Advocates for gun control take to D.C. streets

People walk from the U.S. Capitol to the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013, during a march for gun control. / AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Last Updated 3:53 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON Thousands of people, many holding signs with names of gun violence victims and messages such as "Ban Assault Weapons Now," joined a rally for gun control on Saturday, marching from the Capitol to the Washington Monument.

Leading the crowd were marchers with "We Are Sandy Hook" signs, paying tribute to victims of the December school shooting in Newtown, Conn. Washington Mayor Vincent Gray and other city officials marched alongside them. The crowd stretched for at least two blocks along Constitution Avenue.

Play Video

Gun control advocates march on Washington

Participants held signs reading "Gun Control Now," "Stop NRA" and "What Would Jesus Pack?" among other messages. Other signs were simple and white, with the names of victims of gun violence.

About 100 residents from Newtown, where a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six teachers, traveled to Washington together, organizers said.

Participant Kara Baekey from nearby Norwalk, Conn., said that when she heard about the Newtown shooting, she immediately thought of her two young children. She said she decided she must take action, and that's why she traveled to Washington for the march.

"I wanted to make sure this never happens at my kids' school or any other school," Baekey said. "It just can't happen again."

• Some Calif. school officers have assault rifles
• Thousands join pro-gun rallies in state capitals
• NRA, Congress stymied CDC gun research budget
• Newtown mother's fight for gun control amid grief

Once the crowd arrived at the monument, speakers called for a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition and for universal background checks on gun sales.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan told the crowd it's not about taking away Second Amendment gun rights, but about gun safety and saving lives. He said he and President Barack Obama would do everything they could to enact gun control policies.

Participants carry signs in the March on Washington for Gun Control, January 26, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

/ YURI GRIPAS/AFP/Getty Images

"This is about trying to create a climate in which our children can grow up free of fear," Duncan said. "This march is a starting point; it is not an ending point ... We must act, we must act, we must act."

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.'s non-voting representative in Congress, said the gun lobby can be stopped, and the crowd chanted back, "Yes, we can."

"We are all culpable if we do nothing now," Norton said

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[camillon]

ppenall of these protestor can thank they american gun builders for making this protest happen yep pink for her blue for him they only limit there needs to be what ever you can carry and rockets yes no rockets

[1pheasant1]

ElBunto says:
It is inexcusable to exploit the misery of innocents for political gain. Further, the exploitation of their own children in having them carry signs they do not understand for a misguided political protest makes them suspect in regards to responsible parenting.
_________________________________________________

I doubt a parade of twenty open caskets of the Newtown children would have moved you. It would have solidified your belief that children should be seen, and not heard.

[CWStevenson01]

Today, Chicago toughest gun control laws - 7 killed, 6 wounded. Apparently someone forgot to tell these criminals that gun control laws save lives.

[rednomo]

"Those folks are called criminals. Your proposed laws affect me though, who happens to be a law-abiding citizens."

Really, did the shooters in any of the mass murders you can list have criminal backgrounds prior to them going off?

And do you really thing the kids in those schools or the folks that went out to just see a movie gave a s*** if the semi-automatics that were used to murder them in cold blood was,"recoil operated and gas operated."

You are a lost cause dude.

[seabass6251]

Sure. The kid in Newtown became a criminal when he stole weapons. He furthered his criminal behavior when he killed his mother. Only after becoming a thief and murderer did he commit more crimes.

That's kind of my point. Victims of gun violence are victims because of someone else's actions. The firearm used is of no consequence.

[MRPAULGE0RGE]

That's the thing about freedom - you don't get to decide for someone else or restrict what they can or cannot buy on the ASSumption that there is the smallest chance it might be used illegally.

Would it have made a bit of difference in the outcome regardless of weapon? Not a bit.

Someone intent on causing as much harm as possible is not going to let some silly ban get in their way.

[rednomo]

Keep going hotshot, what is the primary function of the TEC-DC9 9-mm semi-automatic handgun and the AR 15 semi assault weapon?

a) hunting

b) killing as many people as quickly as possible

[seabass6251]

Your assumption is that law-abiding citizens primarily own these weapons for offensive use.

As far as hunting, yes.

As far as self-protection, they are used defensively.

[MRPAULGE0RGE]

The primary function with any weapon is to allow you to even the playing field or gain an advantage over a potential threat.

The fact that someone might use something offensively is not a reasonable excuse to prohibit me from owning it for defensive purposes.

[rednomo]

"Lesson 1: You're changing the situation from close quarters to the field of battle. Shotguns are by far and away more effective in close quarters. As far as the battlefield, there are no more efficient at dispensing targets than those with bolt-action rifles.

Lesson 2: What are the targets hit per rounds fired?

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

A shotgun is the best home defense or close quarters offensive shoulder-fired weapon in use today and for the last 200+ years."


So why do we need AR 15s in mentality ill, deranged civilian's hands??

[seabass6251]

Those folks are called criminals. Your proposed laws affect me though, who happens to be a law-abiding citizens.

An AR-15 is second behind shotguns for home defense and reaches into hunting and sport when a shotgun often does not.

And you still don't know what you're talking about.

[rednomo]

"Then NOBODY needs to get educated about the different firearms and their uses instead of believing liberal propoganda."

Okay, educate hotshot, what's the difference in the firing mechanisms of the two TEC-DC9 9-mm semi-automatic handguns used in the Columbine massacre versus the AR 15 semi assault weapon used in Aurora Colorado and Connecticut school massacre?

[seabass6251]

Recoil operated and gas operated.

What else you got? Do you even know the difference?

[seabass6251]

Nothing else?

[rednomo]

According to the Pulitzer Price winning, non-partisan website Politifact, 10% of the NRA's statements are rated as "mostly false", 30% "false" and another 20% get the sites worst of the worst rating of "pants on fire false."

Do the math...

[seabass6251]

Those figures would double for liberals.

[rednomo]

Look Einstein you can spin this nine ways to Sunday but NOBODY in their right mind is going to agree with you that a shotgun has the same killing capacity as an assault weapon with a 100 round magazine - that is absolutely ludicrous!

[seabass6251]

Then NOBODY needs to get educated about the different firearms and their uses instead of believing liberal propoganda.

[rednomo]

seabass6251 (wonderlic) replies:

"To the rest of your post, which highlights your ignorance of firearms, the Colorado shooter could have done much more damage in shorter order with a couple of pump action shotgun loaded with #4 Buck."

"So, to blame a "semi-automatic" rifle that shoots exactly one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, like all the others, is off-based."

Lesson One:

Are you telling me our troops would be just as safe with single shot weapons? That is basically what you are saying, there's no difference if we follow your planet wing-nut logic. And, if there is no difference why do we need semi-assault weapons at all, again following your logic, not mine.

Lesson Two (the Trouble with the Truth):

According to the Columbine Report on the massacre that took place there:


Shots Fired:
Dylan --
TEC-DC9 9-mm semi-automatic handgun fired:
outside the school: 3, inside the school: 31, library: 21
(total 55)

Shotgun rounds fired:
outside the school: 2, inside the school: 4, library: 6
(total 12)
Total rounds fired: 67 (55 from semi-auto)

Eric --
TEC-DC9 9-mm semi-automatic handgun fired:
outside the school: 47, inside the school: 36, library: 13
(total 96)

Shotgun rounds fired:
inside the school: 4, Library: 21
(total 25)
Total rounds fired: 121 (96 from semi-auto)

Tell me again about there being no difference in firepower between a shotgun and a semi-assault weapon...

[seabass6251]

Lesson 1: You're changing the situation from close quarters to the field of battle. Shotguns are by far and away more effective in close quarters. As far as the battlefield, there are no more efficient at dispensing targets than those with bolt-action rifles.

Lesson 2: What are the targets hit per rounds fired?

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

A shotgun is the best home defense or close quarters offensive shoulder-fired weapon in use today and for the last 200+ years.