Here we go. As Twitchy reported this morning, NYC mayor Nanny Michael Bloomberg called for new gun control measures and pressured President Obama on Twitter to reinstitute the assault weapons ban. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) double-teamed with Bloomberg and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) by cranking up the anti-gun heat on Twitter this afternoon.

Initial reaction to Sen. Gillibrand’s tweet on social media was mixed:

Calmer heads on Twitter note that Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban in place and already has among the strictest gun regulations in the country:

Read Connecticut’s gun control laws for yourself.

And related: Lanza reportedly tried to buy rifle, was denied.

Sobering, inconvenient truth:

  • killdozerd11R

    Di Fi never let a good headline tragedy slip past no matter what

    She has a CCW try getting one of those in California…Only the privileged and law enforcement and sometimes cops can’t get them

  • Blake Waymire

    This pretty much goes how I expect liberal thoughts to go: [something bad happens] [libs campaign for more laws and spending]

  • Gksam10

    I don’t see why we can’t at least try the laws. The counter argument seems to be that it won’t work, but I don’t think you can say that before we try. And it won’t make it worse, right?

    • http://granitegrok.com/author/mike Mike Rogers

      Absolutely won’t help, and will randomly make criminals out of some existing gun owners.
      Permitting adults with carry permits into the schools will help. Look how often we hear of the good sense and bravery of the teachers.

      • Gksam10

        If they aren’t convicts, they shouldn’t have to worry about their guns being taken away. I also think that argument is ridiculous. There are implications to allowing guns in schools and other vulnerable places. It poses additional safety risks we don’t want to worry about. It makes more sense to work at reducing the amount of guns. More guns = more shootings.

        • journogal

          Explain Chicago

        • http://granitegrok.com/author/mike Mike Rogers

          More madmen = more killings. Guns are just a tool, and if not available, those inclined toward mass killings will use other methods, such as bombs.
          arm the teachers.

        • http://granitegrok.com/author/mike Mike Rogers

          The argument that the fascists always use, is that they don’t mean any harm to sane legal existing gun owners, even as they pass laws criminalizing the possession of “scary-looking” guns, and then proceed to treat as criminals those who have owned guns for years.
          We have nothing to fear, they say, and then break down our doors to seize our previously legally guns. We’ll be perfectly safe, they say, as long as the police are armed, while brownshirts roam the streets. Modern society doesn’t need guns, they say, but tyrants always love an unarmed populace: Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Chavez… (Obama?)
          I have a couple of simple weapons for self defense, and they are locked away, but if society goes to hell, I’ll be very glad to have them handy. However, if the government criminalizes guns, I ain’t giving them up.
          All the same arguments, every time. Some countries are unarmed and peaceful – wrong – murders still happen. Less guns means less murders – no – just more knife and blunt object murders, instead. Gun free zones save lives – no, they are murder magnets.
          I grew up in Britain, where the police were almost entirely unarmed, and did not need to be, a small percentage of the populace were legally armed, and most didn’t bother. Kids trespassing on farms had a reasonable expectation of a butt full of birdshot, while the farmer had a reasonable expectation of not being prosecuted for defending his property.
          In the ’90s, there was a high school massacre, and almost all gun ownership was outlawed. Murders increased anyway, police now carry guns, and property owners are criminalized even for defensive measures such as barred and locked sheds (criminal might get hurt breaking in). And don’t forget the mad taxi driver who managed to get a shotgun, years after the ban, and go on a rampage anyway.
          Assault weapons are a clear cut case of Alinskyite tactics meets constitutional rights: pick the target, polarize it, demonize it, etc. A gun is a gun, and we have the right to defend ourselves, even against tyrannical government, but the gun grabbers want to drive a wedge into our rights by demonizing a vaguely described subtype of guns, and then expanding the definition until we have nothing left, but our manacled fists.
          I didn’t understand the need for guns when I came to the USA, but I read history, studied the founders, and became a constitutionalist. I wish the kids were taught more about out history: our founders were the finest students of human nature in the history of the world, and we ignore their teachings at our peril.

          • Gksam10

            Connecting Obama with those other leaders invalidates your entire comment, but I read it anyways. Think about the Constitution. At the time that was written in, I don’t think domestic violence (within our nation, like the shootings) really existed. Mass shootings didn’t happen among Americans back then. In fact, I personally interpret that specific amendment as indicating for Americans to be armed lest we needed a militia to fight some foreign force invading our country. Then, the guns were needed. However, things are different these days and that needs to be taken into account.

            Also. less guns does equal less murders; less mass murders, to be specific. It’s much more difficult to commit the same atrocity with a knife/blunt object. You heard about the school in China, right? A lot of times, that’s how it goes.

            And, in regards to gun-free zones, I think the idea of getting rid of those zones isn’t plausible.”arm the teachers.” Both my aunt and my grandma have been teachers for many years. The last thing they would say they want is to be handed a gun and asked to shoot somebody. Yikes.

            It’s not about driving a wedge into your rights specifically. It’s about our country. Some people should be allowed to have guns: they’ve earned it through good behavior and not being in trouble with the law. But anybody who has a history of violence should in no way be permitted to have a gun.

            One more thing: “fascists”? Come on. Let’s be reasonable.

          • Michael Rice

            Are you really this dense. During teh time the COnstitution was written guns were everywhere. Yet, no mass shootings Why is that?
            The knife attack info you fail to emntion is that large knives are regulated in China. That guy had to shwo id and register the knife. Did it stop anything? Guess ti is time to ban knives. They are alive, yeah, because they are lucky.
            DO you really think ti would have been all so difficult for him to walk in stab the teacher than slit thet hroats of the kids?
            Gun attacks have, at times, resulted in no deaths….are you goign to say no big deal now?
            This guy was not permitted to have guns now….laws do not stop peopel bent on getting them WHy can’t you open your eyes and see that?
            I remember a federal building on OKC being blown up with no guns. How much dmaage would be done with a dozen pipe bombs. One classroom, drop teh bomb move on…you are clueless.
            The school in Newton was in a gun free zone, how did that help in any way?

          • http://granitegrok.com/author/mike Mike Rogers

            Thanks for the debate.
            Fascists? Yes. Remember that, despite Stalin’s protests to the contrary, fascism is simply a version of Leftist tyranny. It was Lenin, Stalin, and their useful idiots that created and propagated the idea that Fascism was the opposite of Communism, when in fact the two ideologies are blood brothers. Fast forward two or three decades, and the sixties radicals were calling every kind of conservative limited-government group Nazis and Fascists, while they were seeking government control of our lives.
            Obama? Let’s see…. Friends with Hugo Chavez, check. Endorsed by the Castros, check. Supported the dictatorial ambitions of Manual Zelaya in Honduras, check (and Hillary did, too), ignores constitutional limits on himself and the executive branch, check. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Von Bismarck were not available for comment.
            Now, back to those pesky founders and their parchment. Having read widely, and in some cases traveled widely, having studied the best legal minds, parliamentarians, economists, historians and philosophers of the preceding two millennia, these geniuses understood that the ultimate weakness in any system of government established by men, is the lust for power in the men elevated to rule. They determined that a federal republic, with strong state, county, and town governments, backed by the determination of the people not “to be reduced to subjects of absolute despotism”, was the best form. The ability of the sovereign states to raise militia was as much to prevent tyranny of the majority, as to repel external invasions. The right of the citizen to defend himself and his property from theft or seizure (except as judged by a jury of his peers), was absolute.
            Today, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, still shall not be infringed, but, like rust, politicians keep trying to nibble it away.
            You say law abiding citizens have nothing to fear, but being disarmed in times of trouble, or in bad neighborhoods, is something to fear. Leftist politicians (I include ‘fat’head Bloomberg) have created the worst hellholes in which to live, while simultaneously criminalizing gun possession by non-felons.
            You say that responsible gun carrying in certain places is too scary for you to contemplate, but don’t consider that preventable massacres are scarier. Your teacher friend or relative doesn’t want I carry? Fine. Let those who wish to protect their young charges choose to do so. Wouldn’t it be nice to see a sign at a mall “Guns welcome. Rowdy behavior or bullying will NOT be tolerated!” (ok, that’s intentionally provocative)
            Think about Fort Hood. Hundreds of responsible, trained, gun users disarmed by policy and many of them killed by one fanatic who took advantage of the situation. Or the schools and colleges where responsible teachers and adult students are disarmed, but the madman doesn’t care about the rules.
            The two problems with gun control are that criminals don’t care about the rules, and government wants a monopoly on force. So, do you feel safer being disarmed, punk, well, do ya?

          • Gksam10

            Connecting Obama with those other leaders invalidates your entire comment, but I read it anyways. Think about the Constitution. At the time that was written in, I don’t think domestic violence (within our nation, like the shootings) really existed. Mass shootings didn’t happen among Americans back then. In fact, I personally interpret that specific amendment as indicating for Americans to be armed lest we needed a militia to fight some foreign force invading our country. Then, the guns were needed. However, things are different these days and that needs to be taken into account.

            Also. less guns does equal less murders; less mass murders, to be specific. It’s much more difficult to commit the same atrocity with a knife/blunt object. You heard about the school in China, right? A lot of times, that’s how it goes.

            And, in regards to gun-free zones, I think the idea of getting rid of those zones isn’t plausible.”arm the teachers.” Both my aunt and my grandma have been teachers for many years. The last thing they would say they want is to be handed a gun and asked to shoot somebody. Yikes.

            It’s not about driving a wedge into your rights specifically. It’s about our country. Some people should be allowed to have guns: they’ve earned it through good behavior and not being in trouble with the law. But anybody who has a history of violence should in no way be permitted to have a gun.

            One more thing: “fascists”? Come on. Let’s be reasonable.

        • Michael Rice

          Durign the Old West children carried guns to and from school. No mass shootings. Less guns in Chicago, DC, and Mexico…how are the crime rates in thsoe places?
          Australia banned guns and their violent crime rate went up. Rape jumped, I beleive, by 40 percent.

    • JustLikeAnimals

      It will absolutely make it worse. You will disarm law-abiding citizens, making them easy targets for illegally armed criminals. Criminals don’t give a damn about gun control laws because they’re……uhm……..CRIMINALS!!!!!

    • Michael Rice

      Those laws you want to try have been tried in many places. They don’t work. They make things worse.

  • Jack Deth

    Stupid, idiotic, moronic Democrats!

    The Clinton Assault Weapons Ban did NOTHING to stop crimes and murders. All it did was criminalize earlier purchases.

    Why do liberals and Democrats think that laws and bans will fix everything?
    When criminals by definition DO NOT obey the law!!!

  • SoCalUtahFan

    Feinstein is being silly — no surprise here.
    Crazy people killed innocent people.
    Tough gun laws will not help — look at the Norway killing in July 2011.
    http://wp.me/p28mLX-u0

  • BeyondPolls

    It won’t even pass the Senate. I dare Dirty Harry to bring it to the floor.

  • Neil Leininger

    Was there even an assault weapon used in this tragedy?

  • George Washington Mclintock

    Laws which don’t do squat. Assault weapons are all over Ct’s cities and towns. People of all backgrounds have them . In the cities, their sometimes sold out of trunks.

  • JustLikeAnimals

    Someone needs to remind these panic-stricken psychopaths that criminals don’t give damn all about the guns laws they pass. All they’re doing is disarming law abiding citizens and turning them into easy targets for illegally armed criminals. I am disappointed that elected officials are so slight of intelligence so as to be completely unable to see the fallacy of their knee-jerk reactions. Doing “something” for the sake of doing something is an immature and dangerous motivation for setting national policy and trampling on the Constitution. God save our Republic.

  • michael s

    Gillibrand is doing this because this is how politicians in NYS must be.Kirsten used to have a 100% NRA rating. She was even called the Sarah Palin of the east. When Governor Patterson picked her to replace Hillary, she did a 360. She realized in NY you don’t get far being pro gun 2nd amendment.