President Calls For A Moment For Newtown? Not Enough!

I just logged on to find an email missive from the White House suggesting that we all join the President for a moment of silence to honor those who lost their lives at Newtown a year ago.

How about passing meaningful gun control legislation instead of empty formalities? How about at least having universal background checks of gun purchasers? How about make sure we provide mental health help to all those who need it? I will honor those from Newtown and every where who were innocent victims of gun violence…but the White House can do so much more:

header_daily_snapshot

A moment for Newtown

On December 14th, one year ago tomorrow, we lost 26 fellow Americans to gun violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. We lost 20 of our youngest students, and six dedicated school workers.

To mark the anniversary of that senseless tragedy, President Obama will honor those lost at Sandy Hook with a moment of silence tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. ET. We’d like you to join.

Join the moment of silence tomorrow, and help honor the victims of Newtown, Connecticut.

2013_email_moment_silence_0

49 comments to President Calls For A Moment For Newtown? Not Enough!

  • independent guy

    Agree wholeheartedly.

       0 likes

  • Rhetoric and emotional appeals won’t solve the problem.

    The President needs to get some backbone on this issue.

       2 likes

    • ® Steve

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

         2 likes

      • Duane12

        The blood of 194 children killed since Newtown is on the hands of cowards such as Sean Duffy and other Congressmen who oppose background checks at gun shows and expanded clips. You can view pictures of those innocent victims killed since Newtown at:

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/children-killed-guns-newtown-anniversary

        “Duffy is my worst congressman ever”; he serves primarily the NRA and the greed of gun manufacturers with his “NO” votes.

        http://lacrossetribune.com/news/opinion/duane-dubey-duffy-is-my-worst-congressman-ever/article_c3d10318-5b6a-11e2-81ee-0019bb2963f4.html

           1 likes

        • ® Steve

          Most guns sold at shows are by dealers, who have a FFL license and by law do background checks. The term is magazine and you can limit the size of yours if you wish. Criminals don’t go to shows to purchase weapons and do not follow laws. That’s why you call them criminals. Your talking points are old and hold no truth.

             0 likes

          • John Casper

            Trademark, do you have a link for this claim?

            What do you mean by “most?”

            Since guns and ammo are so easily re-sold, who cares?

               1 likes

            • ® Steve

              Most = majority. Unless it’s a local person who has a few weapons at a table most, 90 ish % are dealers. Every show is obviously different but there is no gun show loophole as the liberal lie about.

                 0 likes

              • John Casper

                Trademark,

                So 49% of gun show dealers don’t have FFL license?

                How you coming with that link to your ever changing claims?

                Zach,

                Trademark is comedy gold. I think the Obama administration’s paying him to embarrass the NRA.

                   0 likes

                • ® Steve

                  You have selective reading comprehension. 90 is greater than 49. I don’t have a FFL but can privately sell a weapon without a background check. OMG the horror.

                  You want to make it sound like all firearms at gun shows are sold without one but it is a complete lie, as stated above. The weapon in Newtown was stollen and taken to a gun free zone. Laws didn’t work , no law would have.

                     0 likes

              • John Casper

                Trademark,

                “Most = majority”

                Is what YOU wrote.

                “Majority” = 51%.

                   0 likes

      • So Steve, do you believe convicted felons should be allowed to carry firearms?

           1 likes

        • ® Steve

          By law they are not allowed to carry own or purchase a firearm. Somehow many still do.

             0 likes

          • So you agree that the right to bear arms as outlined in the Second Amendment isn’t absolute and that laws can be enacted to restrict that right?

            Great! Glad we settled that.

               3 likes

            • ® Steve

              Felons also can not vote. There are inland border checkpoints, and DUI checkpoints in other states. Voter ID is met with opposition. What did we settle?

              If you don’t want to own a firearm, no one is forcing you to do so.

                 0 likes

              • nonquixote

                Meet an argument you cannot refute and you change the subject, or all of the sudden you are pleading ignorance. Hint: not need for you state the obvious, ®Steve.

                   2 likes

              • Paul

                Steve, felons CAN vote in many, many states. Answer the question. Is it constitutional to take away the right to bear arms for a felon?

                   1 likes

                • ® Steve

                  Felons do not have a right to bear arms.

                     0 likes

                  • John Casper

                    Trademark,

                    does the Second Amendment include drones?

                    #askingforafriend

                       1 likes

                    • ® Steve

                      I can buy a drone at Wal*Mart or a hobby store or Amazon so no. A drone is not a firearm either is a submarine, see Gwen Moore for more context.

                         0 likes

                  • Paul

                    Okay, so felons do not have the right to bear arms, but they still retain all the other rights of citizenship federally and are part of “the people” in every meaningful way under the Bill of Rights so obviously there are caveats to the “shall not be infringed” language by your own admission.

                       1 likes

                    • ® Steve

                      They do not retain all other rights. In some states they can never vote again. In some states they can only vote after XYZ is completed. It’s strange you support them to own firearms in the guise of other “rights”. They also lose their 4th amendment in some states. Their 1st amendment is often taken away in restraining orders.

                      Somehow, magically felons still get their hands on firearm(s). I’m way more worried about RC drones though, those sound super scary.

                         0 likes

                  • John Casper

                    Trademark,

                    You wrote: “I can buy a drone at Wal*Mart or a hobby store or Amazon so no. A drone is not a firearm either is a submarine, see Gwen Moore for more context.”

                    Since you can’t handle a keyboard, maybe it’s time to sell your weapons?

                    Didn’t see Walmart or Amazon mentioned in the Second Amendment. So now it only applies to single-shot muskets?

                       1 likes

                    • ® Steve

                      You seem to be VERY confused about the definition of a drone. You would be in good company with Gwen Moore

                         0 likes

                  • So you’re conceding that the right to bear arms isn’t absolute?

                    Great! I’m glad we settled that so we can move on to what measures can be undertaken to curb gun violence.

                       0 likes

              • John Casper

                Trademark,

                please, explain how FIRST AMENDMENT rights are taken AWAY in a restraining order.

                   1 likes

              • John Casper

                Trademark,

                If the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to drones, how does it apply to anything more advanced than a single-shot musket?

                   1 likes

      • John Casper

        Trademark,

        what did the founders mean by the phrase, “well regulated militia?”

           1 likes

  • ® Steve

    A stolen illegal weapon in a gun free zone. The liberal firearm wet dream proved fatal for these young union teachers and children. The emotion has worn off, polls and the 2nd amendment are not in your favor, thank god, or science.

       1 likes

    • Paul

      Few things irritate me more than people who let the NRA read and define the Second Amendment for them. The words “well regulated militia” are ignored or misconstrued with malicious intent. It clearly indicates a minimum level of training, standards of conduct and very likely even specific weapons. All limitations opposed by the NRA, the officers of said organization honoring only the last half of the amendment. Which is also clearly not without caveats. No one has ever seriously fought for the right of convicted felons to own a weapon, but convicted felons are still citizens and persons. So obviously there are Constitutional limits to the Second Amendment, just like every other item in the Bill of Rights. Waving the Bill of Rights around and howling about the Second Amendment doesn’t actually invalidate the position of gun control advocates at all. We don’t need to agree where that line may be, but to pretend it doesn’t exist and that the only absolute right we have as citizens is the right to have a belt fed machine gun slung across our shoulders while we shop for organic produce in small town Wisconsin is just idiotic.

         3 likes

      • ® Steve

        The NRA boogie man only holds water I the far left circles. This is my favorite part, for which I can think for myself to read and understand. [b]The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[b]

        The last word is my favorite, and is the most powerful. Our self appointed “constitutional president” will understand as well.

           0 likes

        • Paul

          I love how you try and discredit my argument talking about the “NRA boogie man” and then repeat the exact same sin by ignoring the context of the amendment and only citing the last line while also ignoring the fact that we “infringe” upon gun ownership rights routinely already without anyone complaining.

             2 likes

          • ® Steve

            A lot are complaining, and fighting that of which you vaguely mention. You won’t hear any complaints at this place as it is clearly a scared of guns zone.

               0 likes

    • John Casper

      Trademark, you’re no conservative. With friends like you, the Second Amendment doesn’t need enemies.

         1 likes

  • Ed Heinzelman

    And another link via email from a friend…maybe the White House reads my stuff:

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/14/usa-shooting-connecticut-obama-idINL2N0JT01B20131214

       1 likes

  • AJ

    The president calling for a moment of silence is not a horrible thing. I am sure the families have different views on political issues even within the family, but it is important for people to take a moment from hating each other.

    In the current moment the president should seek more federal education funding for public schools to remember the children from Newtown. Every child in America should be in a school just well funded as that school was.

    Banning Guns is a Non Starter in my book, the mental health funding though could make good policy, at the same time strengthening Obamacare.

       0 likes

    • Duane12

      AJ: “Banning Guns is a Non Starter…”

      You introduce a false premise. No one on this blog that I know of has made such a requirement. Many, such as I, are life long hunters, collectors, enjoy target shooting, or own guns for self-protection.

      Let’s be reasonable and accurate in stating what the problem is and what the solution is for a major industrialized country such as the United States with an excessive 10 deaths per 100,000 of population.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

      The murder of children has to stop!!!

         1 likes

  • AJ

    Duane12 in my opinion owning guns ought stay the right of each individual. As far as death or casualty by gun, I think we will always have some no matter what but in my opinion it needs to change by people being more safe and mentally stable.

       1 likes

  • ® Steve

    I am happy to report all of my guns have not murdered anyone today. They are all still holding the same amount of ammo as yesterday. [b] I will report back tomorrow if anything changes. [/b]

       2 likes

  • Other Side

    The only drone here is Steve.

       3 likes

    • ® Steve

      An unmanned aircraft is some how a weapon? How low informed at you guys here? Thanks for the personal attack though, good work.

         0 likes

  • ® Steve

    I am happy to report all of my guns have not murdered anyone today.

       0 likes

  • Duane12

    Returning to a serious discussion of the gun manufacturer’s greed and their hired hands in Congress such as Duffy and his fellow conscienceless NRA supporters, consider the following study on the gun violence in the U.S. on an average day:

    30 gun-related murders
    162 people wounded by firearms
    53 suicides with a firearm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/murders-shootings-and-gun-sales-per-day_n_2488664.html

       0 likes

    • ® Steve

      310 million protected and defended. My number is bigger. How dare those evil greedy companies produce a product that defends criminals you support.

         0 likes

  • nonquixote

    The obvious point missed in this entire discussion is the hypocrisy of the person calling for the moment of silence, Barry the drone king, assassin. Aside from the fact that his talk about gun regulation at home was nothing more than talk (don’t hold your breath regarding his speech on upping the minimum wage either), to the best of my recollection he is granting himself authority to pursue supposed threats to the US using armed drones on civilian targets, that have killed hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan, Yemen and in other MENA areas, (now officially being introduced into central Africa, so say the latest reports of armed US drones being officially deployed) under a still sealed legal directive.

    We, as citizens, are not allowed to understand or be informed of the order directing this power vested in one authoritarian figure in our “democratic republic.”

    Last year’s AUMF, if you will recall, officially named all of the US and its territories as now being official battle-fields in the WOT, thus sanctioning eventual armed drone use against targets deemed, “threats,” under the secret presidential directive, despite “assurances,” that armed drones will not be used on US soil. Feeling safer?

    Yes, the victims of Sandy Hook and the victims of the tragedy living with the memory of their swiftly, unjustifiably taken family members deserve a moment of silence. They and the rest of us also deserve better control of firearms in the hands of civilians in the USA.

    Obvious by comments in this thread, lack of critical thinking skills and hints of ingrained possibly genetic sociopathy should be valid enough reasons to attempt to control guns from getting into the hands of particular individuals.

       0 likes

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Blogging Blue’s “14 in ’14″

Goal Thermometer

Support The New World Horror