Gun control means holding the gun with both hands.

The NRA rocks

Posted by: The Iceman | Nov 3, 2005 10:08:08 AM

If I attend the conference, do I have to check my gun?

Posted by: Miss Martta | Nov 3, 2005 10:11:19 AM

"Gun control means holding the gun with both hands.
The NRA rocks"

Typical idiotic immature macho blather by another gun jerk.

Yeah, remind us next about how the only way they'll get you gun is by prying it from your cold dead hands. Bla bla bla. (I though that was a cool shirt too when I was 14.)

I'm sure holding it with two hands just makes you feel sooooo powerful. It's real sad that you need a gun to feel some level of control and safety in your life.

Posted by: montclair_is_crazy | Nov 3, 2005 10:41:38 AM

Iceman: I believe you've just been scathed by a liberal. What to do, what to do?

Posted by: Miss Martta | Nov 3, 2005 10:47:44 AM

Liberal? Hardly. And someone who grew up with guns in their home. And who was in the Army. And someone who doesn't have a problem with smart people safely owning guns.

It's just the immature jackasses types who post trite things on public forums like "The NRA rocks." that I have a problem with.

Sorry to disappoint you though on the liberal thing.

Posted by: montclair_is_crazy | Nov 3, 2005 10:58:17 AM

"Typical idiotic immature macho blather by another gun jerk."

"It's just the immature jackasses types who post trite things on public forums like "The NRA rocks." that I have a problem with."

Whew, Miss M...I have been had. I will fix myself a cup of herb tea and hold my Hillary doll.

Posted by: The Iceman | Nov 3, 2005 11:11:32 AM

Gun control is knowing how to use your weapon.

Not everybody needs to use two hands.

Seriously, the Fourth Amendment exists for a reason; to allow the people to rise up against an unfair or unjust government. One would think that under the current administration that the liberals would be changing their tune on this issue.

No matter the controls, bad guys in America will still have guns.

Gun control needs to be about teaching respect for one another, eliminating crime and the reasons for crime, not simply restricting access to weapons.

Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Nov 3, 2005 11:11:49 AM

Amendment IV (the Fourth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, and it reads, "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. "

We already have a military and reserve system that is our current regulated militia. So either we do away with our military, or accept that the 2nd amendment is out of date and needs to be re-examined.

Posted by: hrhppg | Nov 3, 2005 11:46:31 AM

Anybody want to go the range with me when I get back from Dubai..I will supply the hardware? Your choice 45 cal Sig Sauer, 9 mm H & K P7 or a very sweet Springfield Armory 45 1911. Yeah I think only the anti gun crowd just doesn't get it. Responsible gun owners and there a lot out there are not the ones committing horrible crimes with guns, its the criminals like the one who savagely slaughtered those poor people in the PO. If NJ was a liberal concealed carry state perhaps it might not have happened.

Posted by: Jmo | Nov 3, 2005 11:48:38 AM

hrhppg
FYI the Second Amendent is in the bill of rights because it applies to individuals - not armies. If it was meant to applicable to formal government entities and not individuals it would not have been # 2.

Posted by: jmo | Nov 3, 2005 11:51:33 AM

I stand corrected on the order of the amendments, NOT on the content.

Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Nov 3, 2005 11:54:19 AM

Wow, I am so incredibly offended by the comments posted here. In case you all have forgotten: people - neighbors - DIED as a result of what happened in Watchung Plaza. To take the opportunity presented here to make some paltry point is reprehensible. These responses show true selfishness and insensitivity.

Posted by: agath | Nov 3, 2005 11:55:54 AM

So you are saying a regulated milita of individuals is needed in todays society? And isn't the term regulated milita a fine line to walk?

Personally I am all for the right to bear arms, but I am also for the gun store owners and manufactures to be responsible for their products getting the hands of the wrong people.

If a store sells cigarettes to a minor they fined, and can get in further trouble if it continues. Big tabacco is currently paying out on lawsuits because grown people chose to smoke and got sick.

Why aren't we holding Big Guns as responsible for their products? Why aren't we holding sellers at gun shows responsible for guns getting into kids or criminals hands?

Posted by: hrhppg | Nov 3, 2005 12:00:40 PM

I am confused, who is selfish and insensitive, Senator Corzine campaigning on the bodies of the postal workers or those of us defending the constitution?

Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Nov 3, 2005 12:01:11 PM

Also the post office shooting isn't the one that I remember. I remember my little brother (he's now 23) being dropped off at Glenfield by my mother when the police told her to get him out of there because one of the schools secretaries was being held hostage in the schools parking area (the part under the school) by her distruntled boyfriend (or something along those lines) That woman was shot and killed, no students harmed. I have yet to read, hear or see anything about a memorial to her.

Posted by: hrhppg | Nov 3, 2005 12:04:03 PM

March 21, 1995, I believe; my night from hell. Four people shot dead in the Watchung Plaza post office, which as you may recall was located next to the office of Dr. Naomi Grobstein. Four people: my dear friend's husband one of the four. He left a beautiful wife and two little girls behind (< 1 and 4 at the time). I watched as she desperately called the police for information, as I called the hospital. I saw her face collapse as the cruiser went by her house and then backed up, slowly, to the curb.

Second amendment rights notwithstanding - and I do believe that gun education is necessary - how do assholes like Christoopher Greene walk into SPORTS AUTHORITY and get a gun. He couldn't even drink a beer at a local tavern at the time, but he got a gun.

Remember, your royal preachiness, that these were real people with real lives. And no one in Montclair should ever forget what happened that day.

Posted by: emsquared | Nov 3, 2005 12:21:26 PM

If only one of those postal workers had had a gun.

Posted by: Kevin Lee Allen | Nov 3, 2005 12:30:20 PM

Hrhppg,

I have no problem with sensible gun laws, those that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with a violent background, which is the case in all 50 states. Under the current Brady law, that even an NRA member like myself has little problem with, you can only purchase a gun in the state you live in. Those that go to other states and purchase guns through straw or middlemen are breaking Federal law and ought to be prosecuted fully. And I agree the real problem is that guns fall into the hands of criminals through a variety of streams...irresponsible gun stores are part of problem, but the real problem is that for you or me to purchase a gun in NJ - first timers with a thorought background check can take up to 4-5 months. Yet if you want to circumvent the law you can go down to Irvington and pick one up tonight illegally. There are nearly 500,000,000 legally owned firearms in this country. That's 2 for every man, woman and child. If the simple preponderance of guns were shown to be directly correlated to gun crimes - stricter controls on law abiding citizens might be something worth debating. The fact is when people commit crimes with guns they more often or not - are not treated with the severity that they deserve.

Posted by: jmo | Nov 3, 2005 12:35:23 PM

Kevin,

History has shown that "if only one of the postal workers had a gun" never works out. John Q. Public who has never been in an emergency situation more often than not does not solve such a problem. If you said to me "If only there had been an off duty copy standing in line. . . .", that I might give you. But some guy who gets a gun license is probably not going to make the situation, and often times the guy behind the counter is the one who shoots the innocent civilian to death. Being trained to use a gun is one thing; being trained in emergency situations is quite another.

Posted by: montclair_is_crazy | Nov 3, 2005 1:18:21 PM

The simple preponderance of guns has indeed been shown to be directly correlated to crime fatalities.

A big reason for the preponderance of illegal guns is that the NRA has made it exceedingly difficult for our legislators and law enforcement to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands.

You cannot reasonably believe that arming the population with concealed guns would actually reduce crime. That is truly ridiculous. I doubt you'd be able to find a single cop in, say, New York City that would endorce that view.

Posted by: walleroo | Nov 3, 2005 1:27:49 PM

i'm wondering maybe you guys know on this thread-whether shoprite carries those little white cookies with choclate in the middle--

not big on many guns- just need one-

and i remember that day-i was over there yesterday and it passed through my mind although i was unaware of the anniversary-

actually just drove through the circle and was wondering what all the locals standing around and driving around was all about-

Posted by: cstarling | Nov 3, 2005 1:36:31 PM

While I respect the attemps, it's truly useless to try and get a pro-gun advocate to understand the relationship between anger and proximity to a gun. It's like trying to teach a snail to speak French. They ( most gun advocates ) would split the world into good and evil, black and white, pro-american and anti-american. There are no shades in between. For them, life is so simple.

Posted by: Todd | Nov 3, 2005 1:38:26 PM

I have never met a cop yet in my life who is a gung ho NRA gun nut. I'm sure there's some out there. I've known a ton of cops. Not one of them wants people carrying them ground or intervening in bad situations.

Posted by: montclair_is_crazy | Nov 3, 2005 1:39:23 PM

Actually Walleroo the evidence is there and it is clear. Those states that have liberal conceal carry laws have seen a reduction in gun crime. Stats are avail on the CDC site to back this up. IT is not that normal citizens are pulling out Glocks in record numbers but rather that the criminal element knows for example in PA, VA, AZ and thirty some odd other states that if they go into a 7-11 and plan a stickup chances are there are law abiding citizens legallly packing. It is this fact that supports my claim. Put another way states and municipalities - from DC to Chicago, where it is illegal to own a handgun legallly, gun crime is on the rise.

Furthermore, gun control laws in such places have been proven not to affect gun crim rates.

Posted by: jmo | Nov 3, 2005 1:40:31 PM

look a gun isn't a toy-it is a huge resposibility and if there are children in the house (it is a huge liability)

the way the law actually is suppose to work is that gun shouldn't be ready to fire and within arms reach-it should be kept "safe" (locked) and the reality is by the time you have to use it will be useless--however keeping in mind those details (and knowing the reality that most people tend to be careless with their firearms) this subject always frightens me--but...if there is time to assemble and ready that firearm and you must in fact use it to save your or your families well being and you know who you are shooting at and why--then so be it.

Posted by: cstarling | Nov 3, 2005 1:49:12 PM