Vice President Biden to head task force examining gun violence; narrative develops that Adam Lanza feared mother would commit him
Two of the bigger developments in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shootings:
Joe Biden will head the President's task force looking into gun violence (Not exactly a shocker given Joe Biden's longtime alignment with police, who generally favor greater restrictions on guns!).
And Adam Lanza may have begun his bloody saga to head off his mom committing him to some mental health institution. This still leaves unanswered why the mom would EVER have started acquainting her troubled son with guns. The "connection" between Mrs. Lanza and the elementary school still remains in dispute...
We read about Joe Biden heading up that task-force...
Yesterday, I pondered the fact that people in the Lanza household had seemed to stop working. I read in the afternoon that the ex-husband was paying the mother $265K per year. With that kind of money available, even given the high cost of living in Connecticut, couldn’t the mother and father have agreed that the son needed help?
Within the past year, that state’s general assembly failed to pass a bill that would have straightened mental health laws and options. Perhaps that would have aided them in obtaining help. I am also focusing on the mother. A fan of guns with a disturbed young man in the house? It will be helpful to the understanding of this case if her mental issues are made public.
Wed, Dec 19, 2012 11:26am
Even though there was somebody mentally troubled in the household, it was even for the mom to get assault weapons normally used by soldiers in war. Acquiring weapons of mass destruction are as easy as buying candy cane for Christmas.
The NRA's tired arguments go out the window in the aftermath of the Connecticut shooting.
No, an assault rifle is not used for duck hunting. An assault rifle isn't for "self defense" unless your name is Rambo.
If there's any tiny bit of good that comes out of this tragedy, is that there appears to be support on Capitol Hill to pass Senator Feinstein's renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Wed, Dec 19, 2012 12:05pm
teatime (and others)---
I'd love to see you respond to "brucef" in my previous blog.
He brings in some of the arguments / issues / world view of some gun-rights absolutists who completely distrust the conventional "world view", with hints (or more) of conspiracy, and the view that the citizens need powerful firearms to fight government oppression, etc.
Also, that powerful conspiratorial forces are at work; nothing about this was accidental!
Wed, Dec 19, 2012 12:18pm
I didn't respond to brucef because I wasn't exactly sure what he was trying to say...especially the conspiracy theory of gov't involvement in this case.
Wed, Dec 19, 2012 12:20pm
"(Crooks In Action)"...the CIA, really?
Wed, Dec 19, 2012 1:28pm
The conspiratorial poster in my previous blog, brucef, brings up LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) - used in U.S. derivatives - which represents the mother of all scandals in global finance.
Some have found it just too coincidental that Peter Lanza, Vice President of General Electric Finance was the father of Adam Lanza; and Robert Holmes, financial & credit services guru at Fair Isaac (FICO), was the father of Colorado 'Batman' shooter, James Holmes.
Here's where it gets murky and uncorroborated: That both were to testify on the financial scandal.
But how would either benefit from the mass violence perpetrated by their sons?
That's where we get into Kennedy assassination conspiracy territory... speculation about other assailants, and the U.S. Government looking for excuses to trim 2nd Amendment Rights. (Rather like the notion - which has wide acceptance in Islamic countries - that the U.S. Government engineered 9/11 as a handy pretext to invade Islamic nations and seize oil, etc.)
Claims that Australia's tougher gun laws had NO positive effect can be rebutted, as Mike from Delaware does beneath the previous post. But "brucef" will never accept evidence from The NEW YORK TIMES and/or Harvard!
Interesting that a "conservative" Australian government enacted such legislation. But, of course, as I keep saying, "conservative" in Australia or Canada or anywhere else doesn't necessarily mean the same as "conservative" here in the United States. Plus, Australia has no Second Amendment (obviously).
But remember, 2nd Amendment absolutists exist in a different parallel universe with its own "facts" and world view, just as we see with other absolutists. This is only a more extreme example of the current divide between the ideologues of our two major political parties, relying on their own media and think-tanks.
In their view, weaponry is absolutely necessary to check the oppression of government. The U.S. is losing its sovereignty to one-world government. Etc., etc.
Wed, Dec 19, 2012 1:46pm
The conspiracy theories on 9/11, the Connecticut shooting, etc... are not only lunacy, but also offensive.
The only conspiracy theory that makes sense is Hillary Clinton feigning a fainting spell to avoid testifying before Congress on the failures at Benghazi. Oldest trick in the book, Hillary.
Wed, Dec 19, 2012 4:37pm
I'm curious...is it possible for states to invoke their 10th Amendment rights if their 2nd Amendment rights are modified under an Executive order? Colorado has legalized pot (which is still federally illegal) and several states have opted out of Obamacare (citing the 10th Amendment).
"The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people."
Thu, Dec 20, 2012 11:24am
Al brought up something this morning. Technology is far more advanced now then during the formation of our nation. Musket balls couldn't hit anything. Rifling was not even invented.
The NRA was not for keeping an armed civilian population until a wacko in Reagan's cabinet began proposing it. This Michigan Militia idea is a recent phenomenon... The Constitution is for states to keep an armed militia. The idea that citizens can have NO Restrictions on their guns, simply has no basis in the Constitution....
Especially it is a stretch to assume that military weapons should be in the hands of every school official...
If the Constitution specifically meant to allow military weapons, it would have put the timely equivalent of allowing the firepower of today's weapons, in a clause allowing for the private possession of cannons...
Since that is far fetched, it is probably a good bet that rational people will prevail over the nuts who think keeping military arms for civilian intimidation by themselves is correct and proper.
And, in response to the idea of wearing sidearms open in school, let me toss out this thought...
Imagine a side arm on Jerry Sandusky, Edward Bradley, or Mr. Bodenweiser if one of them were employed in your kid's grade school.
Thu, Dec 20, 2012 11:12pm
Well, once we get rid of guns. we'll then have to get rid of cars, because those are statistically more lethal than guns. Approximately 30,000 Americans die in gun violence annually whereas the death toll from traffic accidents is around 45,000.
Adam Lanza could have just as easily driven a car, truck, or SUV into the playground during recess and done just as much damage. Or for that matter, he could have stolen a school bus and REALLY caused some mass casualties!
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.