a discussion or is it so unthinkable that this would not work?

Also, could continuing to focus on the economy, in stead of gun control, potentially take some pressure off of everyone and compel less people to go on mass killings. We don't know what action will produce better results.

Again, I think we are reacting for the sake of reacting no matter what the consequences, as long as those that want to run for office look good, but assuming that we will push forward, can you talk about alternative outcomes?

Despite all that folks are demanding change, and many are demanding things stay the same.

I got a big question, since we are talking about what the citizens think.....should we vote on this, could you accept the results of such a vote, is owning a gun a liberty or a privilege? All of the questions above and more need to be answered to have a good discussion about this. It is way more complicated than someone shot some folks and we need to change things that have worked reasonably well for a long time.

Does anyone have any data on how many people are killed by high caliber guns or any other sub category folks feel needs to be restricted, what kind of numbers are we talking about here. Surely we would not have a national debate over just a couple hundred a year, thousands maybe, tens of thousands likely (like driving), hundreds of thousands surely (like the number of citizens that were blown away in Iraq after the invasion)....what number merits the national debate, can you answer that question before you know the real number - cause that would be telling?

What do you do with the existing guns that are currently owned that would become restricted. Many are known by govt, will they be rounded up, would we as citizens be required to pay for the value of confiscated guns? If we are going to restrict a type of guns that can be had we cannot grandfather those that have them already, that would make this a really big fake conversation full of horse feathers. Imagine the guy that had piles of piles of illegal pills or drugs in 1966, would it be ok for him to use them today if they were still potent, but illegal under today's laws?

So many questions, so many cannot be answered, so many would be answered differently by everyone, just sounds easier not to change, maybe lock up people that do bad stuff after it happens and call it good enough.

Again, I agree with the OP that people everyone are asking for change (we are citizens, we cannot demand anything, that's kinda funny), so lets talk about it, because they don't just get what they want, they get a say and then we just hope that the corporate interests align with what the people really want so they can have it.

I just though govt was already at its limits for every variable. Too many issues, not enough money, not enough support and thus, when we make this very important, what is the most appropriate thing from a week ago that was very important to drop to address this? The govt is not going to work more hours, the politicians are not going to use their own money, what will we give up to get this addressed?

So many questions, so many cannot be answered, so many would be answered differently by everyone, just sounds easier not to try and run everyone's lives and accept what we get and go after the bad guys when we see them.

So many questions that I bet we barely talk about in our rush for a 9-11 style retaliation. I barely expect a response on this board.

Where is the actual freaking debate of facts, numbers and consequences? No one would debate that everyone is all worked up. I am so curious about how people think and what they will do with those thoughts, but on this one, I can accept whatever they come up with, this is way less of an issue to me than many we talk about here. No one was going to use their guns to overthrow the govt and those that want to protect themselves can use the most powerful weapon you have, until they take it away, your brain.

Big Doug wrote: I'm watching ESPN and basketball coaches, football coaches, former players, everybody is speaking out demanding change. Who would have thought that Republicans insistance on not providing mental health care to people has cost them their assualt rifles...Kinda funnty if you think about it

As usual, running your mouth, not saying a damn thing other than trying to spew your oral diaherra.

on that note wrote: I accept that many are demanding change for gun control, even if you don't want gun control, there is no reason to deny that people want it?

The important question to me is what if? What if you change our world and you are wrong? This question needs to be asked anytime you try to run other people's lives, and their potential interaction with you, via the govt.

What if we do like we did with the drug war and make it illegal to own certain things because we want people to be safer and it backfires and creates more issues?

We all know that policy is hard to change, the current policy of being allowed to own many types of guns is obviously hard to change.

So what if we push forward, do all kinds of gun control and then look at the data over the next 1 or 2 or 5 years and the mass killings increase? What if those that are willing to kill lots of people at random actually don't respect gun laws?

What is the action then? Do we pull back our restrictions to try and get back to this lower level of gun violence or what, and what will be the trigger for that action?

I can accept that lots of new gun regs may reduce violence, but don't want gun control. If this happens I may need to accept it.

For those that do want more gun control, if you plan shows to not work, with causality or not, will you be willing to roll us back to these safer times?

I start many businesses and I have learned a few things about trying things that don't have assured results with dynamic groups and restrictions, you need to have a plan for failure. If you don't, you are stuck with emotional reactions to practical problems with larger than life consequences....kind of like all the discussions we are having, we all knew the day before the shooting that it was more than possible, but we only react on the emotions after, not on the knowledge we already had before, that is an emotional reaction so we can be assured we will get less than optimal results, we are lashing out and that typically does not go well, it only satisfies and short term emotional need.

So, in brief, what is the plan of those that want more gun control if more gun control backfires and creates more violence like the drug war, which seemed even more logical to more people at the time. Can you even admit that it might not work and have such a discussion or is it so unthinkable that this would not work?

Also, could continuing to focus on the economy, in stead of gun control, potentially take some pressure off of everyone and compel less people to go on mass killings. We don't know what action will produce better results.

Again, I think we are reacting for the sake of reacting no matter what the consequences, as long as those that want to run for office look good, but assuming that we will push forward, can you talk about alternative outcomes?

Despite all that folks are demanding change, and many are demanding things stay the same.

I got a big question, since we are talking about what the citizens think.....should we vote on this, could you accept the results of such a vote, is owning a gun a liberty or a privilege? All of the questions above and more need to be answered to have a good discussion about this. It is way more complicated than someone shot some folks and we need to change things that have worked reasonably well for a long time.

Does anyone have any data on how many people are killed by high caliber guns or any other sub category folks feel needs to be restricted, what kind of numbers are we talking about here. Surely we would not have a national debate over just a couple hundred a year, thousands maybe, tens of thousands likely (like driving), hundreds of thousands surely (like the number of citizens that were blown away in Iraq after the invasion)....what number merits the national debate, can you answer that question before you know the real number - cause that would be telling?

What do you do with the existing guns that are currently owned that would become restricted. Many are known by govt, will they be rounded up, would we as citizens be required to pay for the value of confiscated guns? If we are going to restrict a type of guns that can be had we cannot grandfather those that have them already, that would make this a really big fake conversation full of horse feathers. Imagine the guy that had piles of piles of illegal pills or drugs in 1966, would it be ok for him to use them today if they were still potent, but illegal under today's laws?

So many questions, so many cannot be answered, so many would be answered differently by everyone, just sounds easier not to change, maybe lock up people that do bad stuff after it happens and call it good enough.

Again, I agree with the OP that people everyone are asking for change (we are citizens, we cannot demand anything, that's kinda funny), so lets talk about it, because they don't just get what they want, they get a say and then we just hope that the corporate interests align with what the people really want so they can have it.

I just though govt was already at its limits for every variable. Too many issues, not enough money, not enough support and thus, when we make this very important, what is the most appropriate thing from a week ago that was very important to drop to address this? The govt is not going to work more hours, the politicians are not going to use their own money, what will we give up to get this addressed?

So many questions, so many cannot be answered, so many would be answered differently by everyone, just sounds easier not to try and run everyone's lives and accept what we get and go after the bad guys when we see them.

So many questions that I bet we barely talk about in our rush for a 9-11 style retaliation. I barely expect a response on this board.

Where is the actual freaking debate of facts, numbers and consequences? No one would debate that everyone is all worked up. I am so curious about how people think and what they will do with those thoughts, but on this one, I can accept whatever they come up with, this is way less of an issue to me than many we talk about here. No one was going to use their guns to overthrow the govt and those that want to protect themselves can use the most powerful weapon you have, until they take it away, your brain.

I actually agree with what you wrote. The one thing I will say is that any changes that they try to make to the 2nd amendment show be done without (as Obama has said) an excutive order by passing congress (as all knows he likes to do). I personally believe that any changes to make it tougher to own a gun makes it easier for those that want to do harm or commit crimes to get them also. To do this right though, in my opinion, they should not even have biden to chair anything. They should get neutral parties involved, plus then invite the NRA, anti gun rights folks and have common sense talks not a bunch of BS hollering, blaming pointing fingers etc. The one sided crap will do nothing but cause more problems.

Who's the NRA guy...LaPierre?...he was asked to come to the White House after the Aurora theater shootings to offer their input and speak for gun owners, but they turned down the offer. Efforts have been made to get various perspectives in the discussion.

On That Note brings up some great questions, but suggests the difficulties of looking for answers isn't worth the potential unintended consequences...this is defeatist and suggests we have no ability to affect positive change on our society. Yep...pretty grim and wimpy perspective, in my opinion, but I don't think most people give up so easily.

There will be no single answer, but various efforts may combine to achieve our goals. I don't want armed guards/teachers in the classroom, but I'm willing to discuss it. It may be one element of a solution. I would like to see the NRA and gun enthusiasts at least be willing to be part of a discussion.