I know we have had a rash of serious, grotesque and senseless violence.

My heart goes out to the victims and their families. With all of my heart I wish evil like this didn't exist, but unfortunately it does. Recent events in Connecticut have prompted a flow of emotion on US soil that hasnt been felt since 9/11. The mere thought of an act that reaches the level of evil that was seen in that elementary school is one that can bring the most stalwart of us to tears and something like that is bound to provoke strong emotions and strong reactions afterwards. I first want to give my sincerest condolences to the families of those who have lost so much recently. There is nothing that will make their pain any less or to make the violence make any more sense. All we can do is help each other to get through this traumatic event. It has no doubt changed the lives of hundreds of people forever. I really dont want this to sound like the obligatory sorry for your loss first statement before I broach another subject, but Im afraid thats how it will come off because I am personally motivated to express my thoughts on our future after this event. Regardless of what I say after this and regardless of my opinions, I just want to reiterate that my first concern and my first thoughts have always been with the families and the souls that have been irreparably damaged by this event. God Bless every one of you. The first instinct, after an event like this has settled a bit, is to figure out how to prevent it from happening again. This is where this conversation has started to turn and it is where it is going to stay for quite some time. I agree with this. We should do everything possible to prevent something like this from happening again, as these types of events have been happening more often and at an ever increasing pace. What differs between people today is how to best combat this type of behavior. The solution to this problem, I believe, lies in two separate areas. The first is the behavior. What causes someone to behave like this? What motivates them? What pushes them to do this? The second is the tools. In this case, it was firearms. Is there anything we can do to limit the carnage that someone such as this could do? Let me take this one area at a time, if you will indulge me. A persons behavior is something that typically follows a path that can be predicted. Sometimes this is an emotional path and sometimes it is a logical path. This is how most of us live our lives. Our actions make sense to those around us. For a select few however, this isnt true. Their brains make connections and leaps that most of us cannot even fathom. These people are the outliers; the statistical oddities that you cannot always predict. The truth is this is a statistical fact. Throughout 200,000 years of human experience there have always been these outliers that will take actions that most cannot think of. Its a simple fact of living life with genetic randomization. A select few people will come out flawed. I think the effort in this area needs to be directed at prediction. In all cases, even this one, there will be signs that were apparent before the event that either no one picked up on or were ignored. Most of us realize these signs as obvious after the fact but for whatever

reason didnt pick up on them ahead of time. I think this is because of our belief that people dont do things like this. Even if we see the signs we will deny the possibility that this person that weve known so long could be capable of an act so evil. So, we push it aside. We may keep a closer eye on them but no more. We dont want to ruin their lives over something that may or may not happen. The outliers will always exist so we need to be better prepared to identify them before they decide to break the moral fabric of our lives. I dont necessarily think that legislation will fix this problem. The last thing I would want to do is limit peoples freedom. That would violate what this country is about. I think this is an education matter for the general public as well as a task for the mental health professionals in this country. Before I finish this part I want to thank all of the mental health professionals and vigilant people out there because I am sure that at least a few tragedies like this have been prevented by their actions. We just dont see it because it goes largely unnoticed. Thank you. Unfortunately, the courts have held in many cases starting with: South v. Maryland - 59 U.S. 396 (1855) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/59/396/case.html Bowers v. DeVito 686 F.2d 616 (1982) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10530656612674401468&hl=en&as_sdt=2 &as_vis=1&oi=scholarr Castle Rock v. Gonzales 545 U.S. 748 (2005) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13096571268307866226&hl=en&as_sdt=2 &as_vis=1&oi=scholarr That the police and the government they serve have no responsibility to protect us. (South v. Maryland) You can not sue the police for failure to protect you. (Bowers v. DeVito) Even when there is a court ordered restraining order. (Castle Rock v. Gonzales) The first response we as a people need to suppress is the emotional gut reaction. After something like this everyone wants something to blame and thats normal. The shooter is dead by his own hands so we cannot have the gratification of enforced justice. That leaves us with either the vague idea of mental illness or the tools that he used. Guns are easy to blame because of this. They become easy prey because it gives people something to blame and something to do to make themselves feel better. I understand this viewpoint but would just like to point out that this puts your focus in the wrong direction. This would be akin to trying to ban planes after 9/11 or restrict peoples use of cars after a horrible drunk driving pileup. The reason we dont jump to those conclusions is because we depend too much on those tools. Planes are not viewed as disposable and neither are cars. Guns are, however, to many Americans. You would be hard pressed to find an American that at some point doesnt depend on a car or a plane. There are a significant number of Americans though who dont depend on a firearm every day. This makes them appear as disposable. The truth is that they arent. Not only are they necessary as our founding fathers thought, they cannot be un-invented. They will always exist. You cant

magically get rid of them. For those who have this view due to an emotional need to blame something, please try to stop for a minute and think about what I have to say. It just may change your mind. We are not a democracy, we believe in democratic principals but history has shown us over and over again that democracies fail when mobs rule. Just look to the Romans for the best example of catastrophic failure of democratic rule. The united states is a Constitutional Republic A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828. It was a novel meaning to the term; representative democracy was not an idea mentioned by Machiavelli and did not exist in the classical republics. The term republic does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, but does appear in Article IV of the Constitution which "guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." What exactly the writers of the constitution felt this should mean is uncertain. The Supreme Court, in Luther v. Borden (1849), declared that the definition of republic was a "political question" in which it would not intervene. In two later cases, it did establish a basic definition. In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic. However, the term republic is not synonymous with the republican form. The republican form is defined as one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. Republicanism is the political values system that has been a major part of American civic thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and "unalienable" rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption. Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the "tyranny of the majority" in a democracy, and advocates of the rights of minorities have warned that the courts needed to protect those rights by reversing efforts by voters to terminate the rights of an unpopular minority.

Thus these wise men, that are the fathers of this great experiment we call the United States of America, developed the Constitution. The preamble, We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The articles of the constitution , Articles I through VII lay out how each branch is to be formed, and the responsibilities of each branch of our government. How the constitution can be changed and how it is ratified. The Bill of Rights, The Bill of Rights were the limits placed on the government. It is very important to note that our founding fathers were afraid of the central government having too much power and wanted to limit it to ONLY what they said in the preamble. Detailed information about each of the bill of rights can be found in FindLaw. I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ II. Right to keep and bear arms http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ III. Conditions for quarters of soldiers. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment03/ IV. Right of search and seizure regulated. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/ V. Provisions concerning prosecution http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/ VI. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/ VII. Right to a trial by jury. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment07/ VIII. Excessive bail, cruel punishment http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/

IX. Rule of construction of Constitution http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/ X. Rights of the States under Constitution http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/ Now, for what has become the largest part of this discussion; the tools. Im not going to blame the weapons because they did not commit the acts. This is not an act of gun violence as so many gun control advocates like to spout. This was an act of total evil, regardless of how it was carried out. Would it be any less tragic if it was carried out with a bomb or a car? On the opposite side of the coin, are the guns that US Navy Seals used to kill Osama Bin Laden evil? Just as with any tool, a gun can be used for good or evil. I would like to talk about the main points in this discussion and provide my own views on each of them to hopefully shed some clarity on these issues. The first issue is the 2nd Amendment. In my opinion this is the only argument that is needed. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection from an everyday assault. No one in their right mind during the founding of this country would have ever thought you would need to enumerate a right just to hunt. The second amendment is specifically designed to give The People the ability to defend themselves from any force including a foreign invasion or a tyrannical government. Regardless of the opinions on how likely that scenario is it is a fact of the founding of this country. If at some point the government becomes too oppressive and too overpowering then The People need the resources to combat that in order to remain free. With that argument in mind, we need arms that are equal to that of our own military. This was the designed purpose of the 2nd Amendment. We cannot defend ourselves against a fully armed military force with bolt action rifles and muskets. Placing restrictions or bans on AR15s, AK-47s, or any other military style rifle is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment and an affront to the founders of our country. There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them. As passed by the Congress: 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. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: 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. The right to bear arm was recently decided in two cases: In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 253. (a) The Amendments prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clauses text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 222. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Courts interpretation of the operative clause. The militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens militia would be preserved. Pp. 2228. (c) The Courts interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28 30. (d) The Second Amendments drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 3032. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Courts conclusion. Pp. 3247. (f) None of the Courts precedents forecloses the Courts interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 4754. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010)The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller Second is access to guns. There are other countries that have laws requiring firearms to be locked in safes, stored at gun clubs, or even disassembled if they are to be kept at all. While this makes is marginally more difficult for a criminal to gain access to a firearm it doesnt solve the problem. A person who has decided to commit evil isnt going to stop just because they have to open a safe or assemble the gun first. What laws like this do accomplish is they make quick access to them in a personal self defense scenario impossible. What do you do if someone breaks into your home and your handgun is

locked in a safe and unloaded? You do nothing is what you do. Just because some Americans decide to not have ready access to a firearm for personal protection does not mean that those of us who do should be penalized. Third would be types of weapons that are available. This is probably the subject that aggravates me the most because no one that wants gun control seems to be knowledgeable themselves on how they work. The term automatic weapon is thrown around a lot and it makes people immediately jump to military grade weapons that can shoot multiple rounds by holding the trigger. No mass shooting in recent history has been done with one of these weapons. These types of weapons are already highly restricted and those that legally own them do what every responsible gun owner does and that is keep control of them. The weapons that are used in these shootings are aesthetically similar to military weapons but in function they are much different. These handguns and rifles are semi-automatic which means you have to squeeze the trigger every time you want to fire a bullet. This isnt new technology that is making it easier to kill. Just because an AR-15 rifle looks like a military M-16 doesnt mean it does the same thing. Semi-automatic weapons have been around since the early 1900s. The way these weapons operate hasnt changed in over 100 years. Their look has. The difference is what people are deciding to use them for. Even the Assault Weapon Ban in 1994 didnt ban AR-15 rifles. It banned features on them such as a sliding stock for length adjustment. It changed their look, not how they functioned. These weapons are not assault rifles. They are modern sporting rifles. By military definition a weapon has to be capable of fully automatic fire to be an assault rifle. These are not. Actual assault rifles havent been used in any mass shooting. Restricting the types of guns we own will not fix the problem. Its a tool thats been around in roughly the same format for over a century The forth and final issue is freedom versus safety. As a broad generalization this is what most gun control debates boil down to. There are people who are willing to give up some freedom in exchange for safety. There is an inherent flaw in this argument though. The freedom that gun control advocates are willing to give up is a freedom that they do not themselves exercise so they are essentially giving up nothing and trying to speak for those who would be giving up the most. To make matters worse the safety that is exchanged is a false sense of security. People who are societal outliers and are committed to performing acts of evil will not follow the law. All of the regulations and rules in the world will not stop them. The sense of safety is an emotional feeling that creates false hope. Guns were banned from the school in Connecticut and the school had a lockdown procedure in effect. That didnt stop what happened, nor will it ever. We are not talking about law abiding citizens, nor are we talking about everyday criminals who commit random assaults and robberies. Even they have some sense of morality. We are talking about outliers whose actions cannot be predicted and whose motives make no logical sense. These people will steal what they need in order to fulfill their mission. Due to the small number of people like this we are talking about a 1 in 50 million occurrence that will always be a 1 in 50 million occurrence. Laws and regulations will not stop these outliers from committing unspeakable acts.

So, if the safety provided by laws is an illusion and statistically there will always be people like this willing to commit evil acts then what do you do about it? That becomes the $64,000 question. The solution is simple. You fight it with freedom. You fight back. You are talking about an enemy to our safety that cannot be predicted and will be completely random. You be prepared to stop them. Keep a rifle in the main office of schools, allow the teachers who have valid concealed carry licenses to carry in class, allow parents coming to pick up their children to be armed, and make every public place as undesirable of a target as possible. Start sponsoring gun safety and marksmanship classes in schools again. The mentality of active shooters in these scenarios points to them being cowards. Any time any resistance is given they usually take their own life. They want to end it on their terms. Its about them exerting control over a life they feel theyve had none over. Think about one question now, knowing what Ive said here. If these weapon systems have been around for over a century and deranged people willing to commit evil acts have always existed then why only recently have school shootings become so common? The answer is really simple. Over the course of the late 1980s and 1990s schools have gone from allowing people to have guns nearby to having zero tolerance policies on armed people on school grounds. In the 1970s many high schools had marksmanship classes and clubs, kids would bring guns in for show and tell in elementary school, and kids would keep hunting guns in the trunks of their cars if they were going hunting after school. What we have inadvertently done is make schools a prime target for deranged people where they werent before. We have actually drawn these people to our children, because as disturbed as they are none of them are stupid. They are intelligent and they think ahead. They go where they will face the least resistance and where is the one place that restrictions on guns are the strongest? Ours schools. Sadly there are pacifists in this world that even when faced with the type of evil we have seen, would not protect themselves or anyone else, no matter what the situation is. I can only say that these people must have never had to fight for anything in life. Everything must have been handed to them. Having to work hard, fight and scratch for what you have makes you appreciate what you have. When you appreciate the things in your life you care about them and protect them. In fact I believe each and every person is under a moral obligation to protect themselves, their family, and anyone else near them that can not defend themselves. There are things we can do to help prevent these acts in the future, but we have to take our time and look at the big picture. We cannot knee-jerk to a reaction based on emotion and blame. We need to go back to our roots and ensure that we not limit our freedom as a people, so that our children can enjoy the ability to live their lives without fear and restriction. We have to protect them; not by hiding the truth from them or shielding them from the weapons of combat, but by being there as guardians for them and to stand against the evils of the world that will always be there.

God Bless everyone effected by this tragedy, and God Bless the United States of America,