published Saturday, December 15th, 2012

The slaughter of innocents

People leave the Sandy Hook Volunteer Fire House in tears after a shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Friday morning in Newtown, Conn.
People leave the Sandy Hook Volunteer Fire House in tears after a shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, Friday morning in Newtown, Conn.
Photo by Associated Press /Chattanooga Times Free Press.

The mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in a small Connecticut town Friday morning will be as inexplicable, in its own way, as all such shootings are.

There is no way to rationally explain, or understand, how a demented soul can shoot to death his mother, a kindergarten teacher, and then shoot to death 20 small children she taught, who must have watched in horror until a bullet ended each of their brief lives.

There is no way to explain why he would kill six more, all adults and teachers, or wound others who rushed to the sound of the rapid gunfire to protect their students. And as this was written, it remained unclear if Adam Lanza then killed himself, or was shot dead by someone else.

What we do know is this: There is only more blood, more tragedy, more needless death of innocents, more broken hearts, more devastated families, more unmitigated shock, more numbing grief, more tears, more unanswered questions.

None of this is new. This is too much like the Columbine shootings in a Colorado school, a Pennsylvania school, a Denver theater, a neighborhood political rally in Phoenix, a New York subway, a Milwaukee spa, an Oregon shopping mall, a Virginia college, among many other places.

It is a relentless and endless litany, which only grows longer. The only change is the varying venue, the year, the place, the number of slain or crippled victims, the names of the diminished families, and types of guns and large ammunition clips the killers used in their rapid-fire slaughters.

We repeatedly endure these unimaginably horrific and random serial murders, experience the shared grief, moan at the awfulness of it all, and ask, yet again, why do we, as a nation -- unlike so many safer nations -- continue to allow such easy access to the machines of mayhem and to the deranged death stalkers who deploy them.

And then, after a few days, comes the witlessly predictable chants from the NRA and its hard-core minions -- a tiny minority of Americans, actually -- who say that the problem is there aren't enough guns; not enough vigilante gunners. That more people need to carry guns -- in bars, parks, churches, schools and their employers' parking lots -- to be ready to shoot the shooters.

Never, they say, should we tighten the rules of purchase at gunshops, or plunge deeper into background and mental health records of buyers, or make a uniform federal requirement to regulate purchases at gun shows, which now are often wide open, with no state requirement for background checks or recorded sales of private sellers and buyers.

In fact, many states, including Tennessee, keep moving to expand gun rights, along with the right to shoot and kill anyone who comes on our private property and who can be said, later, to have appeared to threaten a homeowner.

So the question now, in the wake of the latest massacre of innocents and small children, is when we will learn. When will our political leaders stand up and declare -- as President Obama seemed to suggest Friday -- that our nation needs to do something more than just lament these tragedies, and that a large part of the answer is stiffer gun control. It is that time.

We need, as a nation, to take concrete action, now, to eliminate the assault rifles, large clips and ammo magazines, online markets, and indiscriminate sales of these weapons and accessories of war on our society. If we only wring our hands -- and kowtow to the NRA's relentless expansion of gun-rights propaganda to keep its membership up -- we will not begin to solve the problem of mass murders of innocents in public places. They will just continue, and we will just continue to mourn.

It ever there is a time to act, it surely is now.

41
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Pass_it_on said...

When will the media focus on the real issue?

Reagan destroyed mental health care system in the United States because of budget problems. We are reaping the results of that decision. There are graver budget problems today ... banning firearms will not solve this problem.

The underlying cause for EVERY mass shooting in the last decade has been mental health issues.

So, the media has taken it among themselves to let a collection mentally ill people rip apart the Constitution and destroy the fabric of our society.

Isn't it obvious that a heavily promoted gun-free zone attracted this mentally ill individual to "leave his mark on society?"

You meet force with force. A trained school resource officer and several well trained school personnel such as those with military background will be more effective in denying the insane their quest for infamy.

December 15, 2012 at 5:15 a.m.
joneses said...

pass it on,

The O'Bastard controlled liberal main stream media is to focused on exploiting these horrendous massacres and other events to move forward their agenda than to focus on the real issues. These liberals have no desire to focus on the degradation of society they are causing, with their support of all the filth in America. These liberals love these horrendous events. Remember when O'Bastard's White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanual said, "Never let a tragic event go wasted?"

December 15, 2012 at 8:11 a.m.
timbo said...

Harry, all that would be fine and good except the guns were purchased legally by his mother and then stolen. As usual your emotional diatribe is just plain illogical.

This incident was terrible but like others like them are rare. So rare in fact that more people are struck by lightening than die in mass killings like this one. On the other hand, guns are used thousands of times every year for protection.

As far as "safer countries". Do you mean gun control countries like Norway (over 70 killed in mass murder)? Maybe you mean Mexico with strict gun control and the highest gun crime rate in the world? How about Chicago or Washington ? I know we should be like China or the old Soviet Union?

It looks to me like the gun control area are the dangerous places. Give me the good ole gun toting South any time.

Harry, your an idiot.

December 15, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"So rare in fact that more people are struck by lightening than die in mass killings like this one."

You'll need to provide some evidence for this idiotic statistic before any thinking person would believe it.

"On the other hand, guns are used thousands of times every year for protection."

And? How many people die per year due to gun violence? Try tens of thousands.

"Do you mean gun control countries like Norway (over 70 killed in mass murder)?"

Gun related deaths per year in Norway : 1.78 per 100,000

Gun related deaths per year in US: 9.00 per 100,000

"Maybe you mean Mexico with strict gun control and the highest gun crime rate in the world?"

Only slightly above us in gun related deaths per year (11 per 100,000).

"How about Chicago or Washington ?"

How about Australia, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Canada? Why didn't you mention them? I know! Because they go against the BS you're trying to push.

"I know we should be like China or the old Soviet Union?"

Get your rocks off with the Communist allusions, you Wing Nut hack.

"It looks to me like the gun control area are the dangerous places."

And you would be a freaking moron if you actually believe that. The facts are against you.

"Give me the good ole gun toting South any time."

Southern states have the highest crime rate. Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, Lousiana. Violent crime rate above 500 per 100,000 in each of those states. Alabama, Georgia and Virginia are above 400 per.

"Harry, your an idiot."

Timbo, you are bonafide moron.

December 15, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.
Fendrel said...

One comment -

No one believes that outlawing guns would increase the number of people killed each year, so the question becomes why would anyone want to preserve their hobby at the expense of innocent lives?

December 15, 2012 at 1 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Increasing hand gun possession is a symbol of our country in decline.

December 15, 2012 at 2:18 p.m.
conservative said...

nucanuck, I agree.

Wish you had written moral decline though.

The ultimate source and authority of morals is God.

Liberals have prevented the morals of God from being taught in our public schools and now we are reaping what Liberals have sown.

Wake up America!

December 15, 2012 at 2:54 p.m.
conservative said...

The ultimate source and authority of morals is God.

Liberals have prevented the morals of God from being taught in our public schools and now we are reaping what Liberals have sown.

Wake up America!

December 15, 2012 at 3:03 p.m.
Fendrel said...

conservative, how absurd and insensitive!

Are you trying to say that even though some of those families are undoubtedly Christian, go to church, attend bible study, say grace at every meal and where their children would say prayers every night before bedtime and everyone in the house loved Jesus, that God, would withhold his protection for those innocent children simply because some politician in Washington decided that religion is practiced in church rather than in public schools and God wanted to make a point?

What a tragic and sick outlook to have.

December 15, 2012 at 3:20 p.m.
conservative said...

Fendrel, how absurd and insensitive!

Your question gives you away for you don't care to know what I was saying, you just had a Liberal knee reaction because the truth hit you in the gut.

Teach your kids the morals taught in the Bible and you and yours are unlikely to do such an act.

December 15, 2012 at 3:36 p.m.
jjmez said...

Teach your kids the morals taught in the Bible and you and yours are unlikely to do such an act

Unless you're Andrea Yates.

Andrew Kehoe, Bath Township Michigan 1927. First mass school killing on record where 38 school children were killed along with 2 teachers, four adults and 58 others were injured. God was in schools back then.

December 15, 2012 at 3:44 p.m.
Fendrel said...

Conservative,

If this tragedy is from a lack of religion and teaching morals in schools, then explain why priests, steeped in Christianity are so fond of abusing young children?

December 15, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
conservative said...

Fendrel, I will try to "explain" to you where you are wrong in your thinking.

First, your premise "If this tragedy is from a lack of religion and teaching morals in schools" is not valid. There are no guarantees all killings will stop just because morals based on God's word are taught in school. However, all killings, thefts, homosexual behavior, adultery, sex outside marriage etc. would be greatly reduced. You may have noticed that people are not perfect and therefore need moral and legal restraints. It has always been this way

Those few priests who abuse children, especially homosexual acts obviously are hypocrites for they don't practice what they preach and do not abide in God's word. I would in no way defend their behavior especially homosexual behavior. You have failed greatly if you think I would condone or defend such behavior.

Much of the blame belongs to those who would put people not "steeped" in Christianity into these positions of leadership. People who are not familiar with the Bible are so easily led.

December 15, 2012 at 7:21 p.m.
Fendrel said...

Conservative, not to drag this out, but isn't that exactly what you said

"Liberals have prevented the morals of God from being taught in our public schools and now we are reaping what Liberals have sown."

December 15, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"There are no guarantees all killings will stop just because morals based on God's word are taught in school. However, all killings, thefts, homosexual behavior, adultery, sex outside marriage etc. would be greatly reduced.:

Fallacy: Irrelevant conclusion and non sequitur.

"You may have noticed that people are not perfect and therefore need moral and legal restraints."

Erroneous.

"especially homosexual acts"

So the rape of females weren't as bad, right?

"I would in no way defend their behavior especially homosexual behavior."

You basically just did. However, there is marked difference between homosexuality/heterosexuality and rape/molestation. You're just too ignorant to understand.

"You have failed greatly if you think I would condone or defend such behavior."

You have by acting like rape between members of the same sex is, in some way, worse.

"People who are not familiar with the Bible are so easily led."

Christians are the most gullible, ignorant, delusional group of all-time. And I would put cash money down that I am more familiar with the Bible than you are.

December 15, 2012 at 8:09 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

FOLLOWING ARE STATES THAT SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY:

Please attempt to make an association/connection about what is going on in this world. I will get to the 'Druggie' States later. kwo

Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washingtonג€”as well as the District of Columbia [California] Colorado recognizes Homosexual Unions.

STATES WITH VERY, VERY, LAX DRUG LAWS. The Holy Bible labels this Pharmakeia (sorcery). WAKE UP PEOPLE. Make some logical associations!

Connecticut, Maine, Oregon, Colorado, California, New York & Massachusetts

Connecticut makes the 'Cut' for Pharmakeia and Homosexuality!

Ken ORR

December 15, 2012 at 9:49 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Please understand that since Adam and Eve, the multiplicity of sin is beyond calculation. Our Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ demands perfection. {Attained through our asking forgiveness.}

Then, the multiplicity of of the consequences for these sins thunders toward an exponential curve. No Beast, nor, any other Super Computer could ever calculate the Chastisement for these sins.

It is dreadful what has happened, yet, these innocent children have automatic entrance to the portals of Glory.

It is us, it is us, who now suffer, not them. {i know..."It is we..."}

December 15, 2012 at 9:50 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

My heart is broken over this tragedy. My prayers and love and sympathy goes out to all of the families.

December 15, 2012 at 9:57 p.m.
GrouchyJohn said...

Many of you are simply arguing stupid stuff and not looking at the Big Picture. The big picture is this: This country has lots of guns in it already, and is always going to have guns. You aren't going to be able to take the guns away from people, they - including me - will refuse to give them up unless its like the old saying "take it from my cold dead hand". As long as some twit or crazy has a gun, you can not expect me to give up my protection.

The big picture has to include a "what are we going to do to stop this kind of senseless murder" solution.

After the shooting in Colorado, the governor of the state said the one thing that made ANY sense.... don't make this a gun control issue. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

So what do we do? The principal and the school psychologist at the Connecticut school had the right idea, but insufficient equipment to deal with it. They charged the attacker. They could do nothing less than they did. They gave their all for the kids.

I'm gonna steal a quote from a newsletter I received yesterday on this subject:
"In the early 70's, Israel was faced with much greater problems of armed terrorist attacks on schools. The cry for more gun control was heard then too, but Israel very carefully analyzed all possible options before adopting the proactive position of arming and training their teachers. School shootings stopped and terrorists looked for easier targets."

I can hear some of you howling already - "Arm teachers? Arm Principals and staff? INSANE!!" Unfortunately, something has to be done and this solution has not only been used in Israel with success but is beginning to be used all over this country. Special dispensation is being given to military vets and former police officers to carry concealed on college campuses. School systems in some areas are already having teachers trained to carry concealed weapons.

There is a saying in the community that promotes concealed carry as self protection. "When it is a life or death situation and reaction is needed RIGHT NOW, the police are just minutes away." This in no way is a put-down of our police, it is simply a statement of fact. We don't want to spend the money to hire enough police to insure there is one on every corner, nor should we have to.

Arming teachers or staff members, giving them the tactical training to shoot well and the knowledge of WHEN to shoot is a viable solution. If this solution is used, there are also volunteers that would be willing to give freely of their time, ex military, ex police, trained civilians. I fit within one of these classifications and I would gladly give my time at one of the schools close to me.

Principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach had the right instincts. They ran to the sounds of the guns. They charged the gunman. They died trying. Had one of them been armed, this God awful situation would not have occurred.

December 16, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
nucanuck said...

If we look around the developed world we find that the US stands out for gun violence at both the personal and the national level. Somehow we have allowed ourselves to rationalize gun use and ownership with strength and security when we have so many examples showing that most countries with gun control also experience far less gun violence. This isn't rocket science, but rather simple logic...which we choose to ignore.

The path we are on is one of gun violence escalation and ever increasing hand gun ownership. Hand guns are designed for no other real purpose than to kill other humans. While individuals may gain a feeling of self-protection by carrying hand guns, the more universal hand gun possession becomes, the more inevitable escalating violence will become.

We can look to countries with less violence for examples or we can continue the carnage, it's our choice.

Most likely, we will continue the carnage until the violence reaches a point where even the most ardant gun fans don't feel safe anywhere.

That would be an ugly America and that is the path we are on.

December 16, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.
timbo said...

Easy123.. First of all, FACTS for you liberals who only understand emotional rantings are foreign but I think I will waste my time anyway trying to educate you.

Here are a few facts with the web sites so you can check up on me:

  1. Mass murders in this century of 4 people of more. 432 in 100 years for an average of 4.32 per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

  2. Number of people struck by lightning that died in the US. We average about 100 per year. If we multiplied it by 100 years (a century) it would equal about 10,000 people. http://askville.amazon.com/people-struck-lightning-yearly/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=1201193

  3. Number of people killed in bicycle accidents in 2010. 610. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm

  4. Number of people killed by drunk drivers. 10,288 in 2010 www.cdc.gov/.../impaired_driving/impa...>

  5. Number of people killed by guns. 47,856 between 2006 and 2010. That is an average of about 10,000 per year. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/08/guns-in-america-a-statistical-look/

  6. Number of people killed in the bathtub. 15,900 people were killed in 1998 due to falls in the shower / bathtub. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_every_year_from_falling_down_in_their_shower_tub

Now, I am going to explain this like I would to a child since liberals are on the emotional level of children.

We live in a dangerous world. Many, many things can kill you. There are 320 million people in this country and the chances of you being killed in a mass murder are about .0000015625 percent. Mass murders are so rare that they are statistically insignificant. There were more people killed riding bicycles in 2010 than died in ALL mass murders this century in the US.

20 times more people were killed falling in the bathtub. 20 times more people were killed struck by lightning. Drunk drivers kill just as many people as guns. Should we make cars illegal? Drunk driving is illegal but they still take a car (similar to a gun) and kill. Let's blame the car. Let's blame the alcohol (oh yea, we tried making that illegal), let's blame the bath/tub and we can spray down we a water hose.

And last but surely not least, criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2012/07/26/yes_guns_kill_but_how_often_are_they_used_in_selfdefense/page/full/

For you emotionally immature liberal wimps to comment on this is ludicrous. Do you see how absolutely ridiculous you are? I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

I guess those 2.5 million people should be denied there right of self-protection to save 4.3 people a year. How many more dead would there be without guns?

This was a terrible thing but turn emotion into policy is downright stupid.

December 16, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Conservative and Orr

When you went to church this morning was God, Jesus, or the Holy Spook there telling why they allow innocent children and adults to die? Was the Trinity there to explain how much love they have?

As to Bible morality, there's no bigger criminal fiend than Jehovah. A petty mass murderer who killed more people himself and through his followers than all the secular crazies who have ever lived.

Please read the Bible. Get past the quaint little sayings about peace, love, and "do unto others" and read what a despicable god you worship.

Jehovah is the evil stepfather of life. There is no morality with that twisted, perverted old goat of a deity.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have their defenders. God has you and that's nothing to brag about.

December 16, 2012 at 2:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

Your idiot math is wrong as are your assumptions. They aren't facts if they aren't accurate. I guess the truth is foreign to your Wing Nut morons. Here are the real facts. See if you can keep up:

"Number of people killed by guns. 47,856 between 2006 and 2010. That is an average of about 10,000 per year."

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.

Your 10,000 gun related deaths per year number just went out the window.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

"Many, many things can kill you."

And guns kill the most people.

"There are 320 million people in this country and the chances of you being killed in a mass murder are about .0000015625 percent. Mass murders are so rare that they are statistically insignificant. There were more people killed riding bicycles in 2010 than died in ALL mass murders this century in the US."

This is a strawman argument of sorts. Mass murders aren't the problem. MURDERS are. One person getting killed by a gun is too many. You are misrepresenting the situation by limiting this to mass murders. The gun-related death rate in the US is 9 per 100,000. That's top 15 in the world. By the way, there are about 311 million people in this country. Your "facts" are wrong.

"20 times more people were killed falling in the bathtub. 20 times more people were killed struck by lightning. Drunk drivers kill just as many people as guns."

Again, this is a fallacious argument as only you are talking about mass murders. I'm talking about all gun-related deaths. You're either very stupid or you're being intentionally dishonest. Which is it? "Should we make cars illegal?"

No one is advocating making guns illegal, moron. However, vehicles are heavily regulated. Notice the driver's license in your wallet. If you get too many tickets, your license gets revoked. Same with a DUI.

"Drunk driving is illegal but they still take a car (similar to a gun) and kill."

No one purposefully drives to kill though. Are you too stupid to understand that?

"Let's blame the car."

Would walking drunk be as dangerous? How about running? How many people would die from drunk driving if drunk people were required to take a breathylizer to start their car? You argument is garbage

"Let's blame the alcohol (oh yea, we tried making that illegal), let's blame the bath/tub and we can spray down we a water hose."

How about we just think logically? You should try it.

December 16, 2012 at 2:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

continued to timbo,

"For you emotionally immature liberal wimps to comment on this is ludicrous."

For you dumbass, ignorant, Wing Nut Conservatives to comment on this is absolutely asinine. You're irrational and patently ignorant.

"Do you see how absolutely ridiculous you are?"

Do you see how blatantly stupid you are?

"I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT."

No one is asking you to. That isn't even part of the discussion, moron. However, murder is statistically significant. Your "mass murder" argument has already been proven to be fallacious.

Would you like to try again? Maybe think with your brain this time instead of your ass? It really is hard to have a meaningful debate of any kind with you Wing Nut morons. You're hopelessly ignorant and proud of it.

December 16, 2012 at 2:48 p.m.
conservative said...

Fendrel,No, it isn't exactly what I said as I explained at 7:21 but you seemed to infer that.

One could wrongly infer from your "why would anyone want to preserve their hobby at the expense of innocent lives?" that you believe that owning a gun means taking innocent lives or do you?

December 16, 2012 at 3:01 p.m.
timbo said...

Easy123....I tried but to no avail. Here it is in a nutshell. Liberals see the world in government in a totally different way than we conservatives. You want to live in a world with government control and we don't. You the government and Obama have no say in whether or not I have a gun or what kind of That I have. If you make laws trying to control our behavior we will just ignore them. Why? Because they are against constitutional principles and the Second Amendment. That trumps any too bit politician Like Barack Obama Or emotional children like yourselves.

The main reason for being armed is not just protection it is protection against the government. It is protection against the tyranny of "Democracy." Obviously don't much know much about history Or you would know that The Constitution means absolutely nothing without the Bill of Rights. That would be like the Old Testament minus the 10 Commandments.

So, just try to Find all the unlicensed hand guns and rifles out in the public's hands. It can't be done without jackbooted thugs Going from house to house to confiscate them. I'm sure that you and the rest of you dumbass liberals think that's a good idea.

Simply, I need guns to protect me from you And people like you. An armed populace is freedom insurance And that is what the founders Meant it to be.

December 17, 2012 at 9:27 a.m.
Sailorman said...

There are two groups I find equally despicable. Their very first responses are along the lines of:

Noooooo "they" are going to try to take my guns because of this

Or

Noooooo "We" need too ban guns NOW because of this

A third group, by no means innocent,is the media. Salivating like hogs at a trough, they bombard us with a flood of senseless comment, speculation, and misinformation. It's a sad thing when police have to be put at people's homes to keep the media from the grieving parents.

Guns are not this countries worst problem. Btw is the "fiscal cliff" no longer an issue?

December 17, 2012 at 12:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

timbo,

"You want to live in a world with government control and we don't."

Most liberals and I would rather live in reality. You nor any of your Wing Nut compatriots will ever live in the United States without government control. You're a fool for thinking that's even an option at this point. Move to Africa if you would like to live in a place without government control. But watch out for those warlords!

"You the government and Obama have no say in whether or not I have a gun or what kind of That I have."

Wrong again. There are gun laws. You have to obey them or you can't own a gun.

" If you make laws trying to control our behavior we will just ignore them."

Go ahead. Ignore them. It won't be my fault when you get arrested. Do you ignore all laws that limit your behavior? Like speeding signs or LAWS IN GENERAL!

"Why? Because they are against constitutional principles and the Second Amendment."

Not really. However, no one is arguing to ban guns. You're arguing with your strawman.

"That trumps any too bit politician Like Barack Obama Or emotional children like yourselves."

No, it really doesn't. Do you know why, moron? Because no one is making the argument to ban guns. You're talking about something that will never happen and an idea that isn't even on the table. Who is the emotional child now? You're the one jumping to irrelevant conclusions and faux outrage about something that isn't going to happen.

"The main reason for being armed is not just protection it is protection against the government."

Whatever you say David Koresh.

" It is protection against the tyranny of "Democracy.""

Aren't we trying to install democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan? Someone should tell them about the tyranny part.

"Obviously don't much know much about history Or you would know that The Constitution means absolutely nothing without the Bill of Rights. That would be like the Old Testament minus the 10 Commandments."

I obviously know more than you because the Constitution would mean something without the Bill of Rights. You are aware that the Bill of Rights isn't actually in the Constitution, right? It's a separate document created 25+ years after the Constitution.

"So, just try to Find all the unlicensed hand guns and rifles out in the public's hands. I'm sure that you and the rest of you dumbass liberals think that's a good idea."

I have said multiple times that no one is advocating that idea whatsoever. You, sir, are the dumbass. But I don't know if "dumbass" really explains the whole story with you. You're ignorant, irrational, illogical, indignant, etc. I would go on but I doubt you would know what those words meant.

December 17, 2012 at 2:07 p.m.
Easy123 said...

cont. to timbo,

"Simply, I need guns to protect me from you And people like you."

So, let me get this straight. You need guns to protect yourself from people that don't want to harm you or have no intention of taking your guns away, correct? How illogical and ridiculously stupid of you. You're an idiot, timbo.

"An armed populace is freedom insurance And that is what the founders Meant it to be."

No one is disagreeing with you, moron.

December 17, 2012 at 2:08 p.m.
joneses said...

I want to thank the liberals for their logic on gun control. With this in mind none of us are responsible for anything we post on here as we all know it is our computers fault. Whew, I am relieved to know that I am not responsible for what I post. In the future if you liberals do not like what I post then please refrain from attacking me with your uninformed, unintellectual, hate filled, childish comments and start attacking my computer. You can also blame the computer companies. By all means the fault does not lie with my behavior. Merry Christmas!

December 17, 2012 at 2:53 p.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

Could you post without a computer? LMFAO! That's what I thought.

December 17, 2012 at 2:56 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Easy123-"You are aware that the Bill of Rights isn't actually in the Constitution, right? It's a separate document created 25+ years after the Constitution."

Idiocy.

Amendment - an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.

The BOR are in fact the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and are therefore a part of the document. The BOR was insisted upon by various states BEFORE they would ratify the Constitution. It was a part of the Constitution before it took effect. There was no 25 year lag.

You fail U.S. History 101.

Perhaps if you are going to be using the phrase "dumbass", you should make sure that your head is not actually inserted in your own ass.

December 17, 2012 at 2:58 p.m.
joneses said...

I understand liberals it is not your fault what you say on here as the responsibility lies with your computer. I have become enlightened as you liberals with my logic.

December 17, 2012 at 3:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Scotty,

"The BOR are in fact the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and are therefore a part of the document."

I was referring to the actual ratified document. The Bill of Rights didn't go into effect until a few years after the Constitution. They are "attached" but were, in effect, separate. IDIOCY!

"the BOR was insisted upon by various states BEFORE they would ratify the Constitution."

The Constitution was ratified first. You even mentioned the amendment process for the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights didn't go into effect until a few years after. They were, as you said, amendments. IDIOCY.

"It was a part of the Constitution before it took effect."

No. The Bill of Rights wasn't even proposed until after the Constitution was ratified. IDIOCY"

"You fail U.S. History 101."

Not quite.

"Perhaps if you are going to be using the phrase "dumbass", you should make sure that your head is not actually inserted in your own ass."

I checked. It isn't. Is yours? Would you like to try again? Also, I meant to edit the "25 years" typo. I meant "2-5 years". I apologize for the error.

December 17, 2012 at 3:32 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Easy123,

Nice try. Read this again...

Amendment - an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.

The amendments are an "addition to" the U.S. Constitution.

Here's a thought experiment. If you have an "addition" built onto your house, say a nice sunroom, is it or is it not a part of your house when it is finished?

U.S. Constitution took effect on 3-4-1789. The BOR became official amandments on 12-15-1791.

The attempted backpeddle to "2-5 years" barely works. The actual stated 25 years is not even close.

""You fail U.S. History 101."

Not quite."

Yes VERY.

December 17, 2012 at 3:56 p.m.
Easy123 said...

ScottyM,

"Here's a thought experiment. If you have an "addition" built onto your house, say a nice sunroom, is it or is it not a part of your house when it is finished?"

Here's another thought experiment: If you have 10 "additions" built onto that house at the same, could it be or could it not be considered another/separate house?

You've already proven my point that they were two, separate entities. And I have already stated that I was talking about the original documents themselves. I'm fully aware that the Bill of Rights were amendments to the Constitution. But they are unlike any other amendments proposed thus far. They were clumped together at the same time and ratified as a unit. They have their own name i.e. The Bill of Rights.

"U.S. Constitution took effect on 3-4-1789. The BOR became official amandments on 12-15-1791."

This speaks to my point. I mentioned it earlier. It also speaks against your point that the Bill of Rights was already in the Constitution before it was ratified.

"The attempted backpeddle to "2-5 years" barely works. The actual stated 25 years is not even close."

Not a backpedal. I made a typographical error. And it depends on which date you're going by. The Constitution was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 and ratified in 1791. If you go by the dates of the creation of each document, it's 2 years. If you go by the ratification dates, it's 3 almost 4. That's strange...it falls right in the range I mentioned. I guess by "barely works", you mean "works perfectly".

I already addressed the error but thanks.

"Yes VERY."

Not at all. A- at least. Would you like to try one more time?

December 17, 2012 at 4:08 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Here's another thought experiment: If you have 10 "additions" built onto that house at the same, could it be or could it not be considered another/separate house?"

It would still be the same house.

Are you retarded?

December 17, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.
Easy123 said...

ScottyM,

"It would still be the same house."

So 10 rooms built at the same time next to each other couldn't be considered another house? Even after you built them all together in the same spot and gave them a unifying name e.g. "garage"?

"Are you retarded?"

Are you??? I'm starting to get that impression. You're the same person that thinks gays have equal rights. IDIOCY, right?

1 more try? I'm trying to be encouraging at this point.

December 17, 2012 at 4:45 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.