The Face of Evil

The sun hadn’t set December 14th, and the left was already screaming for gun control.  It seems that every time a tragedy hits, the left’s knee-jerk reaction is more gun control.  I often wonder how these people function in the world without having any common sense – they haven’t yet figured out you can’t legislate behavior.

The only way to describe the horrific events on that day perpetrated on the small community of Sandy Hook, Connecticut by Adam Lanza is “evil.”  Period.  And, if you don’t believe evil exists, sit down with me for a couple of hours and I’ll tell you about my 20+ years in dependency court dealing with parents who abuse and neglect their own children.  The kind of behavior I’ve seen would give you nightmares.  So, if you don’t think the killing of tiny children is evil, think again.

But getting back to the issue of gun control.  I heard Sen. Dianne Feinstein intends to introduce new gun control legislation next year.  She’s the last person I’d listen to when it comes to crime prevention.  This is the same idiot who, when she was mayor of San Francisco, revealed vital information to the press about the Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez, angering her local and Los Angeles Police Departments.  During one of her press conferences, she displayed the model of Avia shoes Ramirez had been wearing to each of his murder scenes.  After he saw the press conference, it was reported he threw the shoes off theGolden Gate Bridge, went back to Los Angeles and killed again.  And she went on to be Senator and re-elected over and over since 1992.  I don’t get the people of California (for a number of reasons).

But, Sen. Feinstein’s pledge “to do something” is the same blah, blah, blah we heard from the left after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, and Aurora.  What the Senator and many don’t get is that evil behavior started with a man named Cain and will continue no matter what laws are put in place.  Anders Behring Breivik killed 69 people, mostly teens, in Norway in 2011.  (He killed an additional 8 people with a bomb.)  And yet, Norway has very strict gun control laws.  In 1996, Martin Bryant, killed 35 people in Australia; that same year, Thomas Hamilton, killed 16 kindergarten children and their teacher in Scotland; in 2002, Robert Steinhaeuser killed 13 teachers and two former classmates inGermany;  in 2008, Matt Saari, killed 10 people and burned their bodies inFinland.  I’m sure these countries have far stricter gun control laws that we have in this country.

What the left doesn’t seem to get is that our Constitution gives us – the people – the right to defend ourselves.  I don’t believe that chipping away at that right — by banning so-called assault weapons (which were banned in 1994, by the way) — will solve the problem.  What you’ll have are law-abiding citizens without them and criminals with them.  Because that’s what criminals do – they commit crimes and if having a weapon is a crime, they don’t care and would still have them.

Every time I hear the left screaming for gun control, I ask myself, where were they when O.J. Simpson knifed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman to death?  (Yes, O.J. Simpson killed Nicole and Ron and when someone else is convicted of those crimes, I’ll be very happy to send a heart-felt “I’m sorry” card to O.J. in his Nevada prison cell.)  I didn’t hear anyone screaming to ban knives.  Or how about when we read about an entire family being wiped out because of a drunk driver?  Does anyone advocate to stop manufacturing cars?  (The unions would have a lot to say about that.)  Does anyone yell to ban alcohol?  (We tried it and it didn’t work, remember?  The bad guys were still making the stuff.)  And how about when someone is killed, like the pedestrian in Vancouver, WA, by a jerk under the influence of marijuana?  No one is demanding the repeal of our recently-passed law legalizing this crap; instead the “Weed Blog” is actually blaming the pedestrian for not walking in a crosswalk and not carrying a flashlight.  The writer would prefer to “chalk it up to natural selection.”

I think if more states allowed people concealed weapon permits, we’d have fewer incidents like the one in Sandy Hook, or, at least, fewer deaths.  I’m not advocating that anyone, including teachers, be forced to carry weapons.  I’m saying if there were more average, law-abiding citizens, with valid CWPs, present in schools, at theatres or walking down the street, I believe these massacres could’ve been mitigated.

And for those who don’t like the idea of having armed security guards in school, please think again.  We’re past the age of innocence.  When I was a kid, 7 or 8 years old, I’d go outside and play with my friends all day until my mother yelled out the window for me to come home for supper.  I doubt this happens much anymore, especially in the cities.  Why, because we living in a very different time.  Now, parents arrange “play dates” for their children in a controlled environment.  As a society, we have to re-think about a lot of things, especially the protection of our children, and make sure the “good guys” are in control of the school environment.

As far as I’m concerned, more gun control will only take weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens – it will not keep evil at bay.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

Author Bio:

For over twenty years, Leona has tried to heed her husband’s advice, “you don’t have to say everything you think.” She’s failed miserably. Licensed to practice law in California and Washington, she works exclusively in the area of child abuse and neglect. She considers herself a news junkie and writes about people and events on her website, “I Don’t Get It,” which she describes as the “musings of an almost 60-year old conservative woman on political, social and cultural life in America.” It’s not her intention to offend anyone who “gets it.” She just doesn’t. Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles, she now lives with her husband, Michael, on a beautiful island in the Pacific Northwest, which she describes as a bastion of liberalism.
Author website:
  • Ron F

    I am not in favor of more gun control but I do not think the reaction is knee-jerk. I also do not think Senator Feinstein’s past comments are relevant. The founders fear of standing armies was as much of a reason for the second amendment as to protect citizens from government. I think there can be a legitimate debate as to whether there are limits on the second amendment. I also recognize that a person with an assault weapon is more dangerous to me than a person with another type of weapon. Nevertheless, I think the founders recognized the risk and chose liberty.

  • rlpincus

    I own a Beastmaster 5000. I put 60 rounds across a deer’s neck but I still had to hack through the backbone to free it. Oh well.

  • Ron F

    I am not in favor of any more gun control but I do not believe that it is a knee jerk reaction. In addition, I do not believe Senator Feinstein’s previous idiotic comments are relevant to her advocacy for an assault weapons ban. As I understand it the previous ban has expired and the new law she is proposing would reinstate it. The fact that there is gun vioence and mass muders in countries with strict gun control laws also is not relevant to me. There might be more violence without the laws. I think England has a greater violdent assault rate than the United States but fewer homicides. I understand murders can be committed with other weapons such as knives but we have a better chance of defending ourseleves against those weapons. And there is a reason that most mass murders committed with personal weapons are committed with guns. I am still against more gun control because I think the founders had it right in enacting the second amendment. They understood the risks and chose freedom instead.

  • AmericaOne

    Humans are not born evil.

    Humans are prone to evil deeds when minds are bound to earth and matter.

    Men,women, and children throughout America must establish a new foundation by looking up to their fellow American’s as a symbol of the future we wish forour fellow citizens before we depart.

    The government and media must assist America in this effort.

    Offer social redemption in TV and film and bring our troops home.

  • Stephen Boone

    Several times a year there are incidents where someone pulled out a gun in public and shot one or more people, but was promptly shot by someone with a gun on the scene. These are not covered nationally because they argue against the gun restriction belief of the national press. If you want to help then when such an event occurs send the detailed news information to a website that will publicize it. Can I name one? Well, you could try drudge for now. I think for a few brief moments he MIGHT link to it, but in six months or a year??? The NRA should keep track of these and make it easy for people to find said stories on THEIR site. Do they? Ask. Then call the national new services and network stations and ask WHY didn’t you cover this story?? And do it every time. ALL OF YOU.

  • Ron F

    I agree that we do not need new gun control laws. Nevertheless, I am not sure it is a knee jerk reaction by the left. I recognize that the issue of limitation on the second amendment and whether stricter gun control laws would make us safer are subject to debate. I don’t think it is a knee jerk reaction to the tragedy to call for mor gun control. In addition, I do not think the left likes the tragedies as one commentator wrote. The common factor in the mass killings that you mentioned are the people were evil and committed the killings with guns. It is unlikely that they could have killed as many people with knives. There are mass killings in countries with gun control but maybe there would be more killings without it. I think England has more violdent assaults per capita than the United States but feewer killings. My problem is that I do not want to see the second amendment infringed upon in the name of safety. The founders understood the risk when they drafted the second amendment and determined that liberty is more important.

  • Cyberquill

    Although evil exists everywhere such that even a country like Norway had a mass shooting incident, among the developed nations the U.S. appears to be disproportionately prone to the kind of evil that results in random mass murder. The question arises whether this has anything to do with America’s “gun culture” and the relative ease with which firearms can be acquired here in conjunction with the convenience and efficacy which firearms (automatic and semi-automatic ones in particular) provide over alternative killing methods.

  • Ron F

    Good piece as usual Leona. I agree that we do not need new gun control laws. Nevertheless, I am not sure it is a knee jerk reaction by the left. I recognize that the limits of the second amendment and whether stricter gun control laws would make us safer are subject to debate. I disagree with with the advocates of more gun control but I don’t think the position is a knee jerk reaction. I think the assault weapons ban expired and legislation Senator Feinstein is sponsoring is to reintroduce the assault weapons ban. The fact that she may have taken dumb positions in the past should not have anything to do with the merits of her position today. I also do not think the left likes these incidents as suggested by another commentator. The one think that is common in all of the mass murders cited is the use of guns. I think England has a higher violent assault rate than the United States but a much lower murder rate. Guns are more lethal than other types of personal weapons. As the head of the NRA said, the only thing that can stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. We have other defences to other types of attacks. In addition, we do have drunk drivers and car accidents but I do not think we should do away with traffic safety laws. I understand that there are murders with guns in countries with strict gun control laws but maybe there would be more without the laws. I agree that there is evil which is the ultimate problem and there is no law that will prevent evil but it is possible that laws could make evil persons less dangerous. Nevertheless, I think the founders understood the risk of firearms and thought the liberty to own firearms was more important and therefore am skeptical of any attempts to impose more restrictions.

  • I Hate Fascists

    Leona you are obviously a gun lover so there is no reasoning with you. Nancy Lanza was also a gun lover. What do you suppose she would say about gun control now?

  • Ron F

    Another good piece Leona. I agree that we do not need new gun control laws. Nevertheless, I am not sure it is a knee jerk reaction by the left and I do not think, as one commentator said that the left likes these events. I also recognize that what the limits of the second amendment are and whether stricter gun control laws would make us safer are subject to debate. I may disagree with the gun control advocates but I don’t think the position is a knee jerk reaction or that Diane Feinstein’s past mistakes are relevant. I think the assault weapons ban expired and legislation Senator Feinstein is sponsoring is to reintroduce the assault weapons ban. In addition, we do have drunk drivers and car accidents but I do not think we should do away with traffic safety laws. I understand that there are murders with guns in countries with strict gun control laws but maybe there would be more without the laws. I agree that there is evil which is the ultimate problem and there is no law that will prevent it but it is possible that laws could make it less dangerous. And the one commoon factor in all of the mass mureders cited by Leona is that they were committed with guns. I do not believe as many people would have been killed by someone with a knife. As the President of the NRA said the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. There are other defenses to other types of attacks. I believe that the rate of violent assaults is higher in England than in the United States but the death rate is much lower, primarily because the attacks are not with guns. My problem is that I do not want to see the second amendment infringed upon in the name of safety and that the second amendment should not be compromised. The ownership of guns is a risk the founders clearly anticipated and thought that the freedom to own guns was more important. .

  • Ken

    We are trying to treat symptoms, not causes. Traditional American culture focused on self reliance, and that there were CONSEQUENCES for one’s actions. That you payed your taxes, and obeyed the law (mostly), respected the property of others, and YOU taught your children right from wrong, what was acceptable, HOW to ACT, family traditions, etc.
    When we allow the govt. to dictate “proper” behavior, correct opinions, cultural mores, we allow them to set aside the entire process of cultural evolution that RESULTED in our unique “American” success storey. VERY FEW cultures have survived, over time. And we are allowing OUR culture to be destroyed by OUR govt.
    When we allow our education system (aka We Be Socialist) to brain-wash our children from K thru college, into becoming one-world anti-American progressives, when we allow 10s of millions of 3rd world immigrants to POUR across our borders who have NO WISH to adopt OUR way of life, we have signaled our willingness to, as a nation, disappear without a whimper.

  • chief98110

    Morons like Senator Feinstein and others use these tragic events to
    promote their own agenda. They don’t seem to understand that you can’t
    legislate morals and decency. If they really believed they could
    legislate them they could start by working on real problems such as the
    flood of criminal illegal aliens entering our country daily.

  • gizmo

    I’ve had issues with some of the other thoughts/ideas that you have presented this last week or so , but I stand to you now in that SOMEONE who is actually major media has the balls to use the term “EVIL” to describe Lanza & his activities. We live in an absurd world that ignores Truth, goodness, Realism & misinterprets & misrepresents EVIL & badness, replacing it with feelgoodism & relativity…

  • Roger Ward

    I notice that several comment posters have erroneously attributed Leona’s article to Bernie Goldberg. I’m sure that the views expressed are Leona’s …. those views may or may not be shared by Mr. Goldberg.

  • joer1

    It’s not that the Democrats don’t understand the foolishness of politicizing every event … they do. They are taking advantage of every opportunity to convince the population that they truly “care” more than anyone else and the Republicans don’t “care” about the common man. With the help of their friends in the media, they are succeeding because it seems the American public is currently not very smart and they consistently allow themselves to be taken in. The Democrats consistently practice their mindless nonsense because it works AND as long as it works … they will continue. I don’t blame them. Isn’t this why Obama tells one bold-faced lie after another? It works!

  • Kewgah

    A perfect scenario this time of year, would be Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents. An unarmed public were forced to give their aged 2 and under, to die by the sword. How much different would it be, if those fathers and mothers were armed? I’ll bet any money, their children would not be given so readily. The Second Amendment also give us protection from tyrranical government.

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

    • Switchlight13

      If the parents were armed, they would say to Herod’s baby collectors “Come but pack a lunch, it’s going to be a long day”.

  • Shane

    I still think that ammo clips that hold 30 bullets should be illegal. That’s a reasonable way to redue the harm that mass murderers do.

    • Switchlight13

      Would you confiscate the tens of thousands (millions?) that are already in civilian homes?

    • Walter Mattson

      To reduce the amount of bullets in a clip sounds to be a positive step to people who do not comprehend the evil mind or understand guns. If clips where limited to say 10 bullets, the attacker would simply purchase or make multiple clips. So with 2 clips in his pocket, the attacker would still have 30 bullets readily available for exchange. The exchange of an empty clip with another loaded one takes about 2 or 3 seconds. I doubt that the kids or even an adult would have the time to intervene in 3 seconds. Thus the reduced size of clip makes no sense to me. The best way to minimize the amount of killing is to have trained and armed employees in the school. Teachers and principals that can react to an attacker in the class room would save more children than just one armed policeman. In addition, all schools need to throw away all the No gun zone signs and replace them with signs that state this school is protected by armed employees who have been trained in the use of multiple fire arms.

    • LibertysSon

      Ok say that was so. It takes about 3 seconds to drop a magazine and reload. With unarmed victims this law would do nothing to save these kids.

      • I Hate Fascists

        It’s a start

        • LibertysSon

          You should change your name. Fascist are people that want central government control. They pass laws and take away freedoms. Sounds like you need to look in the mirror.

  • waterlylies84

    Very well thought out and articulated. Send it to our senators and representatives.

  • nono524


  • deniseregina

    I believe at least 20 young people have been killed by guns in the last year in Chicago. Where is the outcry for them?

    • Switchlight13

      That would bring up the fact that Blacks commit the vast majority of gun violence in America and we couldn’t have that as they have the coveted “victim status”.

  • Fisherman Joe

    Leona, I believe every US senator and congressman should read this article before acting hastily! What a great read–thanks so much!

  • Dan Gallo

    Unless we conservatives start buying up the news networks and newspapers, we will be fighting a losing battle. The mainstream media has nothing to do with “journalism” and everything to do with functioning as the progressive/liberal/democrat Propaganda Ministry. If Dr. Joseph Goebbels had been American, he would be regarded today as, perhaps, the greatest “journalist” of the 20th century. Any idiot can tell you that it’s not the GOP platform that’s out of adjustment, but rather, the marketing department, the candidate selection department, and the “GOP Guts Department”. NO MORE MILQUETOAST CANDIDATES!! And NO MORE BUSH’S! Until the GOP learns to love conservatism and understand conservatism for what it is, we’ll lose every future presidential election. Until the GOP learns to embrace conservatism, we’ll lose every future election. Meanwhile, our constitutional rights will be a constant target of the left and we will always be on the defensive.

  • jazzdrums

    this is a case where an alleged disturbed young boy took his mother’s legally purchased and licensed weapons and committed an unimaginable act on defenseless children. While I personally don’t see a need to have a semi automatic or automatic rifle that fires a bullet as fast as your index finger moves for each bullet or once for full automatic and magazines and drums holding tens and hundreds of rounds it is a Right for other people to have them. Not full automatic however is legal. The blabber-sphere on Sunday talk shows today, did not talk about the unpredictability of this kind of horror no matter what laws may be passed or interventions on people who seem odd. That is the common theme in these type massacres..they are unpredictable…so called black swans..and you cant legislate to prevent them. These same few dozen people sit around every week and talk to each other and it has no effect other than on their egos. This is a difficult issue. Let us wait and see what Obama comes up with…he did nothing on gun control during his super majority days from 08-2010.

    • Kansan

      Obama didn’t have a “supermajority” from ’08 to 2010. He took office in Jan. ’09 and Al Franken wasn’t seated until August. Ted Kennedy was too sick to attend the Senate from May onward, so the Democrats didn’t get their 60th vote until after Kennedy’s replacement’s appointment was confirmed.

      • jazzdrums

        correct.. Obama had his window of opportunity from fall of 2009 until the new congress was seated after 2010 election cycle. thanks for fine tuning the opportunity duration.

  • Mary Fernandez

    Thanks, Leona. You made so much more sense than Bernie.

  • tb thomas

    I heard a report (probably on Fox) wherein one of the people interviewed stated that Adam Lanza’s Mom took him out to a shooting range where he practised shooting with the assault rifle she (apparently) acquired for him. Can anyone confirm this? Did I dream it? (I do sometimes fall asleep with the Fox News feed on…maybe I imagined this.)

    However, I have heard it reported by several different sources that Mrs. Lanza had three guns in the house, one of them a “rifle”. I have also heard it reported that she admonished a “baby sitter” never to turn his back on Adam at any time.

    If these facts are accurate, why are we having a discussion about gun control laws at all? What type of gun-control legislation is going to prevent a single mom with a dependent child under her care from getting a handgun, or a rifle? Furthermore, and I say this with the utmost sympathy for Mrs. Lanza, how could she possibly believe that encouraging her son to take target practice with handguns and rifles was a good idea, given her obvious fear that he was capable of violence “the moment someone’s back is turned…”?

    We need to get clear on the core impulse which we call “liberalism”: it is a totalitarian instinct to use government to impose a fascist pseudo-egalitarian doctrine, on anyone and everyone who aspires to live a life of independence and personal freedom. Controlling guns is just one component of their strategy. Controlling the value of the money we use is another, and more important component.

    Finally, co-opting the media is the most important means by which they succeed in subverting democratic due-process. We have a mainstream media which has convinced itself that it (and they) are the ones who have chosen to prop up Obama. In fact, they have unwittingly acquiesced to Finlandization by the narcissistic megalomaniac they so admire. Case in point: the fact that none of them would even mention the incarceration of a US Marine in Mexico since August, and subsequent extortion attempts against his family.

    Were it not for Fox News (and some timid, but noteworthy acts of rebellion by Anderson Cooper at CNN), there would be no major media outlet free of intimidation by the Obama administration. While Obama demonizes “The 1%”, there is a malignant plurality of 40-60 million American citizens (let’s call them “The 20%”), who have a vested interest in big government, and $Trillions in un-funded employment and retirement entitlements for which there is no money to redeem over the intermediate and long-term.

    These people intend to get what has been promised them, regardless of the illicit cronyism and flagrant graft which was required to exact those promises. They are getting it now by plundering the nation’s credit and debasing the currency. When those measures are exhausted, these are the same people who will be put in charge when our economy falters, and ordinary citizens in the private sector are forced to become directly dependent upon government. If you think they intend to show any sympathy or compromise with their fellow citizens in the private sector, you need look no further than the threatening conduct of government employees in Wisconsin, and union members in Michigan when faced with the legitimately rendered will of a precarious majority of voters.

    As members of that precarious majority, I believe we can no longer count on the Republican party to defend the basic principles of government which are at stake here. Our Republican leadership still supports indexed baseline budgeting, wherein continuous spending increases are called “cuts”, and automatic increases in the debt ceiling are justified against the fraudulent spectre of “national default”.

    There is no easy way out of the predicament we’re in. Compromising with those who’s true interest is in maintaining their control over the definition of “business as usual” by the body politic is not compromise, it is complicity. When nearly 50% of the voting public has a direct financial interest in perpetuating a thoroughly corrupt pattern of governance, and the other 50% can find no coherent consensus as to the arduous measures we must pursue in order to reclaim our productivity (and eventually, our prosperity), it’s hard to find a reason to hope that this nation will survive the next four years in a recognizable form (at least to those of us born on or before the cusp of the baby-boom).

    Obama’s ultimatum on gun-control is just a trial-balloon for many more to follow. And here we stand, leaderless, and allowing the media peddle the “fiscal cliff” as the only thing we need to worry about.

    • Kansan

      Nancy Lanza had at least five weapons in the house. Adam left two at home, after he murdered his mom: A shotgun and a Henry repeating .22 caliber lever action.

  • Duke Brooks

    One might observe that the left gets its panties in a wad whenever some psycho kills somebody…UNLESS the victim is a police officer. Then…silence from the left. Note that there were no calls for ‘gun control’ when the mohammedan terrorist killed soldiers at Ft. Hood, either. News flash: hand-wringing, bed-wetting, and saying, “oh, my” is NOT a plan of action. One responsible, trained and lawfully armed adult in Sandy Hook, Aurora or Va.Tech could have stopped these assaults and saved lives.

  • Iklwa

    One completely over looked and unreported fact about the
    latest mass shooting events:

    In the Oregon
    mall shooting incident, one lone citizen confronted the masked shooter with his

    The citizen did not have a clear field of fire and not
    wanting to harm others did not discharge any rounds at the rifle wielding

    The savage saw the citizen pointing a handgun at him while
    he was clearing a blockage on his own weapon and after he noticed the armed
    citizen, he ducked into a stair well, cleared his jam and then shot himself.

    Without being confronted by the citizen, the assailant would
    no doubt have cleared his weapon and then continued with his planned massacre.

    A second well known, ignored fact:

    The thirty round magazines so often touted by the liberal
    press, anti-firearms and political classes as being so evil is notoriously
    unreliable. There is little wonder in my mind that had this savage been
    equipped with the more dependable 20 round magazines, the carnage would have
    continued until the shooter expended all of his ammunition or he had been shot
    by someone intervening in the destruction.

    A third fact:

    It is virtually impossible to have an adult screened for
    mental illness in America
    unless he seeks help, gets into repeated trouble with the law or actually kills

    Another fact:

    Many of the anti-gun zealots use the violence rate in England
    as reason to follow in their footsteps. England
    has always had a lower violence rate even when firearms restrictions were
    nonexistent. As their legislation has stiffened and stiffened against private
    ownership of firearms, their rate of gun violence has dramatically INCREASED.
    One only has to look at New York
    and Chicago to see how well
    legislation keeps firearms out of the hands of the criminal element.

    In every one of these resent instances the cowardly, terrorist
    actors are attacking the unprepared and the defenseless. Until we as a nation
    fully accept that we are ultimately responsible for our own protection,
    cowardly savages will continue to have the upper hand. If we continue to pursue
    an agenda removing a divinely inspired morality from the public forum and
    installing a twisted sense of social justice based on instant gratification,
    there is little surprise in the twisted, evil result we receive. We must insist
    on and expect a higher sense of ethics from ourselves, our leaders and our

    Passing laws to restrict the ordinary American from
    defending himself (factually and historically) is counter productive.

    • falcon7204

      Well said. In point of fact, as you say “[p]assing laws to restrict the ordinary American from defending himself … is counter productive,” it’s not that the Left in this nation wants Americans to be “protected.” It’s that they want them to be docile, complacent, and compliant. It’s not about our safety, it’s about our fealty, and when push comes to shove, those who we elect and employ and depend upon to protect us will turn on us. And events like Columbine, Oregon, Aurora, Newtown, and even 9/11 show that the Left tightens the screws even tighter on law-abiding citizens…thus making it easier, not harder, for events like this to happen. All in the name of, “we must do something.”

      • Iklwa

        Perfect selection of the word “fealty”…and I agree with you.

    • Jared Rea


  • Robert Blum

    The face of evil is evidence of the fabric of a once great society unraveling.

  • itasara

    I think all schools should have a TRAINED combat dog sitting at the entrance of the office, a large dog that can smell gun powder before it hits the front door. However if everyone has a concealed gun, that may backfire.

    • itasara

      I meant to say front door of the school (not office). I also think to avoid some of those accidental home shootings, hunters should be able to belong to a hunting lodge where their guns are locked in lockers and they can put their rifles and guns there and take them out before a hunting exposition. You can lock up guns at home, but smart teens, criminals and others can pick a lock or break a glass to get into the guns. And ammunition should be contained locked somewhere else, but I have heard how younger kids seem to get to it now or then or the gun was put away with bullets in it. At least we can try to prevent some of those accidents. If the guns and ammo are not available, people will say, in a break in at home, the guns will not be available. Well I hear wasp spray is a good defense and quicker, but as said in the article, it is difficult to get around evil.

  • Gradivus

    I generally agree with you, Ms. Salazar, but why bring up Dianne Feinstein’s past screw-ups? That has nothing to do with whether her proposals today are good or bad. That ‘s the same kind of ad hominem argument the left is making by attacking NRA officials, like spreading around the 1995 letter (published by the New York Times) that George H.W. Bush wrote when resigning from the NRA. They can’t find a good argument against the NRA’s proposal, so they attack the source:

  • ltgreen

    Many of the politicians that are calling for stricter gun control travel with armed security. Hypocrites.

  • Mike

    Leona. How many people did O.J. Simpson kill with his knife?? TWO!! Had he had an automatic weapon shooting 5 bullets a second he would probably have killed the whole neighbourhood! If your 6 year old had been killed by an automatic weapon’s last bullet in a round of 100 bullets you probably would have wished the killer had had a knife instead of an assault weapon! Your equating of the mass murder of innocent children to the result of a domestic dispute is twisted logic and an insult to the lives of those innocent children of Newtown!

    • Iklwa

      As is so often the case when trying to discuss a topic with
      liberals, because the English language is a “living breathing” thing in their
      minds, definitions become blurred and the meanings of words become ambiguous…as
      long as the lexicon works in favor of the liberal agenda.

      Case in point: Liberals and the rabid anti-firearms crew
      casually throw around the term “automatic weapon(s)”. Federal laws were passed
      regarding automatic weapons (firearms that continue to fire as long as the
      trigger is depressed) in 1934. Background checks and licensee fees were levied to
      “control” the public access to automatic weapons “to prevent crime”. Since that
      time, there have only been two (2) incidents of licensed automatic weapons used
      in the commission of a crime.

      Both of those crimes were committed by officers of the law.

      Automatic weapons are currently illegal to possess in the United
      States unless you have been licensed by the
      federal government with a Class 3 FFL.

      For the sake of clarity, it is illegal for a person under
      the age of 21 to possess or purchase a handgun.

      PS OJ used a knife because he was in a rage
      and wanted to inflict the greatest pain and suffering on his victims before
      they expired.

      That is what I call a hate crime.

    • ken brown

      Stupid analysis – OJ killed his targets – had he wanted to kill more, he could have killed his kids. He had many chances to kill more, and I am sure that had he wanted to use a gun he had access to one – just as he did iin Las Vegas.

    • deebar

      Very disturbing event but 5 bullets a second is a joke but then most liberals are a joke . In the military I had almost the identical weapon this guy(s) used except mine could be fired on automatic .

      Now I own a Bushmaster .223 semi-auto and I have it not for hunting or even target practice but because it’s my right as a U.S. citizen . It is for one reason only and that it is my protection against the U.S. Government if needed .

      I have no illusion of trying to change the minds of a mindless liberal but if you are going to make an argument you really do need to become fact oriented .

  • floridahank

    I don’t have any factual profile to prove my outlook, but I strongly believe that there’s a definite mental set of these anti-gun people, They are very emotional, probably don’t have a strong spiritual foundation, overlook the regular abortions daily in our nation, believe that many minorities are entitiled to govt. benefits that continually expand that are paid by the majority of taxpayers, don’t have any interest having our public school system promote our Founding Father’s hard work to create our country. their entertainment preference is junk music and trashy movies and tv programs. Our country has a big job reducing these kinds of people to influence future voting outcomes.

  • ulyssesmsu

    Actually, evil started with Adam and Eve. But no big deal. As always, Bernie gets it.

  • Mr.D

    I got news for you Bernie, The constitution itself calls for Gun Control. It states “A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary… Well regulated, not unregulated!

    • Duke Brooks

      How about the last clause? “…the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

    • falcon7204

      “Well regulated” does not always call for laws. It can mean training, discipline, and a sense of duty. The military is not the only organization that can possess those things. And people, if they are to protect themselves, must be trained, disciplined, and have a sense of duty to themselves and their family. Depending on the government for protection is a fool’s errand.

  • Steve

    I understand that Dianne Feinstein, and other elected officials, have armed body guards to protect them. What will happen when a criminal invades your home? Will you have time to call 911? How long will it take them to respond? The answer will probably be, Sorry you’re dead, but we got here as soon as we could!

  • Stephen Boone

    The people screaming for gun control are actually happy when a tragedy like this school slaughter occurs. They feel those kids are a minor sacrifice to acheive their goal of getting rid of almost all guns in American homes. Yes, I really mean that because I have had this awful truth from their very own mouths. The painful truth is that nothing will stop severely deranged or enraged people from committing horrible crimes. I won’t repeat all the other methods used to kill large numbers of people without any use of guns. You all know them as do the Democrats. These latest crimes are just an excuse to do something they have wanted, want now and will continue to try — the virtual elimination of guns from anyone but their beloved national government. Essentially, their God.

    • falcon7204

      All one has to do is look at the histories of Russia, Germany, China, and any other nation that has confiscated weapons from its citizens. Then look at us. That’s where we’re headed.

      • Stephen Boone

        I have read a lot of European history especially 20th century and also read a reasonable amount of Lenin and Trotsky. We are NOT going to be a society without firearms because of silly things like banning super-sized magazines. BTW, those rarely work in guns that were not designed for FULLY automatic fire. Go get a typical cheap to mid-range semi-automatic 8mm automatic pistol like a Taurus. Buy a box of 50 cartriges and just use the 9 – 11 shot magazine that came with the gun. See if you can load and fire the whole box without the GUN JAMMING. Very unlikely you can. EXTREMELY unlikely. Want to complain about something?? I can buy all the guns I want, but getting a SILENCER is like trying to get a Nuke. Unlike the people on TV and in the movies if a couple of guys break into my house and I fire my 357Mag at one and kill him I won’t be able to hear the other guy unless he is in the same room with me shooting me or busting up my slab with a steam powered Jack Hammer. How those guys fire off 5 or 6 rounds and then WHISPER to someone. “psst go around that dumpster and i’ll check the I SAID GO AROUND THAT DUMPSTER AND>>>>>>

  • Tom_Rogers

    We can’t prevent murder via legislation, I think that’s been abundantly established, since it has been illegal in most jurisdictions for a while now. What we can do is change the profile of the kind of homicides that are committed. The mass murder of unarmed and unprotected people at close range would be much rarer if a large part of the population was armed. On the other hand, accidental deaths and second degree killings would be more common, and by that I mean killings resulting from arguments or provocations. And access to guns isn’t a prerequisite for mass murder–the biggest that I can think of was done by guys armed with airline tickets, box cutters and an invincible faith in a militant Allah, the next largest by some nutjobs with access to rental trucks and fertilizer in Oklahoma City.

    • Kansan

      They didn’t have “box cutters.” That was one of the many myths perpetrated by the Bush administration to cover up for its ineptitude. They had Leathermans.

  • Skogee

    Spot on Bernie…you have completely expressed the problem and solution…they say this is complicated beyond simple answers…Evil exists and we need to be aware of it – not just in the crack alleys or dark inner city back streets…but it’s in little town America and everywhere in-between…

  • Switchlight13

    “As to gun control that President Obama talks about and the government leaders
    that have armed protection around them. My suggestion, if we begin gun control,
    let us begin with those who have armed protection and start at the top. Take the
    guns and weapons from the secret service and the captial police first. The
    leaders need to lead by example. If the citizens can not have protection, then
    those making the rules do not need armed protection. What is fair is fair,
    right?”………taken from a local news article in my crime ridden area.

    • LibertysSon

      Interestingly, Obama’s kid’s school has 11 armed guards, not to mention the Secret Service detail as well.

  • Roadmaster

    I have come to the conclusion that we will NEVER convince the gun grabbers that their urge to “do something” has always been misguided, misplaced and totally ineffective. They do not care a whit about facts or even reality. Their feelings and emotions are being used by the power hungry politicos in yet another attempt to deny the rights of many millions of law abiding citizens, criminalizing us because of the actions of the latest, murderous nut-job. That alone should indicate that “safety” is not their goal – control of the population is and that can’t be accomplished with 100’s of millions of firearms floating around – LEGALLY! Therefore, in their illogical and nonsensical thinking firearms must be made illegal. Damn the Constitution, to heck with statistics which show the opposite of their beliefs, and ignoring the reality that bad guys with guns can only be stopped by a good guy with a gun.

    This is a very long, very well written article which answers every one of the specious claims and idiotic memes of the anti-Second Amendment forces. Not that you have much of a chance of persuading anyone but you’ll can load up with the truth.

  • Switchlight13

    USA = Europe West. The left’s idea of self defense is having 911 on speed dial. DOJ statistics show that in 2010 a group representing 13% of the population was responsible for 47% of the violent crime in the US. Yet we coddle them with handouts, preferences, scholarships etc at our kids expense.

    • LibertysSon

      You are so correct! When… seconds count…The police are only minutes away!

      • Switchlight13

        :). We are both correct.

  • Barry

    What I don’t get is why none of the arguments about guns, mental health, drugs, and video games include what it would take financially to support one intervention vs. another. Sure, people will throw out that saving a human life is worth whatever expenditure, but that’s BS and they know it. Proposals for government intervention ought to be specific, have a price tag, and a research base indicating the likelihood of working. Then legislators and their constituents can begin to make informed trade offs–what is likely to work at a reasonable price.
    If I had my druthers, the money that some would spend on armed guards in schools or mounting a huge bureaucracy to control guns would be better invested in training and hiring school specialists who know what to do with the 10-15% of children who have trouble coping with school, including those with neurological disorders like autism, attention-deficit, and Asperger’s. It’s unconscionable that despite the epidemic of these disorders, schools are devoid of trained professionals who know how to educate these kids. Our answer has been to medicate them so that they’ll behave. In many cases the medications make them more dangerous, but the drug industry doesn’t want you to know that. Instead of anesthetizing these kids, schools should be waking them up. But that’s another story.

  • Al

    Bernie you said it all with one sentence, you cannot legislate behavior!!

    • mike

      But you should legislate the tools that can render that behaviour dangerous!

      • Duke Brooks

        mike, that means that knives, cars, hammers, etc. must all be banned. More people die in car accidents in a month than are typically killed by criminals with guns in a year.

  • John

    The never-ending push for additional gun-control could at least be seen as well-intentioned if it weren’t for the overwhelming evidence we have before us. That evidence seems to support the notion that properly-licensed citizens with firearms on their person seems to have actually decreased violent crimes in those jurisdictions that have enacted so-called “shall issue” and “concealed carry” laws. Those on the side of more gun control have done one heck of a job in contradicting the evidence, because the idea that passing more laws will somehow suddenly be effective is still popular and widespread.

    The other problem here for any rational American ought to be that the government’s actions here have been corrupt to the core. We need look no further than “Fast & Furious” for an example of how NOT to deal with the violence in our country. F&F is also (and not coincidentally) an excellent example of a corrupt government burying “inconvenient” investigations. The government it seems, will investigate…form committees…put aside money to fund studies ad nauseum…UNLESS the subject of the study is, you guessed it, the government itself.

    It’s also another inconvenient fact that defining exactly what constitutes an “assault weapon” is all but impossible. People tend to see any “frightening looking” firearm as an “assault weapon”, when a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle is functionally the same as the typical “AR Sporter”, ie: a semiautomatic carbine. Yet the press tosses around disinformation (knowingly?) as calling these things “machine guns” (actual fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated at the Federal level). It’s not particularly easy to find other examples of the press being so misinformed almost across the board on such a big and important subject, much less a subject that has been “in the news” for such a long time. You’d think they’d have done their homework by now and gotten the facts straight. Of course, you’d only think that if it were also necessarily true that the press was interested in presenting solid factual reporting.

    We are doomed to see the evil that took place in Newtown repeated until or unless we start to have a rational and informed discussion about what really is at the heart of these events. If anything, these events may become more and more frequent with the amount of coverage they get. Effectively dealing with the subject will not be anywhere as easy as simply passing a law that takes away citizens’ rights, but legislators infrequently choose to do what’s right over what’s politically expedient.


  • michael binder

    you miss the point………..liberals do not believe anything they like is evil, and, by God or anyone else, you are not going to change their perspectives. there is no doubt that any liberal (read psychologist, professor, or pimp) is going to believe that there was something wrong with his character (oops…..there that “C” word) doubt it was his mommy’s fault!

  • DOOM

    Governments historically take guns away because they don’t want citizens to be able to defend themselves against the government. And the people that are advocating stripping our Second Amendment rights are the same people for whom we provide armed protection.

  • cmacrider

    Let.ona: Your conclusions are well supported by the Canadian experience. In Canada we had a very onerous Long Gun Registry Act. It had no effect on the number of murders and in fact the murder rate continued to climb all during its tenure. For some reason the criminal element neglected to register their guns. Consequently the Canadian Feds have just recently abolished the entire Long Gun Registry Ac

  • Burt Prelutsky

    Well-said, Leona. Liberals are so loony that at the same time that they’re trying to make it tougher for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, they campaign against adding 10 years to the sentences of criminals using guns in the commission of their crimes.

    It must be so blissful to be a liberal and never having to think.

    Merry Christmas.

    Regards, Burt

    • David Garvasi

      Burt, you’re an idiot. Merry Christmas.

    • Jared Rea

      Well Said

  • Roger Ward

    My first thought is to blame the “do something” mentality of the Left. Whenever something bad or undesirable happens, the Left runs in circles, waves their hands in the air and screams “We’ve got to do something!” …. never thinking about the futiity of their counteractions or the rule of unintended consequences.
    My second is that someone should check on John Lott’s statistics about how often people use firearms to defend themselves. (It runs into the millions of times a year …. but it’s not as newsworthy when some liquor store owner pulls a gun on an advancing, armed felon.)
    The only real defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun …. hopefully an automatic.
    I’m so very sorry for the people who died at the school …. especially the children

    • io9f

      You’re first paragragh was spot on – and made me chuckle. I happen to know some “Lefters” who (figuratively, of course) do as you said. They are a very strange bunch. — One woman I know said child molesters should have their own prison with tennis courts, swimming pools, etc. until a cure is found. Her reasoning was if they were kept busy they wouldn’t think of children. – No jive.That woman had a degree in political science. Considered to be intelligent. – Listening to their “logic” amazes me!