I feel sorry for you, Sue, and for people like you who are so quick to give away your fundamental freedoms and rights as a law-abiding American. You and I have something in common - the Bill of Rights. It is not your interpretation, or mine, that guarantees these rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is a personal right. You can choose to have your opinions heard, another right guaranteed to you. If you choose not to arm yourself to protect yourself, that's your choice. But don't try to destroy my rights.

The events in Aurora and the other cases that you mention are truly tragic, But they happen in a country where the populace is innocent until proven guilty. Citizens aren't arrested because they might be a threat to society. They aren't tossed in jail because they fit a profile, or because they buy too many guns, or subscribe to certain magazines. What would happen if a person was jailed for listening to violent song lyrics?

Our rights and freedoms are what make us proud to be Americans. I respect your right to voice your opinion, even if it is slanted heavily to one side. We've come a long way in this country with implementing functional and effective ways of keeping guns from being sold to criminals and miscreants. Unfortunately, the Brady Campaign will not be satisfied until every law-abiding American is disarmed and every gun is melted down for scrap.

No civilian needs an assault weapon.

Well said, Bob. Your response deserves an applause.

The number used, 54,808 'shot' in America is 0.000017 percent of the population. Compare that to deaths from car accidents. Let's ban cars too.

As an American, I can think for myself and understand there are risks to being among others in society. The belief that something should be done across the board to ALL OF US because you feels so, is a liberal one. Don't tread on my freedoms because you think so.

No one needs a car that goes much faster than the speed limit, but most cars on the road have that capability. The "ban" mentality never has worked! It's a lazy approach to a solution. We can sit here and debate with narrow minds, but my fear is nobody gets what they hoped for. The bottom line is history continues to repeat itself as the government strips all of our rights away. Be careful what you wish for! The noose is tightening at a very scary pace. Good luck protecting yourself & your family. Go stockpile knives & tree limbs......I'd prefer a firearm!!

Love to hear from the gun loyalists, what is the answer to violence like the Aurora shooting. Mr.Holmes was wearing body armor so even if several in the theater were armed doesn't seem like it would have helped.

Billy, Bob, Tom, I agree with you the the 2nd amendment is worth protecting. But I struggle with where the line should be drawn. Weaponry has changed so much since the 1700's and the framers undoubtedly could not envision personal weapons that could hold 100 rounds. Where we draw the line is the key, not that simply all personal weapons should be confiscated (I'll anticipate the "slippery slope" response soon enough I'm sure). Would it make sense to allow citizens to arm themselves with grenade or rocket launchers? Probably not, right? But these are now single operator devices, or personal weapons, just like an AK-47. Am I trampling on the rights of an American who would prefer to arm themselves with surface to air missiles? In 20 years with there be a Smith & Wesson Biological or Chemical personal launcher weapon? It's not hard to look at that specific weapon used in CO and question what it could possibly be used for other than maximum human carnage. I think at some point we all need to be pragmatists. Explain to me in what scenario a personal weapon, that can be loaded with 100 bullets and easily reloaded, would be used to "protect" yourself." Are you expecting a small militia to come knocking on your door in the middle of the night?

Where does one 'draw the line' on exercising one's rights? How about we put a restriction on the number of times you can go to church, or how many newspapers you can read? There are already plenty of laws on the books dealing with guns, and the justice system in this country uses them to great effectiveness.

Remember, we have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. You, me, and all Americans. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting, or personal protection, or collecting, or target shooting. It says KEEP AND BEAR. I don't need a reason to own a gun. All I need is a RIGHT to do so.

And thanks for the compliment. I like the reference to being a Cowboy.

And what is your solution to mass violence using firearms? I missed that part in your don't tread on me opinion.

I don't know what your solution is, Pussycat, but pussy-footing with criminals doesn't work. Fear is the only thing that regulates crime. Fear of getting caught, fear of reprisal, fear of prison, fear of death.

Bob, do you think I would be within my right to carry a grenade launcher if I felt it was what I needed to protect myself?

@Bob, to clarify, you would not support banning any of the more extreme weapons Drew identifies? You seem to imply there is no limit to freedom to arm yourself ... is this an accurate assessment of your statements?

Every time this type of tragedy happens, the gun banning crowd rises again. As tragic as these events are, more terrible is the tragedy of drunk driving, let's ban alcohol. Lung cancer, lets ban tobacco. The Oklahoma City bombing, let's ban diesel fuel and fertilizer. One year ago, the Norway attacks happened. One was with a car bomb loaded with you guessed it, diesel fuel and fertilizer. They did not learn from Oklahoma. Two hours later, a gunman killed 69 and injured 110. Norway's gun laws are a lot tougher than ours. What about Fort Hood. This tragedy happened on a Military Base! The reality is lunatics like James Holmes are going to find ways to kill people when they snap. Tighter gun restrictions won't prevent it.
Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper a Democrat stated, "If there were no assault weapons available, there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something...He’s going to know how to create a bomb"

I love to read the responses of people who say ban guns ban certain types of ammo ect. How many of you are really that stupid to think that will make any difference with criminals. You can't just go out and buy a rocket propelled grenade launcher but during the biker wars between outlaw and hells angels they were used hmmm wonder how the hell they got them since the local gun shops don't sell them. Criminals normally don't buy their guns legally they buy them on this thing called the black market so when you talk about banning guns and ammo remember your only taking them away from law abiding citizens not the criminals since they don't buy them legally to begin with.

So Ken if I thought it was within my rights to bear a grenade launcher then so be it? The question isn't to ban or not ban guns, the question is where do we draw the line. I'm just wondering what specifically is the justification for anyone to legally be able to purchase an attack weapon that can hold 100 rounds at a time. Sure there is the black market and we can't control every scenario, but that's not really the point. A terrorist can detonate a dirty bomb in CC Philly tomorrow but does that mean we shouldn't worry about regulating anything? Most of these events involving these max killing guns aren't about motorcycle gangs and hardened criminals. They are about loners and outsiders that crack, arm themselves to the hilt with weapons that can take down dozens of people in seconds, and go on a killing spree. I just think it's time to look at things like AK-47's and balance personal liberties with pragmatism. Just one person's opinion.

Exactly, I want to hear where these proponents of the 2nd Amendment draw the line! Even Scalia states that the 2nd Amendment is not without its limits.

Well this is an election year. I hope all the people here are registered to vote and use it. Just like Drew said, "just one person's opinion" and 1 person's vote.

There is this idea with progressives (socialists, stateists, elitists) that guns kill people or as Ms. Gordon states, "people with guns kill people." What about people who kill babies, that's OK??? I guess the death penalty is too harsh as well Ms. Gordon??
Do you see a divergence of thought there???

Bravo Curmudgeon, I forgot about that. It's OK to kill unborn kids, but we can't have the death penalty for violent crimes. Let's see, this was in the Mercury several years ago, a drunk driver ( there's that alcohol again, should ban that oh that's right prohibition did not work, darn!) hits a car with a pregnant driver. Unfortunately the mother and unborn infant die. The driver is charged with 2 counts of DUI manslaughter. I think the progressives are right. There is something wrong with our laws!

It's silly to think you should control access to guns by law-abiding citizens when there is absolutely no prospect for limiting their access to criminals. Only when you figure out how to keep a merciless killer - be they a drug supplier, bank robber, terrorist or crazy medical student - can you even approach the question of limiting guns to law-biding citizens.

Gun laws in Norway did not stop Breivik.

The tired cliche' about "the Founding Fathers and militias" misses the point that The Country (i.e. the legal establishment) allowed guns to be used in promotion of its interests well beyond the militia definition of the 18th century. Guns were integral in America's expansion West, the defeat of its native peoples, the settling and defense of huge territories, pushing out the Spainish and other colonial powers, etc, etc. None of this was done by formal militias, but only through the wide ownership of guns by private citizens.

For good or for bad (depending on your point-of-view), guns and private ownership are ingrained in the culture. And 99.9% of those who own guns LEGALLY and privately are law-biding owners. They have a healthy respect for guns that few of us living here appreciate.

So really the first question should be ... How do we propose keeping them out of the hands of criminals and crazies? Only after that does anyone have the right to consider further restrictions on LEGAL gun owners.

It seems to me the central issue here is: yes, people are allowed to own guns guaranteed by the second amendment. Now, at what capability? Should everyone be allowed the right to bear military strength weapons?

If you want to talk about abortion or other issues, start another thread.

"Are you expecting a small militia to come knocking on your door in the middle of the night?"
Yes...or at least if a small militia does come knocking, I won't have to fight them off with rocks. I don't believe that my government is inherently good. I don't believe that every soldier and police officer is inherently good. And I don't believe people are inherently good. There is evil in all of us, and much greater evil in some. For that reason, I feel it is my responsibility to protect myself and my family against evil. It is no one else's responsibility to protect me. Can you imagine a small militia coming to your house? Just look at the riots that have occurred in England, Greece and Spain as their economy has crumbled. Look at the flash mobs in urban America. Do you think it can't possibly happen in your neighborhood? Do you think the police will stop it before it gets to your house?
It is not a pleasant thought to imagine Americans turning on one another, but have you ever heard about the riots that occurred in Watts, Ca. in 1965, or the LA riots in 1992, or the chaos in New Orleans in 2005? It can happen, it does happen, and it will happen in the future.
Why do I need an AR-15 or AK-47? To stop multiple threats...that's why. With that obligation to protect myself, my family and our possessions, comes an enormous responsibility to be trained in the use of these weapons. That responsibility is part of being an American citizen.

Reminder: Comments that contain profanity or a personal attack on another user will be deleted. Please continue to keep things civil and on topic.

If someone would have shot that psychopath, the police would not have known about his apartment and the whole block could have blown up - killing 100s more.

So, his guns killed 12, and if someone else had a gun, maybe hundreds could be dead.

The common thing causing the death, pain, misery, and anguish, is the gun.

Yes we have rights, but all of the rights have limitations. The Freedom of Speech has limitations. There are many things you cannot say - that are against the law. I am not against guns for hunting or shooting at clay targets, but if someone needs a AK-47 to hunt a deer, you are a pretty bad hunter. I feel bad for people who think they need an automatic weapon to protect their home. It must be awful to live your life in fear like that. Really, if your neighborhood is so unsafe, maybe moving would be a better idea then buying an automatic weapon.

One of the reasons this boy only killed 12 people is because his asault weapon jammed. Had the weapon worked properly, more would be dead.

How can anyone defend this??

"Do you honestly believe that 18th century humanists would say the same thing about fully automatic weapons that continue to load and fire until the trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted?" Yup, because these are the weapons of our time, and those were the weapons of their time. By the way, you can't get full-auto weapons without a special federal permit, and these are old weapons. Deceit does not help your argument.

So what kinds of weapons do you want to restrict? We've tried that: private citizens cannot (or not easily) get modern full-auto weapons, high explosives, fissionable materials, or modern artillery. You might think you're at the forefront of a new age of enlightenment, but early in your speech you actually answered your own questions by lamenting that despite our efforts and prayers, there is still evil in the world. Well, evil never sleeps, and the evil will still find ways to steal, kill, and destroy.

How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use to kill 168?

"As for me, give me liberty or give me death." and the beat goes on...

In this country, we have the right to kill with guns, but not the right to healthcare. Anyone else think this is nuts? Also, I find it ridiculous to talk about what the Founding Fathers intended/would do today, etc. Remember, they were just fine with slavery, because back in the day it was pretty normal. They could have ended it with the Constitution, but didn't. The country evolved. We as a people chose to make changes to the Constitution and now all people are equal. Should we bring slavery back since the Founding Fathers wanted it (like they wanted us to be able to bear arms)? Asault weapons used to not be available to the public - and we all got along just fine.

Above all, the Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to change and improve our country. They wanted the people to have a say in the government, I wonder how many people in this country are really happy that they can buy asault weapons. Maybe I am in the minority - maybe people really desire to mow other people down with a weapon. I don't know.

I'm a Democrat (a liberal if you will) and a gun owner. I actually went to the range on Saturday with my wife the day after the shooting occurred. I agree that, just as the Second Amendment allows, that I and my fellow Americans have the right to bear arms.

When I was 13 years old, my best friend was shot in the stomach by another friend who was playing with a gun. My friend was an avid hunter (even at that early age; his father took him small-game hunting) and was familiar with guns. He survived, but I instantly developed a dislike of guns. As I grew and matured I realized that guns were not the problem. That people who misuse them were the problem.

The only real dislike I have towards guns at this point in my life is that there is no reason a person needs a clip that holds 100 rounds. Who needs that many rounds without reloading? The world's worst hunter? Something like that is crying for misuse. Gun "enthusiasts" will say that denying them ownership of such equipment is an infringement of their rights. That's not a weapon for home protection. It's the weaponry equivalent of a guy with small genitalia driving a sexy sportscar.

I have no problem allowing Americans their Constitutional right to own a gun. What I have a problem with is allowing Americans to own miniaturized weaponry of mass destruction, and a 100-round magazine is the definition of unnecessary overkill.

There's a reason it's called overKILL.

Once again ,support of and awareness of mental health issues is a big solution.
Parents and families that tackle hard realities of mental illness and substance abuse and not enabling that behavior can certainly help. Also all of us who vote can support politicians who do not slash mental health programs from budgets.

Pink Pussycat is talking about a very important issue in regards to reducing the occurrance of these mass murders. Mental health issues are a key factor in these incidents, and the focus ends up being on the gun rights issue. I addressed the health issues in another post on the Patch, addressing the overall ill health of our society. Here is another case where a mentally ill person has no prior issue (as far as we know) that would restrict him from purchasing firearms. So what do you do to prevent or reduce these incidents?
You need to make our society healthier. You need to stress physical fitness, heathy diets, positive social interaction for our children, awareness of the dangers of society.
In short, we need to live very differently from how we do now.
I know first hand that many have given up their responsibilities as citizens, as parents, as community members. We are withdrawing into a lazy, weak, isolated, mentally unfit form of humanity. And the answer to every health issue is a prescription for a drug or narcotic. And more recently, we look to the government to solve our health issues. We are breeding generation after generation of mentally ill, chemically dependent, and government-dependent individuals, who have no stamina for any adversity. In some cases, these people resort to mass murder as an outlet for their angst.
There is a solution, but it requires we start breeding a different kind of American citizen.

I don't intend to hijack the commentary--all good healthy discussion. But in the back of my head I can't help thinking that Washington has sacrificed pragmatism for special interest. Part of the problem, in my view, is groups like the NRA with any issue of gun ownership, or the AARP with Social Security and Medicare, PSEA w/ school contracts, etc. They refuse to give an inch on any issue even when it will most likely result in the best overall good. God forbid you overhaul Soc. Security and the seniors freak, take one gun off the street and the NRA folks freak, discuss the long term viability of golden parachute pensions and the unionistas freak. On this issue I'll admit that I wish more people took Marc's stance above: " I own a gun and will forever fight for my right to use it, if need be, but I am not paranoid enough to think that I'll find myself in the middle of a riot, or have an angry pitchfork-wielding mob outside my house at 3 AM demanding blood.

"but I am not paranoid enough to think that I'll find myself in the middle of a riot, or have an angry pitchfork-wielding mob outside my house at 3 AM demanding blood."

I personally think this is a very naive attitude to have. You are certainly welcomed to protect yourself as you see fit, but don't tell me that I should forced to subscribe to your philosophy. In over 50 years of life, I have seen a distinct degradation in our society, I believe the possibility of a group of criminals kicking in my front door is a distinct possibility. I don't want it to happen to me, and I hope it doesn't to me, but it has happened with increased frequency in our society, and as the world economy continues to crumble, the possibility of people resorting to this sort of activity remains. I do not want to be restricted in my ability to defend myself and my family.
To state that it is a form of paranoia to believe the possibility exists, or to be prepared for just such an event, seems dismissive to me. If I install a generator in my house in the event I lose power, am I being paranoid? If I stock a few days of food in my house, in the case of a natural disaster, am I paranoid? Am I suppose to rely on someone else to protect my? shelter me? feed me?
At some point in our culture, self reliance and personal responsibility became synonymous with paranoia or mental instability. That is a shame. This is really just part of being an American citizen.

The worst mass killing in the U.S., April, 1995, did not involve firearms. Also, had the high-cap magazine/drum not jammed, as they so often do, the death toll could have been higher. Moreover, I aware of only one crime using a legal automatic weapon, and that was a cop many years ago. Auto-weapons are a small, ever shrinking poll of very expensive guns, some in six figures. People tend to blame automatic weapons because the media frequently misidentifies semi-auto as auto. Auto-weapons are fun to shoot, highly-regulated, and require a federal background check, finger-prints, (and approval of the local LE official or judge) to own.

"Auto-weapons are fun to shoot, highly-regulated, and require a federal background check, finger-prints, (and approval of the local LE official or judge) to own."

But please explain to me why "FUN TO SHOOT" means that we NEED to be able to own them. I'm sure an RPG is fun to shoot, too. Doesn't mean I need the right to own one. Every weapon that James Holmes had was purchased legally. The media (who everyone loves to blame) stated that analysts and witnesses figure that had Holmes' AR-15 not jammed (the problem with automatics & semi-automatics, which is why I prefer a revolver) then the body count could have been much higher.

That is not exactly a good reason why such a weapon should be allowed to be in the hands of civilians. Holmes had no priors and purchased everything legally -- so explain to the victims and their families how much fun those weapons are to shoot.

Again -- we have the right to bear arms. We have the right to arm ourselves with the means to protect ourselves. That doesn't mean I need to own something fun to shoot that can take down scores of people without having to reload.

The NRA doesn't want you to take away a single bullet. Those on the far left don't want you to be able to own a single bullet. There has to be some sort of reasonable compromise that takes all of the facts into consideration and not just what's fun or not.

I do believe in moderation and I can accept reasonable restrictions on what weapons I may be allowed to keep. But I think a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine is reasonable.
I have no problem making it even more difficult to own a weapon than it already is.
I welcome stricter background checks, and mandatory training and recertification every so many years.
I don't believe everyone should have gun. In fact, just the opposite. Having worked in public safety, many people should not have a soup spoon, let alone a gun.
I also believe people should be retested on their driving skills every 4 years as well, as too many people die from auto accidents. And usually, the deaths from auto accidents are unintentional, as opposed to intentional killings by gun wielding criminals or maniacs.
There are ways to reduce gun violence, criminal activity, mental illness, automobile accidents, and all sorts of things that plague our society, but government control is not the ONLY answer. Some government is needed, but a personal commitment to responsibility, integrity, physical fitness, education of your children (beyond what they get in school), and scores of other things, are part of the solution.
Everyone here wants the same thing... a stronger and safer America.
Creating a stronger, healthier American citizen is the place to start.

Sue,
I wasn't going to post to this "blog", but I offer wonder how "progressives" can pick and choose the rights you think we the people should have. The first amendment gives you the right to write this opinion piece. The second amendment gives all of us the right to keep and bear arms. As I stated in a previous post, how about for once you and your socialist friends hold the person responsible? The guns did not load or fire themselves.
The Constitution is very clear in stating our rights, and because you may not agree with one amendment doesn't give you the right to take them from me or anyone else. So tell me Sue when you and your Czar in the white house get the guns from we the people, do you really think it will keep criminals from getting guns? The answer is no! The fact that he was able to buy these weapons with a mental health problem show's a flaw in the system which has been there for years. When you apply to purchase any weapon, you are required to fill out a form, and one of the questions is have you been institutionalized for mental health issues. What did HE do, he lied! Because of HIPA, there is no way to verify that.
As stated above in a earlier post, he did NOT use automatic weapons, he used semi-automatic weapons. You should get your facts straight before you write such an article. He wanted to kill people, he succeeded, if not with a gun it would have been something else. What are your thoughts on Fast and Furious?

Just read this from another blog. " A South Carolina sheriff is praising a man with a concealed weapons permit who helped disarm someone who kicked in the door of a church armed with a shotgun." Here's the link http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/sheriff-concealed-weapon-saves-church-from-man-armed-with-shotgun/
And another "On April 22 of this year a convicted felon, just out of jail, went to an Aurora, Colorado, church and shot and killed a member of the congregation before being killed himself by a congregant carrying a gun." http://americanvisionnews.com/4179/the-original-aurora-shooting-stopped-by-a-concealed-carry-hero
One more, "Williams is being hailed as a hero this week after he sprung into action on Friday to thwart an armed robbery at an internet cafe. Williams was present when two masked thugs walked into the Palms Internet Cafe in Marion County, Florida. One of the men was brandishing a gun while the other had a bat. They started ordering patrons around and one smashes a computer screen. That’s when Williams took action." And here is a link to the surveillance camera http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/
These things happen more often than people realize.

And this: Retired State Police investigator accidentally shoots self in leg in mall dressing room http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Retired-State-Police-investigator-accidentally/7u-ROo1JiUyi-jK2aGsvDQ.cspx
Or this: ICE Agent Accidentally Shoots Self in Traffic Stop http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/ICE-Agent-Accidently-Shoots-Self-in-Traffic-Stop--163291866.html
and this: DEA accidentally shoots himself during school demo , and we have video,
http://blutube.policeone.com/police-humor-videos/931151483001-dea-accidentally-shoots-himself-during-school-demo/
Marc, I totally agree with your last statement. When I renewed my permit at the Sheriffs office, I asked about taking Act 235 training, they said it was not required.

My spoon and fork made me FAT, i wish someone would have banned them for my protection.

Good point Tom. I guess New York City is leading the charge limiting "high capacity" soft drinks.

Read what some of our founding fathers had to say regarding the issue. It's not about hunting.

101 of the Best Gun Quotes Ever
Visit: http://geekpolitics.com/101-of-the-best-gun-quotes-ever/

23.”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
~George Washington

Might explain why gun sales have sky rocketed since 1/09.

I'm actually surprised that no one has brought up the fact that later this week Hillary Clinton is going to sign a "UN Small Arms Treaty". You see this administration is now going to bypass Congress all together and have the UN dictate laws to the American citizenry. That's right the Muslim Brother Hood and every other country that hates America will be writing laws that our progressive leaders will agree to. The Constitution is by-passed because it is an international treaty.
In fact, the Americans with Disabilities Act is in jeopardy today.

Read more about it: Alert: Ask Senators to Vote “No” on UN Treaty @ http://afaofpa.org/archives/p3365/

Back to the gun issue and the real motives.

Listen to Congressman Paul Broun's urgent message on the UN Small Arms Treaty! http://nagr.org/UN_PB_Video1.aspx?pid=7.18b&r=

Over 56,000,000 people were slaughtered by their own governments through gun control.

Watch this little vid: 10 mins last 1/2 is important

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln56Zp22res

then you might want to see what DHS up to. A list of articles on the right side will help you connect the dots.