Nine years ago, a deranged gunman blasted his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. He murdered 20 children and six educators, including the principal, Dawn Hochsprung. The children were all 6- and 7-year-olds. Teachers shielded their children as best they could, and some died while protecting the children.
Many thought this slaughter of babies and educators would compel Congress to enact meaningful gun control. It didn’t. It even inspired a ruthless radio host to claim that the massacre never happened. Many grieving parents received death threats, due to the radio host’s lies. A court has held him liable for his cruel campaign. Meanwhile the murders continue, and Congress does nothing.
I received this message from Sandy Hook Promise, which continues to advocate for gun control:
Nine years ago today, our children and loved ones were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary.
There are no words to describe how deeply we miss them, or how agonizing it is to mark another year since the last hug, smile or laugh we shared with them.
It’d bring such comfort to know you’re standing with us today. Will you sign our remembrance card to honor the precious lives taken from us? http://lil.ms/cydj/8zthf9
-Sandy Hook Promise
Since December 14 also is the date on which my beloved two-year-old died of leukemia many, many years ago, I grieve with and for with the parents of Sandy Hook, and with all families who have lost a child. You never forget.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The ruthless conspiracy theory spreading Alex Jones lost in court for his lies about Sandy Hook. I hope and pray that Jones ends up broke and homeless.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/16/1056082127/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-found-liable-for-defamation-in-sandy-hook-case
From 12-2-2015 via CNN: Washington CNN —
Donald Trump is heaping praise on a radio host who has asserted that the U.S. government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11 terrorist attacks.
“Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down,” Trump told Alex Jones during a Wednesday afternoon appearance on the Infowars.com proprietor’s show.
Jones shared the love, telling Trump that “my audience, 90% of them, they support you.” end quote
Two twisted, vicious and babbling terror clowns who pollute the public discourse with their every utterance and exhalation.
A wish I share.
I am so sorry – this must always be a very difficult day for you. Thinking of you, and the parents who lost children at Sandy Hook Elementary, and the family of the principal on this heartbreaking anniversary.
^^I should have said I am thinking of the families of the principal and the other incredibly brave educators who sacrificed their lives to try to protect their students on this day.
And the Court is about to gut more gun control.
Who would have thought nine years ago that gun regulation and proliferation would be much, much worse? Well, NRA members, probably.
Not sure what you mean by your question. Please clarify. Thanks.
People who are dues-paying members of the NRA support an organization that has made a mission of ensuring a false narrative of the origin and early history of the second amendment is embedded into public consciousness and law (accomplished); changed the organization from one that was based on gun safety and responsible gun ownership–actually, now that I think about it, this was consistent with how the founders might have viewed this–into one that is unconditional on every issue of its most radical wing (accomplished); exercise a veto power over a majority in Congress, regardless of the issue (accomplished); I’m sure others can add more. But to answer my “question”–the second part of which was a statement–the answer to both is yes. It’s influence is grotesquely (now I sound a bit like Newt!) out of proportion with consistent public opinion about sensible gun policies. Unquestionably grassroots NRA members who somehow continue do deny a direct link between the paying of their annual dues and the accomplishments above are delusional. Does that clarify?
Anyone, including law enforcement, who walk around with a loaded firearm in public is an unethical firearm owner/user. The only exception is when a law enforcement agent is called to a situation where a firearm is thought to be involved.
I wonder when our citizens decided that it was okay to walk around with a loaded weapon, whether concealed or not? I was brought up/trained that the only time one’s weapon should be loaded is when that person is hunting or at the target practice range and one is ready to pull the trigger. At all other times the firearm should be unloaded/completely empty of any rounds, properly transported to and from hunting and target practicing and safely stored at one’s home. Anything less is unethical gun usage.
“I wonder when our citizens decided that it was okay to walk around with a loaded weapon, whether concealed or not?” I was going to flippantly answer 1865 (thinking of the Wild West era). Then I read https://concealedcarryftlauderdale.com/concealed-carry-history#:~:text=The%20first%20laws%20to%20be,carry%20of%20firearms%20all%20together
which opens “Many people believe that concealed carry laws and other laws pertaining to firearms in this country are already too restrictive but the fact is that today we have far more freedom than during any other time in our country’s history.” Concealed carry was banned over the course of the 19thC. Many additional restrictions, then licensing, began in the early 20thC. A rash of easing began (where else, when else) in FL in the late ‘80’s.
I tended to blame all on NRA, i.e., growth of $corporate clout under & since Reagan. But it’s just the legal arm of a cultural backlash. The anti-govt stance. Long popular in rural America, simmering at a higher boil since late-‘60’s, unleashed by Reagan & company. Oxymoronically considered highly patriotic [as in, a return to the Wild West?!] Politically, it’s libertarianism. But socially what it smells like to me is one of the consequences of widening rich-poor gap. Guns propping up those with a sense of declining agency.
“The anti-govt stance”Unleashed by Reagan. I think you better go back a little further perhaps Johnson and I don’t mean Lyndon.
Joel, I don’t necessarily agree with you, but on second thought, you make it hard not to do so. Perhaps I just need a little time.