Gun rights groups bring nearly 5,000 letters and petitions to the governor’s office

Advocates for four gun rights groups brought 5,000 letters and petitions to the governor’s office on Thursday, urging the Gov. Peter Shumlin to reject any attempt to restrict Vermont’s gun laws.

Though the issue is a moot point — legislative leaders have said they will not take up three bills introduced last month — organizers of the petition drive said they wanted to honor the citizens who gathered signatures from all over the state and make state officials and the press aware of how committed Vermonters are to protecting the Second and 14th Amendments and a provision in Vermont’s constitution that gives residents the right to “bear arms to protect themselves.”

The four groups include Vermont Traditions Coalition, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Gun Owners of Vermont and Vermont NRA. The ad hoc coalition opposes trigger locks, waiting periods for gun purchases, and “shifting liabilities to lawful and constitutional firearms use,” according to a statement. Gun restrictions run afoul of self-defense rights, the groups say.

Bill Moore, of Johnson and one of the organizers of the petition drive, said Shumlin administration officials met briefly with representatives from the groups and were “fair and friendly” to the advocates.

In private meetings with the House Speaker and lawmakers, the gun rights advocates asked for a review of mental health crisis management in response to the Newtown, Conn., tragedy in which 20 young children and six adults were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Adam Lanza, the man accused of the murders, was mentally ill.

“Vermont has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and the lack of violent crime speaks for the free ownership and use of weapons for self defense,” Moore wrote.

Moore said in a statement that in an outpouring of opposition gun rights activists previously defeated Sen. Phil Baruth’s assault weapons ban proposal.

Gun rights groups have held two well-attended rallies at the Statehouse since January.

Gun safety advocates have held a rally and two press conferences. They delivered petitions with 3,000 signatures to the governor on Wednesday.

Editor’s note: This story was updated at 9:25 a.m. March 16.

Anne Galloway

Leave a Reply

65 Comments on "Gun rights groups bring nearly 5,000 letters and petitions to the governor’s office"

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
3 years 2 months ago
They’re not “gun SAFETY advocates”, Anne, they’re gun CONTROL advocates. I reject the use of that term as a new, purely political, term of art just as I reject the term, “assault weapon.” (Or, for that matter, “defense of marriage”, or “partial-birth abortion.) Gun SAFETY is the responsibility of the gun owner. The intent with this new term of art is to create an implication that if you oppose legislation such as LWS’ H.124, then you’re opposed to safety, and a bad or kooky person. It won’t fly, and at some point I do hope to see you return to… Read more »
Stuart Hill
3 years 2 months ago

Deceptive wording has been stock in trade for those looking to restrict the rights of law abiding firearms owners for decades.

Saturday night specials, Cop-killer bullets, assault rifles and the like are, when you get right down to it, marketing terms intended to sell fear to the public.

Zinc guns, bullets coated with Teflon to protect the bore (short explanation; this was only needed on a type of round not sold to the public) and ugly guns are not as effective in frightening the uninformed as the above terms are.

In the end these loaded words are no more than exuberant equine effluent.

Valerie Harriss
3 years 2 months ago

Anne, you need to come up with a better description of the anti-gunners and/or gun-grabbers as they are known because WE ALL ARE GUN SAFETY ADVOCATES. A gun owner’s number one priority IS safety. Gun owners strive for safe handling of guns evidenced by all the “gun safety” courses offered all around the state. But, on the other hand, a gun owner’s aka “gun rights advocate’s” prioty is also to protect and defend his or her right to continue to be safe from the harm of others. This whole “conversation” is about being safe!

3 years 2 months ago

It’s just saddening that the “rights vs. safety” frame taints what is otherwise an objective and fair posting.

kevin lawrence
3 years 2 months ago

It’s time, Anne Galloway, that you learned this lesson. Gun safety advocates are a 360 degree phenomenon. Who is against gun safety? You are making progress at being objective, but here’s an example of your regression.

David Usher
3 years 2 months ago

Garcia and Harriss make valid points. The language used in these controversial issues by journalists often smacks of political correctness that reveals their biases. Not that the biases can be eliminated because we all have them, journalists included.

Perhaps reporters and journalists should periodically reveal their leanings on various issues so we have full disclosure about where they stand. If they write editorials, we know their positions on an issue. Reporters are often wrongly assumed to be unbiased.

Robert Kenyon
3 years 2 months ago
Anne, thank you for an all-too-rare example of objective reporting. Keep up the good work! As other commentors have pointed out, law abiding gun owners promote firearm safety and education, from an early age. Gun ownership, sales and use are already “controlled” by a panpoly of State and Federal laws. Let’s call a spade a spade. I think a more accurate term for those who wish to chip away at our civil rights in order to impose collective punishment on law abiding gun owners for the actions of a few insane criminals, is “gun rights opponents”. Personally, I refer to… Read more »
sandra bettis
3 years 2 months ago

‘urging the Gov. Peter Shumlin to reject ANY attempt to restrict Vermont’s gun laws’ is so telling. nra = no reasonable attitude. oh yeh, and you are really ‘safe’ with a gun in the house – is that why it is 3 times more likely that those are the same homes that have gun fatalities? and 5 times more likely to have gun suicides? and don’t say – oh they would’ve done it anyway – it is 80% more likely they’ll die from a gunshot.

3 years 2 months ago

I don’t dispute your statistics, but I would dispute your premise.

Suicide is not a gun problem, it’s economics. We are at a point in US history where desperate people are realizing they have no options and no future, and they are acting accordingly.

Tools are not causes, just means to an end. A moratorium on home foreclosures would go a lot further in terms preventing suicidal behavior in our fellow Vermonters, no?

John Greenberg
3 years 2 months ago
“Suicide is not a gun problem, it’s economics” That’s a nice theory Justin, but the facts I’ve seen do not support it. Here are a few to chew on. In states which do not require background checks for gun purchases, gun suicides are considerably higher than in states which do (7.97 per 100,000 vs 4.09) (Mother Jones citing Mothers Against Illegal Guns and the CDC). http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks The Military Suicide Research Consortium presented a report to Congress last year (“Information Paper MCMR-RTO,” 18 July 2012) On page 4, they state: “Means restriction or reduction, which can occur on a population or… Read more »
David Bell
3 years 2 months ago

John,

Thanks for posting this comment.

I had been wondering the same thing, and I was going to ask if anyone actually had sources to back up Justin’s claims.

3 years 2 months ago

You guys really needed to look up data to confirm that “The likelihood of death is significantly higher when a suicide attempt involves highly lethal means” ?

I never would have disputed that. That is so obvious I don’t see how anyone would.

You’re still not even looking at what I am actually talking about: WHY people commit suicide. Way easier to address tools than causality, so I don’t blame you.

John Greenberg
3 years 2 months ago
Justin: I believe you’ve missed (or sidestepped)the point, which the rather academic tone of the language you quote may have concealed. People attempt suicide using a number of different means. If suicide were only about intention and motive, as you appear to suggest, then the means chosen wouldn’t matter: those who failed at their attempt with less lethal means would simply go on to finish themselves off with MORE lethal means. In other words, those who are, in your words, “desperate people … realizing they have no options and no future,” would SUCCEED in taking their lives equally WHATEVER means… Read more »
Ron Pulcer
3 years 2 months ago
Regarding this comment: “Suicide is not a gun problem, it’s economics” Economics???????????? What????????????????????? Right now, this week, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America are meeting in Washington DC in a “Storm The Hill” event to meet with members of Congress to address the very sad situation of the “backlog” of cases being handled by the Veterans Administration for Veterans returning from service, to civilian life, trying to deal with PTSD, medical, health, education, jobs and other issues. http://iava.org/ http://iava.org/blog/storm-hill-endthevabacklog This morning I listened to Paul Rieckhoff (IAVA Founder and CEO) and other IAVA members being interviewed on Stand Up… Read more »
Patrick Cashman
3 years 2 months ago
I wouldn’t get to excited about anything Mr. Rieckhoff has to say, he’s an opportunist who would desperately like to be taken as the Veterans’ Lorax who speaks for the veterans. He makes a decent living out of it ($150k per year from IAVA alone), better than he made out of his former group; OpTruth. It is in his best interest to portray as bleak a vision of veterans’ support as possible, using them to garner some version of gravitas or authority for himself. For a more nuanced and accurate portrayal of attitudes towards support of veterans I would recommend… Read more »
Ron Pulcer
3 years 2 months ago
Patrick, Thanks for the web link. I can buy the fact that maybe some people are overstating the Vet suicide problem. But as a taxpayer and citizen, I say even one Vet suicide is one too many. In response to the above “Suicide is not a gun problem, it’s economics” comment, it might apply to the general public in terms of unemployment, homelessness, etc. But as far as Vet suicides, that has nothing to do with the economy. It has to do with the faux-Patriotism of both parties in Congress that would send our military to war, to serve our… Read more »
Patrick Cashman
3 years 2 months ago
Ron, A few points. 1. I do begrudge Mr. Rieckhoff, not his salary but the manner in which he gets it. By exploiting the challenges of others without their consent. The manner in which he makes his wage ensures he has a vested interest in always dramatizing the problem, while ensuring no actual solutions are put in place. 2. Neither Mr. Rieckhoff nor his organization can be called lobbyists for veterans. There wasn’t a big Veterans Board of Directors meeting in which Mr. Rieckhoff was selected to represent anyone other than Mr. Rieckhoff. He is a self-appointed lobbyist, who steals… Read more »
Ron Pulcer
3 years 2 months ago
Patrick, Obviously, you know more about Paul Rieckhoff and IAVA than I do. But here is what I do know: My cousin’s son has served 9-10 years in the military, including time in Iraq. Thankfully, he is alive and well and now serving in a western U.S. State. He was the lead mechanic (sorry, don’t know his exact title then) on a military cargo/transport plane, traveling with the same pilot and same plane. For a time, he was stationed at airbase north of Baghdad. They transported wounded soldiers to a military hospital in Germany. En route, he would often sit… Read more »
Carl Fyrdman
3 years 2 months ago
Sandra, I find it curious that the political group which believes in the right to abort life, and supports “death with dignity” laws, claims that gun control needs to be enacted in order to prevent suicide. It does seem a bit of a logical inconsistency. Personally I am pro-liberty… pro-personal freedom: marry who you wish, choose how to expand your family or not, choose how to end your own life should you wish to, and choose to defend yourself as you wish. I would add a few remarks regarding some of the statistics. The oft quoted “gun owning homes have… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 2 months ago
Carl: Your argument relies on a totally unconvincing analogy. Groups who support gun control legislation in part to decrease the number of suicides are NOT trying to criminalize suicide, any more than providing birth control to render abortion unnecessary is limiting women’s right to choose. As a “pro-liberty… pro-personal freedom” advocate, you also acknowledge that you “don’t think suicide is a good thing.” Does it really contradict you pro-liberty stance to remove weapons which facilitate converting what is often a spur of the moment caprice into an irreversible act? If it does, I’d suggest giving your definition of liberty a… Read more »
Carl Fyrdman
3 years 2 months ago
John, You ask: “Does it really contradict you(r) pro-liberty stance to remove weapons which facilitate converting what is often a spur of the moment caprice into an irreversible act?” Yes, it does go against my pro-liberty stance when you are attempting to remove something that has a supposed Constitutional protection. And FYI, I have lost a loved one to suicide. Suicide sucks. I agree that the use of firearms makes the likelihood of success much higher. Furthermore, I agree that access to firearms means a split moment decision can become a permanent tragedy. Unfortunately, those are risks we must accept.… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 2 months ago
Carl. Thanks for your response. You write: “Yes, it does go against my pro-liberty stance when you are attempting to remove something that has a supposed Constitutional protection.” I assume from what you write subsequently, that the emphasis is far more on the removal of the right than the Constitution, but just in case, I suggest that you read Justice Stevens’ remarkably well-reasoned and carefully documented dissent in the Heller case, which certainly underscores the modifier “supposed” before the word Constitutional. Despite Heller, I believe the courts and the Court had in right for the first 200+ years of our… Read more »
krister adams
3 years 2 months ago

Carl: I find it utterly incredible that a group (Conservatives, Libertarians, etc.) that are all about anti-abortion, no-death-with-dignity,”family values”, anti-crime, god & country – claims that backgound checks and/or stricter gun-control measures are way out of line.!!??!!

Carl Fyrdman
3 years 2 months ago
Krister, Valid point. However you are lumping Libertarians in with the Republican Party. That is rather like lumping Communists with moderate Democrats. I was a libertarian for 15 yrs and left due to their environmental stance (which is anemic on global warming). While I am now a registered Independent, I can tell you that the Libertarian Party promotes a woman’s right to choose, freedom of (any) religion or lack thereof, supports death with dignity, marriage equality, and legalization of marijuana. Please do not lump them in with the “family values” Bible thumping section of the GOP. You’ll note that Ron… Read more »
Scott Chapman
3 years 2 months ago

I would like to clarify something about this article. One hundred percent of the letters and petitons delivered on Thursday were gathered by grass roots citizen from all areass of the Vermont, with the help of several in state organizations.

There was a representitive form the NRA present at the delivery on Thursday. However, the letters and petitions were not generated by the NRA.

sandra bettis
3 years 2 months ago

gun laws in vt? we are the most lax state in the union. that is why criminals come here to buy guns. if you are a gun owner and you don’t even think that private sales should have the same rules as gun dealers, well, then you are part of the problem. and, as far as suicide being about economics, tell that to all the families of the recent teenage suicides in vt.

Stuart Hill
3 years 2 months ago

How about the numbers to back up your claims about criminals coming to VT to buy guns. Real numbers from the FBI or other reliable UNBIASED source.

Kathy Leonard
3 years 2 months ago

http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/VT/exports/

Gun trafficking statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives

All information as of September 2010

Stuart Hill
3 years 2 months ago

Your “source” does not give any clue as to how the numbers were generated IE Uniform Crime Statistics from the FBI or pulled from thin air.

I rather doubt were the numbers legitimate they would have neglected to cite the source for their data.

Given the name of the website it hardly seems like an impartial source of information.

Please try again and thistimestick with a LEGITIMATE IMPARTIAL source.

John Greenberg
3 years 2 months ago

You write: “Your “source” does not give any clue as to how the numbers were generated IE Uniform Crime Statistics from the FBI or pulled from thin air.”

Not so.

If you click on “methodological note” on the web page referred to,” you’ll get sent to a link (http://www.tracetheguns.org/note.html) which then links to this report: http://www.tracetheguns.org/report.pdf, where the methodology is spelled out and documented.

The ultimate source is ATF, which tracks guns used in crime.

John Greenberg
3 years 2 months ago

My previous comment should have said BATF = Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

John Rogers
3 years 2 months ago
The “Trace the guns” report is interesting. It states that in 2009 there were 142 traced “crime guns” that were originally purchased in Vermont. The report doesn’t actually tell us how many of those guns reached criminal hands through private sales, theft, or other means, but it seems like a reasonable assumption that at least some of those 142 guns might have reached their destination through private sales. It’s not clear how many, if any, of the 142 had been originally sold to law enforcement agencies in VT. The report also tells us that the total number of guns traced… Read more »
Patrick Cashman
3 years 2 months ago
Two matters should be highlighted, one minor and one major. First the number of guns (“Interstate guns”) is only a small portion of all firearms used in commission of a crime, per the report from this interest group the BATF could only “trace” 61% of guns and of those only 30% of guns used by a criminal in commission of a crime originated in one state and were eventually seized in another. So essentially it expends a lot of effort to make claims about a portion of a portion of the problem while ignoring the whole. The second issue is… Read more »
Paul Gross
3 years 2 months ago

If the Governors and Mayors in New York and Massachusetts don’t want their criminals to come up here to “buy” our guns , maybe they should just keep their criminals locked up. After all , if their criminals “buy” their guns up here by trading dope for stolen guns, then one incarcerated creep solves TWO problems.

Bob Zeliff
3 years 2 months ago
Weapon that are designed by the military or for the military to be highly effect killers of people should not be treated the same way as a Vermonter’s hunting rifle. Under the existing National Fire Arms act, there is a well establish and controlled way for properly vetted individuals to buy, Machine guns, fully automatic guns and other weapons. One must pay $200 for the application and pass the existing criteria. This is fully compliant with the 2nd amendment. However the fire arms industry think these NFA controls are too onerous, would limit sales to qualified people, to restricting of… Read more »
Stuart Hill
3 years 2 months ago

Do you even know what forearms are restricted by the NFA?

I have not heard ANYTHING from anyone in the firearms industry that comes even remotely close to your bizarre allegations that, “However the fire arms industry think these NFA controls are too onerous”.

I would be greatly interested in seeing proof of such statements by anyone in the industry. If, such statements were ever made.

Bob Zeliff
3 years 2 months ago

You should read title 27 CFR, chapter 11, Part 478.
these existing laws allow properly vetted people to own many weapon including the so call assault weapons.

However the propaganda of the NRA and the industry imply that “govmt” wants to take people guns away.

Reasonable people want more control on assault weapons than those applied to my old 30-30

Stuart Hill
3 years 2 months ago

Bob you’ve yet to back up your claims about statments from the firearms industry.

Cut the smoke and pony up the proof on your claims.

—————————————-

“However the fire arms industry think these NFA controls are too onerous,”

Bob Zeliff March 17, 2013 at 1:29 pm

Bob Zeliff
3 years 2 months ago

As a long time hunter, and life member of the NRA ( the current NRA is not the organization I joined 30 years ago) i’ve found myself on many mailing lists.

I’m sure you seen some of these, too despite you question.

They preach fear, and encourage “buy’um while you can before Obama will take your guns away”

They do not say get the proper EXISTING Federal Fire Arms license and you can have your killing machine of choice.

krister adams
3 years 2 months ago
Sir, you seem absolutely over-the-top-zealous about maintaining our gun culture the way it is (deadly). Why not have mandatory background checks for ALL gun buyers and greatly restrict access to “gun shows”. What are you afraid of? The NRA has got yoyur back and is very much in the pocket of many Congressfolk. Nobody will take away your guns if you abide by the law. Nobody will infringe on your 14th Amendment rights – it’s my Right and the Rights of 20 dead schoolkids in CT, 12 dead people in CO, several dead worshippers in ILL, etc., etc., etc., to… Read more »
Robert Naess
3 years 2 months ago
From the vast number of responses to the Newtown tragedy by those opposed to private possession of firearms and in favour of restricting further the exercise of a right, not one has looked to the responsibility of those parents, town officials for the school and law enforcement who had the entire obligation to protect their children under their care. The constant mantra that “it is for the children” that these intrusions are made against the rights of citizens, has blinded those responsible for the safety of those very children. Despite the overwhelming media coverage over the last fifteen years of… Read more »
Peter Liston
3 years 2 months ago

“those opposed to private possession of firearms …”

That actually describes almost no one.

Walter Carpenter
3 years 2 months ago
“Despite the overwhelming media coverage over the last fifteen years of the school shootings, these same people have abdicated their true responsibility and clung to the absurd magical hope of “gun free zones” and an irrational phobia of firearms. ” An irrational phobia of firearms is it? Should we turn our schools into armed camps of barbed wire and armed guards and guard towers simply to protect our children from the mayhem inflicted by our national phobia of having as many unregulated, untraceable weapons out there in the hands of almost anyone who cares to own one to do whatever… Read more »
3 years 2 months ago

Walter is hitting the nail on the head. Thank you sir.

Walter Carpenter
3 years 2 months ago

Thank you, Rama:)

John Greenberg
3 years 2 months ago

Robert Naess is absolutely right. Any parent who doesn’t send his kid to school packing heat is clearly irresponsible. The answer to gun violence in school is clearly more guns.

Just in case, since some parents are going to shirk their responsibilities, we should have gun and ammo dispensers in school bathrooms and in every classroom. You just never know when a kid will need to defend him or herself.

Peter Liston
3 years 2 months ago

Every new student is issued an iPad and a Glock.

Jed Guertin
3 years 2 months ago

As we now know most of what is written is from a clear minority of Vermonters.

The 2nd Amendment states clearly “the right to bear arms.”

Please all of you who are so keen at making this a Second Amendment issue, define “arms.”

I assume you take the Founding Fathers at their word?

So define the term, if you dare.

Louis Sullivan
3 years 2 months ago

As defined by the Supreme Court: small arms in common use for legal purposes.

Jed Guertin
3 years 2 months ago
If you (or the Supreme Court) can go from the 2nd Amendment’s use of the generic term “arms” to “small arms” then there’s no reason that we can’t, within the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, exclude automatic and semi-automatic arms with large capacity magazines. The same holds true for specialized bullets. It’s all within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Just like the Supreme Court is out of bounds for carrying a gun. There’s no reason they should be allowed in stores or on the streets. Once you’ve defined “arms” as a subset, like “small arms” you have altered the… Read more »
Louis Sullivan
3 years 2 months ago
Uh, no. It isn’t like that at all. The scope of “arms” was not changed to mean small arms at all. It was determined that what was referred to simply as “arms” in the 1700’s matches what are referred to as “small arms” by today’s definition. The Supreme Court decided that what the 2nd amendment applies to are guns that can be carried and operated by one person for legal purposes. In the 1700’s these were called arms. Today, they are called small arms because other types of weapons have been invented. But that isn’t the real reason that people… Read more »
Jed Guertin
3 years 2 months ago
Using that 1700’s example, I agree there is no problem with people having muzzle loaders, etc. They were at the time the standard. I can even live with most modern hunting rifles and hand guns. The next level of “arms” would be a canon or mortar. A dozen people armed with an semi-automatic rifle with a reasonable amount of ammunition could easily eliminate a whole artillery battery in a heart beat. Or let’s try a M32 grenade launcher, smaller and lighter than a muzzle loader, yet shoots grenades up to 1/4 miles. And there are more os these nasty devices… Read more »
Louis Sullivan
3 years 2 months ago
Actually, the reason the term “small arms” is now used is to specifically exclude those weapons like grenade launchers. They are not small arms at all, and I think everyone can agree they are not what should be covered by the 2nd Amendment. As for your claim that semi-automatic weapons are killing machines that enable mass murder with childlike ease, I would suggest doing some research on firearms. An “assault weapon” is no more deadly than any semi-auto hunting rifle or pistol, the number of rounds in the magazine makes no difference in the number of people killed, and one… Read more »
Cheryl Pariseau
3 years 2 months ago
With the current media coverage of the recent shooting tragedies one thing was a constant… all these shooters were/are mental ill individuals. Why are we discussing restricting gun ownership for private, mentally stable, law abiding, individuals, but not addressing the real reason for theses shootings? More money needs to be spent on helping the mentally ill. Laws need to be made to make it easier to commit someone who is mentally ill. Resources need to be more readily available to assist family and friends of the mentally ill. The courts and law enforcement need to react in a most timely… Read more »
Walter Carpenter
3 years 2 months ago
“Why are we discussing restricting gun ownership for private, mentally stable, law abiding, individuals, but not addressing the real reason for theses shootings?” Cheryl, please tell me what the real reason for these shootings was? Was it because they were mentally ill? I do agree with you about providing more help to the mentally ill than we do now (doing this, of course, will mean we will need more money and we as a nation absolutely cannot raise taxes), rather than just tossing them in jail, but, as a survivor of a shooting, I want to know what the reason… Read more »
krister adams
3 years 2 months ago

Cheryl, I do agree mental health of our society is an issue that does not get enough attention/funding. However, for example, if the obviously mentally disturbed Mr. Lanza (Newtown) was not allowed to play ultra-violent video (they should be seriously restricted) games or go to shooting ranges or access weapons (or even be near them), 20 schoolkids would be alive troday.

Jed Guertin
3 years 2 months ago

I’d say that there are a few of the gun advocates posting here and on a lot of other sites that are on the verge of serious paranoia.

And without a good national gun and ammo registry system how will you ever know who should or should not have a gun. Especially, without trouncing on everyone’s right to privacy.

Robert Naess
3 years 2 months ago
Couple questions: Aside from the shooter and the gun, who do you feel is responsible for children’s safety at school? Where in the equation of school safety is an appropriate place for firearms? Intellectual exercise for all those whose opinions are based wholly on the idea that all guns are bad: Make a list of all the positive uses of firearms that you can think of, have been told about or researched on your own. Further suggestions for those who only get their incormation/opinions from the media: Find on the Internet and read: Heller vs US Observation: an armed intruder… Read more »
Bill Moore
3 years 2 months ago
Y’all, As the guy who wrote the press release and was interviewed by Anne Gallowy, thank you’all for your enthusiasm. Wow! Thank you again Anne for covering this event (if you can sink this far into the abyss). Vermont was a constitutional republic before the United States and by the way, before France went about slaughtering its monarchs and it’s democracy loving critics… We are empowered to exercise our democratic rights only under the restrictions we agreed to by our constitution; we do NOT live in a democracy. That way lies the tyranny of the majority. That way lies slavery… Read more »
Ron Pulcer
3 years 2 months ago
No matter how much “gun safety” training one gets, even a pro at the Secret Service can make a mistake: How the Secret Service Almost Shot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad The Atlantic Marc Ambinder and D.B. Grady March 20, 2013 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/deep-state/309260/ ‘One morning in September 2006, during the United Nations General Assembly, President George W. Bush’s daily intelligence brief contained a particularly chilling item. It was three sentences long, and it scared the hell out of the dozen or so White House officials cleared to read it. According to one official, it began, “A U.S. Secret Service agent, in an apparent accident,… Read more »
Robert Naess
3 years 2 months ago
MR. Greenberg responds: >Robert Naess is absolutely right. Any parent who doesn’t send his kid to school packing heat is clearly irresponsible. The answer to gun violence in school is clearly more guns. Just in case, since some parents are going to shirk their responsibilities, we should have gun and ammo dispensers in school bathrooms and in every classroom. You just never know when a kid will need to defend him or herself.< Of course, I didn't write that at all, nor did I imply it, so Mr Greenberg's reading comprehension is lacking, and such a response is both insulting,… Read more »
John Greenberg
3 years 2 months ago

Apparently Mr. Naess has never heard of irony. Enough said.

Walter Carpenter
3 years 2 months ago
“verified statistics and analysis of how firearms are actually used in the US positively and effectively for many purposes.” Here is a “verified statistic and analysis of how firearms are actually used in the US” While not all Americans, of course, use their weapons in this manner, that this is a manner in which guns are used in America cannot be denied. Some notable facts about the use of guns in America: 97, 820 people shot in America (years 2009-2010) 268 Americans shot per day 12,179 Americans murdered by guns http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/Facts/Gun_Death_and_Injury_Stat_Sheet_2008__2009_FINAL.pdf http://www.bradycenter.org/facts These macabre statistics do not include how many… Read more »
Richard Neugass
3 years 2 months ago

If just 10% fewer deaths occurred because states like Vermont and the federal government enacted and enforced “sensible” gun control laws, that would be approx. 1,200 fewer deaths from guns (per year?). If just one of the Newtown children who were murdered was YOUR child or grandchild or cousin or …, would you, Mr./Ms. gun owner, feel that nothing else could have been done to prevent that unspeakable tragedy?
Richard Neugass

3 years 2 months ago
The other evening I attended a school safety forum at the Williamstown Elementary School that was meant to inform the parents and community about some hardware security upgrades we were making to the building as well let folks know about the in-building emergency procedures. This forum was a very direct reaction to the ever increasing assaults by firearms on our nation’s children and young adults in our schools and more specifically the recent events at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Parents are justifiably worried about the safety of their children, and the school staff is appropriately concerned regarding their… Read more »
wpDiscuz
Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Gun rights groups bring nearly 5,000 letters and petitions to the gov..."