Glad to see some of the political guys back!!! If you are law enforcement then you need hi-cap etc but if you are a private citizen the only point of these weapons is to harm a lot of people in a short amount of time.

Great post.....

Thank you for a truthful post. And the comment about taken in by crocodile tears tops the list of disgusting nonfactual personal opinions.

This is my assessment of this post that I would like to verify.
I am assuming from what you say that you CANNOT HAVE ALCOHOL while carrying your gun. I hope I am right, but do not know for sure. I do know that you can have a few beers and then return to your car (if under the .08 limit) and drive. Please clarify drinking and carrying.

Quote:"since criminals have them, law-abiding citizens need them to protect themselves from the criminals."

I don't believe I have ever heard of an assault rifle being used for self defense or to defend against a home invasion. Only to massacre innocent people.

Same here, I have not seen that or heard that on the news either. It seems more likely that the assault rifle or automatic high capacity fire hand guns are the desire of people that have some underlying paranoia or simply the old macho thing of mine is bigger than yours is. Please take this post as my humble opinion and nothing more. I feel it would be a fitting tribute to dedicate a law in the Newtown citizens names to ban these over the top weapons.

You can NOT drink any alcohol if you are carrying a concealed firearm. You may carry it if you are only in the restaurant portion of the building but may not carry it in the bar portion. Also you may not have any alcohol with your meal.

Where I lived before was very different from here, next to the Mexican Border in New Mexico, I carried almost all the time, either openly or concealed. New Mexico is an open carry state. Never did I imbibe while carrying. Since moving to The Villages, I hardly ever carry anymore. Might stick one in the car when going off Villages, but until things change, really have not felt the need to carry while anyplace in The Villages. I am more scared of driving that being accosted by a criminal. Do really believe that I have more of a chance of being run over by one of you Villagers that are in a hurry to get someplace, but just can't remember where or why you are in such a hurry.

The sad part about most of the people with concealed carry permits is that they obtrained them with minimum training or no training at all. They have no knowledge of the Florida laws concerning concealed carry or even how to react to a situation that would require the use of a concealed weapon, IE., the old man who fired at the two kids robbing the internet cafe in Ocala. He was correct in what he did, until he fired the last two shoots as they were running out the door. Once he did that he could have been charged with agg assault or even manslaughter. He is fortunate that the DA in Ocala is firearm friendly. Now what would have been the reaction if one of those rounds would have hit someone else? You must remember that every bullet has a lawyer attached to it. So even if you have your concealed carry permit, take some training classes, learn how, when you should take action with a deadly weapon. Just because you are licensed to carry does not give you a license to use deadly force.

Hope that this clears up your question about drinking and carrying. Now would you like to start a discussion about drinking and driving here in The Villages?

Very good post and this is exactly why people that have the knowledge and training that you have should carry for you may very well save someones life in the future. In view of what you say above, I will self contain my belief to Control and not Ban fire arms. How about better screening of buyers and enforcement to have them secure the arms when not in their possession. If the mother was still alive, she should be charged with aiding to this crime.

This can NOT happen again
 

Being a grandpa to little ones and a total lover of little people and all people, I have cried many tears.
As details are coming out of these babies having multiple bullets shots into to their little bodies- it is just unbelievable. I look at my grandchildren and they are so happy and trusting. Can't imagine the pain of any of them ever being shot!!!
I'm afraid nothing is going to change. I'm afraid it is going to happen again.
And think of all the babies and young people/teachers/school Admin/ who will live in more fear while they are in their classrooms. This school was locked, just like all schools are now. Believe me, many schools have had angry parents or students with guns.
I'm a hunter and have had guns all my life. I'm not against guns, just assault weapons. We must not just sit back and do nothing. This was just too tragic and evil to happen again.

This is just a reminder, not directed at any specific individual post above....

This discussion is about a notable current event and, for the most part, the posts have stayed on track to the event and the related issues of weapons and mental health.

Any posts that stray into partisan politics or inflammatory name calling of other TOTV members or public officials, will be edited or deleted. If the discussion strays too far, the thread will be closed.

When a controversial topic can be discussed with civility and respect, we all benefit.

Thanks for your cooperation.

This seems to show some merit. I do see the media as part of the violence problem.
 

Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened in Newtown, CT.

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
...
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

It is not possible to prevent all violence, just as it is not possible to prevent automobile fatalities, still with sensible laws and education we can reduce the impact. The mother of a very troubled boy was also a "gun enthusiast". Why was she or anyone permitted to legally purchase semi-automatic weapons and massive rounds of ammunition? It is too late to prevent the death of these innocent children and brave educators in CT, but responsible laws, education and resources for the mentally ill and their families can go a long way toward minimizing future tragedies...each of us shares some responsibility here...
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people." - Martin Luther King Jr.

I just viewed photos of some of the children that were murdered. I can't even figure out what to write next. There are no words that come to mind just overwhelming emotion. What can you say? What can you do? I just don't know how someone can point a rifle at these little children and adults and shoot them down in cold blood.

So true!!!

Why did this "gun enthusiast", and presumably responible gun owner who knew her son had mental health issues, not keep her guns safely locked up? It's being reported on TV today that the shooter had issues dating back to elementary school, when he attended the school where the shooting took place.

If she had kept her guns in a safe locked place, she might be alive today along with the 27 other people killed. I guess we will never know.

These are the types of questions that can turn around the national debate!!!

I support a ban of auto, semi auto weapons, high cap clips and body armor.

:agree:

It seems now is the perfect time to address this issue. The NRA will probably deny that guns is not the issue but how can one not say that access to these type of weapons should not be avilable to the general public. They should be in the hands of the military and other reponsible law enforcement agencies.

I see no reason why a sane person would need a gun that contains many bullets fired at a rapid rate to defend themselves. To think otherwise is pure folly.

I have been reading many articles on this tradgedy and I am still sick over how many babies were slaughtered. Six and seven year olds never to grow up and have children of their own. They had a right to expect a life with so much promise. :pray:

I agree that there is no reason someone should need such weaponry unless they are in a war zone. The US has not been near a war zone since probably WWII at times.

I have been reading a book The Zookeeper's Wife on the experience of Poles in Warsaw during the WWII and the occupation of the Nazis. The people of Warsaw had a terrible set of experiences. They went through the invasion by what almost anyone admit was an evil totalitarian regime. Maybe, there is a possibility that some foreign power will invade the US at some date or some radical military group will take over a territory or some section of a state like with Idaho's various militias.

Maybe the NRA should set up some kind of cache of arms in very secure locations accessible to very few people to meet the possibilities envisioned by the Founding Fathers of some kind of invasion. Foreign and Native American incursions were still a very real threat in the 1780s. Then the politicians could come down very hard on getting semi-automatic and automatic weapons out of the hands of US citizens and criminals.

Just as much damage could have been afflicted with a pump action shotgun or just handguns. In this case the gunman was not challenged so reloading was not so much an issue. I don't know why anyone would "need" an assault rifle but the bottom line is it's not guns that are the problem here..

You might want to apologize to the Good Citizens of Idaho, List of U.S. Militia Groups « DarkGovernment They are not even listed on this website.

'Teeth of the Constitution:' Light Foot Militia rises in Idaho's backcountry - PhotoBlog

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

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informe...n-the-united-s

I hope not to offend anyone on here, but Timothy McVeigh was involved in a militia group, I find them all terrorists and enemies of the United States Of America. We have democratic ways to make our government work for us, and if you feel there would ever be a reason to rise up against our government, please get help.

Yep - well said Lou!

to refer to the killers mother as a "responsible gun owner" is simply just not true.
As evidenced by the tragedy in CT.

It is an affront and insult to the real, responsible gun owners.

When will the conversations shift from the killer to the victims and their families and their plight in the near future? Must not be controversial or abrasive enough as exemplified by the main streams media placing the priority coverage on the killer and how he did it and speculating beyond their intellectual capacity.

btk

Okay Billie, I usually agree with most you say, but it seems to me YOU may be speculating beyond your intellectual capacity. How do we know at this time, that the mother was not a responsible gun owner? IMO, owning a bushmaster type weapon is irresponsible, but it is apparently not illegal, and she had apparently acquired the appropriate permits. How do we know he didn't kill her in order to get access to the guns so he could carry out his killing fantasies. There is a lot we don't know, and there has already been a lot of misinformation, so I will wait until all the investigation has been done to come to conclusions such as this, and even then we will not know eveything.

No one is discussing the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Most of these mass shooting are brought to us by "mentally ill" young men whose own parents are afraid of. In this case, it has been reported, the gunmen's mother was angry with the school system for not helping her with this child. Many years ago the mental health system was dismantled, if the remember correctly, somewhat based on personal freedoms....but was supposed to be replaced with community health care centers. That system, i believe, was not funded leaving many mentally ill wandering the streets homeless. Add to this the number of American families without healthcare or without mental healthcare covered by their insurance policy.

We need to look at this issue as well during this debate.

Hopefully I have stated this in a completely non political way!

I agree in that is not a gun problem but "access to guns is the problem" in the hands of evil or mentally unstable person.

I agree one does not need an assault rifle to defend themselves.

I ask this with respect ....

If she had the permits, complying with local laws why now is not a responsible gun owner? How about the gun collector in Jacksonville?

Do they go from responsible to non reponsible because their gun was used in a non responsible way? I have never understood this point....these children were killed with legally obtained weapons.

If you go back and read my previous post, you will notice I said "presumably responsible gun owner" based on reports that the mother had complied with all the permitting processes in CT, which has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country.

Obviously, she wasn't that "responsible" or her guns would have been in a safe, secure, locked place where her son couldn't get them.

This case is in the very early stages of investigation and much more will be divulged with time.

You certainly got this one right! I watched this morning as the media went on and on about how if any mentally deranged person wanted to end it all and really hurt people, all he has to do was head to a school filled with children.

Really? We need the media to "report" this?

Whatever happened to the days when the news media's job was simply "just to REPORT," be objective and withhold their own personal opinions and comments. Oh yeah, and check their facts BEFORE reporting the news.

This country needs to start addressing what appears on the news...

That actually was Morgan Freeman who wrote this. Got it off of a Facebook post that someone put on my Facebook account. Big time actors and actresses do say quite bright things every once in a while.

I totally agree! They don't seem to care who is damaged by their irresponsible rush to 'just get the story aired'! I think it's appalling that, as a for instance, they immediately reported that Adam Lanza's brother Ryan was the shooter! They covered their butts later by saying that maybe Adam had his brother's ID. Ryan lost his mother and brother plus they have permanently linked his name to the shooting. They don't give a rat's behind. Same with his mother; everything they are spewing in regards to her guns and how they were kept is speculation!

I guess the Loyalists during the Revolutionary War must have felt the same way.

What he said, and you reported are very true. However, (and isn't there always a however?) I try to think of what the solution might be and I can't think of one. First: what is the mainstream media? I guess I would define it as any media outlet that is on my direct TV, or cable menu. A few years ago I would have said the major networks, and maybe CNN, but now virtually everyone has access to dozens or even hundreds of news outlets on TV. So let's say they all conspired to never mention the name of, or any background about, any mass killer. Okay, I know, this would never be likely to happen, but just say it did, kind of like the FCC USED to ban profanity and sexual innuendo. Back when I grew up, in the fifties, TV output was tightly controlled and we all thought Lucille Ball, Harriett Nelson, Donna Reed, and Barbara Billingsley were the typical matrons of typical families. Actually they weren't then, and are even less so now. Now, even if the "mainstream media" were equally controlled, you have the internet. There is simply no way that I can see, of controlling content on the internet. Today, bloggers would get hold of information, or bits of information, and they would satiate the desires of all the people that wanted to know, and if you think the mainstream media lacks journalistic ethics, get a load of some of the nitwits that are out there in the wild wild world of the web. The bloggers would have no restraint from printing rumors that were not fact, and wild speculation. At least the mainstream media GENERALLY shows restraint, and try to confirm rumors or information before making it public. In this age, I just cannot fathom what it would take to truly keep information about a mass killer away from a public, many of whom would move heaven and earth to get all the juicy details. If someone has a realistic answer I am all eyeballs.

That is true. We are just shooting the messenger. The networks are a business and they lose sponsors if they don't keep the dial tuned on their station.

We are supposed to try to evaluate things ourselves and make decisions based on the experiences we have had in our life and from teachings from trusted people in our life, mostly our family.

If a person lives in a delusional world distorted by mental illness or substance abuse, then not much can keep these kinds of things from happening.

The Baltimore Catechism used to teach that by the age of seven we had the use of reason and could chose between right and wrong.

It has grown very difficult to sort out as of late to be sure.

We all just have to do the best we can.

That's true that information has a way of getting out even in places with as tight a control on the press as China.

What bugs me is the mindset of making this a competition among the deranged as to who can put up the highest body count. They almost talk about it as who won the latest World Series. Along the same line, I have heard of very uncouth business people who sell serial killer trading cards.

Morgan Freeman seemed to be condemning the need to sensationalize the CT school shootings for ratings.

While I agree with most of what Morgan Freeman said in this quote above, I think it would be even more "brilliant" to look in the mirror as a Hollywood actor and Screen Actors' Guild member, and look at how HOLLYWOOD glamorizes and sensationalizes cold-blooded, grizzly killing/torture of people on the movie screen! Two movies that come to mind are the movies "Seven" with Brad Pitt and Gwenyth Paltrow, and Pulp Fiction. Grizzly and disgusting!!!!

Hollywood feeds and feeds ON blood-bath violence......and perversion. They are just as much to blame as the "news" networks!!

They were not loyalists, they were traders to the English mainland that put them in the Americas. We are all benefiting from what they did, but they were no less than terrorists and traders to their own country. Our own laws would have them executed if they did to us what they did to England. So please call them lots of things, but not loyalists.

:throwtomatoes:

There are some movies that glamorize violence. Others show the reality and the pain that it causes. I personally did not like Seven but Pulp Fiction seemed more like a parody of action movies.

Your rambling post makes no sense. You might want to google to the term "Loyalist" and review your Revolutionary War history, I think you are a bit confused. I never called anyone a Loyalist, I only stated that your original post seems to convey an attituded similar to that shared by many Loyalists (those loyal to England) during the Revolutionary War.