Walmart Sells Assault Weapons But Bans Music With Swear Words en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sat, 15 Mar 2014 13:31:04 -0400 Henry Blodget tdbjungle Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:23:47 -0500 Angela, who are cherry picking to suit your flawed argument. You missed "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, ***shall not be infringed***" First of all, all firearms sold at WalMart and ANY store require ATF background check. You can't just pick it up and walk to the register like its a case of Pepsi. Furthermore, Walmart is not selling anything they should not. These are NOT military arms. They may look similar, but they are not capable of the same rate of fire. They shot no faster than the common handgun many have at home for defense. If you are going to be totally against something with no room for negotiation you should at least learn the subject matter so you have some idea what you are talking about. tdbjungle Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:02:01 -0500 Music and art should not be censored. All guns should be legal. Same for drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage. Stop restricting and limiting and give people the freedom to live as they want. When bad things happen to an extremely small minority the answer is never to punish all for it. Theres a difference between disapproving of something and making it illegal, in that difference lies a free society. tdbjungle Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:54:29 -0500 You clearly have no clue about firearms and have drank the misinformation kool-aid that has been forcefed to you. Assault weapon is a made up term. Military weapons are already illegal, have been for decades. The semiautomatic rifles available at walmart are no more lethal than the hunting rifles they sell. Actually, the 5.56mm cartridge they fire is LESS lethal than most hunting rifles. It is not even a legal round for whitetail deer hunting in most states because it is too weak. So why are you so scared of these inanimate things? Because they LOOK like military firearms? Well that my friend is pretty damn silly of you. tdbjungle Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:44:11 -0500 QUOTED FOR TRUTH: Walmart does not sell assault weapons - those require a class 3 firearms permit. The rifles they sell are significantly different than military weapons. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting statistics put out by the FBI, more people are killed yearly by hands and feet than by rifles. So when will the media start attacking karate schools? tdbjungle Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:41:34 -0500 We shouldnt censor music and art, and firearms should be allowed. Just like marijuana, and gay marriage. Stop limiting and restricting and let people be free. When bad things happen it is the fault of the person that did it. It really is that simple. ANGELA C. EMBREE Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:59:39 -0500 THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS: "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." "A well regulated militia......necessary to the security of a free state", defines and limits the circumstances under which an individual has the right to bear arms. Walmart has a responsible obligation to the community which sustains it to do its part to protect that community by discontinuing the sale of firearms. ZombiePrepNet Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:51:50 -0500 If the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets, then the 1st amendment only applies to non-electronic speech and writing. ZombiePrepNet Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:49:11 -0500 And I don't thing the first amendment applies to electronic communication. And I think the 10th Amendment only applies to the original 13 colonies. And I think the 4th amendment doesn't protect you against electronic surveillance. ZombiePrepNet Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:46:47 -0500 So the only thing that olympic target shooters, or trap shooters do is kill people? Fascinating. We should go ahead and lock those people up. ZombiePrepNet Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:43:57 -0500 Walmart does not sell assault weapons - those require a class 3 firearms permit. The rifles they sell are significantly different than military weapons. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting statistics put out by the FBI, more people are killed yearly by hands and feet than by rifles. So when will the media start attacking karate schools? Dakota Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:04:26 -0500 Would like to point out that the second amendment right in the U.S. constitution is not for hunting or sport but for defending the land from tyranny by allowing access to the same grade tools the military uses. Although I disagree with walmart censoring artists but being outraged that walmart is selling a gun is silly. The thought that I should not be allowed to own something because someone else went loony is pathetic! That's like saying you're not allowed to ever eat steak because the young and the elderly have choked on it so it's dangerous for everyone to have steak because you might choke too. P.S. that's not an assault rifle an to be an assault rifle the gun has to have a full auto mode. Steve Waggoner Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:35:30 -0500 I would find it ironic, but Wal-Mart doesn't even sell "Assault Weapons". It's still ironic that they do sell ammunition and firearms but heavily insist on censoring music. If we want to have a rational national debate on "Assault Weapons", we really need to get the definition correct. The big problem here is that any gun that looks "mean" automatically has that label thrown on it. Your average medium to large game (deer etc) hunting rifle is more powerful than what everyone points at and screams "Assault Weapon"! No, I'm not some NRA troll, I simply get tired of the buzz words that get thrown around and detract from the debate we really need to have - such as why is violence, of any sort, so prevalent in our society? I'm not even a hunter, but my kids and I do shoot competitively, primarily sporting clays (trap and skeet) and we use guns that are at least as powerful and deadly than any so called "Assault Weapon" as currently defined by the media and most Americans. How can a rational debate be had when the definition of what's being discussed is incorrect from the outset? The Great And Powerful Turtle Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:35:51 -0500 we have had a number of horrific shootings in the UK (Hungerford and Dunblane) and have gun laws that are so strict that some Olympic target shooters have had to move abroad to compete ...and yet with the laws so tight there were still over 11,000 incidents in the last year of gun related crimes.. im not sure exactly how you can stop these murderous madmen but gun control really doesn't work, you take away their guns and they will find some other way to kill ....a knife a bomb or even a vehicle of some kind ..if someone is going to kill then you stop the killer not weapon satanclaus Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:21:52 -0500 Its likely a co-incidence. Figures go up and down regardless of gun ownership. 'Honest citizens' saving lives with their own guns? In todays gun loving society? LOL. Why not just get rid of the police altogether and start handing out the badges to local community. The real story - the australian police handed in their own guns. Bad move. satanclaus Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:02:53 -0500 LOL yep its ridiculous-if this is walmart, I dread to think what I may find if I browsed Dollarland, the poundland equivalent! ;( The above article makes you think twice about ever wanting to visit such an over cautious paranoid gun mad nation. Self defense? I assume this country has a terrible police force. Mass shootings? Im afraid no rifle, even if they made schools gun enabled zones, would save them either, since these shootings can be random, and happen quick. ebay is selling bullet proof schoolbags/satchels as I type. Sad but true, and again, completely useless money making dribble. Too many action movies, and now every home owner in the US wants to be in one Dominique Bovard Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:12:30 -0500 I live in France and I am very very glad that not anybody can have guns; imagine what would happen with the hot temper we have, while driving for instance, we all carried gun : instead of curse words, fights with our fists; we would shoot ourselves; and you think you go to heaven just by faith ? Please Lord, we have Macdonalds; that's enough; don't allow guns in France cccharles Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:35:42 -0500 nexus, you cant but assault rifles anywhere in america. THEY ARE ILLEGAL FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS. what is pictured here is simply a rifle. the media likes to call it an assault weapon, however THERE IS NO REAL DEFINITION OF THAT. this weapon is exactly the same as hundreds of other weapons that no one wants to make illegal in functionality. the only difference in aesthetics. it uses the same rounds as almost every varmint rifle. it is semi auto, which just means if only shoots a round when you pull the trigger, just like a pistol. and it happens to LOOK like a "military" weapon. loveyourgift Tue, 25 Dec 2012 16:03:33 -0500 It's the world upside down!!! AllAboutTheMoneyHoney Tue, 25 Dec 2012 06:15:06 -0500 Guns are about money. The NRA, The Senate, The House... make craploads of dough because of arms. Aren't military sales the biggest business in the world in terms of revenue? It's serious freaking business... If a few kids get blown away in Connectictut and a few teachers... does anyone really think the people in Washington creating our laws and policy on guns would prefer to put on a good show now and continue to pocket the millions of dollars funneled to them by gunmakers and the NRA? I mean come on... when has doing what's right taken precedence with corruption in the United States? If and only if Americans fight back against the corrupt American Goverment and implement policy where the private sector can't buy them, things will change... until then... expect lots more kids and people to get blown away with automatic weapons... the almighty dollar always wins. Unless of course some mentally ill individual walks into the Russell Senate House with automatic weapons and blows all of them away? Why would any of them have an reason to change? Kyle Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:09:48 -0500 "Assault weapon" is nothing but a term to refer to what is a scary-looking gun that is functionally no different than any other gun one can buy. The problem is every one judges the gun by how it looks as opposed to its underlying function or capability. It's a classic case of when people don't understand something, they fear it. There are plenty of ho-hum-looking guns that are functionally identicial to so-called "assault weapons" that no one cares about anyone being able to own. RIM4Life Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:55:08 -0500 You have a GUN PROBLEM Jerry Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:48:42 -0500 Your right the 2nd amendment does not include assault weapons but the guns that Wal-Mart sales are not assault weapons they are civilian versions that resemble them a assault weapon that you are talking about are full auto and it takes a special permit applied for and given to you by your state and they are very expensive not to mention the cost of a actual assault which could cost 10 of thousands of dollars. Good Choice Henry Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:44:43 -0500 The Sig Sauer M400 is a great gun value and they are flying off the shelves everywhere. As you can see even Henry realizes it's a great gun value -- that's why he's featured it so prominently -- good choice Henry (although it's doubtful Henry knows the buttstock from the muzzle but he sure can copy and paste). Aaron Swanson Mon, 24 Dec 2012 02:26:59 -0500 Assault Rifle = Bogey man word to scare idiots who know nothing about firearm technology. ANYTHING can be an assault weapon, including a rock. There is no such thing as a "assault rifle" because every firearm can kill. I can kill you with a 100 year old rifle as well as a semi-auto AR-15. However with the rifle I can shoot you dead from 1000 yards an it only fires one bullet an you have to cycle it with a bolt. Anti-gun idiots are the sheeple ignorant of the fact that every government gun grab precedes a government GENOCIDE!!! These facts are always ignored Let's create gun laws = Criminals do not obey any laws Let's ban hand guns = Hand guns are rarely used in street crimes, criminals use rifles because they are more effective Let's create countless regs = Criminals use black market guns Let's force Mag Caps = Criminals don't use capped mags or the take the cap OUT of the magazine Let's ban ALL guns so no one can have them = Criminals will still get guns or they will use bombs, poisons, an other means less obvious than gun violence. Knives & blunt objects are used more in murders Psycho's can't use guns anymore if we ban all the guns = Look up the Mad Bomber of New York from the early 20th century, took 10+ years for them to find him an they did only because of sheer dumb luck the guy confessed. Anti-gun freaks have the same ideological mindset of a cultist, you can shoot down every BS anti-gun bit that flies out of their mouth, they'll just run off an say the exact same garbage to someone else, it's like debating with a radical fundamentalist. Socialist sheeple have a mental disease which is statism. They are like scared children so afraid of guns that they refuse to confront them by owning one and educating themselves, they are so scared of physical confrontation that they expect the state to do that for them (while engaging in passive aggression & bullying). Sad weak pathetic people ChuckieBoy Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:14:01 -0500 Using that logic we should ban building materials such as 2x4s, plywood, glass and roofing shingles as tornadoes use them to injure and kill hundreds of Americans every year. Houses should then only be allowed to be built with soft foam on the premise that future tornadoes will not use trees, cows, rocks, and cars to hurl at people. We should also ban stupidity as the lack of common sense will kill, maim and injure more Americans than all the other causes combined. I seem to remember that Cain did not kill Abel with a gun. JStacy1228 Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:12:53 -0500 Hi Ed, Many thanks for this link. JStacy1228 Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:09:05 -0500 Sadly, the author of this article, like so many other Americans, fails to realize the core of the problem is human nature, and insists on only combating the most sensationalized symptom of the human condition. The TRUE dichotomy in America is that Americans love to buy and sell guns, and absolutely adore hating them and blaming their woes on them. One commenter on another article actually had the audacity to say that, were you a responsible citizen owning a handgun for defense of your home, a burglar is more likely to target your house armed rather than just go in unarmed. Except, a burglar, already being a cowardly sort, would be much more likely to just GO TO A DIFFERENT HOUSE rather than try to burgle one in which the occupants are armed. I love being American, but I find no more greater concentration of sheeple anywhere in the world than I do here. Chuckieboy Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:00:15 -0500 Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts...From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.... You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. ChuckieBoy Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:48:27 -0500 Actually we should ban doctors too as more kids were killed by malpractice in hospitals between 2006b and 2009 than the 5740 children mentioned which included in that number are also young adults to age 25 some which were killed by cops or by their gang banger or drug dealing buddies. We then should proceed to also ban cars which kill over 39,000 Americans a year. Prescription drugs too, who knows how many deaths occur to misuse and erroneous prescriptions from equally erroneous diagnosis or reactions when a bad mixture of them results from different doctors that are not aware what the patient is taking, ban those too. We should also blame and ban 2x4 lumber, plywood and other building materials used in home construction because tornadoes in the midwest use those to hurl at people and kill them. In fact we should build homes of soft safety foam as tornadoes then will ignore trees and dirt and cows and not use those to hurl and kill people. We need to additionally ban sex as sex spreads AIDS worldwide and lets not forget to ban the ban on DDT, as not using it has killed over 200 million people since the book "Silent Spring" was published and an emotional outcry with bad science ensued, the dead mostly children in third world countries. And finally ban stupidity that daily interferes with common sense in this country and probably causes more deaths and injury than all of the above combined. usecommonsense Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:19:45 -0500 What about the 1.2million children killed every year who never got to live to get a name to put on a list? You don't cry about that do you. But that's ok because you can't infringe on those rights. Because Erik Holder and his wife are tied to the abortion clinics we can't do anything about that. sugmullun Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:57:40 -0500 I'll bet you're from a country that probably owes it's sovereignty to protection afforded by the U.S. It's probably been rescued from a Hitler, Amin, terrorism, or it's own stupidity sometime in the not too distant past. It's economy would probably collapse now without the U.S. as the economic engine of the world. sugmullun Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:50:25 -0500 It's sad when people decide to personally prove that sense and intelligence aren't the same. I'd be personally interested in knowing what part of the readership are such simple fools as to draw any kind of conclusion at all from this nonsensical attempt to show irony. Kind of reminds me of when I was a child and my dog was attacked by a small pack of dogs and how not one of the dogs went for the real fight, just nipped away at my dogs hind quarters while he was distracted in another direction. Krystian Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:08:18 -0500 yes this is truth Jamiemac Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:31:55 -0500 I don't know where your figures come from mate but U.K firearm fatalities are nowhere near U.S levels. In 2011 there were almost 9,500 fatalities due to guns in the U.S , in the U.K there were around 42. Even if the U.K population is scaled up to match the U.S population it would only be around 250. There are around 10.2 deaths per 100,000 people in the U.S, only .2 per 100,000 in the U.K. RIM4Life Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:29:16 -0500 America is fucked up Glad I don't live there Will Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:54:44 -0500 Where does it say assault Waepon? ED MAAG Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:23:22 -0500 You folks who scoff at the 2nd Amendment should go to JPFO.ORG and get a Jewish perpective on firearms ownership. Check out the genocide chart showing how many people have died in the past century as a result of "Gun Control". After they come for the guns, they'll be coming for you. Always happens. Dex P Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:00:55 -0500 Australia use to have a problem with guns. Port Aurther (1996) was Australias Sandy Hook. But instead of debating the pros and cons of Gun control the Government acted and banned the use of guns plus had a buy back. You tell me if the stats tell if this worked. Deaths per 100 000 2010: 1.04 2009: 1.02 2008: 1.05 2007: 1.91 2006: 1.10 2003: 1.45 2002: 1.49 2001: 1.68 2000: 1.69 1999: 1.83 1998: 1.67 1997: 2.31 1996: 2.82 1995: 2.59 1994: 2.88 1993: 2.89 1992: 3.47 1991: 3.57 1990: 3.48 1989: 3.26 1988: 4.06 1987: 4.25 1986: 4.21 1985: 4.31 1984: 4.34 1983: 4.20 1982: 4.56 1981: 4.15 1980: 4.67 The United States Rate per 100 000 United States 10.1 And the NRA wants more guns to protect people. That simply doesn't fly. And dont use the argument that people will find other ways to kill people because the highest death rate per 100,000 in Australia is not violet crimes but motor accidents 6 per 100 0000. Patrick Cloward Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:23 -0500 They're not meant for hunting. They're meant to use as defense against a greater force. Simple as that. When a psycho shows up with a hand gun... you show up with a scary rifle, it bursts their fantasy bubble and they kill themselves.... simple as that. Not a single round fired. Maire Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:53:40 -0500 "That policy tells you a lot about this country." I laughed out loud when I read that, the dark humor kind of laugh that's a combination of amusement and horror. Turns out it's probably only good for selling news in the form of mouse clicks. In this piece we are first told that Wal-mart "bans music with swear words" since it is their policy not to "display album or song titles that contain profanity" and as such, the 30-sec samples you hear in-store are always swear-free. But then we are also told that "other portions of the recordings may contain profanity." What? So if a song contains profanity, Wal-mart will only sell it in 30-second increments? Or is it that the disclaimer's phrase "does not display" means just that--that profanity will not be featured for in-store display--and that in fact, people can and do buy naughty music at Wal-mart all the time, they just won't hear any bad words in the samples offered? If I told you "Wal-mart has decided to ban guns," wouldn't you assume I meant that customers will no longer be able to purchase guns at Wal-mart's stores? Yet we're told that "Wal-mart bans swear words," except--oh yeah, actually you can buy plenty of music from Wal-mart that has swear words. You just won't hear swearing in the sample clips in the CD aisle. Really, Mr. Blodget? Patrick Cloward Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:38:09 -0500 I think it's hilarious that the liberal mindset is more concerned about someone regulating their morality than their freedom to bear arms. You pretend to be educated but follow like sheep the media narrative pushed to give up personal responsibility and educated choices for "the good" of "the people." Who do you think is going to do the thinking for you? Obama? J. Scott Anderson Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:01:05 -0500 Every life taken is a tragedy. However, each life taken by criminal violence pales to complete insignificance by the violence committed by governments where guns for citizens are outlawed. All of you should do a little research before supporting any sort of government control of citizens weapons. Make it easy on yourself, just research violence in the past 100 years or so. For the lazy, here is a hint: while we discuss the death of thousands, government violence against unarmed citizens runs in the millions. Jeannie Laughlin Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:38:58 -0500 I don't understand why people don't realize how important it is- and how important it will be in the near future to be able to defend themselves against mentally unstable people. Even Abraham Lincoln said that THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. He referred to our own government as one of the main reasons, and protection from those who would harm us as another.PLEASE CHECK YOUR HISTORY! Our forefathers WEREN'T FOOLS!!! Justin Poppiti Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:59:13 -0500 Insane Anonymous Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:31:28 -0500 Not that I don't have my issues with Walmart, or assault rifles available to civilians, because I do, but you seem to be under the impression that you can just walk into just about any ole store and buy tons and tons of guns. In the southern states where hunting is very popular I'm sure most of the Walmarts carry guns. However in other parts of the country, such as the northeast where I am, only a few Walmarts carry guns and the only other place you can legally get them is through a licensed gun dealer. There are regulations, such as criminal background checks and needing to acquire a permit through the local police department to obtain a gun. Jill Klausen Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:31:13 -0500 The ONLY reason Switzerland has high gun ownership is because EVERYONE is required to serve in their army and is therefore provided a gun. HOWEVER ... Switzerland doesn't let anyone take their guns HOME anymore, but requires guns be stored in DEPOTS. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> Jill Klausen Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:22:59 -0500 Yes there are such things as military-style assault weapons. But let's just go with your definition and call them whatever you want ... they are still an unacceptable type of weaponry for average citizens to own and operate. Even HELLER acknowledges that you are not entitled to any old weapon you want for any old reason you want it. We have a problem with our gun MENTALITY in this country. That problem is that people think they SHOULD be allowed to own any old weapon they want. The way to fix this problem is to take HELLER at its word and place severe restrictions on the type of weapons we allow citizens to own, no matter what you call them. And then we start buying back all the ones that are already out there and destroying them. You can have guns, but you can't have just any old gun just because you want it. Gun laws need to start reflecting our moral responsibility to protect our citizens from needless death and carnage above your right to arm yourself with any old weapon you please. We don't let you own and operate a tank or nuclear weapons, either. If TERRORISTS were coming into this country, buying these kind of guns (because they're so readily and easily available to purchase here), no matter what you call them, and murdering more than 11,000 people every year with them, you wouldn't hesitate to demand our government outlaw them. A guy tried to blow up a plane with a "shoe bomb" and FAILED, but we all have to take our shoes off at the airport now. We accept the fact that we can no longer take more than 3 oz of liquids on airplanes that haven't been purchased beyond security screening, and that all liquids be displayed in see-through plastic bags when we arrive at security check-points. It's time to acknowledge that these weapons, no matter what you call them, pose such a high risk to our safety that we can no longer allow them to be manufactured and sold here, and that ALL people who want to purchase firearms must be required to follow strict guidelines on their purchase, storage, and use. It is not a violation of your rights to do so. So says Heller. Jill Klausen Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:04:08 -0500 We SEVERELY regulate and restrict automobile use in this country. If you want to drive a car in this country you have to study for, take, and pass both a written and practical exam to prove you know how to operate one safely; the same should be true for guns. If you want to drive a car in this country you have to register it with the state and pay an annual registration fee — for each car you own; the same should be true for guns. If you want to drive a car in this country you have to renew your license to drive it every 4 years; the same should be true for guns, but annually. If you want to drive a car in this country you have to have it physically inspected for safety periodically, in some states annually; the same should be required for guns. If you sell a car in this country you have to notify the state that you've done so by transferring the title to the new owner, even when the transaction takes place between two private individuals; the same should be true for gun ownership. You aren't allowed to drive a car in this country if you're mentally incompetent to do so; the same should be true for gun ownership. If you own a car in this country, its serial number, or VIN, is entered into a national database so the owner can be tracked readily; the same should be the case for guns. And if you want to drive a car in this country, you have to take out liability insurance in the event you even accidentally injure or kill someone (insurance which often comes with restrictions on where you can keep your car, who can use your car, etc.); the same should be true for guns. Jill Klausen Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:00:09 -0500 "I don't remember Kinder Eggs being mentioned in the Bill of Rights" I don't remember AR-15s being mentioned in the Bill of Rights, either. Jill Klausen Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:32:53 -0500 What a shameful justification. Keondra Hooks, 1 Nizeal Banks, 5 Dajae Coleman, 14 Ronald Wallace, 13 Bilal Amin, 2 Joel Johnson, 12 Jazzlyn Johnson, 13 Aliyah Shell, 6 Layla Jones, 6 Briana Allen, 5 Khali Singleton, 8 Kristyana Jackson, 7 Lloyd Morgan, 4 Nizzel George, 5 Kemar Bryan Brooks, 14 Mitchell Murch III, 11 Mary Claire Murch, 9 Jorge Azios, 3 Delric Miller, 9 mos TJ Darrisaw, 12 These are CHILDREN who were killed by gun violence THIS YEAR, and this is a VERY short list based on the quickest of Google searches. More than 100 people have been killed by guns SINCE the Newtown massacre a week ago. This is an UNACCEPTABLE consequence of refusing to severely restrict the type of weaponry available to average citizens in this country. Dist of Columbia v Heller ruled: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56." We shouldn't have to teach our CHILDREN how to improve their chance of survival around deadly weapons, we should be removing the possibility that children will become victims of deadly weapons. And the ONLY way to accomplish that is to remove those deadly weapons from our society. Conservatives so severely restrict a woman's rights under the 4th Amendment to obtain an abortion that it's literally impossible to do so in many states across this country, even though it's a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT. You don't even want to know what gun laws would look like if Liberals imposed the kind of restrictions on the use and ownership of guns that Conservatives have placed on women in this country. You'd be screaming about Fascism until your voice went out. DGS4 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:09:37 -0500 That is Switzerland's gun death statistics in 2010. Death rate from guns there is 600% more than England. DGS4 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:06:58 -0500 Government statistics for the year 2010[13] records 40 homicides involving firearms, out of the 53 cases of homicide in 2010. DGS4 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:01:50 -0500 Give me a break. Trucks are designed for driving. Semiautomatic rifles with a 30 round magazine are designed for killing lots of people quickly. The term assault rifle or military-stye rifle is fair. You don't use a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 bullet magazine to shoot a deer. There are clearly two different kinds of rifles, those for hunting and those for human killing. These weapons are disgusting. What are people going to collect next, guillotines? Ammonbh Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:28:01 -0500 There's nothing wrong with assault weapons! There is something wrong with the PEOPLE that use assault weapons for anything other than protection. I plan on owning one of these as protection for the day when I or my family is assaulted. gurtie Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:58:09 -0500 A good guy with a gun is the only real defense to control a bad guy with a gun. More laws don't control . If the principal had been armed and TRAINED in self defense and protection she may have prevented the amount of people KILLED! Enforce the laws we have now!!! Stop patting the criminals on the back and sending them back into the public. If the President ,Plosey, Former Leaders and their Children need special Secrect Service ( gun carrying ) protection then why do they resist trained armed protection for our school children ,teachers,& administration workers.These people do NOT know nor understand these guns as they show their ignorance with what they speak. Help for the MENTAL impaired People must be INCREASED . We have to recognize it is a sickness not something to be ashame of and hide ! Media get off your bottoms report it as it is and not as you want it to be heard!!! Hollywood make Good FAmily type movies that adults can watch and enjoy. Not wicked killing to give ideas to the mental weak minded person as a way out of their feelings. WII, Xbox, play stations create games with moral foundings. Parents today have to both work to make ends meet! They have trusted YOU --HOLLywood to entertain these children till they get home . How much is screened. R rating is a joke! Having sex before marriage, singles mothers raising kids without fathers,fathers without resonsibility looking for the next fun sex, drugs to enhance a high, rebellous children because they don't have a firm home all this has increased in the past 20 years. Stop being afraid to find fault about a movie or a game or lack of protection. Make demands that our Gov. increase funding for protection instead of reducing it. Obama keeps the welfare going but not demanding improved morals to receive it. All these things effect the mental health of chldren and adults. God said helps those that helps themselves! Tim Tracy Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:55:20 -0500 Wal-Mart may sell rifles that look like the real thing, but in reality, they are functionally no different than a hunting rifle. Perhaps you should have done some real journalistic legwork before expounding on one, also misinformed tweet. Better luck next time. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle: It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock); It must be capable of selective fire; It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle; Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt. And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet) Colorado guy Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:40:17 -0500 @good my friend are one sheeple of America that don't use the brain God gave you. Thanks for your absolutely wrong two cents. It's pretty obvious you don't have common sense because it guarantee that a stick can impale you, and a stone would crush the puny thing you call a mind. Render Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:47:16 -0500 There is no such thing as a "military-style assault weapon". This is a buzzword created specifically to allow anti-gun fanatics and their supporting media to fool a gullible public into believing that innocuous semi-automatic rifles that "look scary" are, instead, fully-automatic weapons. This is just one of their multidunious deceptions. If the anti-gun crowd had legitimate arguments to support their position, they would be far less blatant with their lies. Or ... They know that there are enough pathetically gullible non-thinkiers who will swallow the lies whole and regurgitate vitriol. Ace Freeley Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:38:12 -0500 “We teach our boys to firebomb villages, but we won't let them write f..k on the side of their planes because it's obscene.” ― Francis Ford Coppola, Apocalypse Now Redux Steve58 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:13:16 -0500 Okay. So what's your idea to fix things? There are 300 million private guns and 3d printers allow you to print guns. I understand your moral outrage, but you aren't focused on the right things. ngg74 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:07:46 -0500 Walmart are entitled to do what they wish. If you dislike their policy you can choose to stop shopping there. Though I suspect that the people who find this objectionable don't shop there anyway. Plzblv Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:07:06 -0500 I could say something here, but just watch this guy with the sweet mustache talk instead. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> Spencer Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:02:41 -0500 You don't like the Sig M400 because it looks scary? What's the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle? It's interesting no one has been defining what an assault weapon is, and if they do it is filled with misleading phrases like "rapid fire shooting, shooting multiple rounds after the first shot is fired, even calling semi automatics "automatic weapons." The difference between an AR-15 and a boring hunting rifle is that one is made of wood, likes like it belongs in the woods and often has an optical scope. An AR-15 had an added pistol grip (maybe easier to hold, doesn't make it a bit more dangerous) and some models have higher capacity magazines. The whole high capacity magazine debate is utter silliness for anyone who is familiar with firearms, and a lot of people aren't, no big deal but some are obviously ignorant to the mechanics and the use of firearms. It takes, oh about 1-3 seconds to reload a magazine. So would you stop a killer? Nope. Slow him down? Negligibly, probably not. Would you prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing a product used for target practice, home defense and for whatever other safe and legal reason they have, absolutely. So it's nice that we all want to do something to make the world a better place. Better background checks or better psychological health screenings are a start. But just talking about banning things doesn't fix anything. Prohibition simply never, ever works. Look at drugs, looks at guns in places they're banned (ie. schools, mexico) they still show up, a black market will always exist. So besides an assault weapons ban would have ZERO effect, as the Brady ban had no effect, the bad guys will still have the guns and the citizens will be disarmed. This isn't to mention we have drone attacks that kill countless children and we keep voting to give the US military more guns, missiles, drones and the permission to use them liberally. The US is the most prolific murderer of children, it's scary to think they would be the only ones to have the guns. That being said, an armed populace is the only way to keep a democracy from falling into tyranny. Artos Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:35:04 -0500 Good grief. You are so wrong and yet this is one of the easiest things to check. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> Or perhaps you have the "real" numbers and these are part of the conspiracy? And now that you see the truth does it even begin to change your mind? I'm gonna guess NO. I think we got a problem. Average Joe Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:22:06 -0500 One is a problem if it is purchases by a clouded mind. The other is a problem because it clouds minds. Obbop Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:20:02 -0500 As typical when dealing with the masses of USA residents emotional appeals rule the day. "Assault weapon" is but one example of using emotion-laden words to further one's personal cause. Well, I shall label the BIG tires on the BIG 4-wheel-drive truck as "assault tires" and the truck a "high-powered assault machine" since I can jump the curb at high-velocity as school lets out and mow down my victims. It is conceivable the death toll of those few brief seconds could easily surpass that of someone using an "assault weapon." Yes, assuredly ALL sane people are saddened by the recent school shooting. But human history is full of horrid incidents and insanity or whatever compels a few folks to commit terrible deeds. Nothing conceivable can prevent the few to commit their horrors. We can try to make their efforts difficult but ensuring those horrors never happen? I hope that emotions are shunted aside and rational, logical and realistic discussions and decisions are done by those with the power to alter conditions at all levels of USA society. I also hope those decision makers do not attempt to appease the masses of emotion-laden citizenry. Personally... pure OPINION with no empirical data to draw upon... I ponder about the viability of placing well-trained and tested and well-prepared military veterans in and around schools. Body armor and armed and ready to protect and serve. The wages and benefits given to those ready to confront evil and protect children would assist local economies with an influx of dollars that would be spent locally... not accumulated in the vaults of the already-wealthy atop the socio-economic hierarchy. Perhaps two or more at every school? Just a thought. Cameron Fraser Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:57:27 -0500 Both are terrible events but they simply do not compare to guns. That's two in the last 85 years for a death toll equivalent to the number of people killed in the US with guns every three days. If you had aTimothy McVeigh blowing up a building and killing 168 people every few days you can bet there would be immediate and aggresive action. What you have efffectively said is that if those people die all at once in an explosion, that's an outrage. If they die individually by gunfire, that's OK. CHHR01 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:55:10 -0500 Here's a thought.... Since the "Devil wears Prada" and WalMart doesn't sell them, then can it be said that WalMart isn't the Devil? However, Hollywood DOES, in fact, sell Prada... CHHR01 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:37:53 -0500 Hey Henry, guess you missed the memo... Connecticut already has an assault rifle ban AND the loon that killed those children did so with THREE LEGALLY purchased weapons that he STOLE from his mother before killing her too. FYI: for all you loons that scream disarmament, there’s a point of fact you should be aware of. In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns having more per capita firepower than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. Yes, my fine feathered friend, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime. When you refuse to blame the real problem, you look quite silly. It's time to have a meaningful discussion about the culture of violence we continue to perpetuate through all the other "arts" such as music, video games, movies, etc. When you have the intestinal fortitude to do that, THEN and only then can or should we talk about the "tools" of choice when following through with maniacal acts of horror such as what the nation experienced at Sandy Hook. Come to think of it, Nazi invasion plans themselves stated that, because of the Swiss gun ownership and shooting skills, that country would be difficult to conquer and occupy. I think I like the Swiss version of Gun Control. yeah ok Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:29:04 -0500 thanks, nutter. go lay down and have a nap while serious adults actually try to solve the problem. meepstone Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:21:44 -0500 Your comment is very true. It is hard to commit mass murder but with 300 million firearms in the country we are beyond the point of banning them. It's too late, only thing you can do as be armed if you so choose and be able to protect yourself against criminals and the crazies. As we all know, banning firearms will only result in criminals with them and the law abiding innocents without. pjscha2 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:10:54 -0500 Henry, I cant decide if you are promoting walmart or if you are part of government's war on guns?. Thanks for letting me know that I can buy an AR at Walmart. I will have to exercise my second amendment right before O tries to take that away from me. thanks fer nuthin' Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:06:56 -0500 What color is the sky in your world? Lemme're an American Christian. over-educated economist Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:54:52 -0500 Notably, the vast, vast majority of them were killed with handguns, not rifles and certainly not "assault rifles". So why are you banning modern sporting rifles when they're basically a non-issue? GoodGrief Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:42:34 -0500 Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. [However assault rifles may kill me] Edwin Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:18:14 -0500 So what is the problem? And by the way my liberal friends,there is no such thing as an assault weapon. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried out by 6' dollylama Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:36:19 -0500 Sign this petition because we need to convince Senator Ayotte to vote for an assault weapon's ban, which she currently opposes. Tell everyone you know to sign. Thank you. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> You are wrong Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:21:25 -0500 WRONG. Look at the data from the UK -- gun homicides are nearly the same as the U.S. and their population is a fraction of the U.S. Stop spewing b.s. Ban Nuts Not Guns Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:15:56 -0500 The anti-gun crowd convinced President Bill Clinton to sign a "so-called) assault weapons ban and the very next election Democrats were voted out as majority in Congress. This law was allowed to expire because the commission that reviewed the data from the ban years found NO EVIDENCE THE BAN DID ANYTHING -- NOTHING. Chris Norman Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:00:21 -0500 Assault Weapon sounds so much more terrible and sinister than semi-automatic rifle. And for those that don't understand, a semi-auto weapon is where one round is discharged for every trigger squeeze. So if you want to shoot 5 rounds, you must squeeze the trigger 5 times. Assault weapon sounds something like the taliban might carry. If Henry keeps banging this drum, he is going to lose readers already fed up with his fairly shoddy journalism ("Apple is DOOMED" articles almost every day). I for one am rooting for that to happen. At this point his whole "network" of sites have become little more than the modern equivalent of the National Enquirer. Henry, can you please tell us how many people were killed last year in drug related crimes? You know, that little "War on Drugs" that the US has been waging (mostly on it's own citizens) since the Nixon Administration. Honestly it should be zero right, because Drugs are illegal, and so people never ever use them at all. I am shocked there are not people rioting in the streets, since drugs could kill innocent children, and since that might happen we do not have strict enough laws to make sure drugs stay out of the hands of children. call b.s on your comment Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:56:19 -0500 THAT DATA IS FALSE. According to the CDC "Overall, the firearm related data provided by the 26 countries included a total of 2872 deaths among children aged less than 15 years for a period of 1 year. FBI data also refutes your claim. GET A CLUE Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:48:06 -0500 WRONG. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 800 in a matter of seconds. Bath School in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, explosion set by farmer who was enraged by school tax killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults and injured at least 58 people IN SECONDS. Chris Norman Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:43:17 -0500 How many kids died from Drunk Driving in the same time period? YOU LIE Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:41:42 -0500 That is a LIE and you are a LIAR. go away Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:38:22 -0500 You have no idea what you're talking about but you spew garbage anyway. You must be young and dumb. More b.s. from the anti-gun NUTS. YOU LIE Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:31:44 -0500 FALSE. YOU ARE A LIAR. Ok, Esteban Sun, 23 Dec 2012 03:32:17 -0500 If you were referring to this incident <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a>, none of the kids were killed. What would have happened if the psycho had a gun? Jooboo Sun, 23 Dec 2012 03:23:13 -0500 And this comes from the founder Hey Henry- maybe you should fix your iPhone app instead if pushing your lib bias.. Just a thought Jooboo Sun, 23 Dec 2012 03:23:10 -0500 And this comes from the founder Hey Henry- maybe you should fix your iPhone app instead if pushing your lib bias.. Just a thought nwo Sun, 23 Dec 2012 03:18:25 -0500 Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. -Noah Webster malous Sun, 23 Dec 2012 03:07:53 -0500 I say ban the 1st amendment so people dont have to be offended. If you disagree you are a racist. lolhipster Sun, 23 Dec 2012 02:33:36 -0500 What about explosives? Sarin? d.ol Sun, 23 Dec 2012 02:32:22 -0500 I'm blasted to see how ignorant and stupid so called journalist became. Not an inch of thought, just a poor parrot. Curtis Sun, 23 Dec 2012 02:28:08 -0500 A few people sacrificing their rights for the benefit of all society makes sense. In that case, sure, ban guns, It does after all make sense, assuming you can actually collect them all. But.. not before you re-establish prohibition, because Alcohol kills many people, and has no practical use (like "assault weapons"), so the people who drink for fun might as well give up their right to that because of all of the people who don't do it responsibly and kill people with automobiles. Lisa Sun, 23 Dec 2012 02:11:25 -0500 I agree with you. Very few people are hardly ever prepared to use a gun as a protective weapon. So many people with guns will wish for the day they can actually "kill" with their gun, I suppose. But ironically most people are caught by surprise and rarely have a gun for protection. What you find is mostly scared out of their minds Americans who are frantic about their rights being taken away. I'm thinking we all better start packing heat....wild west here we come!!! texas13 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:56:10 -0500 the reason you dont hear full auto fire during hunting season is because full auto fire for hunting is retarded 1 shot is all you need the people the own full auto weapons went through tons of back ground checks from the atf and fbi they have to pay a tax for owning them and they use them for sport shooting and target shooting the rifles and pistols that were used in all of these mass murders are not full auto they are semi auto and 20 and 30 round magazines are not high capacity at all these are normal capacity magazines. my pistol holds 13 is that high capacity no its not i am a marine who has been to both Iraq and Afghanistan and i volunteered as as well is your going to bring in being a vet gives you more credibility you should know that when you received your m-16 you also got 20 round magazines which are not high capacity high capacity is more like 100 rounds and those magazines are very expensive as well texas13 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:40:33 -0500 and where do you get your info at @antony dupuy last time i check fully automatic firearms a legal and very hard to buy and are also very expensive i don't know where you live but you really need to learn about stuff by yourself in stead of just listening to the liberal media and fully automatic firearms are not easy to find "on the street" as you say Brandon Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:17:04 -0500 Guns are not the problem. Countries like Switzerland and Finland have a very high gun ownership rate (4th & 8th respectively) but have such low gun crime that Switzerland doesn't even keep statistics. I feel it's time to end this fallacy that guns are the problem, and instead look towards the sociological and mental health issues. Murderers don't follow laws. Laws only work for those that abide by them, in the case of gun laws it only leaves law abiders more vulnerable. Prohibition doesn't work. Clearly outlawing drugs didn't prevent criminals from getting their hands on them, why would gun prohibition be any different? Removing the gun does not remove violence or their will to murder by other means... explosives, arson etc. We could just continue to take away all of our rights, and have a total surveillance society, and keep going down this path every time someone steps out of line. This will just continue to happen. Why? Because we are still not addressing what causes murderers to murder in the first place. The other option is maintain our liberty by getting to the true root of the cause. It is a sociological issue and that's what makes the situation in the US so different from other heavy gun ownership countries without violent crime problems. If we keep taking away the rights of everybody because of the actions of a few, we will all find out we have no rights left. We have been heading down this slippery slope since 9/11, and how many terrorists have we caught from taking away all our liberties, and spending billions on surveillance and airport security? None..... bdbr Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:22:50 -0500 It did get the clicks; that's how people know that no one was killed and the guy with the knife was chased off by guys with brooms. hstad6 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:22:08 -0500 Jill you and Henry need to stop the propaganda! Assault weapons have been illegal in the U.S. for 25 years. Using political descriptions of guns is so full of liberal feel good nonsense! And yes, you and Henry say we have to do something - anything to assuage your liberal guilt! bdbr Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:14:21 -0500 Guns don't kill people; digital representations of guns controlled by little joysticks kill people. (sarcasm) It's funny how, when ones' rights are being questioned, some immediately respond by demanding that others' rights be taken away. Big-A-Rob Sun, 23 Dec 2012 00:01:30 -0500 2 poor pieces of journalism. 1) Please define "assault weapon" and what separates an "assault weapon" from other types of weapons. 2) It also stated the product is designed for use in sporting field and competitive shooting. Did you just leave that part off by coincidence???? Guess we should call this type of "reporting" or "journalism" what it really is which is propaganda. hstad6 Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:52:00 -0500 Here's a guy who broke the law himself lecturing us on our 2nd amendment rights and what we should do about it - that is truly ironic! Henry, what else do they sell at WalMart which kills more people every year vs. guns! Food - obesity kills more people by a huge factor vs. guns. Almost 1 million people have heart attacks every year, of which 600k die of some kind of heart disease - what about the cost to society on this Henry???? Moreover, of the 32K people killed by firearms, 20k are suicides. So give us a break with all this stupid lecturing about the dangerous of firearms. Horace Hogsnort Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:46:43 -0500 PLEASE!! If you are going to use the phrase "assault weapon" then tell us what you mean by that phrase. An "assault weapon" requires the ability to switch between full automatic fire and semi-automatic fire. Most of the MSM uses "assault weapon" to mean any rifle that LOOKS like a military M16 but in fact only has cosmetic similarities. AndrewInCA Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:42:44 -0500 We should ban automobiles too... right? because kid's die in cars all the time. Colorado guy Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:42:34 -0500 I have been able to read the articles and comments spurred by this pandemic of shootings for some time now, but this article has just sent me over the edge. These tragic shootings have cause a flood of emotion to run over this blessed country and rightfully so, but to place blame on guns, and to have this outcry for gun restrictions is ludicrous. Ponder this, does the pencil tell the story, or does the person using the pencil tell it? There is not one bit of my heart that doesn't go out to those who have lost their loved ones. Do you think that these murderers wouldn't have committed these if there had been no guns? I believe that these individuals would have found a way to slay the innocent victims. I don't want to give a hypothetical situation out of sensitivity. These people obviously had mental problems and were sick individuals. Back to the subject at hand though, the article. I blame today's society for the way people behave, and I commend wal mart, though I'm not fond of the franchise myself, for their stance. I was raised with a bar of soap in my mouth and a belt across my backside (which i more than deserved) had I uttered the the words that wal mart doesn't condone to sell. You do what is right and if you didn't there we consequences to pay. Respect your elders, for example. That doesn't exist in today's society as a generalization. Everyone feels that they are showing what a powerful thing our constitution is. they are not. they are degrading the very liberty for which our soldiers fight.i wouldn't want my newborn daughter to grow up with those filthy words in her vocabulary until she realizes what the magnitude of those words are. I still wouldn't want to hear her say them then. Bt you can bet your bottom dollar that she'll grow up and learn to respect life and how to use a gun at the same time, and hopefully with a little luck, she'll grow up with the same values that were instilled into me as a child. Wal mart doesn't sell murder when they sell a gun, they are selling a gun. Thats it. A person will murder with anything they can get their hands on if they are committed to doing so. Be it gun, bare hands, pencil. and to those who mistakenly think that if you put a ban on high round magazines will change anything you are wrong. semi automatic, single shot, revolver, all gun restrictions will do will take away the guns from law abiding citizens and create a black market. Just one more thought to ponder, what would the outcome have been had one person, a teacher, a bystander, a parent, be if they were a concealed weapon carrier? They have that permit in preparing for the worst and hoping for the best, and a lot of lives would have been saved. I hope that you who read this, will understand what I'm trying to say, and if not then God have mercy. God bless this country and once more, my condolences to those who lost their loved ones. AndrewInCA Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:39:11 -0500 I don't remember Kinder Eggs being mentioned in the Bill of Rights. CallMeEsteban Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:38:48 -0500 Wow, it's good to see such rational thinking on the interwebs, bravo @me AndrewInCA Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:34:44 -0500 And how would a federal ban help? No need to penalize law abiding citizens. We need to focus on the real issue here and stop buying into what the media is currently fixating on. James Dean Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:32:41 -0500 Ok. So after the waiting period is over can a person walk into a Walmart store and pick up their gun with ammunition or is only shipped to their address of record? The opening issue here is the speed and and the uninterrupted number of bullets spewed out by "assault style" guns with high capacity magazines. In the hands of a person who is not well, and intent on killing other people (and then himself) (notice I said himself) it greatly reduces the possibility of people escaping from the line of fire. No one is overly concerned with the possibility of a potential mass murderer with a muzzle loading rifle. I live in the east and we are surrounded by forests, cows, deer and responsible gun owners. The air is alive with (single shot) gunshots that we can hear from our home during the hunting season. It is an American tradition. Never have we heard the sound of rapid fire guns during any hunting season. If not then, then where are they used? I am also a Vietnam Veteran who volunteered for Vietnam (fyi). AndrewInCA Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:31:48 -0500 Should the first amendment only apply to religions practiced in the new world at the time or writing? AndrewInCA Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:29:05 -0500 yawn... They also sell knives, hammers, fertilizer, poisons and a whole lot of other things that can and have been used to kill or injure people. We need to wake up as a nation and fix the real problem and stop fixating on so called "assault weapons". depression Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:28:22 -0500 as i said , the shooting of small children is a rare event ........ look at your own numbers , most of those killed are not children but teens , and almost all of them are males ... as you should be aware , males are predisposed towards violence , and much more so when their younger ....... i'm not saying that all 5K of those killed each year are engaged in criminal actives , but i find it highly unlikely that we lost 5 K kids due to random violence ... Accidental gun death is always a tragedy when it involves children , and i'm betting that of those who died from it , most of them were very young ..... with over 200 million guns in this country , we should make gun safety and storage a required course at schools ... CallMeEsteban Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:23:50 -0500 Yeah, ask the 20 kids killed in China by a knife, it amazing how much killing a psycho can do if left with no one to protect the innocent. I'd bet those families wish someone there had a gun that day... Ohio Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:23:12 -0500 I checked my guns today. They still haven't killed anyone. Oh. And my kids haven't sworn at anyone either CallMeEsteban Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:18:34 -0500 This just in... Bed, Bath and Beyond sells KNIVES, ones that can be used to slaughter kids just like what happened in China, but that doesn't get all the clicks on your blog, and we haven't realized that criminals are criminals and will kill with whatever they can. Anthony Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:16:40 -0500 Maybe you should understand what an assault rifle really is before posting articles like this.... The AR15 is just another semi automatic rifle with a fancy stock made of modern materials. It is not a “Machine Gun,” or an “Assault Rifle.” No amount of describing it this way will change this. People who use those terms either don’t know what an “Assault Rifle” really is or they are perpetrating a mean spirited falsehood designed ultimately to rob you of your 2nd Amendment rights. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> NamVet1971 Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:10:13 -0500 It is even easier to do mass murder with a Molotov Cocktail. The bottle, gasoline and rag are all legal to purchase and readily available. You can kill many people in just a few minutes if they are children and you know how to use a knife for killing. You could also use a baseball bat or a golf club. More than twice as many people were killed with hands and feet in 2010 (FBI statistics) than with rifles of all types combined. We need to be able to confine the mentally ill that are potentially violent. We also have to realize that with the economy in the state that it is in and with what children have been taught for years in school and with so many people being given psychoactive drugs for far longer than they have ever been tested, some of those people are going to crack under the strain of live and could commit mass murder, with or without guns of any type. We need to have armed guards to protect our most valuable resource, our children. A great place to get these guards would be from retired veterans & LEOs. They are already trained, have taken an oath to protect the country & the Constitution and would be willing to do the job for free or minimum wage. Tradeking13 Sat, 22 Dec 2012 23:05:25 -0500 There are more gun shops because they are mostly local small businesses, unlike supermarkets which drove all the local grocers out of business decades ago. Grrrsh Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:52:43 -0500 Fact: guns protect more people than they kill. If this weren't true, there wouldn't be military, police, private security or legally armed civilians. If our all knowing government didn't believe this, the President himself wouldn't have armed security (with much more lethal weapons than black rifles). There wouldn't be armed guards at the bank. Or anywhere, for that matter. There is no logic in combating criminals with less means. That is what weapons are. Means to accomplish a task. Just like cars are a means to travel between destinations. Generally, in both cases, you can modify them aesthetically and functionally (aka "evil features"). Some people enjoy them for sporting purposes while some use them for utilitarian purposes. But at the end of the day, they are both just a means. Removing the means does not solve the underlying problem. A criminal will just find an alternate means. Case and point: aren't drugs illegal? How much money do we spend combating addiction? That's money, rightfully spent, treating the source; the person that's broken. ​All retail stores sell items that can be used to kill or in fact do kill. The responsibility for proper usage should lie with the individual and not the means. NamVet1971 Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:44:25 -0500 There is no legal definition of "assault weapon". Just because a forearm looks like a military firearm does not make it more deadly than another form of weapon. From FBI statistics, more people were killed in 2010 (last year with completed numbers) by hands & feet than rifles of all kinds. Of all weapons, rifles of all kinds killed fewer people than any other weapon. The highest number of deaths were by handguns in general. No specific type was mentioned. The number two weapon was baseball bats! About 12,000 people are killed by firearms of all types each year, many more are killed by automobiles and the second most common cause of death behind tobacco use is medical errors by doctors. You are much more likely to be killed by your doctor than by all firearms and all other weapons combined! The cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest murder rates by guns. This is from the FBI's information. Criminals don't follow gun laws, no matter how strict they are. Terrorists also don't follow our laws. Gun free zones only tell the criminals, mentally ill and terrorists that there is little chance that anyone can do anything to stop them. In Australia where they banned almost all firearms, gun deaths went down, but violent crime did not. More home invasions and rapes etc. occurred after the people could no longer defend themselves. It might take the police only five minutes to get to your home to protect you, if you can make the 911 call. It only takes a couple of seconds to be stabbed to death or shot or beaten with a baseball bat. The saying is, "When seconds count the police are only minutes away". KF Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:43:53 -0500 Kinder eggs and Big gulps, banned by the nanny state... Don't forget the bunny inspectors chasing magicians and 4H'ers. These are not exactly shining examples of limited government Me Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:43:11 -0500 Agreed. Gotta start somewhere. Best bet: education. What we see happening today is a consequence. Work at the roots of the problem and the consequences will be different. It's a whole different topic, though. In a way, I do agree with you. There should be something done to limit the exposure to guns. One way is to definitely take them out of supermarkets. end the wars Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:41:47 -0500 Good for wamart and from personal experience in the oil industry, I found that not swearing or holding the swearing down as much as possible helped to create an atmosphere of calm in some very chaotic and at times dangerous conditions, and in fact the less I would swear the less the people around me swore and this was a lesson I learned very early on in a career in a tough oil industry climate. In regards to guns, the first thing lenin and stalin and hitler and mussolini and mao and pol pot did upon taking power was to disarm the people and then the killing started in the millions and millions, an armed people are are a free people. The place where gun control is needed is with the and its arming of AL QAEDA ie the same al qaeda the u.s. gov said did 911 and of course 911 was a false flag and disarm the CIA, FBI, ATF, NSA, DIA , NSA, DHS, TSA, DELTA FORCES, etc. etc. et al, ,,,american citizens do not ever give up your arms,,,make the fourth reich aka the give up its arms, an armed people are a free people. KF Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:40:13 -0500 Perhaps they should not sell guns to people who can not express themselves without explicit language. That would solve two problems with only one new rule. Oh, and maybe not allow access to guns by people on anti-psychotic meds. Time for Pharma to take some of the rap here, there are some meds that should never have been approved by the FDA. And HMOs are giving meds to people without counseling. Just pushing pills. turkey lips Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:37:45 -0500 Henry, the difference between the two items is that a weapon is not moral or immoral--the music question is obviously one of a moral or ethical question. If you wish to curtail an assault weapon--whatever that might be--then use a different basis for your argument. Is it a question of economics? Is it a social issue? But don't confuse the issues. You do a disservice to your site. Liberals have consistently lamented about the moralizing on the right. Well, this is exactly what you are accomplishing with this silly diatribe. The left's moralizing on a style issue. Get real. Me Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:35:11 -0500 I agree with you. Those who are for guns really do have to come up with strong points to make guns accessible to the mass at supermarkets. That wasn't what I said though. Read the comment again. Jo Weber Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:33:53 -0500 The AR15 is just another semi automatic rifle with a fancy stock made of modern materials. It is not a “Machine Gun,” or an “Assault Rifle.” No amount of describing it this way will change this. People who use those terms either don’t know what an “Assault Rifle” really is or they are perpetrating a mean spirited falsehood designed ultimately to rob you of your 2nd Amendment rights. Do your own homework. Do your own thinking. Don’t get carried away by emotion as doing so makes it easier for others to exert control over you. Protect every word of the Constitution. Stand firm against those who would see your rights curtailed. They will not be satisfied until there is no Second Amendment. T Ganski Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:32:35 -0500 It's a start especially with the mindless drum beat that all weapons are great all the time. Gotta start somewhere. T Ganski Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:30:55 -0500 I am sure your distinction between assault weapon and high powered, semi-automatic rifle with high capacity clip will make the parents of the children lost feel much more comfortable. Me Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:30:09 -0500 So what you are saying is that what is concerning is only the number of people that can be killed in a certain time span, not the action of killing in itself? T Ganski Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:28:26 -0500 Here's one: Gun advocates make their stance on their reading of the 2nd Amendment while blaming movie and video game content suggesting they are ok restricting application of the first amendment. T Ganski Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:25:08 -0500 Again with the knives as weapons of murder. Only guns can kill 27 people in a few minutes. Jill Klausen Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:25:05 -0500 "This shooting of small children was a rare event ... don't let your fears get the better of you ....." Wrong. In 2008 and 2009, 5,740 children died from gun violence in this country. That's one child killed every three hours; eight children every single day; 55 children gunned down every week, week in and week out. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> But we can't give them Kinder Eggs because they might put the toy inside in their mouth. James Dean Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:24:50 -0500 I feel much better now knowing that the shooting of small children is only a rare event (assuming that it will only happen from time to time and that makes it ok). Why didn't I think of that! Boy, am I stupid! dreas Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:23:02 -0500 <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> T Ganski Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:22:19 -0500 How do you explain that other developed countries with gun control, that also enjoy our movies and video games, have negligible rates of firearm homicides? Wayne La Peter is a crusty dinosaur. clambo Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:21:42 -0500 The other purpose of the gun is to prevent the other guy from trying to kill you with any weapon he may have on hand. clambo Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:20:46 -0500 No, you can't walk in, buy the gun and take it the very same day. There is a waiting period. Jill Klausen Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:20:24 -0500 Chocolate Kinder Eggs: Banned in the United States. The small toy in it might be harmful to small children if swallowed. Military-style assault weapons: Legal in the United States. Apparently the small projectile in it being deadly to small children is utterly irrelevant. The irony is sickening. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> clambo Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:19:53 -0500 There is no place you can go and buy the gun you want on the same day. There is a so-called "waiting period" in all gun buys. The walmart website doesn't display guys. They have print ads that have hunting guns and "sport rifles". The SIG rifle shown they call "sport" rifle because it is not really for hunting, rather just shooting at targets or cans, etc. People who grew up back East have a strange fear/loathing of guns. They fear guns because the only guns around you in NYC are *illegal guns*. They are guns owned illegally and frequently are stolen guns sold in a black market. This is your problem East coasters. You need to travel around the huge country we live in and see how free gun laws don't cause crime. VERMONT is one example. Either way, you can't really touch them so get that into your collective brains. The Founders arranged it that the government cannot prevent you from having a gun. depression Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:17:40 -0500 "Or the parents who worry that their children might be murdered with an assault weapon? Or anyone worried that anyone might be murdered with an assault weapon?" This shooting of small children was a rare event ... don't let your fears get the better of you ..... banning large ammo clips, YES ... banning assault weapons because they are from time to time used to kill other people ,NO .... any firearm can be used to kill other people ... the VT shooter used handguns and killed 32 adults .... wal-mart has nothing to be ashamed of ... What we are experiencing right now as a nation is an emotional response to a tragic event ... as time passes , logic will once again take over ... T Ganski Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:17:07 -0500 Hard to commit mass murder with a knife or rope. Gun advocates really need new talking points as the usual crap is so easily debunked. Antony Dupuy Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:09:25 -0500 The only thing the automatic weapons ban/ASB did was make sure that the trade and sell of these weapons were pushed underground out of public view, obliterating any chance of proper documentation or tracking, letting the criminal element they were trying to eradicate profit handsomely. Kind of like prostitution and narcotics. Except those should be legal. Heh. Nismo Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:08:07 -0500 The ignorance never ceases to amaze me. How about displaying the full discription instead of just "designed for military and law enforcement"? It also states for sporting field and competetive shooting, which is what I use mine for. Banning these weapons will not solve the problem. The criminal will find a way. All you are doing is taking them away from law abiding citizens. I do think that they should be harder to attain. By the way the children in Connecticut were not murdered with an assault weapon. Me Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:05:45 -0500 Yes, if you think about it that way, they can shoot people at Walmart. But they can also get knives at Walmart and stab people to death. Someone could easily grab a rope, rap around someone's neck and choke them.... has corporate considered that? Don't assume people are vicious animals that don't know what they are doing. A gun is a tool -yes for killing- but it only kills if people use it for that purpose. People kill people. But what the article meant to say is that guns should be sold at a proper establishment and that Walmart is in it for the money. Billy Duffy Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:05:26 -0500 Henry, Life is full of strange paradoxes: Universities preach tolerance but enforce speech codes. Humanitarians work towards the abolition of the death penalty while simultaneously advocating unfettered access to abortion. Al Gore lectures on sustainability but lives in a 10,000 square foot mansion. Libertard Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:02:18 -0500 Your comment needs to be scrubbed. Why? Because you are making a dangerous false statement. No, major city police departments are NOT stacked to the rafters with FULLY automatic weapons. They rarely encounter such weapons. If you want to prove me wrong, give a credible link! Antony Dupuy Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:02:03 -0500 You whats insane about this is? Fully automatic weapons are banned outright yet ask any criminal or police officer and they'll tell you that those weapons are more than readily available on the street. Gary Anderson Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:00:17 -0500 If you try it the greeter will take you down. I don't think the second amendment should include assault weapons any more than it would include hand held missiles. Antony Dupuy Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:59:27 -0500 Are you angry because hundreds of people die every week, or are you angry because the NRA is a well-oiled, highly effective lobbying organziation with decades of public relations expierience and contribute an extraordinary amount of money and resources to the Republican Party? Its an honest question. Me Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:59:05 -0500 Let's make this article a bit less horrible. What you're trying to say is that guns should not be sold in supermarkets. That's a good point. It is something of high risk and that should not be easily visible or accessible by young ones. Agree on that. BUT what a horrible reason you attempted to give: "So Walmart bans profanity on the grounds that some people might find it objectionable, but proudly sells assault weapons that can be used to slaughter people." --> The magic words there are "CAN BE USED". Please, knives can be used to slaughter people. Ropes, sharp objects, etc can be used to kill people. Isn't Walmart concerned that someone might buy a knife and stab their employees to death? I can buy a car right now and kill dozens of people. I CAN, but that doesn't mean I WILL. What you imply on your article is that Walmart sells something that can kill so, obviously, people will go there, buy it and go around killing people. That isn't true. People do have sense of what is right and wrong, especially in an organized society which has many many rules and paradigms like in the USA. Please don't try to skew the reasoning of people who read these articles with heavy emotion. Let them think for themselves. But I agree with what you were trying to say, guns should be sold and a different establishment. Jo Weber Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:56:54 -0500 There is a falsehood being perpetrated upon the public. You see an “Assault Rifle,” has what is known as a selector switch. This switch allows the shooter to change the weapons function from semi automatic (like a hunting gun) to rapid fire or in some cases auto fire. Rapid fire allows the weapon to fire a burst of three rounds. Auto fire allows it to continue to fire so long as the trigger is depressed. This is important: An AR15 is NOT an “Assault Rifle.” It’s Military counterpart, the M16 IS an “Assault Rifle.” Antony Dupuy Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:51:51 -0500 You know what I find the most fascinating about this whole gun violence debate? Its that fully automatic weapons have been banned for over 50 years, and go to any major city police department and they'll show you entire rooms stacked to the rafters with fully automatic weapons. They (the police) are more aware than anyone that gun control doesn't work. Mr. Right Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:49:23 -0500 Four people were killed by lawn darts. They were made illegal the next day. Hundreds die every week because of the NRA, and we give them tax free status. What a country. TooBadTheyAreAlloutofStock Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:47:43 -0500 I tried to buy one before they get banned. Unfortunately they are sold out everywhere. All the journalists are defending the video games on 1st amendment rights yet this is exactly is what is used to train the spec ops guys. They do simulations all the time with computers longggg before they are set in field with a real gun. So like Wayne said at the NRA presentation .... focus on hollywood and video games. A psycho will always find a a way. God bless the souls of those little angels who died needlessly b/c the adults didnt do their job defending them. Antony Dupuy Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:45:37 -0500 It seems to me that some people that aren't familiar with firearms define "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" as a scary looking weapon that you see in the movies or on television news. Those who are familiar with firearms will tell you that any rifle, regardless of its cosmetic accoutrements is capable of ending life. That's what they are made for. Sincerely, a gun nut who doesn't even own a gun. blutown Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:41:52 -0500 Easy, there's a lot more money to be made on gun sales than music sales. It's the same logic that allows McDonalds and other fast food joints to sell unhealthy junk food but ban smoking in their stores. They are motivated solely by profit and not by societal benefits. Nexus789 Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:31:04 -0500 As a non American it staggers me that you can go to a supermarket and pick up a gun, let alone an assault rifle. I guess out the back-lot they have Abrahams Tanks, Rocket launchers, etc. It is also interesting that there are more shops selling guns in America than there are supermarkets. Guns are pretty useless devices - they only have one purpose and that is to kill. Turning them into a consumables sitting is between gardening implements and tools is scary. All they have to do with the music is stick stickers on the CD's to advise of the bad language. That is assuming the customer can read. Then the grown up person can make a grown up choice. Not that hard. James Dean Sat, 22 Dec 2012 21:22:51 -0500 So it is possible that a person could buy an assault rifle and ammunition in Walmart, put the ammunition in the gun and then shoot people in Walmart? I wonder if corporate has considered this?