You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Congressman reflects on school massacre.
"Walz's remarks came as the NRA said it is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions to make sure this never happens again." The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions? To WHAT? The NRA (despite thier thinking) should not be the bellwether of our political process. This needs to be discussed without the input of the NRA. This is NOT THEIR DECISION! ...Last time I checked, they are not congress members, and what they think should not have a bearing on the discussions that should be forthcoming. Unless of course, they OWN their own representatives, and I'm sure they do.
I will definitely become more active in supporting a more centrist view of how guns should fit into our society. Representative Walz, your views are too extreme and I will be donating my money to your next opponent.
30 years ago, in Chicago, Tylenol was laced with cyanide and 7 people died. In response the drug industry implemented tamper proof caps and seals to avoid further problems and are still in use worldwide. There have been no more poisoning deaths from over the counter pharmaceuticals. On Friday twenty 1st graders died from gunshot wounds from a paramilitary rifle. NRA? Gun industry? Waiting.........
I agree something must be done, however, I also believe further restrictions on gun sales is treating the symptom and not the underlying problem. America as a whole is quick to resort to violence and anger. Until we resolve that issue, any law restricting guns sales simply masks the underlying problem. I've expressed that to people and the common retort I receive is that "well yeah, but we have to do SOMETHING"...to me, that is nothing more than an admission that we are unwilling to work on the really difficult problems, and only want to pick the low hanging fruit.
While the underlying problem is that of an angry and violent culture, there is little likelihood that we will be able to significantly change that in the near future. Neither can we identify people likely to commit violent acts.
So, what we CAN do now is make it a bit more difficult (and therefore less likely) for them to commit these acts. This does not mean abandoning the search for better long term solutions; we should have the resources to do both.
Thank you Congressman Walz for helping to solve the immediate problem of gun deaths.
Sensible elected leaders and most hunters even agree: we need to stop this madness. You can support the 2nd amendment but there must be restrictions, just as there are on the 1st amendment. Get it done!
"I agree something must be done"............So do I, taftj. Answer me this though. WHY is the discussion about our nation modifying policies, protocols and infrastructure to accommodate gun culture, rather than gun culture adapting to accommodate our citizens, who want to be safe from gunfire at work, at school, at the movie theater, at church?
quinneroo: Thank you for a voice of reason.
There is no need for anyone other than police to possess a gun in today's world. When the Second Amendment was adopted guns were still needed for protection and for food for life on the frontier. Today, those needs are gone. It is time for repeal of the Second Amendment, which would allow for meaningful control of guns. The Second Amendment is a destructive anachronism.
More gun laws mean that the bad people will follow them, making us more safer.....right?
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks