J. D. Heyes
Natural News 
Dec 17, 2012
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the spirit and intent of the Second Amendment – that individuals have a right to own firearms for self-defense inside and outside their own homes.
Despite the ruling, however, cities and states around the country still have rules and restrictions regarding gun ownership that the high court says are reasonable. Some of the most popular of those include limitations on where guns can be carried.
In the wake of the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., several voices around the country – many familiar voices, at that – are once again calling for even stricter gun rules, if not outright bans on some weapons. It’s a familiar refrain in the wake such a tragedy, as if stricter gun control would have prevented them. But as usual such calls ignore reality: The shooter in Connecticut, as in previous mass murders involving firearms, simply ignore rules barring them from carrying a gun to the place where they did their killing.
Lanza broke several gun laws – and the killings still happened
In Connecticut, the killer – Adam Lanza, 20 – broke at several state laws in committing his heinous crime, though not all of them were gun-related.
First, Connecticut state law requires residents to be 21 years old in order to possess a handgun; Lanza was 20. Second, you have to have a permit in order to carry a handgun on your person in the state; Lanza did not have a permit. Third, “it is unlawful in Connecticut to possess a firearm on public or private elementary or secondary school property, a statute Lanza clearly ignored,” WorldNetDaily reported.
Lanza may have committed another violation as well. If it’s learned that Lanza did indeed possess a Bushmaster .223 caliber weapon that resembled an M-16, he will have violated a state law prohibiting possession of an “assault weapon.”
Also, residents of Newtown and the state of Connecticut are forbidden from bringing a gun  on school grounds; Lanza walked right through that rule (though we ought to have a discussion, as Natural News editor Mike Adams has brought up, about allowing qualified teachers to be armed).
It’s important to note as well that Lanza did not actually own any of the weapons he used; he stole them from his mother. Furthermore, Lanza, according to reports, broke into the Sandy Hook Elementary School to commit his heinous murders – another legal violation.
Not to mention the multiple acts of murders he committed.
What’s clear that despite a number of gun-related and non-gun related statutes on the books in Connecticut that were aimed at preventing precisely the crimes committed by Lanza, he committed them anyway. So how will more gun control  laws help?
We have sentenced too many Americans to death
“I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., one of the co-sponsors of the 1994 legislation that resulted in a 10-year ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
“We have been through this too many times,” President Obama added. “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.”
That’s not enough for Mr. Ban himself – New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
“Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough,” said Bloomberg, who leads the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. “We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today.”
More gun control – restricting possession of firearms from Americans who the Supreme Court says have a right to self-defense – is akin to sentencing more of our citizens to death.
That is what must end today.