U.S. Rep. John Larson Calls For Gun Control Talks

In a statement issued this weekend Connecticut's First District Democrat said "politics be damned" in the wake of the Newtown shootings.


Connecticut Congressman John Larson, D-First District, called this weekend for a serious political debate on the issue of gun control following the Newtown shootings that killed 26 people, 20 of them children.

In a statement issued Saturday Larson said "politics be damned" and that it's time for the country to face the issue head-on.

"Friday was a day of mourning, but the time to act is now upon us. To do nothing in the face of continuous assaults on our children is to be complicit in those assaults. There may not be a single cure-all for the violence in our nation, however we must start the process and begin the deeper and longer conversations that need to take place. Politics be damned. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in our nation's history, half of them have happened in the last five years. And there is not a single person in America who doesn't fear it will happen again. It's time we recognize the danger and address it."

In a memorial vigil Sunday night in Newtown President Obama also touched on the subject of gun control, saying America is not doing enough to keep its children safe.

Many of Connecticut's lawmakers have been mostly silent on the politically-charged issue of gun control in the wake of the shootings. Their constituents, however, have not. Thousands of them have taken to social media and other outlets to call for gun control, and to argue against it.

Stephen C. Brown December 18, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Who cares what the Founders would think. Our system was founded at least in part as a reaction to tyranny. We should not exchange past colonial tyranny for a tyranny of the Founders. What works, we keep, what does not, we discard. Dead men, no matter how great have no vote.
Will Wilkin December 18, 2012 at 09:43 PM
Books don't kill people. Guns do. We cannot shoot our way out of our problems.
John M. Joy December 18, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Don't be disingenuous - I was responding to your comment up top. "People" means "people" not "militia" and the Founders were pretty clear about writing "state" when they meant "state" and "people" when they meant it.
Will Wilkin December 18, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Well, John, first of all, I agree with Stephen Brown below, "original intent" is another form of tyranny, in the sense of opposing our ability to change laws as the world changes. That ability is vital to good government. Second of all, I wasn't being disingenuous at all. Let's just argue the issue, not each other's motives. Let's argue as friends seeking better understanding. To me, the well-regulated militia has always been the missing part of the application of the Second Amendment. The Founders left that open to interpretation, and I can easily imagine restricting the right of gun ownership to, well, members of a well-regulated militia. Militia were organized locally for defense of the community, not individual homestead. Militia were, to the Founders, organized and disciplined units subject to being called into service by the state or federal government, and subject to court martial for defying orders. They amounted to conscription in some cases. And they were in the context of mass rebellions and Indian wars on the frontier. It was a politically fluid time, a revolutionary era. I haven't yet formulated my thinking on what today's America needs in terms of gun laws, definitely what we have now is a massive, deadly failure. Compare America's super high gun death per capita to the rest of the world. We are at the top. It is a classic cycle of violence. At some point, we have to figure out how to break it. That means serious change.
John M. Joy December 18, 2012 at 10:46 PM
...but the Founders also understood basic dynamics of human nature. That hasn't changed: human beings still behave more or less the same way now as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. And yes, the assumption was always there would be a Militia of the Whole; namely that ALL able-bodied citizens would comprise it. But reading what they wrote, what they seemed to recognize more than anything else is (1) the possession of arms as the mark of a freeman, and (2) the need for checks and balances. As for the Tyranny of Original Intent... frankly, I'm more concerned about a REAL tyranny: of an ensconced and untouchable political establishment (and hangers-on) ruling a population of dependent and vulnerable serfs. I am not willing to live that way.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »