University of Michigan President Coleman member of leadership board calling for Obama to address gun violence
The Association of American Universities —whose executive committee includes University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman— has called on president Obama for "meaningful action" on gun control.
In a statement released earlier this month, the association's reacted to a school shooting in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, 2012, in which armed gunman Adam Lanza shot his mother, 26 children and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School and then turned the gun on himself.
In the statement, the association asked Obama and Congress to "to seek effective means of mitigating this scourge of American life."
"The Newtown slaughter is the latest in a series of mass murders... our schools and campuses have unfortunately become centers of national mourning, from Columbine to Virginia Tech, and now Newtown," the statement reads. "We believe that strong, meaningful action needs to occur in three domains: gun control, care of the mentally ill, and the culture of our contemporary media."
University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman speaks with U.S. President Barack Obama before a 2010 commencement speech.
White House
The statement, dated Jan. 2, continued:
"We implore the Congress to work with the Administration to apply honest and open scrutiny to identifying and implementing meaningful, consequential actions now, while the nation is focused on Newtown’s searing tragedy."
The statement was drafted by the AAU executive committee, which includes the leaders of U-M, Duke University, the University of California at Berkley and at Los Angeles, Cornell University, Tulane University, the University of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins University and others. The AAU includes Michigan State University.
The association is a non-profit that represents 60 American colleges and 2 Canadian schools.
After the shooting, Coleman offered the following statement to the U-M community:
"Our hearts are broken by today’s tragic shooting at a Connecticut elementary school. It is all the more painful because of the number of young children involved, both as victims and witnesses. Classrooms are places of learning and creativity, and that special environment was shattered for so many today."
Coleman is a past chair of the AAU, serving as the executive board's leader during the 2011-12 academic year.
The AAU's statement follows an open letter signed by more than 300 college presidents seeking action on gun control after the Newtown massacre.
"We are college and university presidents. We are parents. We are Republicans, Democrats and Independents," the presidents implored. "We urge both our President and Congress to take action on gun control now."
The deadliest school shooting in recent U.S. history occurred on a university campus when a Virginia Tech University student killed 33 people, including himself.
In Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed legislation in December, after the Connecticut shooting, that would have allowed concealed weapons in schools, on campuses and in churches.
Read the full statement: AAU Issues Statement on Gun Violence in America.pdf
Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at kelliewoodhouse@annarbor.com or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.
Comments
Geral Sosbee
Fri, Jan 11, 2013 : 12:20 a.m.
The end game for man may be found by 'connecting the evolutionary dots'. Reduce Mankind To A Fearful, Trembling Species Opinion: Advances in genomic research and other evolutionary & social studies empirically suggest that the current police state (spearheaded by fbi/cia/dod/police)being formed globally actually has profound, longterm and irreversible effect on civilization by ensuring the ultimate survival of the most violent and corrupt human beings in our culture (homicidal sociopaths), making them the dominant alpha group of the emerging homo sapien *species. MASS MURDERERS ARE THE SAME, WHETHER BRANDED AS HEROES OR VILLAINS http://sosbeevfbi.ning.com/profiles/blogs/mass-murderers-are-the-same-whether-branded-as-heroes-or-villains http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v194/__show_article/_a000194-000497.htm *Reduce mankind to a fearful, trembling species: http://sosbeevfbi.ning.com/profiles/blogs/drones-etc So, http://sosbeevfbi.com/worldwidenetwork.html
Hot Sam
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 11:21 p.m.
The bottom line is, why should I not have the RIGHT to be as well armed as the bad guy?
JGTRUEBLUE
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 8:29 p.m.
I am sickened by these sanctimonious, narcissistic academics who only step outside their socialist circles to join another "leadership committee" when they have no clue what leadership means. If M.S. Coleman had a clue - meaning any logic instead of ideology - the order would be #1 - address epidemic mental illness WHICH is directly influenced by #2 - the contemporary media which is strongly supported by liberal academia, and then #3 - gun control for those who are THE criminals - not the law abiding citizens who do not have bodyguards or security around them. It never ceases to amaze me how this woman (MSC) is given such accolades for nothing more than glorified fundraising for foreign students and her progressive agenda. FACT - Guns do not go off. People go off. I will celebrate her retirement.
Superior Twp voter
Wed, Jan 9, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.
Wow! Excellent stuff!! Agreed.
jns131
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 6:43 p.m.
Gifford was shot when? There was public outrage to do something about it. Congress said we will look into it. They did nothing. Then Aurora Colorado theater shooting. Again people cried out we need to do something and again it fell on deaf ears. Then the deaths of 6 human shields to protect 20 little bodies and again we cried out we need to do something. And Congress has done what? Nothing. They have done nothing to improve institutions to help the mentally ill and those who have guns and will use them. Nothing will change until Americans really go nuts on Congress. Good luck with this one. Again Congress gives themselves a pay raise and they go on vacation.
Superior Twp voter
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:07 p.m.
Ahhhh yes, the Commandantress of "Moscow on the Huron" has spoken. And the Bamster with turkey-Joe the gun grabber would like nothing better than to rid the USA of all guns.
A2James
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:52 p.m.
Who is Rick Synder? That's one tough typo for one tough nerd
BHarding
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:15 p.m.
Freedom of the press, etc. is a tough one. While I think everything should be available to view, I can't stand the constant shoving down our throats of violence, sex wound up with violence, and the TV programs detailing just exactly how to commit terrible crimes. I know I sound like a prude, but imagine that teenage boys immerse themselves in this 24/7 and they ARE their environment? They're being raised on these examples. Lack of respect for guns, violence, and the world outside their bubble.
bunnyabbot
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.
"to seek effective means of mitigating this scourge of American life." How about drugs (prescription and non prescription) and alcohol? How about dead beat parenting? How about the "it's not my fault" society? at least she included mental health and media. But the problem is not guns, guns don't kill people, people kill people. "meaningful" gun laws equal unconstitutional gun laws. Period. Abortion kills more people. Maybe she should be concerned with infantcide and educating people about the mental health effects of killing an unborn and how sex is so widespread in media aimed at or available to children. Cars kill more people, so do knives and baseball bats. The Right to Bear Arms, has nothing to do with hunting or home protection, it has everything to do with standing ready against Tyranny. Are they going to go after people meeting in groups of four or more soon too?
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:19 p.m.
I want the right to bear arms and hope I never need one for self-defense and especially to try to defend myself from a government that has gone off the reservation. I'm not asking for a machine gun, but I don't think a single shot or low capacity magazine serves much purpose either for self defense. Police use 9mm so they have more shot capacity than a .45 for example. Without that right we are left totally defenseless as a population. Who would want to put the US citizenry in that position? The semi-automatic assault rifles everyone seems so concernded about and scared of help to level the playing field when bad people want to do harm, but you can always be outgunned by the military if you are some kind of nut job. With an armed populace the chances of the government going awry is almost nil...........under the liberal utopian scenario the possibilty become much greater. Our founding fathers actually experienced that situation and to think it was triggered by too much taxation and regulation. They wanted to insure future generations the same freedoms that had fought so hard to secure and to make sure it could not be taken from the people. I believe the laws we have in place are adequate with maybe the exception of mental health. That too can become a slippery slope since many veterans come back from combat with mental disorders, or so I have read. Is it right to not allow thtose who fought for this country to not be able to own a gun because they have PTSD? The bottom line is there is a group in this country that woudl ike to see the population disarmed. The facts don't support them so they seize every tradgedy to try and move their position forward. You need to really ask yourself why...............
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 11:22 p.m.
Ivor - If your statement of "There is almost no chance of this happening. As a resident of a wealthy, industrialized western democracy in the 21st century, my chances of dying a violent death are pretty close to zero." is true, why are you worried about guns? You're more likely to be killed in your car. I shouldn't have said that now you will want to have restrictions on cars........... Also as a wealthy, industrialized western democracy why do we borrow .40 of every dollar we spend as a nation? Is that your definition of wealth? That's my definition of poor and enslaved. Where do I state that I am stockpiling ammo and grenades? You are making the liberal leap my friend. Please stick with the facts, like how wealthy we are as the largest debtor nation ever know to humanity.........
Ricebrnr
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 8:29 p.m.
"Free, open, and vibrant constitutional democracies do commit atrocities on their own citizens. Got any examples?" Waco, Ruby Ridge, Kent State, Danzinger Bridge, Rodney King.. Need more? How far back do you want to go? Strange fruit and the old South?
Ivor Ivorsen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 5:30 p.m.
"There have been plenty of civilized societies that felt comfortable their leaders would never commit attrocities (any come to mind?) " I live in a healthy constitutional democracy. Free, open, and vibrant constitutional democracies do commit atrocities on their own citizens. Got any examples?
AnnArBo
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 5:14 p.m.
Ivor, if the statistics are pointing to how safe we are, why is there such laser focus on gun control? Statistically mass shootings are EXTREMELY rare, but in the words of Raum Emanual, "never let a good crisis go to waste".......... All these shooters are not "normal" rational people, and the gun control group is looking at this issue with the emotional response that ignores facts and statistics, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being a victim of a mass killing. Your odds go up dramatically of being a victim of violent crime, especially if you are defensless. There have been plenty of civilized societies that felt comfortable their leaders would never commit attrocities (any come to mind?) I'm glad you feel secure where ever you live, but statistically violent crimes can happen anywhere, and you should have the right to protect yourself and family with proportional response if you so choose. THAT is GUARANTEED by the constitution.
Ivor Ivorsen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.
"It amazes me that you don't feel even the slightest need to defend yourself and would hope that the police would show up when a couple of armed intruders showed up at your house intent upon doing harm to you or your family." There is almost no chance of this happening. As a resident of a wealthy, industrialized western democracy in the 21st century, my chances of dying a violent death are pretty close to zero. Sorry, but stockpiling military-grade rifles and ammunition will not make me safer. The biggest threat to the safety of my family at this point? Probably a teenager texting while driving.
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:17 p.m.
Ivor - are you serious? I agree with you totally about elections. What does me having a gun have to do with any of that? I love this country but also know and study history. Man is human and humans don't always keep the proper perspective ESPECIALLY when they are given great power. You have heard of corruption I assume? You obviously have great trust that men will always do the right thing and keep your best interests at heart. Corrupt people depend upon people like you (useful idiots) to trust them totally. From wikipedia- "In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause." I believe our founding fathers realized that men and governments could be corrupt and wanted to insure that the people would be able to defend themselves in either case. It amazes me that you don't feel even the slightest need to defend yourself and would hope that the police would show up when a couple of armed intruders showed up at your house intent upon doing harm to you or your family. It takes way to long for the police to respond, so in a crisis situation you are on your own. They will show up and fill out a report and investigate what happened but they will not be there to stop harm from coming your way. You missed my largest point which was that I hope and pray I never need a gun but sure don't want to be cowering in a corner wishing there were not restrictions on my owning one if I needed it.
Ivor Ivorsen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:39 p.m.
"...especially to try to defend myself from a government that has gone off the reservation..." "..With an armed populace the chances of the government going awry is almost nil..." You do know that we have free and fair elections in this country don't you? That your government is comprised of citizens freely elected by other citizens? Ballots--not bullets--keep power in the hands of the people. Why don't you run for office instead of stockpiling ammo?
B2Pilot
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:14 p.m.
politics at its worse; nothing about hollywoods glamorizing death and killing in movies, nothing about funding for mental health issues or research, but alot of focus on gun control. Mary Sue also was beating her drum about making college affordable last spring, and quietly gave herself and the college deans nice raise last month- way above what the staff actually doing work will get She no longer holds any credability
Thomas Jones
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:17 p.m.
Thank you B2Pilot!
Thomas Jones
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:50 p.m.
Please consider the follow: Gun Control is not the issue. The TRUE issue is Mental Instability and not Evaulating prospective gun owners. The Control start with a mental emotional test pay for by the potential owner. Next an interview of at least one family member or friend again paid for by potential owner. Only after you are deem stable and healthy can you be considered. This is not the complete answer but a better start....... I know we should not discriminate in terms of being "PC" be if discriminaton or disertation would have been used in any of these "mass killings" maybe just maybe one life would have been saved.......
2WheelsGood
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:43 p.m.
"we have to take tests for a DL" And yet 35,000 people still die in cars every year. The majority of which are because of people who have no business being on the road.
Thomas Jones
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.
Mike... while I agree with you 100% I just think more could be done on the front end..... we have to take tests for a DL and tests to go to college and we are tested our whole lifes.... why not test ppl that want to own guns more more more.... as a multi-gun owner I would be fine with more back ground check and more testing.
Mike
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:04 p.m.
You're kidding right? There is no such test and it could deny the legitimate right to have a firearm because it is not an exact science to determine someones mental state. Life is dangerous, scary, and uncertain......deal with it. I want the right to bear arms and hope I never need one for self-defense and especially to try to defend myself from a government that has gone of the reservation.
Cory C
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:01 p.m.
Can you please update the article to show that it is in fact STILL legal to open carry "in schools, on campuses and in churches." in Michigan with a vaild CPL? The bill that Snyder was to sign would have made this illegal without more training, but since it got put on hold by the negative sentiment after the school shooting, it's still legal for Michigan's 3 million CPL holders.
Tru2Blu76
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:19 p.m.
I agree with your overall point but ask that you be careful: according to Jan.1, 2013 Michigan State Police tally: there are 355,000 citizens with CPLs (Concealed Pistol Licenses). I mention it only because I've battled the anti-gun irrationals for 45 years now and learned: they'll jump on every mistake you make while ignoring (or defending) every one of their own. :-) Trying to help: I suggest you check out MCRGO.org - the largest state-base firearms advocate in America. I think you'll find them very helpful in this area. :-)
Carole
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 11:49 a.m.
How about we spend a little more time on mental health issues -- it was totally apparent that thie shooter had some concerns and yet his mother was big into having guns in the house, etc. I put the blame on the mother for not first off having them in the house with someone who is having concerns, they shouldn't have been there, but since they were should have been secure. And, secondly the violence in the movies, television, and video games needs to stop. I can't imagine what it does to the brain to sit in front of a video game shooting and killing things on a scene for hours at a time. The shooter kills --
Thomas Jones
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
Well Said Carole!
Gerry
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:58 p.m.
The day before Newtown happened, the libertarians who are now calling for us to spend time on "mental health issues" would have denounced that as big government intervention.
Tru2Blu76
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 10:06 a.m.
Character limits prevent a complete response but: ""We are college and university presidents. We are parents. We are Republicans, Democrats and Independents," the presidents implored. "We urge both our President and Congress to take action on gun control now." – Notice that "we are important people" COMES FIRST IN THEIR SELF-IDENTIFYING. Important people - None of them having any expertise in the matter at hand, "calling on the President and Congress" - both of them having demonstrated anti-gun sentiments (and agendas) in the past. Intellectual failure often comes after the "intellectuals" fail to correctly identify the cause in their own cause-and-effect argument. In this case, "guns" are claimed to be the cause. When in fact the latest cause for disaster was a lone 20 year-old unemployed basement dweller. Lanza simply broke through the poorly designed "security door" "guarding" that school. He could have done it with a brick or hammer - didn't need a gun. Neither did he really need a gun to commit mass murder: a home-crafted edged weapon (not to mention IED, etc.) would have been overwhelming against unarmed teachers and helpless students. Remember this M.S. Coleman: even if you'd been principal at Sandy Hook School: Adam Lanza would have defeated you - and that applies to your 300 or so college president colleagues as well. Why? Because none of you know the first thing about school security. I voted Obama-Biden: but I don't think they can talk about taking semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines from civilians: because they're guarded 24/7 by platoons of men carrying... full automatic guns with high capacity magazines. That's why. :-) Contradictions do not exist, only flawed premises.
TommyJ
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 6:32 a.m.
i am calling on Obama to keep his hands off the 2nd Amendment. And the rest of the Constitution while he's at it.
jns131
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.
He won't stop until he is either King Obama or voted out of office. But by then he will have done enough damage to be the bearer of someone elses bad news.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 6:10 p.m.
Too late for several parts of the rest of it. But we can somehow hope he'll stop at some point.
Paul
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 5:39 a.m.
Mary Sue. I suggest you worry about removing the scourge of liberal Professors who are screwing with these kids minds. Kids don't know up from down anymore they are so confused. America is an armed nation, and free because of that. You cannot legislate mental illness and criminal minds unless you bring back the death penalty. There would be fewer killings with the death penalty. I am for that. Anything else is knee-jerk reacting.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:51 a.m.
"The deadliest massacre in U.S. history occurred on a university campus when a Virginia Tech University student killed 33 people, including himself." Branch Davidian compound, Waco, TX, 1993. 76 killed. Tulsa race riot, 1921. 39 killed. Italian Hall massacre, Calumet, MI, 1913. 73 killed. Gun assault deaths per capita have actually been declining since 1977. That followed a period of sharp increase during the 1960's and early 1970's (the left-driven cultural decline I mentioned previously).
JBK
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:05 a.m.
I love you man! You are keeping everyone honest on this Blog! It is hard to do given the left wing slant of this paper! :)
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:04 a.m.
The latter of that list involved words and locked doors. Why are we not talking about banning words and locked doors? Or at least high-capacity words and locked doors. Or words and locked doors other than those used for hunting?
Radlib2
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:03 a.m.
Yeah, things were so much better in the 1950s.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:37 a.m.
The whole point of the Second Amendment was to give the citizens the ability to guard against a federal government becoming too powerful and tyrannical. That can't be accomplished with single-shot weapons. Neither can you protect yourself against multiple intruders or even a single intruder, unless it's broad daylight and he just stands there for an eternity while you take aim and make the best of your one shot. The Second Amendment wasn't about tools used for hunting. We all know the left holds contempt for people who want to defend themselves and their family. That much is perfectly clear. The really scary thing is when the federal government wants to prevent people from defending themselves. The other interesting twist in all this is that the left is simultaneously the people who brought us cultural decline and the people who want to us to be unable to defend ourselves again the results of that decline.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Wed, Jan 9, 2013 : 1:02 a.m.
I dunno. What do you think that it means. And, in answering that question, what is the exact turn of phrase in that passage that you think means that the RTBA exists so that the militia can overthrow a tyrannical government --accepting, of course, that the Constitution explicitly states that the militia exists to suppress insurrection, not foment it. Interesting that you seem not too concerned about the actual language in the Constitution. GN&GL
a2citizen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 7:45 p.m.
Then why: "Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone..."
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 7:13 p.m.
It means what it says, but you have lifted a single passage from the larger essay, remocing it entirely from the context of the larger essay, and have thereby completely misrepresented its meaning. Note that the essay has nothing to do with the RTBA. Its title is "The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared." The essay's point is that a democratic republic has no need to fear the people, and vice versa. Nowhere in the essay does Madison propose that the purpose of the RTBA is to overthrow the government, and the Constitution's language cited above explicitly precludes it. GN&GL
a2citizen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 6:10 p.m.
"...Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms..." I'll assume, then, that this doesn't mean what it says.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:58 p.m.
Yes, Madison next goes on to talk about the militia strength in regard to that of an army, beginning that analysis with the phrase: "Extravagant as the supposition [quoted above] is . . ." It is not the point of the paragraph. And, as arborarmy has pointed out above, the very language of the Constitution makes clear this is NOT the purpose of the militia. Section 1, Article 8, Line 15 of the Constitution states: "Congress shall have the power. . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." The language could not be more clear. The purpose of the militia is to defeat insurrections, not to participate in them.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:57 p.m.
The key passage in Federalist 46: "The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism." To summarize: the idea that the people of a democratic republic would, for the length of time necessary, elect a government that slowly but surely became more tyrannical is "he incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism." To be continued.
a2citizen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:40 p.m.
And your interpretation of Fed #46 is?
arborani
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.
Finally, a comment I can vote "up" on. Welcome back, Ghost.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:21 p.m.
. . . and I love how people make it up as they go along. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is allow the overthrow of a tyrannical government. Nowhere. Nowhere in the Federalist Papers, in the anti-Federalist Papers, or in the writings of the Federalist Farmer is it suggested that this is the 2nd Amendment's purpose. Nowhere. Nowhere in James Madison's journals (the best record we have of proceedings at the Constitutional Convention) is it suggested that this is the 2nd Amendment's purpose. Nowhere. But in numerous places (most famously in Federalist #10) the founders made clear that a democratic republic (which they created under the Constitution) was the best protection against a tyrannical government. And nowhere in Federalist #10 does it mention that the right to possess a gun served that purpose. Nowhere.
AnnArBo
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:08 p.m.
I love how people like to quote what is NOT in the constitution about the second amendment; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It does NOT say "people in a militia" it does NOT say "people who want to protect themselves from a tyrannical government". Its does NOT say military style weapons are exempt. It does NOT say anything about hunting. It is very simple on purpose, so it will cover any circumstance on the basic right of individual self defense to guard against those who would take that right away.
Engineer
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 5:43 a.m.
You are very correct!!! The leftest liberals continue to create gun free zones which then become killing zones for monsters wanting little to no resistance. It is time to stop the silliness and allow carry in all areas by qualified carriers (those with CPL). The left is trying hard to politicize this tragedy and there is NO excuse for that. Hopefully people will wake up and vote them out.
a2citizen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 5:21 a.m.
suspect: "... what soldiers do you know who would follow orders to illegally turn against their fellow citizens?..." Ever heard of Kent State? If the government asked the military for 20,000 service members to invade North Dakota there would be no shortage of volunteers.
arborarmy
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:49 a.m.
"The whole point of the Second Amendment was to give the citizens the ability to guard against a federal government becoming too powerful and tyrannical" This is pure unadulterated baloney. The Second Amendment exists so that there can be a well armed militia. Article 1, Section 8, Line 15 of the Constitution declares that two of the militia's missions are to SUPPRESS INSURRECTION (not foment it) and to ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES (not violate them). Time to get off the NRA/Faux Noise Kool Aid.
AnnArBo
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 4:31 a.m.
The polish jews in the 1930's never thought it possible that their government, police, and the nazis could possibly do to them what historically disarming a populace leads too. We know from that and other times how bad things can go when governments become all powerful and looks on individual freedoms and rights as needing limits.
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:56 a.m.
First of all, our military cannot be used against us, according to the Constitution. However, gun confiscation would extra-Constitutional action, so OK, let's play that game. The the question comes down to this: what law enforcement officers do you know want to be the first ones through the doors of the 200,000,000 gun owner's homes in the process of confiscating them (assuming there are any left after the mass resignations that will occur once they're given the order to do so), and what soldiers do you know who would follow orders to illegally turn against their fellow citizens?
Radlib2
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:46 a.m.
Let me get this straight, you're going to fend off the world's most powerful military? Ha! An easier way would be to cut defense spending if that truly were your goal.
2WheelsGood
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:56 a.m.
"The deadliest massacre in U.S. history occurred on a university campus when a Virginia Tech University student killed 33 people, including himself." Is this part of the story a quote? Or did Kellie Woodhouse just add it? Either way, it's ridiculously false. The deadliest massacre in US history was only 33 people? That ignores the thousands that died in 9/11 (airplane was the weapon), the hundreds who died in the Oklahoma City Bombing (fertilizer bomb was the weapon), and if you want to talk about schools specifically, 38 people died in the Bath School Disaster in Michigan (explosives were the weapon). Who cares about facts, right?
Hot Sam
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 10:54 p.m.
2 Wheels....VERY well said!
jjc155
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:09 p.m.
Ed, did'nt a kid just get arrested last week for planning and preparing for an attack on his school with............explosives (made with skoal chew cans, it took me 11 seconds to find a vid on youtube on how to make em)? Didnt dillon and klibold have and attempt to use...............improvised explosives at columbine? cant you go on the internet and find litterally thousands of pages, video's etc on how to make home made explosives? I can litterally go in my medicine cabinet and make a bomb in short order all with stuff I can get a CVS. Yep pretty tightly regulated and hard to obtain/make. Here's alittle light reading on the subject. http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school-bombs.html Yep facts truely are inconvient arent they?
Ed Kimball
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:14 p.m.
So "the deadliest massacre in a US school (of any kind) occured in Bath Michigan in 1927, killing 38 elementary kids and injuring 58 others. Weapon of choice...............dynamite." I.e., it's been 85 years since that massacre and now the weapon of choice is ...... guns. Maybe that's because explosives are tightly regulated by Public Law 91-452. Yes, facts can be inconvenient.
jjc155
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:06 p.m.
the deadliest massacre in a US school (of any kind) occured in Bath Michigan in 1927, killing 38 elementary kids and injuring 58 others. Weapon of choice...............dynamite. Facts are inconvienent...........
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3 a.m.
"I meant mass shooting of this variety and in recent history. The wording is sloppy and I am changing it." Sloppy? It's irresponsible, biased, and misleading. In that case I will say there have been never been mass shootings at schools anywhere in America, ever. Well, in recent history, I mean, and if the type I'm thinking of, of course.
2WheelsGood
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:45 a.m.
"I meant mass shooting of this variety and in recent history." In other words you're trying to use a very select set of facts (while ignoring others) to prove your point? Look, I really don't care whether someone calls themselves a "leftist" or a "tea partier" or whatever. And name calling doesn't do anyone any good. But why pick a side of any issue and bend the truth to prove your point? Who does that really serve? The FACT is that the worst massacres in the world's history were NOT committed by a crazy guy with a gun. MOST, in fact, were committed by governments against either their own people, or the people of some other country. And the REASON for the second amendment was to insure THAT can't happen here.
Radlib2
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:39 a.m.
Good point! After 911, robust, stringent laws were inacted to prevent it from happening again; after the Oklahoma City bombing, people couldn't clandestinely buy fertlizer in quantity anymore. See where I'm going with this?
Kellie Woodhouse
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:31 a.m.
I meant mass shooting of this variety and in recent history. The wording is sloppy and I am changing it. @JBK: We urge our commenters to point out mistakes in a way that is respectful. Please keep that in mind when you are addressing me in comments.
Atlas Shrugged
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:16 a.m.
Of course, the left doesn't let little things like facts get in the way. And, to paraphrase "the Godfather" and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel once said: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Radlib2
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:35 a.m.
More guns equals more gun deaths. Get rid of those military-style assault rifles and ammo. It is unreasonable for citizens to be in possesion of them, as they are weapons of mass destruction.
Polecat
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:06 p.m.
No liberal ideas are weapons of mass destruction. They are more responsible for the conditions that lead nut jobs to act like they do, than guns are.
Bcar
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 11:57 a.m.
do you know what you're talking about? any facts and data to back up your statement? didnt think so... look at chicago, worst/most restrictive gun laws in the country, and what is their crime/murder rate?? hmmm???
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 3:05 a.m.
And hammers.
2WheelsGood
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:14 a.m.
It's a fact verifiable with the FBI crime stats that twice as many people die every year from kicking and punching than from "assault rifles". So why was my comment deleted?
Honest Abe
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:29 a.m.
So just how do you suggest Obama addresses gun control? By stripping me of my 2nd amendment RIGHTS?? I don't think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 2:28 a.m.
Here's the part I like: "The rights of the people."
Ivor Ivorsen
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 1:55 a.m.
Here's the part of the Second Amendment I like best: "Well regulated..."
Radlib2
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:37 a.m.
Nobody has ever proposed stripping second amendment rights, only curtailing weapons designed for war. Enough of the slippery slope arguments!
Dog Guy
Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 12:02 a.m.
Gun control is a popular idea with those who have their own police force and government.