Press "Enter" to skip to content

Principal Shot by Student Says Arming School Staff Unnecessary, Ineffective

The non-fatal shooting of principal Kevin Lein at Harrisburg High School might prompt some South Dakota school officials to consider using the as-yet completely unused school gunslinger law passed by our fact-detached Legislature in 2013.

Taking a bullet in the elbow hasn’t persuaded Principal Lein to go down the gunslinger road:

Having been through this now, how do you feel about the South Dakota law passed in 2013 that allows school employees to carry guns on the job? “I can be honest with you and tell you that I was definitely against it. It’s just my personal opinion, and I have been a gun owner in the past. I’ve been a hunter. I don’t think it’s necessary at all. I think it would create more problems than it would assist. I will tell you almost for certain that it wouldn’t have prevented this at all. There would have been no way” [Steve Young, “Harrisburg Principal Knows He Dodged More than a Bullet,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2015.10.02].

A man who got shot in school is saying our school sentinel law is unnecessary and ineffective. That statement alone should encourage Harrisburg’s gun-happy District 6 Legislative delegation to sponsor repeal of our foolish school gunslinger statutes.

66 Comments

  1. Jenny 2015-10-04

    Being ‘the good guy with a gun’ to finish off the bad guy is just fantasy thinking. This isn’t target shooting practice.

    Studies have shown that even police officers themselves have only a 20% accuracy rate when shooting the bad guys. 20% accuracy rate!

  2. owen reitzel 2015-10-04

    I know Kevin Lein and I’m not surprised that he feels the way he does.

    The gunslinger law is dumbest law that the legislature has passed. More guns in schools is not answer.

  3. mike from iowa 2015-10-04

    And having guns is known to cause breast cancer and the NRA does not do Mammograms. And Medicaid funds can’t be used to pay for guns. And people who have had guns express remorse that they ever had guns.And……

    Good article,Deb. If only whitey wingnuts were forced to read and comprehend it.

  4. Deb Geelsdottir 2015-10-04

    Hahaha! That’s right Mike.

    Don’t forget, there is only one place in SD allowed to sell guns. It’s in Oelrichs. It might not be open much longer though, because it has to be affiliated with a hospital that has a Level One Trauma Unit. That’s in Sioux Falls. The Oelrichs Arms Dealers shop must pay for many thousands of dollars in upgrades to be eligible and they don’t get one nickel of taxpayer money because of the Congressional majority’s deeply held religious belief that gun ownership is morally wrong.

  5. Disgusted Dakotan 2015-10-05

    So? More guns to protect against violence, is not the answer (yet every liberal on here calls for a cop with a gun to come protect them and relies on our armed military to defend them)? More gun free zones are the answer (yet no liberal posts their property is a gun free zone AND majority of mass killings occur in gun free zones)?

    With that logic? I’m surprised that all the mass killings don’t take place in police departments and on military firing ranges.

  6. barry freed 2015-10-05

    Hey people, respect those who were killed.

    A moment of silence and reflection.

    Now, the Oregon Hero who tried to “talk down” the murderer could have easily shot the crazy, rather than sacrificing himself, were it not for respecting the gun-free zone. It doesn’t appear he will be singing your newest jingle on Cable News of gun “safety” (rather than control). He was trained with firearms, had the mental wherewithal and a safe opportunity, he just couldn’t have the one tool that would have ended it all, a gun: like the ones Police brought. So much for the “tackle fantasy”.

    The shooter, for one time in his life, felt empowered as he knew he faced no danger in the location he chose to commit his crime. He wrote of his predecessors failure to kill cops, but yet he didn’t fulfill his promise by going to a Police Station. He didn’t even do it when Police arrived and engaged him. Of course, no one here would suggest the Police go in unarmed as they required of the Oregon Hero. There are plenty of self described Christians and successful fornicators at gun shows, but he didn’t go there either. He went where he knew current gun laws would make him Kingly: Unchallenged in dispensation of his justice for virgins.

    Like Obama, I too, am tired of the repetition… of his failure after each mass shooting to illicit meaningful solutions from the vast number of experts at his disposal. I am also tired of his doctored statistics that promote emotion over logic. Using suicide numbers to pump up murder numbers or counting gang shootouts the same as the Oregon shootings are cheap and dishonest tactics. I am waiting for ideas worth embracing, but he has offered nothing of substance, just more impotent whining. He does, however, seem keenly fixated on the size of other men’s magazines, their big, black weapons, and how they get together to exchange their tools. Is he a Magasexual? (copyright)

    BTW, I defended him to his detractors and voted for him as I thought a Constitutional Law Professor would not challenge the Constitution’s legitimacy. Fooled again.

  7. bearcreekbat 2015-10-05

    barry, what do you think of Australia’s buy back program and its statistical effectiveness down under?

  8. O 2015-10-05

    barry,

    “BTW, I defended him to his detractors and voted for him as I thought a Constitutional Law Professor would not challenge the Constitution’s legitimacy. Fooled again.”

    Why is constitutional legitimacy (read current precedent) only sacred on select issues? The Constitution is a living document that MUST be challenged for its assumptions and conditions to be relevant in society. It is not carved in stone; it did not come from the mountain top. It is the second amendment, not the second commandment. Or ought we still have “separate but equal” schools and own other men, and be prohibited from alcohol consumption . . . Can we agree that “tradition” is not always valuable?

    Australians (politicians and citizens) took the other path after a mass shooting in their country, and they seem fine: hunting still exists, no outside invader force took over their country from a weakened populace, not oppressive government took the opportunity to run rapid over the “unprotected” citizens, and mass murders STOPPED in their country. Guaranteed gun ownership is not only the physical ownership of weapons, but also a statement of larger values of what is worth protecting in our society.

  9. mike from iowa 2015-10-05

    Barry,the shooter had to feel cops would show up unarmed,according to your fantasy of gun free zones.

  10. Rorschach 2015-10-05

    Gun buyback programs are ineffective unless the entity buying the guns turns around and sells them again. If that entity simply takes old guns off the market and demand remains the same then those old guns will just be replaced by new guns – which works to the benefit of gun manufacturers.

    The argument could be made that guns being taken out of the market are held by people who don’t want guns so there won’t be demand to replace the buyback weapons resulting in fewer weapons out there. However, we know that the NRA and other gun groups will use any buyback program to fire up their members about government taking guns – which will likely increase demand for guns rather than decreasing it.

  11. Rorschach 2015-10-05

    Nope. If the US tries a gun buyback on any significant scale the NRA will whip people into a frenzy and there will be 2 new guns put on the street for every gun bought back. The gun manufacturers will be the big winners and the taxpayers will be the big losers. Maybe you ought to put your own money into a gun buyback program bearcreekbat.

  12. bearcreekbat 2015-10-05

    Rorschach, why didn’t this increase in gun sales happen in Australia? How do you think the USA different from Australia in this regard?

    Do you think the 2nd Amendment would allow for stringent state or federal regulations covering the manufacture and sale of guns – such as limiting the number that a company could manufacture and sell – rather than placing restrictions on the right to possess a gun?

  13. Rorschach 2015-10-05

    bearcreekbat. Do you think buying back 20% of guns from Americans like Australia did from its citizens is feasible? What percentage do you think is feasible in the US? How much would that cost? Do you disagree with the premise that a large scale buyback would result in Americans buying and hoarding guns as they did with the Clinton assault weapons ban, the more recent Obama-era proposed assault weapons ban, and even just President Obama’s election? If you feel that a large Australia-style buyback wouldn’t drive gun sales through the roof, why not? What makes you think that the US with its 89 guns per hundred people and NRA/gun culture is anything like Australia with its 15 guns per hundred people?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

  14. O 2015-10-05

    bearcreekbat,

    “Do you think the 2nd Amendment would allow . . .”
    Again, that is my issue with the gun control debate; the second amendment needs to bow to the will of the majority and public good – NOT the other way around. We change bad law in the US (or at least in theory have the ability to), wether that be constitution level, legislative level, or otherwise. The Supreme Court are not just the bodyguards for current constitutional law.

    Bad public policy should not be defended by “that’s the way things are . . .”

  15. O 2015-10-05

    Even if we bought back 20% of the guns in the US (took the out of circulation and had NO new gun replacements), we would still be #1 in the world in gun ownership and be at a rate 4.75 times that of Australia.

    For this to matter, for the US to get to the rate of an Australia, the buy back (and non-replacement rate) would have to be more in the neighborhood of 87%. That is how much djinni is out of the bottle on this issue.

  16. bearcreekbat 2015-10-05

    Rorschach, I lack the research to answer your legitimate questions, but it seems rational to conclude that if we reduced our defense spending a bit that we could afford to buy back a meaningful number of weapons, and that if these are no longer available to the public that would necessarily decrease a bad guy’s or suicidal guy’s access to this type of deadly weapon.

    I think I am left to rely on Australia’s experience to predict what might happen in the USA with a buyback program. I doubt that most Australians think that much differently than most Americans about guns and gun violence.

    The 89 guns per 100 Americans compared to the 15 guns per 100 Australians appears to be a measurement taken after Australia’s gun buy back program had been in effect for a decade or more. The success of the buyback program would likely contribute to this disparity.

    I fully understand the difficultly we would have with changing the attitudes of Americans, but I have seen two remarkable changes in attitudes in relatively short time periods – LGBT rights and the confederate flag. This suggests that if we move forward on gun control and safety of our kids issues there is that reasonable possibility that attitudes could change relatively quickly. But if we do nothing, it seems unlikely there will ever be reasonable progress on reducing gun violence.

  17. bearcreekbat 2015-10-05

    O, I see where you are coming from, yet each of our Bill of Rights amendments has long been thought to protect all of us from majority viewpoints on the areas that the amendments address.

    With the 2nd amendment, I believe we have to treat it in the same way while not giving it some sort of magical power to prevent the government from taking steps necessary to protect the public. While it expressly protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” it says absolutely nothing about the rights of gun manufacturers or sellers. This suggests that reasonable regulations limiting the number of guns a manufacturer could make or sell would not be precluded by the 2nd amendment. Do you agree?

  18. Deb Geelsdottir 2015-10-05

    Retired SCOTUS Justice John Paul Stevens recently wrote an opinion piece on Amendment Number Two. This is his suggestion to amend it:

    “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [when serving in the Militia] shall not be infringed.”

    Here is the link to the entire commentary:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

    I am in complete agreement with Justice Stevens.

  19. bearcreekbat 2015-10-06

    Deb, the fix proposed by Justice Stevens looks good except for the difficulty we see in amending the Constitution. While theoretically possible to amend, it would seem that reasonable restrictions on the manufacture and sale (rather than possession) of guns would be permissible under the existing language – the problem here being the will of our elected officials.

    Considering the fear of the NRA shared by those folks in office, imagine how much more difficult it would be to actually amend the 2nd Amendment with Justice Stevens’ recommended language than it might be to simply adopt a statutory scheme that limited production and sales of guns.

  20. barry freed 2015-10-06

    bearcreekbat: I have no hard opinion about Australia as finding facts sans emotion and hyperbole is nearly impossible.
    AU has a higher gun death rate than the US, though we have more of the mass shootings:
    http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf
    Read this study and show me how their ban has has a significant impact on any problems beyond suicide. One might contend that the murder rate has gone up because the frail and law abiding can’t defend themselves anymore.

    O; Who said the 2nd was carved in stone? How should it be Amended?

    Limit Magazine size?: An 8 round magazine, as per the Brady Bill, would have no effect on this practiced Israeli soldier, but the BB made some people warm and fuzzy. Fast forward to 3:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfMziwSNX80

    Institute a Semi-auto Ban?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FbUMqoyjDw

    The majority of gun homicides and nearly all mass shootings in Chicago are gang related committed by convicted felons with guns. Enforcing that Laws already on the books would be a start to curb these gun homicides; what are the President and Mayor of Chicago waiting for?

    Taking the profit out of Health Care in the US would promote better mental health and reduce gun suicides and the few, but horrendous, mass shootings. What has anyone in DC done to fix or expand the ACA in the past few years? Just another Presidential/Congress give-away to their corporate buddies as hedge fund speculators buy drug rights and gouge unfettered by our compassionate President and Congress.

  21. barry freed 2015-10-06

    Deb,
    Stevens “fix” does nothing except discriminate against those under age 18 and over age 46.
    Any one between those ages is in the Militia automatically, by both Federal and SD Constitutions.
    But this is old, old discussion. No solutions here.

  22. Les 2015-10-06

    What militia, Deb? Thanks, Barry for a great discourse.

    What most folks wishing all guns away don’t realize, what’s to stop the bad guys if they know there are no guns in homes?

    Ten year old critters onmasse would walk on your face.

  23. Les 2015-10-06

    Should be which militia.

  24. mike from iowa 2015-10-06

    Until recently,wingnuts have voted in lock step to deny mental health coverage and they still vote to defund the ACA which helps provide mhc. We have met the enemies and they be wingnuts in all shapes and forms.

  25. mike from iowa 2015-10-06

    ps it was Ronnie Raygun’s regime that opened the institutes and forced mentally ill people into the streets.

  26. mike from iowa 2015-10-06

    Don’t want to discriminate. An 11 y/o Tennessee boy shot his 8 y/o neighbor girl with Dad’s shotgun because she wouldn’t show him her puppies.

  27. Les 2015-10-06

    “””We have met the enemies and they be wingnuts in all shapes and forms”””. Yes, mike. Both wings from the same bird.

  28. bearcreekbat 2015-10-06

    barry, that paper you linked is an interesting read and seems to contradict many of the favorable reports on the effect of Australia’s buyback program. It offers no support, however, for an argument that violence or gun deaths have in any way increased due to anyone’s lack of owning a gun.

    The paper’s conclusion that removing over 660,000 guns from circulation made no difference in the actual existence of gun violence seems counter-intuitive. Indeed, removing 660,000 guns from the hands of the public would seem to necessarily mean that those 660,000 guns could no longer be used to harm anyone. It would be interesting to see if a study has been done showing whether more suicides and homicides would have occurred, based on past records, had there been no buy back of these 660,000 guns.

    And to the extent that the buy back program reduced suicides is evidence of some success.

  29. Bill Fleming 2015-10-06

    A facebook friend provided a link to this article, which in my opinion nails it. It’s long but worth the read. http://markmanson.net/school-shootings

    Here’s a summary excerpt from the end of the piece:

    “Gun control gets the headlines. Mental health care gets the headlines. Violence and video games and misogyny and internet forums and atheism — the list is endless at this point.

    Here’s what doesn’t get the headlines: Empathy. Listening to those around you. Even if you don’t like them very much. We have come to live in a culture where it’s taboo or unacceptable to simply check in with people emotionally and offer some empathy and understanding. I’m not saying this would magically fix all gun violence. I’m just saying that all of these things — the lack of gun laws, the lack of health care, the inability to have basic conversations with friends and neighbors about what’s going on with them, these are all extensions of a callous and self-absorbed culture that lacks any real empathy.

    Despite being relevant and important discussions, the glamorous headlines are ultimately distractions — they just feed into the carnage and the attention and the fame the killer desired. They are distractions from what is right in front of you and me and the victims of tomorrow’s shooting: people who need help. And while we’re all fighting over whose pet cause is more right and more true and more noble, there’s likely another young man out there, maybe suicidally depressed, maybe paranoid and delusional, maybe a psychopath, and he’s researching guns and bombs and mapping out schools and recording videos and thinking every day about the anger and hate he feels for this world.

    And no one is paying attention to him.”

  30. bearcreekbat 2015-10-06

    Fascinating article Bill, yet even with empathy and understanding how does that change an unhappy killer’s ability to exact revenge on innocents? Unless the potential killer commits a crime, or is found to have a mental illness such that he is a danger to others or himself, no one can incarcerate him based on empathy and understanding his distress, even if he is obsessed with stories of killing or collecting dangerous weapons.

  31. Disgusted Dakotan 2015-10-06

    @Jenny Curious, what is a 2nd Amendment extremist? Is that someone who denies the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and that law-abiding citizens should not have the right to be armed whenever they deem fit? Because the historic view of 2nd Amendment is that it is an individual right to be able to protect oneself 24-7.

    I think this is a great issue liberals can rally around. You should get out and be very vocal about gun buybacks, gun seizures, Hillary’s big plans, etc.

  32. mike from iowa 2015-10-06

    Those tyrained Israeli killers are pure dee hell on unarmed Palestinian kids. Especially since they know there is virtually no chance of being found guilty by the Israeli military.

  33. Deb Geelsdottir 2015-10-06

    Jenny, good article. Other than JS Stephens amendment to bring #2 back to it’s original intent, I think I like Martin O’Malley’s plan, at the end of that Huff Post article, best so far.

    1. A ban on the sale of combat assault weapons;
    2. A requirement that every person who purchases a gun gets a license and is fingerprinted;
    3. Using the full power of the federal government—the largest purchaser of firearms in the country—to refuse to buy guns from any company that doesn’t use the latest and best safety technology;
    4. Making gun trafficking a federal crime.

    To be sure, I support Hilary’s plan too. The more the merrier.

    Mike, I hope others have read the link you provided. It describes the NRA’s latest attempt at fake gun safety law. It most closely resembles the payday loan shark’s fake 18% interest rate.

  34. bearcreekbat 2015-10-06

    Bill, the empathy article you linked brought to mind Eric Hoffer’s book: The True Believer. Although Hoffer focuses on how individuals get sucked into joining strange movements or religions, his analysis of the social and psychological events s that can transform someone a true believer seems relevant as a partial explanation of how someone becomes an angry killer. “Frustration” is a key factor.

  35. mike from iowa 2015-10-06

    I have no sympathy for the NRA who doubles and triples down on the same tired lies about Obama taking people’s guns away after nearly every mass shooting. I get tired of hearing how a good guy with a gun is the only cure for a bad guy with a gun. Statistics do not bear this out. Has the NRA ever revoked a membership of anyone who carelessly handles firearms or leaves them laying around so kids can kill each other?

  36. mike from iowa 2015-10-06

    Historical view of 2nd amendment from Wiki- In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.[10][11]

    In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[1

  37. Deb Geelsdottir 2015-10-06

    Here is a little information that might offer a helpful perspective to Barry, Les, DD and other “pro gun people”:

    I grew up on a farm in central SD. We had a .22 rifle, 410 and 12 gauge shotguns and a 243 (or was it 273?) rifle. I plunked gophers and jackrabbits with the. 22. I shot pheasants with the 410. I brought down pheasants, ducks and geese with the 12. It was my favorite gun. I shot a 2 point buck with the 243 and it was really good eating. I shot at more deer the ensuing year, but only succeeded in scaring the poop out of them.

    I now own a .38 caliber handgun that I enjoy shooting in leagues. I really ought to trade it in for a. 22 pistol with a longer barrel. It’s cheaper, ammunition is cheaper, it’s not as loud and the a longer barrel will be more accurate.

    I don’t have a problem with people owning guns. It’s the crazy ammosexuals who think rooms full of guns, ammo, body armor, massive magazines, and modified-to-automatic weapons make them more studly. (Doesn’t.)

    It’s also the white supremacists who thought they were “protecting” the streets of Ferguson, MO when they paraded around in their military attire and weapons, looking for excuses to murder people less pasty than them.

    It’s the crazy paranoid government conspiracy wackos who’ve built their Doomsday Dungeon and stocked it with ridiculous amounts of weaponry, plus some food and water for the family.

    It’s the people with mental illnesses who are ignored, untreated, thrown in jail, neglected by Congressional lawmakers. They become so desolate, delusional, sick that they can’t manage their behavior.

    It’s legislators and Congress members whose moral compasses have completed malfunctioned so that they’ve become slobbering dogs who can see no further than the money they’re begging and whining for.

    It’s the amoral sociopaths that lead the NRA, Smith-Wesson, Colt, Ruger, Remington, etc. They have fallen down on their knees, crawling and slithering through ooze and slime and the slaughtered bodies of babies and adults to worship their Great God Money.

    What does not scare me is farmers, ranchers, hunters, the vast majority of cops and military, target shooters, and people who keep a gun or two in the house for protection.

  38. bearcreekbat 2015-10-06

    DD asks “what is a 2nd Amendment extremist?” You just be such an extremist if:

    You think 2nd Amendment rights are somehow more important than other Constitutional rights, such as a woman’s right to decide her own procreation decisions.

    You don’t understand that there is no language in the Constitution or the 2nd amendment that explicitly restricts state and local governments from prohibiting gun possession and ownership.

    You think it was judicial tyranny when the SCOTUS ruled 7-2 that the 14th Amendment incorporates provisions of the Bill of Rights resulting in the right of privacy, but are okay with the 5-4 ruling that the 14th Amendment incorporates the 2nd Amendment.

    You try to use fear tactics to avoid discussing how to reduce gun violence.

    You think the 2nd Amendment was drafted in the 18th Century to cover all sorts of weapons not yet invented or even thought about.

    You think the 2nd Amendment is designed to allow people to threaten or kill government workers if you disagree with policies that they are enforcing.

    You think that the open carrying of semi-automatic rifles in stores and scaring women and children with them is why we have the 2nd Amendment.

    You will neither listen to nor propose any policy that might have the effect of reducing gun violence; instead you prefer insulting anyone who tries to find a solution to gun violence.

    Hope that helps, DD!

  39. Bill Fleming 2015-10-06

    Good reference, BCB. I had forgotten that classic work by Hoffer. It was one of our texts in YC philosophy class, right after we read Sartre’s “Transcendence of Ego.” I found Hoffer quite a bit easier to understand. Perhaps because he didn’t have to be translated from the French. ;-)

  40. bearcreekbat 2015-10-06

    mike, it is interesting to note that Cruikshank was an 8-1 decision and Miller was an 8-0 (Douglas abstained) decision.

    Meanwhile both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions by our Republican Justices, and in McDonald even the 5 Republicans could not agree on the proper resolution of the issues. Had there been one less Republican on the bench Cruikshank and Miller would still be the law.

  41. Daniel Buresh 2015-10-06

    You would do more good to reduce gun deaths by tackling drug laws than you would by passing more gun regulation. Mass shootings don’t even amount to enough deaths to even consider them as reasoning to enforce more laws that wouldn’t have even stopped this incident in particular or a majority of other incidents. Getting all up in the hysteria after a mass shooting just shows how emotionally illogical people are. The media sure isn’t helping with their glorification of it all. Why don’t Democrats and Harry Reid want to open the NICS system for public use? He didn’t even allow it up for discussion or a vote because he was looking to score political points. They were pushing the Toomey bill that they knew would never pass. It was nothing more than scoring points against Republicans by acting like they weren’t willing to compromise and allowing them to vote down the Toomey bill rather than put the Coburn Ammendment to vote. Not only that, but allowing more reporting of mental health information to the NICS system was also shot down by Democrats. Why? You know what Harry Reid’s response was?… “”it would be used as a fig leaf by those who oppose expanded checks while closing the door to weapons restrictions in the future.” Let’s not allow Americans to protect themselves by reducing their liability by ensuring the person they are selling to is a possible legal gun owner for fear of some future possibility that they could reduce more regulation. Brilliant, I tell ya. Just Brilliant Mr Reid. Currently, FFL’s are forced to use NICS and they only receive 1 of 3 responses, yes, no, or a phone number to call to speak directly to the FBI. There is no excuse why that shouldn’t be available to the public. Who will it harm to allow private sales to use such a system to make us feel safer? Why do Democrats concentrate on assault weapon bans and high capacity magazine bans when most gun deaths are not even caused by long guns? Democrats and guns are comparable to Repubs and abortion, it’s a policy problem that they can milk and they really have no intention of ever fixing anything.

  42. jerry 2015-10-06

    Ah yes, those pesky drugs. Indeed, why not just blame all of the issues of the world on those. Me, I am thinking the leprechauns are the blame, anyone or anything other than the real true reasons, the ease of getting guns that endanger legitimate gun owners as well as everyone else.

  43. Disgusted Dakotan 2015-10-06

    So?! The historic view on the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t come from the Founding Fathers, but an 1876 SCOTUS decision that has been overturned?!

    Nah, historic view of 2nd Amendment isn’t from those that would rewrite history but from those who crafted the Bill of Rights on the heels of abuses by a tyrannical government they rebelled from: https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers-on-the-second-amendment

    So, those of you that wish to disarm law-abiding citizens and deprive them of their Constitutional right, are the extremists..

  44. mike from iowa 2015-10-06

    The historic view you want to use is from all the way back in 2008.

  45. owen reitzel 2015-10-06

    “So, those of you that wish to disarm law-abiding citizens and deprive them of their Constitutional right, are the extremists.”

    nobody is going after your guns Grudz. You must be drinking the NRA kool-aid

  46. mike from iowa 2015-10-06

    bcb,I suspect that was why wingnuts pushed so hard to get extremists on to federal courts and why they fight so hard to disqualify Obama’s appointees.

  47. barry freed 2015-10-10

    Deb, You lost all credibility by claiming a .410 has ever done anything but wound a pheasant ;)

    When you call names, i.e. “ammosexuals” and “less pasty”, you reveal your own doubts of your arguments, and even your racism. An argument with any strength, wouldn’t have to go there.

    Even IF any of the stereotypes you throw out existed in any number great enough to measure, the answer in not to disarm the law abiding. However, the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooters were both on prescription mood drugs with violent and suicidal contraindications, but yeah, it was really the NRA who possessed them.

    You have taken life, Deb, were you the Principal at Sandy Hook, had a 12 gauge from under your desk and were the one watching as that man shot a hole in the security glass door, you would not have shot him as he crawled through? Anyone answering no to that question, should not be in that position of responsibility. Same as if it were a rabid dog seeking to attack the children, there is no time for 911 and there is no justification for good people to be hurt because of what-if fantasies about tackling crazies with guns or rabies. But had that Principal a shotgun, it would have never happened as the killer knew well, his target and what resistance he would have faced.

    What scares me are ignorant people with files full of fake statistics, free and easy access to the Internet where they casually abuse the 1st Amendment by associating a few racists or criminals with anybody who is critical of Government abuses or is self-reliant and believes in self-governing until the proper authorities can arrive.

  48. barry freed 2015-10-10

    The Founders were opposed to a standing Army because in the wrong hands, they recognized it as a serious threat to the Republic. Iraq, WMD lies, and a pathetically easy pubic and Congress to sway come to mind. What the Founders meant with a “well regulated Militia” was well trained, not regulated by the Government. By being armed and well trained, we don’t need a standing army. Shown a true threat to our Nation, the State Guards are very capable and ready; there will also be no shortage of volunteers just as we saw with the “Greatest Generation”. Stevens promotes the agenda of disarming everyone except the Military, but he is not an extremist Judge with an agenda?

  49. mike from iowa 2015-10-10

    If they wanted a well trained militia they would have said a well trained militia. An elderly gentleman in my hometown of Cherokee,iowa used to drive backroads and Arkansawed pheasants with a sawed off .410. Never wounded any that I ever heard of but then they were sitting in road ditches so they were close at hand. Member of the NRA,too. Respected businessman. Pasty hided,etc.

  50. Donald Pay 2015-10-10

    I don’t engage in many discussions on guns or abortion. People have their views set, and there isn’t much you can say to convince anyone of the right way of thinking on these issues, which, of course, is the way I think on these issues.

    I don’t have a problem with guns, as much as I have a problem with gun owners. It’s kind of like my opinion of Christianity. Jesus is alright with me, but I’m not a Christian because I can’t stand the Christians.

    Anyone who thinks a gun is going to protect them against a tyrannical government is nuts, and that alone probably disqualifies them from owning one. Anyone who thinks Obama is coming for their guns is nuts, and probably shouldn’t be allowed to own one. People who think Trump or Cruz or any of the extremist Republicans don’t have personalities that would lead to tyrannical tendencies should they ever get power are nuts and shouldn’t be allowed near a gun. What I see throughout history is that people with guns are more likely to protect the incipient tyrant.

    Now, guns for hunting: no problem. Guns for protection: I think you’re a bit of a pussy and maybe a bit unbalanced, but unless you’re certifiable or have beat your wife and kids, I can live with that.

  51. mike from iowa 2015-10-10

    Donald Pay-it stands to reason (according to wingnuts) that the logical way to stop gun violence is with more guns,therefore,the way to stop abortions is have more doctors perform them. I don’t know why I never thought of this before. Totally brilliant,imho.

  52. bearcreekbat 2015-10-10

    mike, the dichotomy between attitudes concerning abortion and gun deaths is remarkable. Pro-lifers are willing to undermine a woman’s Constitutional right to decide whether to procreate to save the live of the unborn. Many of these same folks, however, are absolutely unwilling to tamper with someone’s Constitutional right to possess guns to save the lives of victims of gun killings.

    I have yet to see any rational explanation why one Constitutional right should be repressed to save a life while another Constitutional right may not be suppressed to save a life. Someone like Ben Carson will gladly undermine a woman’s Constitutional right to choose whether to remain pregnant, but then says “I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away.”

    Pro-life? Go figure. . . .

  53. mike from iowa 2015-10-10

    Pro-life might be one of those terms that wingnuts have redefined to suit their agenda. As for Carson,he has become afflicted with foot in mouth without irony disease.

  54. Donald Pay 2015-10-10

    Now, just for clarification, if you live out in the sticks, I can understand why you might need a gun for personal protection. I understand that, while the risk of someone wanting to do you harm is very small in rural areas, there is very slow response time for law enforcement. Also, if your job entails carrying money around or going into areas that are frequently robbed, or if you are female and have to go home from a job late at night, etc., I can understand why you might think you need a gun. I don’t judge those situations, because it’s a matter of balancing some real risk. While I might think the risk of having a gun is more than not having a gun in those situations, I can understand your position. But a 6’2″ male walking down Main Street in the middle of Wednesday afternoon with a concealed gun are probably not the type of people who understands risk very well, and probably shouldn’t have a gun.

  55. Deb Geelsdottir 2015-10-10

    Oh Barry. I think you misunderstand the word “ammosexual”. Actually Don gave a good description: “a 6’2″ male walking down Main Street in the middle of Wednesday afternoon with a concealed gun are probably not the type of people who understands risk very well, and probably shouldn’t have a gun.”

    That’s an ammosexual. Or the dumb woman blasting at a shoplifter in the busy Home Depot parking lot. That’s an ammosexual. Or the doofuses sitting on the tailgate of their confederate flag decorated pickup holding anti-Obama signs.That’s an ammosexual. Or the strutters who paraded through Target with assault rifles slung over there shoulders. That’s an ammosexual.

    In all my hunting years, I never tromped a cornfield with a camouflage and $500 boot wearing, assault rifle hauling, beer drinking, idiot ammosexual. They scare the hell out of me.

    I believe I said in my earlier comment that I currently have a. 38 special. My hope is that if I ever feel a genuine threat to my life, I will use it. But having felt the power of that adrenaline surge in a real life-threatening circumstance, I know it’s the height of folly to say that I’d be calm as a cucumber, pull my 12 gauge out from under the desk, and shoot only the threat, with no little children being harmed.

    (Why in the world would I ever have a loaded 12 gauge shotgun in my desk at school?! That’s the height of insanity! As a former teacher, I can absolutely guarantee that Sometime that gun would cause harm, maybe even death of an innocent. I don’t think I could live with that.)

    This idea that guns can solve every problem is simply WRONG.

  56. Deb Geelsdottir 2015-10-10

    Barry, I just wrote a comment on another post about my use of the term, “pasty people”, so I’m going to paste it here:

    That’s a descriptor referring to skin color. I am a “pasty” person, especially by the time February rolls around.

    When I was in grad school one of my classmates was from Cameroon. What a magnificent skin color! He was so black, he was almost blue black! His skin was positively stunning. I’ve never seen anything like that in human skin before.

    Some multiracial people have skin the color of strong coffee with plenty of cream in it. It’s the richest, warmest brown. And Australian Aboriginal people! They have the greatest dark, bold-featured faces!

    I am jealous of those folks wonderful skin colors. Those of us whose skin color is “white” are indeed bland, pasty people.

  57. leslie 2015-10-22

    buresch-long guns, schlong guns: aurora shooter with 100 round canister on his ar15 is the reason dems want to ban them.

    please stick this up yer your handgun:

    Fifty years after its founding as a sort of adjunct to the state militia, the N.R.A. was a vital part of legislative efforts to keep pistols out of the wrong hands, or “separate the gunman from the gun,” as The Times reported on July 12, 1926.

Comments are closed.