Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: All the fireworks from the IRS Hearing!

Government

‘What Law Would Have Stopped Adam Lanza?’: TheBlaze’s Will Cain Clashes With CNN Panel on Gun Control

Dec. 19, 2012 3:11pm Erica Ritz

TheBlaze’s Will Cain appeared as a panelist on CNN Wednesday with a roundtable that included Christiane Amanpour and Soledad O’Brien, and the three got in a contentious discussion over gun control.

Discussing the recent tragedy in Newtown, CT, where 26 people where shot at an elementary school, Amanpour began:

I just think it’s not brain surgery anymore, and the question really is, are these children going to have been slaughtered in vain? These weapons, Soledad, are used on battlefields. I have seen children like that slaughtered from Sarajevo to Somalia, and it is now happening on Syria. And it is now happening in the United States. The Second Amendment does not infringe on the right of hunters…[Senator] Joe Manchin said to me, ‘I don’t need high capacity magazines…’

At that point, Will Cain cut in to note that the issue at stake is not the convenience of hunters. It is both about our rights, and the fact that gun bans often have a history of backfiring.

He explained:

Absent an absolute ban, [like] they’ve accomplished in Japan– basically an absolute ban– absent that, when you say we’re just going to limit assault rifles…what we’re talking about, specifically in incidents over the past week, are premeditated psychopathic killers who will find the weapons they need to perpetuate these crimes. They’re like a drunkard…If you outlaw whiskey, will you reduce drunk driving?

Amanpour then cut in, claiming Cain had brought up an excellent point in her favor regarding drunk driving.

“It was considered cool” to have a drink and get behind the wheel several decades ago, she said, until Mothers Against Drunk Driving (M.A.D.D.) stepped in. After the panel erupted to determine whether that marks a a fair analogy– a public relations campaign and national ban being two very different things– O’Brien tried to push stricter regulation, noting that only between 2%-8% of violent crimes are committed with “assault rifles.”

But Cain noted: “So then we end up having conversations around something that amounts to 2% of the gun violence…You need to tie the law you’re proposing to making actual improvements.”

Roland Martin, who had been largely absent from the conversation until that point, implored that we at least have a “starting point,” even if it only tackles 2%-8% of violent crimes.

Cain brought the issue home before the segment closed.

“What law would have stopped Adam Lanza? Think about that.”

Watch the entire segment, below:

–

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (110)

EqualForce
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:33pm
Guns act as “force equalizers” for all men, women, and children enabling defense from stronger, more able violent attackers that would otherwise not be possible.

It is estimated that law abiding citizens used firearms for personal defense over 2.5 million times annually or about 6,850 times per day. For recent more information not typically reported in the national media check out:

equalforce.net

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WildschweinJager
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:04pm
  Nice post!
  
  Get the word out!
  
  Report this comment
- BadDog-NoBiscuit
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:48pm
  Well said…
  
  Report this comment
- YAHSHUARULES
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 6:22pm
  I don’t have a gun, don’t want a gun but I absolutely want any law abiding citizen to have the right of bare fire arms. All I need to know about guns: The FOUNDERS WERE FOR THE RIGHT to Bare Arms – HITLER, STALIN, MAO, OBAMA AGAINST the right to bare arms.
  
  The left has an agenda to drive this culture in a direction designed to destroy it. Gun control is just one of their weapons. The cadre of intellectuals that have trained Gramsci shock troops of teachers and media hacks to take this which was a Judeo/Chrsitan culture down from within…Fabians, Frankfurt School, Antonio Gramsci, Mattechine Society, Committee’s of Correspondence, this is all out war against the America of our Founders who knew that only a moral people could handle freedom – freedom without morality destroys…
  
  This is the most comprehensive, best movie I have seen pulling all this together. Watch it. Share it.
  It should be mandatory viewing for anyone who is educated/indoctrinated in government funded schools
  https://vimeo.com/52009124
  if that is not working try this: https://vimeo.com/16647512
  
  Report this comment
- Ghostrider8850
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 6:43pm
  Soledad O’Brien claimed if convicted of domestic violence you can get a firearm. Below is from the Brady Act and you are prohibited from owning a firearm if convicted of domestic violence (#9).
  
  Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:
  
  1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
  2. Is a fugitive from justice;
  3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
  4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
  5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
  6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
  7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
  8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
  9. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
  10. Has a record of being a felon
  
  Report this comment
- Lesterp
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 7:48pm
  Ghostrider, That shows the ignorance that we are dealing with. How many people heard that and believed it? They have a large platform to spread the lies and propaganda.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 8:48pm
  The Balze has identified itself as the enemy of Amercia’s future, of her Children.
  
  Report this comment
- Banter
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:00pm
  Nice Freudian slip encinom, since you have none.
  
  This violence is occurring in lib designated gun free zones. Why do you think that is?
  
  Report this comment
- UnknownUser1
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 1:00am
  Well my point would be just like in this article. The People need to make rules not the government. Its not the governments place. Its what the people want! When I see the people actually win something I will agree with it whole hearted!
  Put the biggest ignoramus in DC in charge of the gun debate Joe Biteme makes me ill. What has he been in charge of for four years? He isn’t even in charge of his own mouth!!!!!!!!! It’s time for the people to unite instead of relying on big business Bureaucrats on both sides my friends. I don’t care what you believe no matter how wrong. We are still brothers. (But not in the communist sort of way:P) State issues my friends not big government STATE. Dial 1-800-888-Vote enter your social and press 1 for bla bla there is no reason even elderly disabled people have to cast an absentee ballot or whatever we all have phones and obama phones. I have to give out my social all the time which i should NEVER have to do. but i take it on faith nothing will become of it. Any one else hear of the foreign vote counting agency?
  
  Report this comment
- From Virginia
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 8:53am
  @encinom – I’m never going to take a guy (YOU!) seriously regarding your supposed concern of children when you are so ardently ANTI-child with your consistant defense of the murder of unborn children!
  
  Report this comment
MADDFINCH
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:32pm
A Military Style Weapons ban will do next to nothing to curb the psycho from going on gun killing spree. Cho the Virginia Tech psyCho used a couple of hand guns to shoot 50 adults, killing more than 30 of them , and one of his hand guns a 22 caliber. (DON”T LET THEM FOOL YOU, AND DON”T BELIEVE THEM, THEY WANT SHRED THE RIGHTS OF GUN OWNERS, HAND GUNS WILL BE NEXT) There have been millions of military style weapons sold in the US, 99 +% of them to responsible law abiding people. Obama is not going to ban me. I have already taken care of that, however he may ban YOU. I say Don’t let him Ban you Citizen!!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:04pm
  This foolishness can only come out of government schooled people. Between 1982 and 2012 there have been 142 mass murders. Only 24.6% involved the weapons that they are talking about banning, assault weapons. They’re all liars and or fools.
  
  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
  
  Report this comment
- Banter
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 9:07pm
  @TheJerk
  Check out the article below. Does a great job of putting the rhetoric in perspective.
  
  http://www.patriotsdonotcomply.com/index.php/articles/myth-mass-murderer/
  
  Report this comment
NILAP
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:31pm
I just heard that it is difficult to commit a family member to a mental institution in Connecticut. I am sure the mother of the shooter wanted to institutionalize him weeks ago but had to face all kinds of obstacles.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bluegrandma52
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:55pm
  It’s hard to get anyone committed anywhere in the US. There has to be a “clear and present danger to self or others” in order to get someone even picked up and held for 72 hours, and if the docs don’t find enough evidence of current psychotic or psychopathic behavior, the person is let go and told to go to a clinic. Even if the docs decide to keep him, if he has no insurance or very limited benefits, he’ll be let go in the next week with some pills and a (voluntary) follow up appointment. There is almost no mental healthcare anymore.
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 7:22pm
  By then it maybe TOO LATE!!! Blood on the floor!
  
  Report this comment
- HorseCrazy
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 7:22pm
  a close family friend of mine has a son that was diagnosed with paranoid Schizophrenia she has no options for him. he is an adult. he was almost killed by a group of police officers in a stand off with guns he had bought on the street illegally. she has no help, he is an adult, she cannot commit him even after that event. her only options are prayer and waiting for him to blow again and be thrown in prison. it is sad and awful beyond belief. we need the ability to treat those in need forcibly. all of these mass shooters all have mental health issues.
  
  Report this comment
- JimMadsen
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 11:19am
  It is difficult but here is what is done on CT.
  1: If a person is found by law enforcement to be a possible harm to their self or others, they may be remanded to a local emergency room for a evaluation by a emergency physician. This is called a PER or Police Evaluation Request. The eval must be done within 24 hours of arrival at emergency room. Once evaluated, the PER does not permit further remanding.
  2: The same as above but by a physician rather than police is called a PEC or Physician Emergency Committal. The same 24 hours applies.
  3: The emergency treating physician medically clears the patient and brings in a psychiatric worker (MD, PhD, APRN, PA, LCSW) who then may commit the patient for up to 5 days for being a danger to self or others. These can be repeated.
  4: Probate court may order a 30 day commitment. This is only after the above are done, usually.
  
  It is very difficult to get this done because all a person has to do is show that they are no longer feeling those feelings! They probably will be able to game the system and get out sooner rather than later. Also if you are “co-operative” in the ER, you will be given the benefit of the doubt most likely.
  
  Report this comment
LOTO
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:31pm
Murder is against the law and that did not stop him.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- darkknight91
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 6:50pm
  No law would’ve stopped him. He broke more than one. This is just another example of political opportunists trying to take advantage of a tragedy to push their agenda: Disarm American citizens. It’s the last obstacle to total control. Beware of ANY bureaucrat using this rhetoric. They are merely little Stalins, Hitlers, Maos, etc, in the making.
  
  Report this comment
meisterman41
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:28pm
More people will see Will here on the Blaze than CNN viewers saw him when it was aired live!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Thomas
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:34pm
  What will the use to enforce a gun ban? A gun? Also will all the police and government security give up their guns? If they do that I will give up my firearms.
  
  Report this comment
BannedByHuffpo
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:26pm
Studies done after the LAST 10 year “Assault Weapons Ban” expired in 2004 concluded the following (from Wikipedia)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the “assault weapon” ban and other gun control attempts, and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small….

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as “assault rifles” or “assault weapons”, are rarely used in gun crimes.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
HUGGINGMYBABIES
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:18pm
The only law that would have protected those children are the ones parents of handicapped children had fought against: To institutionalize children or people who have the ability to harm themselves or others against their consent without having TO PROVE they WILL. If that troubled boy had been behind closed doors in a safe place with knowledgable care, this would not have happened. I know not ALL Asperger’s sufferers have this violent tendency, but if taking away assault rifles only helps with 2-8% of these sorts of crimes maybe locking up all Asperger’s would drive that up to 10%. Do we really want to start up that slippery slope? I’ll say it again, we know the WHY and the HOW pretty much, its the WHO that will take some getting used to.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- socialism.rocks
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:30pm
  there is more teabaggers..shooting people via stand your ground.. then anytime in american history
  
  you have higher chance of being killed… by a tea=****** loser then by someone with mental illness
  
  arrest tea-baggers throw them in prison where they cant harm themselves or others
  
  Report this comment
- WildschweinJager
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:58pm
  @socialism
  
  I shot a feral hog last week and butchered him up and now we have bacon, pork ribs, ham, pork chops, pork tenderloins, etc,
  
  Cost $1.00 for the bullet
  
  Report this comment
- ITGuy
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:58pm
  @soc.roc
  
  WOW, you’re a dumb troll. I would hate to live in your “reality”, things must be scary there.
  
  Report this comment
- Balpit
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:18pm
  “you have higher chance of being killed… by a tea=****** loser then by someone with mental illness”
  
  Considering the Tea Party has not killed anyone and murderers already had mental illnesses to begin with…
  
  Report this comment
- WildschweinJager
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:19pm
  @ socialism.rocks
  
  Hey comade, how is it going other there in China? Have fun you crazy kid!
  
  Report this comment
- From Virginia
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 9:02am
  @social – Name one!
  
  Report this comment
- WyoDem
  Posted on December 20, 2012 at 8:48pm
  @Soc.
  Ignorant people like you make me sick. You exude a two year old mentality, resorting to name calling because you can’t hold a reasonable conversation. If you or anyone else thinks they can take my guns, I gladly invite you to try (l’ll give you my address). I am sick of people trying to impose there will on gun owners. I absolutely believe the 2nd amendment was written to protect the public from morons like you. Although I don’t own any of the so called ”assault weapons” I believe that ”the people” should have the means of defending themselves against government that is corrupt. That means we need enough firepower to defeat the likes of tanks and F-16′s. ”Assault rifles” are a small arm. We need more than that in the event of a civil war.
  Now that I am done with my rant, I would like to say hi to the group. I am new here and as my username may imply, I am a registered Dem. (Although some people that post here make me ashamed to admit that). Just want you all to know that we aren’t all a bunch of pansy, name calling, cry baby gun grabbers. He you need people like me to change it from the inside right?
  
  Report this comment
bekhiet
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:11pm
No law would have stopped him or any other person who “snaps”, if one wants to do this type of evil, they will find a way. My biggest question is, if the mother was aware of her son’s condition and even told a neighbor “don’t turn your back on him”, why would she (mom) have weapons in the home. It’s not the guns fault, nor can we give up any of our liberties because of a few wild cards.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WildschweinJager
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:32pm
  @BEKHIET
  Yes you are right. There is no real protection provided by anyone except that which you provide yourself. Concealed and carry gun permits allow you to protect you.
  
  These so called “assault rifles” are ultimately only repeating rifles. If they are scary to anyone then maybe you need to see somebody about that. I single shot rifle or shotgun could have killed as many as the killer did at Sandy Hooks. It is only a matter of dexterity in reloading the chamber.
  
  All weapons and everything is considered assault when used against another person. I am not a lawyer but I think some words and threats can be considered assault as well.
  
  Wait for it……..
  
  Report this comment
- sister1_rm
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 7:34pm
  Perhaps there were previous threats to her life. Maybe she believed having guns around is prudent planning in case of a break in, or something in society goes horribly wrong. We are not seeing reported what her relationship to Adam’s father was like. Most likely, she may have had weapons in her home simply because it is her right to do so. It’s all speculation and sadly, the individual who can tell us why she had guns is dead, but I doubt she was stupid or irresponsible with them.
  
  Report this comment
- HorseCrazy
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 7:46pm
  I hesitate to even hint at blame on the mom. God only knows how much she gave up for this child and she ended up with her head blown off by her child. My heart hurts tremendously for all involved. we need mental health reform. the liberals don’t want to talk about that because they are all nuts. bad joke bad timing but in all reality I am so sick of hearing about how bad guns are when in fact people are the ones that become bad. Liberals LOVE taking any tragedy and making it their new excuse for gun control last time I checked planes were still legal and look what happened to the twin towers. I own all types of rifles I am a mother, my guns are locked up. My son did the NRA program for kids.I think we are all fooling ourselves if we believe that the real reform we end up with will be the rational choice, mental health and not gun control.
  
  Report this comment
mellowlady
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:10pm
They are missing the point. Psychiatrists are the ones screwing up. The nut in Colorado was under the care of a psychiatrist. Of course all the details of this latest nut are being kept secret to make guns the demon instead of inadequate mental health care. The mom was getting $24,000 a month in alimony and yet she didn’t get her son proper care.

I am convinced that if the facts were know that mom was a flaming nut case also.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BannedByHuffpo
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:21pm
  So true. The statistics at ssristories.com are shocking
  
  Report this comment
silvermike
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:06pm
That was an amazing exchange and you rock Will.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- taxpro4u03
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:10pm
  It’s remarkable when both sides of the table can entertain the validity (or lack thereof) from points of reason, wisdom and LOGIC. Unfortunately — legislation isn’t based at all by and large on ‘logic.’ Oft times the ‘desired result’ of any legislation is disguised for what it is — a revenue enhancement program. The claimed intention of a piece of legislation more often than not conflicts with what most folks consider to be direct violations of rights (licenses are State ‘offered’ privileges – why would a RESPONSIBLE human being need ‘permission’ via license to do that which they are free to do anyway? The Federal jurisdiction has said basically the same thing for anyone who can understand their ‘opinions.’ – Will Cain is one of these, and his analogies are for the most part — ‘logical.’) :-)
  
  Report this comment
Jesef
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:58pm
How about armed police officers on campus instead of out, in force, just writing tickets of traffic violations? Wouldn’t that be our tax dollars better spent, to have more them protecting and serving instead of just managing traffic? If one had been on campus, he could have responded within 30-60 seconds to the first gunshot sound and put the psycho down before he got to the children.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WildschweinJager
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:44pm
  Police or Paid Armed Guards patroling the schools it not a viable solution due to cost.
  
  Sending two or more key individuals to a firearms course taught by the local police force, arming those few key people and scheduling those people so that one is always on campus if the others are not. It would become known as a course of action by the bad guys and crazy people and they would always know that they will be met with armed resistance within a school. Nobody has to know who they are beyond the faculty members and school superintendents. Only those with the need to know would have knowledge of the armed school protectors.
  
  Report this comment
Hawk69
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:57pm
Another armed shooter is the only thing that could stop that killer.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
LeaveMeBe
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:56pm
Light has been lost, by the death of innocence
cold darkness spreads, from the tears of witnesses
They cry out for a savior, unwilling to forgive
they cry out for safety, unable to forget
“when will it stop, when will it end
what do we do, how do we mend
who do we blame, what is their name
string them up, in all their shame.”
But truth far from reach, they lash out in anger
preaching blind revenge, and everyone’s in danger
“there must be a reason, there must be truth
who made the monsters, out of the youth”.
Blood has been spilled, someone must pay
justice for the fallen, revenge for that day.
Back into chains, is where it leads us
back into bondage, but without Jesus!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
watashbuddyfriend
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:54pm
Well, I think the Blind is trying to lead the Blind in this situation! Go figure!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
calamityjane85
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:53pm
This is OT, but will is so hot. I love watching him debate, he holds his own in a den of lions.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- taxpro4u03
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:18pm
  Will’s arguments are fact-based – whereas the ‘others’ typically are simply emotional responses or agitation/instigations without the necessary substantive ‘source’ to independently back it up. Delusional ‘logic’ doesn’t hold water in the RATIONAL world. – ‘Game set/match.’ Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt. –
  
  Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:39pm
What an insane question. It’s self answering. None.

Next up:

How many times does the Ancient Sun Priest need to jump up and down to make the sun rise each morning?

Which extended finger from a ground observer will keep a 747 aloft in the air?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AxelPhantom
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:51pm
  That depends if someone pulls the finger or not…..
  
  Report this comment
- Recceman90
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:05pm
  That “insane” question proves a point. No law will protect innocent people, so allow innocent people to defend themselves as they see fit. Stop creating more victims.
  
  Report this comment
1TrueOne55
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:37pm
As Will said Japan has a complete ban but one individual used “Chemicals” in a subway station to commit his attempt at mass murder. All it takes is for any one to get the correct mix of chlorine bleach and another daily chemical used in cooking to make an effective weapon or at least an extreme irritant to the lungs and they would not need a gun to commit mass casualties.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:59pm
  In fact, I’d say if you took guns away and you left the crazies in place with their brain candy we could be in worse shape. Think about it like this. Medicated crazy dude decides to punch his ticket and take people with him. So he grabs a gun and heads out. Only now there is no gun. Medicated crazy dude is still going to do what he has planned so now what? Bombs? Using a vehicle as a weapon? Rat poison in a cafeteria cooking pot? Arson? Gas (as you pointed out). Possibilities are endless.
  
  You don’t fix a problem, you create a new one. Medicated crazy dude is still medicated crazy dude.
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:31pm
James Holmes used a shotgun to kill his victims because his “assault” rifle jammed. The Mall shooter in Oregon’s weapon jammed. These weapons seem to have a poor track record for mass shootings. The Virginia Tech shooter didn’t even use a neato movie weapon. But they are scary looking, so we need to ban them. Why, they LOOK like something Sly Stalone would use in one of his films… the HORROR!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:48pm
  Statistically speaking, if you believed that a law prevents this (pretending that banning murder didn’t work), then in terms of kills and drivers of killing you’d ban Shotguns and MAOI/SSRI’s.
  
  But of course, laws don’t mean squat and banning the brain candy for the masses is what?…crazyist? Can we use that word?
  
  Report this comment
- taxpro4u03
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 5:36pm
  What ‘is’ the ‘bayonet?’ A psychological ASSAULT ‘weapon.’ What is the LEGAL definition of assault? How does Black’s Law 6th ed ‘define’ it? – Can a ‘verbal’ assault be submitted as a ‘claim’ by the ‘victim?’ Which jurisdiction? — What about ‘scary communications’ via impersonal delivery (net/MAIL {fraud?} ‘warrant?’ – ‘Darth Suits’ are forms of ‘assault.’ Same as COULD be reasonably construed ‘dummy cars’ in ‘attempt’ to ‘prevent’ opportunity…
  
  Report this comment
jtylerb
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:29pm
Laws are for the law-abiding or the lawful. Those wanting to destroy life will always find a way to do so. Gun laws will only affect the rights and personal liberties of those who would lawfully own firearms. All the gun crime in Chicago, a large city with some of the strictest gun laws in the States, is perpetrated with guns carried and used illegally by the those perpetrating the crimes. Instead the focus following Sandy Hook should be the state of mental health care in this country. If you thought Obamacare was expensive, just wait.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GardenoftheGods
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:53pm
  You said it exactly right…Mental Health Care is non existent for the poor & Middle Class…only those who can afford real care (80K/mo+) are treated. After ObamaCare goes into effect, we’re ALL screwed! Just wait, we’ll be seeing a lot more of these mass shootings. I cry for my country.
  
  Report this comment
RJJinGadsden
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:28pm
Not a single straight answer. And, I can’t help but recall the war between Roland Martin and John Stewart over that ascot. How can you listen to this guy?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SquidVetOhio
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:26pm
If you ban assault rifles, then ban them from the S.W.A.T teams, police forces, F.B.I and the Secret Service too.

Fair’s fair.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TRILO
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:41pm
  There seem to be alot of deaths due to SWAT team errors these days too.
  
  Report this comment
- Ar-shooter
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:09pm
  100% agree
  
  Report this comment
70S_KIDS_FIGHTING_SOCIALISM
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:25pm
If they didn’t have guns they would lock or block the doors and burn the school down with gasoline.. These liberal progressive atheist lunatics will find a way. Then you would have to try and ban gas. I personally can think of ten household items that can be made extremely dangerous. One would be an explosive napalm type substance. We would be much better talking about God and morals.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:30pm
  The two worst assaults on schools in this country was a dynamite attack that killed some 47 in 1927, and a 1950s arson attack that killed 95.
  
  Report this comment
- WildschweinJager
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:55pm
  @ socialism.rocks
  
  Hey how is it going other there in China? Have fun you crazy kid!
  
  Report this comment
termyt
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:25pm
Apparently a potential murder conviction and execution didn’t stop the shooter. Neither did the law prohibiting guns on school campuses. But then, he committed suicide. Only some kind of law designed to preempt criminal activity before it started would have.

So let me ask this: What does a society look like that goes after people before they commit a crime?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CatB
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:33pm
  If anything … making it easier for a family member to commit someone is the ONLY logical thing I have heard .. beyond armed guards, teachers or administrator on campus that is… how about removing those “gun free zone” signs and make the insane GUESS.
  
  Report this comment
conmil
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:18pm
Never owned a gun before. I looked today. Think I’ll get one. Wish I lived in FL. Then again where I live there is plenty of reasonable reasons to shoot folks. Also, lots of liberal anti-gun folks who get their family members and themselves shot because they are anti-gun advocates. The same anti-gun liberals that watch mass killers shoot at will because they know they are in a no-gun environment. Still waiting for a mass-murder to do his thing at a gun-range, or a Tea Party event.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CatB
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:46pm
  I live in Florida .. yes I feel very safe at TEA Party events .. and most others since we have lots of veterans here ;-)
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:14pm
No law would have stopped him or anyone else for that matter,that’s why our prisons are full,you can write all the laws you want it doesn’t make any difference.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 3:49pm
  I beg to differ. If we simply made it illegal to kill someone this would end in a jiffy.
  
  Report this comment
- CatB
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 4:29pm
  LOL ROTH … silly us …
  
  Report this comment
- Stelex
  Posted on December 19, 2012 at 8:14pm
  I beg to differ also, a law against progressive’s about 50 years ago would have stopped this crime.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.