>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But, Bill, in a sense, you're entirely correct. If the gun was not there, it would not have happened. In any way you cut it, if you reduce the accessibility of guns in general, the less of these kind of incidents would happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>enter people capable of reading and building small bombs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not entirely the same, you can build small bombs with commonly available chemicals, but this is something you'll have to plan in advance and is not something you'd apply when you step out the bed with a bad mood. A gun is too easy to use to kill lots of people. Add the accidents that happen with those to the mix, there is quite a difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Personally, it makes my heart puge out to see that people love their guns more than those kids who lost their lives. A real modern society does not need guns, except for military, law enforcement and hunting. There is no reason why (semi) automatic guns should be in use by any other than the military.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>agreed. But I prefer the swiss way of teaching grown ups to handle and keep safe low grade military weapons.
>>>>>>>And not really an unsafe place to live.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not entirely up to date with all the ins and outs, but AFAIK the Swiss allow guns for their national defence (militia) and will receive millitairy training how to handle the gun. Automatic weapons are forbidden and there are strict rules in terms of transport and storage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>>And then there is Friedrich Leibacher. And still, the Swiss voters rejected proposed tighter controls on gun ownership in 2011.
>>>>>
>>>>>The ability for some to order from the U.S. and ship overseas needs to be banned. There will still be countries that allow for it and companies around the world (or private individuals) who will sell and ship online. Still, some laws need to be implemented.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not for complete gun bans in the U.S. I am for laws restricting the sale, trade, or use of weapons that clearly have no use other than military action. If we truly believe that U.S. citizens need the right to own assault weapons, than require them to be stored and maintained in local arsenals that are heavily monitored and secured. Restrict the use of such weapons to supervised practice in the same location.
>>>>
>>>>(applause)
>>>>
>>>>I mention only in passing that the original intent of the 2nd amendment was for a well regulated militia. Unless the citizen militia had been called out to defend against an invading force the guns were kept in armories. We have had a standing army since 1850, replacing the citizen militia. As I guess you know very well ;-) (Thanks, which is what I say to every soldier).
>>>>
>>>>UPDATE: What I am saying, and you agree, is let's take some reasonable action and ban assault weapons. We are not going to eliminate all guns, agreed again. But we can and should do something.
>>>
>>>The scary looking guns ban from the 90's. Worked great.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yesterday I asked for anyone to defend a reasonable purpose of these weapons. No reply yet.
>>>
>>>There is now.
>>
>>President Obama indicated pretty clearly in his speech last night that he will bring the full power of the presidency to doing something about it. That's no guarantee, of course. But he is going to give it a shot, with the help of non-governmental groups around the country -- police, churches, schools, etc. He said we can't just keep saying we can't change things. In his controlled way he was as angry as I have ever seen him. He said this is the fourth time in my presidency I have had to come to a community where there has been a mass shooting and I am sick of it. He said we can't go on accepting this as just a fact of life. We are failing our children and we need to do more.
>>
>>I thought it was a terrific speech. (And don't imagine you will agree). He said what a president should say to the survivors in a time of unimaginable grief, and hinted strongly that the club is about to come out. He said it will start in a couple of weeks, meaning after the first of the year. There will be opposition, as always, but with the next elections already ramping up I don't think many Republicans in Congress will want to be perceived as continuing to tolerate this kind of madness.
>
>I can honestly say I have never been so furious with any president at a specific moment in my life as when he inturrupted Sunday Night Football to exploit a tradgey for the most obvious of political self serving expolitative reasons. Mind you, I never heard a single word of the speech due to the people I had over for the game (both parties represented) were all furious. That was not the time or place for such emotional manipulation. He had already given a speech Friday which was well received and conveyed the message well. Sunday, was all about his own narcissis and political exploitation.

You can be so unbelievable sometimes. NBC made it clear from the beginning that they would be cutting away for a few minutes for the speech. Bob Costas and Al Michaels both said right up front that they would be cutting away for a few minutes and explained that if you wanted to stay with the game you could continue watching on CNBC or the NFL Network. Immediately after the speech they came back to the game and gave a recap of the several game minutes that might have been missed. I don't know how they could have handled it more responsibly.

Cris Collinsworth was noticeably forcing himself to be on the air. (And then was terrific, as always). He said like most of us what happened in Connecticut is about all I've been able to think about this weekend. Maybe you are not part of that most of us. I am deeply sorry that your NFL viewing was temporarily interrupted at your choice.