Strickland says gun rights, limits can co-exist

A former Ohio governor whose career was built with help from the National Rifle Association says it's time to bring gun rights advocates, the entertainment industry and politicians together to reduce violence after the massacre of 26 people at a Connecticut school last week.
Associated Press
Dec 17, 2012

Democrat Ted Strickland spoke Monday after participating in the Ohio Electoral College that delivered Ohio's 18 electoral votes for President Barack Obama.

Strickland said the Second Amendment assuring the right to bear arms should be subject to reasonable limits, as is the case with the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech. He said restrictions could be worked out through frank dialogue for the good of the country.

A native of Appalachian eastern Ohio, Strickland said he's weighing a run against Republican Gov. John Kasich in 2014.




If Einstein were a child today, he would have been forced to take these mind altering drugs because he was not normal.


@ Centauri:

Closer to home: Thomas Edison was considered to be slow-witted by his teachers.


Now they're looking at Adam Lanza's anti-psychotic drug.

"...Fanapt is one of a many drugs the FDA pumped out with an ability to exact the opposite desired effect on people: that is, you know, inducing rather than inhibiting psychosis and aggressive behavior."

Better living through chemistry?



To paraphrase William Pitt:

"It's for the children!" is the argument of tyrants, and the creed of slaves.

You might also want to read up on what a semi-automatic weapon is. A semi-auto does NOT fire more than one bullet per trigger pull (just like a revolver only fires one shot per trigger pull). Semi-auto is NOT new technology (it's been around since World War I), and does NOT make a gun any more deadly than any other gun.

"Assault" rifles? What, pray tell, is an "assault" rifle? Is it black and scary looking? Does it fire bullets bigger than a certain caliber? In the previous assault weapons ban, virtually every prohibition was based on COSMETICS, nothing else. The law was also ineffective and, had it been in effect last week, would have had absolutely zero impact on what happened in Connecticut.

Stop trying to make it more difficult for the law-abiding to own firearms for WHATEVER purpose (not all of us hunt, you know), and START trying to identify and restrain crazy people. The reason you hear it so often is because some people just don't seem to get it: THE GUN DIDN'T KILL ANYBODY. The whack job pulling the trigger did. (Incidentally, the ultimate restraint on crazy people is a sane man or woman on the scene with a firearm of his own and the will and knowledge to use it...)


I agree, lets try to identify and restrain crazy people. And lets have armed guards at schools. Yes - all necessary. And lets also make assault weopons illegal because their only purpose is to mow down large groups of people. Lets not just do one thing, lets do many things. Admittedly I know very little about guns. But I think you know what we are talking about here, and it has nothing to do with cosmetics. If the previous law was based on cosmetics, it was a bad law meant to appease one side without offending the other. We can do better than that.

Second Opinion

‎...Did you know.....• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.


Well, at least no babies were aborted in the process.


Repubs send adults to die in phoney wars.


Like Obozo sending troops to Libya the other day or JFK sending the first troops to Vietnam??



"...Like Obozo sending troops to Libya the other day"

Oh really?
Check the dates on those websites.
Reagan went after Libya too. And he got us involved in the Falklands.

"...JFK sending the first troops to Vietnam"
Better check that too.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld lied about Iraq, and did a shameful job of handling -it- and Afgahnistan.


@ 4shizzle:

LBJ's lie got 'em beat by tens of thousands.

"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." - LBJ

We now have troops in Poland and Turkey. Where's the outrage from the left?


@ Con tango

Nixon's lies had a part in the total deaths also.

Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968 on a campaign pledge that he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War. He DIDN'T keep his promise but escalated the war.

Why is the Right not outraged at Bush for letting the ban on the semiautomatic weapons expire? Liar-in-chief Bush said in the 2000 campaign that he would sign an extension of the 10-year ban on the semiautomatic weapons ---he DIDN'T.


@ 4shizzle:

Ya been watching Oliver Stone's "Untold History of the United States"?

Your liberal saint JFK and your other liberal gods like FDR were war mongers and power seeking nuts. Mr. Obama is just carrying on that tradition.

An assault weapons ban is typical “feel good” liberal nonsense – statistics prove that it didn’t work then. It won’t work now.


@ Con evil

Tell that to the parents of those dead childern ---I dare you.


@ 4shizzle:

An "assault weapons ban" will bring back those children, the teachers and the mother? Absurd.

Enact liberal "feel good" nonsense and just add it to the hundreds of pages of current gun laws many of which Adam Lanza broke.


@ Contango

Ya 'd be singing a different tune if it was your daughter killed by an assault weapon.
Maybe not.
You probably love money more.


@ 4shizzle:

I'd certainly place the blame where it belonged: On the individual, NOT the weapon.

You write like you enjoy seeing people killed because it helps advance your Progressive freedom stealing agenda.

Have you taken care of your own? Do you have an adequate amount of life insurance and an up-to-date will?


@ Contango

You are correct. It is the individual and not the weapon.

Don't confuse the issue, this is about assault weapons.

Do you ever listen to the words that come out of your mouth?

If assault weapons are UNAVAILABLE, the screwballs and idiots (you don't own an assault weapon do you?) would be UNABLE to get thier hands on them to commit the carnage that they do.


4shizzle writes:

"If assault weapons are UNAVAILABLE,"

Face reality: That "horse" left the barn a long time ago. New laws ain't gonna do squat with the current stock.

H*ll, we can't even keep illegal drugs outa this country!

You're so worried about others; clean up your own house. So do you have adequate life ins. and an up-to-date Last Will and Testament?

Death ain't an "if," it's a "when."


@ Contango
What are you? a retired insurance salesman working part-time?
Do you want to sell me insurance or something?

Tell me what will happen to you after you die.


@ 4shizzle:

You're the one so worried about people getting killed with "assault rifles." Figured that you may want to take some personal responsibilty.

But like a typical liberal, you're willing to make it someone else's problem.


@ Contango

How do you come up with such ridiculous assumptions?

Merry Christmas !!!


@ 4shizzle: And a joyous Dec. 25th to you.


Great. Wonderful. Lets not take away citizens right to carry. I agree. Yes. But let's make assault weopons illegal because their only purpose is to mow down large groups of people.


At school, kids are taught how to cross the street, not to play with matches, what to do in a fire, and the health dangers of smoking. Perhaps some weapons education is necessary. Such as, what they can really do, how they are not toys, and what to do in a situation when a "bad guy" has a gun. And the difference between bbguns, Air soft guns, video game guns, and the real thing. Politically neutral but informative. A veteran or police officer could be a very good type of person to do this. Not glamorize it in any way, but show some facts, and maybe prevent some accidents or keep kids from growing up thinking that an assault weapon is the answer to all their problems.


In the 4 days after 26 people were killed in Newtown, more than 1,000 Americans were killed w/ firearms: 400+ homicides, 550+ suicides.

Someone famous I can't remember once said, "one death is a tragedy and a million deaths is a statistic." There is no way to process 30,000+ deaths a year. And to be fair, there is a certain inevitability to it. Cars and cigarettes take similar numbers. You can't be outraged all the time which is why we've spent billions and disrobed in airports defending ourselves against incredibly low probability events like 9-11 but spend relatively little time or effort preventing gun-related deaths. Spectacular grabs one's attention in a way that statistics don't.

Some/many want regulation. It's just a question of what makes sense. I'm sure if an-NRA senior member's neighbor opened a shooting range in their back yard the NRA senior member might just have some ideas about regulating his neighbor's behavior. Oliver Wendell Holmes said that one man's right to swing his arms stops where another man's nose begins.


@ OSUBuckeye59:

IMO, NRA ain't the problem.

Statistically, most gun violence is black-on-black - why isn't THAT the discussion?

I don't want to see little black children murdered any more than white ones.

For example: Years ago, the Chicago Housing Authority tried to clean up drugs and guns in the projects by going door-to-door for inspections, but were stymied by the courts.

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

Speaking really only with any "authority" on the entertainment aspect of this issue, the best suggestion has already been mentioned a few times. Demystify and de-romanticize them by providing real life stories and examples of gun use, safety, responsibility, and the like. There was a very (in)famous episode of the Disney afternoon cartoon "Gargoyles" where the main human character, a female police officer, was accidentally shot by one of the gargoyles. At the time it was controversial as, well, THAT happened. But it was meant to teach about gun safety and there are consequences for their use by the shock value of a main character having almost been killed by one.

As I am not a mental health professional I can't account for any professional opinions there, but from a youth and community-oriented perspective these are suggestions:
1. Bring in soldiers and police officers to discuss gun use, safety, survival, and overall responsibility and "what to do" in emergencies. It is meaningful community participation/interaction and, like sex education is meant to, is meant to factually teach and confront life issues before they become a problem through ignorance or abuse.
2. Bring in an instructor or otherwise teach self defense in P.E. Martial arts are a healthy form of exercise but not just that, most forms actually carry a message and philosophy of defense over attack and to respect others without infringing on others' religious practices or lack thereof.
3. Through a ROTC or training/survival program (like Boy Scouts) or otherwise sponsored through the school start a gun club that goes to local conservatories and competes in clay pigeon shoots or marksmanship. The key is familiarity and responsibility in a safe, supervised environment. To that extent school-based martial arts or archery would be other activities as well.

Proactive confrontation and education will help. There will always be abuse of the law and the civil society we uphold. But there are many layers of safety nets we can employ as the "village raising the child".

Perhaps, too, if someone is on mental medication a restriction/notification on gun ownership is provided. If there are labels warning you not to drive as you can kill someone, or a side effect of the meds may include suicide (by that extention then, homicide?), perhaps similar restrictions on gun ownership such as those placed on felons be provided? This is an offered solution in concept only as things like having to notify the police you are on psychiatric medication and turn in any guns you own to be held until you are off them or someone else you authorize claims them may be seen as privacy violations, but perhaps the intent of this can be seen and refined by those who know more/better about these things than I. I hope these are helpful, thoughtful observances.


I have several guns and I'd say I'm fairly well experienced in all types of weopons. Assault rifles are way over-rated. The best weopon in your house for protection is a shotgun with buck shot. It doesn't have to be an automatic or semi-automatic. Just a plain old Remington 20 ga. pump with 00 buck or 4-buck and you have real protection. People have little knowledge of what 5 or 10 shots with a 12 ga. 00-buck would do. Keep medicating 3 & 4 year olds and on up and things like this will keep multiplying.
Other countries that have been mentioned don't have the large number of illegal immigrants that really are adding to our large crime numbers.