Good video JoAnn, Thanks for sharing it..! education rules..!

I agree with Commissioner Rothchild on this issue....the Constitution is in fact the Supreme Law Of The Land..

You're right Buck, and it prefaces "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." with a statement regarding a "well-regulated militia". Is Mr. Rothschild keeping and carrying his weapon on his daily errands as part of a regulated military unit?

Try looking up what "well regulated" meant in the eighteenth century. Here is a hint, it didn't mean "controlled by government restrictions".

Ah, but one organization, the NRA, has a problem with any restrictions on guns and they clearly call the "shots" in DC. We had assault weapon restrictions and bans on the large magazines used in the shooting as late as 2004. It's not about rationality, it's about ensuring manufacturers maximize their profits from laws that enhance gun and ammunition sales. I've heard that 40% of new weapons are sold through the internet and at gun shows, where background checks are not required. I wonder which route irresponsible gun owners, criminals and others bent on violence use to acquire their weapons?

Joe E, Yes you can buy some guns on the internet, But they are not shipped to you the buyer, they are shipped to a gun store with a FFL and you must go through the same background check as everyone else.

I see, we are supposed to defend our freedom with muskets... By your reasoning, then, the 1st Amendment only protects speech put forth with quill pens and shouting.

But more to the point, the Supreme Court already decided in the case of U.S. v. Miller (1939), that standard military arms are the only ones pertinent to the 2nd Amendment. Interpret that as you will, but they didn't mean muskets.

Sorry but his AR15 jammed and it was reported abandoned early on, so that argument is unsubstantiated. Secondly "assault weapons" are lmg, select fire or fully automatic; an AR15 in actuality has the same functionality as the .22 lr semi automatic many kids shoot in camp but a different caliber. The fact that the perpetrator did attempt to use a large capacity drum that jammed made him resort to pistol fire which in reality can cause less damage. Not at all to make light of the situation but the accused rigged his apartment with booby traps made of explosives and used CS canisters to launch his attack. What makes you think those intent on doing harm are limited by what is available to the average citizen? When you are marching into high crime districts getting the criminals and gang bangers to give up their weapons and offer peaceful solutions then maybe you will have some credibility. Until then your fear and outrage do not outweigh the rights of the citizens of this country to be able to hunt, target shoot, protect self and property with care, responsibility and respect of others. So you value the lives of which 1 or 3 out of the 12 if your reasonable, rational mind gets to choose? Life begins with an end in site, our goal in our society is to ensure we will not live enslaved or in fear but to live in freedom. Your way eventually we will live under the first 2.

Why; in your own terms is, it "probably well justified" ?

I wonder if more people would have been killed or hurt when that person engaged the shooter in a gunfight? Didn't the guy have on kevlar?

So you think someone being able to defend against this maniac would have made things worse? Had there been a trained marksman with a permitted weapon on him, you think things could have been worse? (Yes, I said trained because I do believe training should be a part of carrying a firearm!) As for the Kevlar, did he have it on his head?

So the training is a BIG assumption. I agree with you that everyone carrying should be required to demonstrate competency. Besides that, you're envisioning this "trained marksman" in the audience would be able to do a 180, remove their weapon, disengage the safety, aim, and shoot this crazy in the head, while being shot at? To me is just sounds like more bullets flying through the air that have an opportunity to kill bystanders.

The crazy guy had on head to toe body armor. And it was dark. Another gun would have meant more casualties.

Nice thought, but it wouldn't really happen like that since the recoil generated by the pistol is not sufficient to knock down the person doing the shooting.

Aside from armed citizens minimizing the amount of time this nutjob had to fire on a helpless audience, I think it's perhaps being overlooked how armed citizens are a deterrent, in general. Yeah, the guy was crazy, but still sane enough to devise a fairly sophisticated plan - and might have weighed things differently if he thought people actually might shoot back.

People don't "carry" .45s any more. 9 millimeter is the usual caliber. And a .45 is pretty inaccurate, as I recall from my days on the firing range at Fort Ord. In a dark theater with tear gas in the air the guy with the .45 would more likely hit an innocent bystander.

I have a couple .45's that would beg to differ with your assessment. :-)

They do not allow guns at that theater.

One more time. He had on body armor, head to toe. He would have welcomed a firefight. There would be more casualties.

That sounds very expensive at several levels...public and private...something about it feels wrong....I agree with lots of driving instruction though..motor vehicles are far more dangerous than guns.

Will that prevent her from texting while driving, playing with her radio stations, putting on makeup while driving, showing off, speeding or many other infractions that cause accidents and or death? Personal responsibility does not end in the classroom and can often not be taught but learned while growing up. People that go out and kill purposely will not be swayed by classroom training, most publicized incidents aren't reported for people who said "oops, didn't mean to shoot 70 people, it just went off".

Why don't we start requring people to get training and a permit to exercise their 1st amendment right? Oh ya, we don't need one to practice a civil right, so we shouldn't need one to practice our 2nd amendment rights.

So to answer these one by one:
Buck--why should gun instruction be more expensive than driving instruction? I gladly paid for my daughters drivers ed to keep her, and other people, safer. It only "feels" wrong because you are afraid it is an excuse to take away this right, but that is not true, it would be a restriction for public safety, just like requiring a drivers license. (And I never heard of anyone driving a car into a theatre and killing 12 people).
Brandon--no, education won't KEEP her from doing stupid, it will just teach her that such actions are stupid. All the education in the world wouldn't have kept the Colorado shooter from going nuts, but it might, for example, keep a person from leaving a loaded gun in an unlocked night table when he has a young child at home. To say," it won't prevent a murder so gun safety education is not necessary" seems either extremely short sighted, or pure sophistry
Thomas--just because something is a right, doesn't mean that right can be exercised unfettered. We have a right to a trial, but you have to pay your lawyer and follow the rules of the court. You have the right to peaceful assembly, but you might have to obtain a government permit. You have a right to travel (not enumerated in the Bill of Rights but recognized under the 9th Amendment), but you need a license to drive a car, or you have to pay for the bus, train, or plane, and you need a passport to leave and reenter the country.

Now, more than ever citizens must remain heavily armed to keep the threat of government in check....it's a civic duty.

Car insurance. Old age insurance (SSI and Medicaid) . The government can force people to purchase things if they are necessary for the common good of society.

You don't have to participate in any of those things mentioned if you choose to opt out.
Common good would come with less government, not more.

There is a fine line between the power to require proper training, etc. and the power to tax. While most reasonable people would agree that firearm training is desirable, regardless of whether such training is forced by the government, most people would also not prefer to be taxed excessively for what is a fundamental right. Government has that funny little tool in its bag of tricks - the ability to tax something to the point of inflicting pain, which is why we spent nearly $400 to register two motor vehicles, for example. Thank goodness we don't smoke cigarettes (though we have to buy lots of gasoline).

Well said George T...

There are millions of incidents where motor vehicles have caused injuries--but very few are deliberate. Education will not prevent drunk driving, just like it will not prevent a crazy person from shooting in a movie theatre. The truth is NO law will prevent a person from committing a crime if they really want to commit a crime. So what do we do-- do away with all laws? Drug use is astronomically high--do we decriminalize drugs? Laws ALWAYS only stop law abiding citizens from committing crimes. I am not saying that people shouldn't own guns--my dad owns a gun. But he knows how to use it, and I never even saw it when I was a child. It all boils down to fear--you are somehow afraid that the government is going to impose some kind of totalitarian state on us and it is only your gun ownership that will prevent this. Maybe I haven't been watching the same movies as you have, but I don;t have that fear.

As rights are eroded by too many bad or non laws our country becomes "totalitarian", slowly but surely. It is happening, to deny it would be apathetic.
Apathy breeds followers of bad law or sheeple if you will.

My right to carry is natural and in no way would be a threat to you unless you tried to do harm to me ...it's a defensive right.. Are we required to have training before taking mind altering prescribed medications that might cause us to drive or behave dangerously?

"Mr. Martin, guns aren't the only method of self defense. I would like to think we are a little more sophisticated than in wild west times." Are we really? There are more criminals now by percentage, not population. More murders, more robberies, assaults, burglaries. Tasers, mace, batons are outlawed in many counties, and cities throughout the Sate of Maryland. What method do you presume to use, your cell phone, a whistle....tell that to several people in Baltimore that got robbed and killed. You have greater odds getting hit by a bus than you have being the innocent bystander shot by a CCW citizen. Your safety or lack of it should not infringe on others to be able to protect themselves. Maybe you are 30, 6'2" in great shape and practice Krav Maga but it won't matter if someone starts shooting at you and all you can do is hide under a table and pray. Now you impact others safety.

"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” - Sigmund Freud "When the people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." – Thomas Jefferson

You are as free to make that choice as I am to carry. perfect balance..if I see an elderly person being assaulted I am prepared to assist with confidence.

Which is why the federal government pounds the crappola out of subordinate governments (states) rights at every, single opportunity.

Rights are unalienable. You can choose to exercise yours OR NOT; you cannot choose to give mine away with yours or take them away from anyone ELSE.
Personal responsibility is what is missing in most of the discussions here. If you drive a car and kill someone or yourself YOU are personally responsible. If you choose to carry a concealed weapon (your right, by the way) YOU are responsible. For everything about that choice. If you choose to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (also your right, by the way despite laws to the contrary the kicker is:) YOU ARE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for making that choice. Our society shirks personal responsibility at almost every turn. What do you want to bet that the defense team for the shooter in Aurora will start to build a case of EXCUSES? Or that he was insane when he did it? That still doesn't obviate his actions and his responsibility for them. If there was justice he'd have a fair, speedy trial and be executed immediately afterwards. IS there any doubt in anyone's mind that he "did it"? You know what? Sometimes it's just your fault because you are stupid, or ignorant or made a tragically bad decision. [And, hey, that also implies to me, BTW.] Don't' make the mistake of supplanting important liberties or rights for your good ideas or good intentions. Be responsible for your own actions and let's start having the moral fortitude to hold others responsible for theirs.

Well said TeeBarb..

There's an important distinction that needs to be brought into this conversation: the difference between "inalienable", "natural", and "legal" rights. These terms are being thrown around in this discussion, and in some cases are not being used correctly. The right provided by the second amendment is a legal right, since it would not exist without being enumerated in that legal document. The Declaration of Independence speaks to three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By terming them "inalienable" Jefferson was communicating that no government should endeavor to violate them. These are similar to natural rights in that they don't need to be guaranteed by law.
Love your point about personal responsibility though, TeeBarb!

You can join the militia (National Guard or Reserves) attend drills regularly, and frustrate the British Parliament of centuries ago. And I agree, the governor of Pennsylvania should be replaced.

John, you are a fine writer, but your logic with the Constitution is right up there with David Iacono's. You've written about how the 2nd Amendment should protect only antiquated implements, but would you suggest similar interpretation for the 1st Amendment? Yes, I know - it's all about your "body count", and how you choose to assess the consequences of gun ownership - which only accounts for senseless deaths, but not for lives saved.

It's also been written that the pen is mightier than the sword. So, by your reasoning, any means of publishing that is more sophisticated than a typewriter should not be protected speech. Laugh it off, but governments that were trying to hold onto power during the Arab Spring used similar logic to quell the popular uprising that spread like wildfire through social media - by restricting it. Free speech can be considered just as dangerous as arms, in some cases.

So, what say you, John - can you be consistent in applying Constitutional protections for the sake of freedom?