You did not start this thread, DF. You pulled your 'I gots compassion, me, and you lot are just unfeeling gits' card out later.

An interesting discussion on how the Second Amendment evolved from a right concerned with having a militia to protect against the federal government to an individual right. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... paintings/
A more detailed discussion here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ingle.html
And here: http://www.slate.com/sidebars/2008/03/p ... econd.html

And yet, somehow they managed to keep the second amendment as it was, and there was no individual restriction made. Neither was it changed or "clarified" after the other rebellions and insurrections. Oh, but Danivon knows that jurisprudence from the writing of the amendment was all based on misinterpretation. lol

Professor Amar correctly points out the purpose of the second amendment, but fails to connect the dots. For example, if an insurrectionist movement to overthrow the federal government arose and grew, how would they get the weapons to defend themselves from the feds, if guns were restricted and outlawed?

The fact is that many of the guns that were used in the Revolutionary war were personally owned guns. That's how it happens, and that's what it's for...when it comes time to alter or abolish the federal government--as expressed in the declaration of independence.

Either the mom is a military member, public safety official, or bought it before Oct 1st 1993. Otherwise is is BANNED for possession. Where am I missing your rebuttal?

Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony. (a) Except as provided in section 53-202e, any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, except as provided in sections 29-37j, 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and 53-202o and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a, shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced; except that a first-time violation of this subsection shall be a class A misdemeanor if (1) the person presents proof that he lawfully possessed the assault weapon prior to October 1, 1993, and (2) the person has otherwise possessed the firearm in compliance with subsection (d) of section 53-202d.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to the possession of assault weapons by members or employees of the Department of Public Safety, police departments, the Department of Correction or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties; nor shall anything in sections 29-37j and 53-202a to 53-202k, inclusive, and subsection (h) of section 53a-46a prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons by sworn members of these agencies when on duty and the use is within the scope of their duties.

Brad, I thought that the Bushmaster was not considered an assault weapon and hence was not banned under Connecticut law.

Specifically listed below: (bolded to aid those who need it)

Sec. 53-202a. Assault weapons: Definition. (a) As used in this section and sections 53-202b to 53-202k, inclusive, "assault weapon" means:

(1) Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol;

Brad, I am guessing that since every news outlet that I see says the Bushmaster rifle used by the shooter was legal, then it was legal. Apparently, the Bushmaster Auto Rifle that is specifically banned has been modified by Bushmaster for Connecticut so that it does not violate Connecticut law (or it is referring to a different model Bushmaster gun, that is a pretty vague description). See discussion here. http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-18/ ... apon-rifle

I am only quoting CT law. Since the police have not released the specific model, it is conjecture.

(3) Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
(i) A folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

I copy the subset of CT Sec. 53-202a above. The Bushmaster .223 has a telescoping stock and a pistol grip
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7922193@N08/8293441772/in/photostream

Yes, but all Bushmaster had to do is modify the gun to get rid of one of the two qualifying criteria and it turned its semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that qualifies under Connecticut law and that is what apparently happened, given that I have seen no information that indicates that the mother of the shooter obtained the guns illegally.

It's quite clear, Bbauska, that the 'ban' has several outs. First of all, prior ownership was 'grandfathered' so that anyone in CT who legally held such a weapon before the law came into force, or anyone moving into state with a legal permit, can apply for a CT permit.

Secondly, as has been noted, the law may refer to the 'Bushmaster Auto Rifle', but there are many variants of AR-15 derivative rifles out there and many versions of the Bushmaster, and I can quite easily grasp that in order to make sales, the makers will have altered their weapons to comply with the law.

Thirdly, it would have been out by now if the rifle was not legal. The police are not that slow, and there's no-one to worry about false accusal.

again, I support stricter gun control laws, I am for banning assault weapons, for banning these large capacity magazines and so on. But using this example as your rallying cry to get these things done is a bit foolish, absolutely nothing would have changed regardless of the laws you were to pass. This guy was deranged and was going to find a way to pull this off. He stole the guns, he broke into a locked school, etc. If he had no access to guns (he could get them illegally with great ease) then maybe it would have been worse and he made a fertilizer bomb that would have killed even more? You simply can't stop every crazy person when they are so determined (similar to suicide bombers?)

My point is that it is not true that more laws concerning gun control will work. CT has very strict laws concerning weapons, and Sandy Hook happens. Many people on this site have said they don't want to ban weapons altogether, but that is the only remaining step in CT.

If guns are not going to be outlawed w/o a repeal of an amendment, then we need to look at the cause of what happened. The gun did not cause these murders. Deal with the cause not the mode.

I'm glad you're for some reasonable gun control Tom but i don't understand why you are so certain it won't work. It may not work, but these shootings have gone up significantly since the federal assault weapons ban ended. Is that proof that a renewed assault weapons ban will work? Maybe not, because causation is difficult to prove, but it's some evidence that not having assault weapons readily available will reduce these shootings. I also question the assumption that the type of people who do these shootings have the sort of contacts that allow access to illegal guns. There also appears to be a necessity for these shooters to have the feeling of overwhelming power that comes from being heavily armed with semi-automatic weapons with large magazine clips. If they did not have these weapons not only would they do less harm, they may not decide to do the shootings at all.
Reasonable people try reasonable solutions to solve problems. We don't know that any of the proposed solutions will work. This is a new problem, regular mass shootings, and we have an obligation as a civil society to prevent future shootings. Hopefully we will have a broad-based solution, which would include more funding for the mentally ill and effective measures to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But part of the solution is to get a handle on limiting access to very powerful weapons.
Brad, the Connecticut law did not prevent someone from legally having a weapon with a capacity of shooting six bullets a second with 30 round clips. Interestingly enough, Connecticut was going to reduce clips to 10 rounds, but they succumbed to pressure and did not do it. It is very likely that less children would be dead today if that law had passed. I would not want to be either the legislators who did not have the courage to get the law passed or the gun owners who pressured them against the limitation on gun clips

Here's an interesting paper. Contrary to popular belief, there WERE gun regulations in the colonies. It was regulated that individuals MUST carry.

Talk about mandates...

Interesting paper. It is even more clear that the Second Amendment was designed to provide soldiers for a militia and not as an individual right.