E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas weigh in on the gun control debate raging in Washington with Schumer calling the universal background check the "sweet spot" both sides support.
Hours before President Barack Obama's official swearing-in to a second term, top Democrats predicted a victory for the broadest component of the White House's push to change the nation's gun laws.
During an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Chuck Schumer, N.Y., called legislation to institute universal background checks for gun buyers "the sweet spot."
"In terms of actually making us safer and having a good chance of passing, this is it," Schumer said on Sunday.
"I think you're going to see [the very likelihood] in the next week or two a proposal that has broad support for universal background checks," he added.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, argues for a return to the assault weapons ban and backs the president's executive actions.
Schumer's confidence echoed the comments of White House senior adviser David Plouffe, who said on CNN Sunday that he's confident the president will have the votes in Congress to pass key parts of his gun control agenda because public opinion has shifted in the wake of the Newtown school shooting last month.
"Newtown has changed the debate," Plouffe said. "Sadly, it took a tragedy like that, but you’re seeing a lot of people -- by the way Democrats and Republicans -- think differently about this issue since this tragedy."
"I think there's 60 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House if votes will come up for some of these gun safety measures like clips, like universal background checks, absolutely," he added. "There is a consensus in America on this, and I think we can get there here on Capitol Hill."
Obama unveiled a sweeping proposal last week that included the background check measure, limits on the capacity of ammunition clips, and a ban on assault weapons. Supporters of the plan point to overwhelming public support for the background check legislation; the assault weapons ban is far more divided along partisan lines.
Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, said that Obama has exploited the mass shooting in Newtown in order to pass a pre-existing legislative agenda that caters to his political base.
"This is not designed to actually solve the problem of violent crime. This is designed to assuage liberal partisans" on the issue of gun control, he said on Meet the Press.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, argues President Barack Obama took advantage of the mass murder that occurred in Conn. to push further gun control measures.
Cruz questioned the need to place further restrictions on gun shows, where critics say it is too easy to buy a firearm.
"There actually isn't the so-called 'gun show loophole.' That doesn't exist," he said. "Any licensed firearm dealer who sells at a gun show has to have a background check."
Another Republican senator suggested Sunday that the gun legislation may not even come up for a vote in the United States Senate, where Democratic leader Harry Reid faces tough politics when it comes to swing-state Democrats who are up for re-election in 2014.
"I would really welcome the opportunity to have a fair and open debate on that in the United States Senate," said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming on CNN.
"But I don't think Senator Harry Reid even brings it to the Senate floor because he has six Democrats up for election in two years in states where the president received fewer than 42 percent of the votes."
Leave a Comment:
Sadly not much it is going to be done about Gun control. Republicans are to busy looking after what is good for the party and not for the people They are supposed to serve. Unless you are The Governor of New Jersey.
NRA also supports universal background check...in principle.
.
at least this can be done. Senators believe votes are there for this in both houses.
Hey piggy, my friend the "volunteer troll" (not paid). As many times as we disagree, I am with you on this one. I, as you know, am one of those "gun nuts" you like to talk about. I too support better background checks, more info in the data base. We need to do whatever we can to keep guns out of the hands of "nut cases and crooks" Have a good one.
most laws are already in place hand have achieved absolutely nothing.
what about the other executive orders...er i mean ..."actions" ....that were signed into law last week with no one knowing what the majority of them were. if those 23 "actions" dealt with this as claimed, why do we need more?
So the libs want to make sure they check you out before you buy a gun (which I agree with) but they don't care about checking you out before you vote. Very strange!!
Is this really more important than our current economic status? I do not wish for anyone shot, ever. That being said I am more concerned with feeding my family and paying my mortgage on time than 30 rd magazines. Oh wait, Obama is back in today. I can just quit my job, fill bankruptcy, go on welfare(I have 2 kids so that will cover my drugs, and my access card will cover food, my rent will only be $17 a month, and I can even get a free cell phone.). And we are worried about gun magazines? Thanks Barry!
If there was a requirement that elected officials pass a psychological evaluation, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein would not be qualified to serve as an elected official.
We already have a background check. ENOUGH.
The real problem in this is if this passes then the Democrats will write the law and slip in more than was passed. The anti American values of the Democratic platform is to promote their Socialistic agenda regardless what the American people want.
I support universal background checks. We need to close the Craigslist and gun show loopholes.
"Democrats optimistic on 'broad' support for universal gun background checks." Talk about delusions of grandeur. It can never be "universal," at best it can be a "national," gun background check. Even international checks would be, for the most part, unreliable.
And the Dem's are worried that there will be another drubbing at the Midterms like there was the last time they foisted so called "Sensible Gun Control" in the form of the failed 1994 assault weapons ban on us.
Just another step the sane, law abiding gun owner will have to go through. Another law the criminals and insane will ignore. More nothing from obaaaaama.
We need to go back and start checking backgrounds on all current gun owners too. Also, drug AND alcohol testing. Tax the bullets 1.00 each and some problems also go away. If responsible gun owners get a bit nervous at the idea of it, their the ones to keep from owning. If I have to take the tests to get a job, why not test people who are going to put a deadly weapon in their hand. Nuff Said !
If you think that you need to be armed to the hilt with semi-automatic weapons and 40,000 rounds to defend yourself against the government then you will probably not pass he mental health check.
We should test you Roger for your crazy ideas about what stops gun violence.
Funny you are probably ok with illegal immigrants getting loans, in-state tuition and affordable housing.
Maybe you can visit Chicago where 435 out of 500 people were shot with weapons purchased illegally through Mexican cartel connections and funneled to gangs and see if your crackpot ideas resonate with them
At least 90% of the general Public and at least 80% of NRA members support universal background checks.
A no brainer....
With political will and common sense, gun obsession will go the way of cigarette smoking....
Trade you all that for a "National Right to Carry Law". Sounds like a good compromise. However, ask Mayor Bloomberg if the 2nd amendment applies to someone from out of state walking down 5th Ave. in NYC; you'll find out that ultimately, no one on your side is concerned about constitutional rights. What it's about is winning the argument and banning all guns. Sorry Roger, but your side is like the abortion people on my side. Neither will rest or compromise until a full ban is in place.
I am a little mixed about Universal Background Checks. One, if you are a gun dealer you have to do a background check for every weapon you sell. Period. It doesn't matter if you are in your store or at a gun show. I do believe if a private seller is at a gun show, then they should have to do a background check (by law they do not have to do so depending on the state). However, if you are a private seller in your own home or are giving a firearm to your wife or child then I disagree with a background check. I also disagree with the proposed bill that will make a background check mandatory to pass firearms through the family after a death. I'm sorry, but if my father leaves me my great grandfathers shotgun when he passes away, then hat is no ones business but mine. I am glad I live in a state where there is no registration for firearms.
Sorry to dissapoint you but the republicans are doing exactly what they were voted in to do and that is to protect the people against excessive interfearance from the government. Imagine how for down we would be if the had not keeped Obama and his anti american socalist allies at bay!
Also your talking point that are given to you by other uninformed liberals are not even relative to this blog, it is about harry reid and the senate refusing to bring it up to a vote! Because they have democrats that are up for election and they are afraid they will loose (by voting how the progressive liberal party tells them to vote) and offending the people they are suppose to represent. (who do not want this bill)
So the truth is in this article and i am surprised NSMBC even printed the truth against there orders from the party. Harry Ried and the socalist party just want power they do not care what the people want but to force on them the Obama progressive agenda of transforming america, to take america down. To promote the strong central government that oversees you from cradle to grave. The ideal progressive eutopia! this has not worked out so well for mother russia, china and some of the newer members, greece, spain, portugal, venezula and the UK.
If you want freedom of choice and real jobs then thank a republican next time you see one and laugh at the progressivies when they think the government will take care of them.
The checks are already in place for hand guns. No problem extending those to long guns. I do believe magazine limits at 10 worthless. My hand gun holds 13, and will keep it full, legal or not. Ask a cop why he or she carries off duty "there are a lot of crazy people out there".
Despite the FACT that that would be an illegal activity as well as unconstitutional, irrational, impossible, and imbecilic, not to mention the FACT that the last time it was tried, ...a little over 200 years ago..., it lend-ed itself well to a long list of reason's for an uprising amongst a group of... "subjects"........that idea is.... whats the word im looking for here?.....ummmm..oh yeah.....stupid.
Wow! Unbelievable some of the comments here! Common sense? Never going to happen with this group. How about informing yourselves a little? No, the 2nd Amendment does NOT give you the right to carry any firearm anywhere you darn well please. Please read the beginning of Section III of the SCOTUS majority opinion in District of Columbia v Heller.
"They're coming to take your guns!" is a pretty lame and downright false defense, but granted it does require some thought to see just how lame it is. That means most conservatives will never see it.
Background checks, enforcement of existing regulations, limiting magazine size. What part of these things do you find objectionable? And more importantly, why?
I live in Tucson. I know what happened with Loughner when he ran out of rounds to shoot into the crowd. If he would have had a smaller magazine, there would have been far fewer people killed and injured that day.
The real purpose of universal gun background checks is to further harass the law abiding and will do absolutely nothing to reduce any type of gun related crime at all. This is simply one more bit of chipping away at the 2nd amendment by the socialist left.
They reason if they can't get the 2nd amendment eliminated, they will dismantle it very slowly so the majority of the people won't notice, and judging from many other posts, they reason correctly.
The universal backgroung check will probably be passed, liberals will feel good about this, and regarding gun crime, absolutely nothing will change.
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm .... Ah .... " Background checks" before you can purchase a gun?
Who could possibly be against that in principle? .... I'm not .. BUT ... it's the implementation in practice that scares me! I remember all the good intentions of the so called "Patriot Act" ... and the end result of the massive loss of American Liberties! ...
My government (Under both political parties) have deceived me too many times under the guise of protecting "The People" for their good ... and turned the law into a Draconian nightmare for the citizenry and a benefit for some special interest! ...
It's the fine print and interpretation of the law thats the deal breaker ... you were a troublemaker in grade school ..it was reported .. you have been accused of a crime ...... your mother wore pink combat boots to church and must have been crazy and passed on the gene to you ... you resisted arrest for a alleged crime that never happened .......... and on & on ..
You want to ban certain weapons in the hands of private American citizens?
Do it the right way ..the Constitutional way ... Amend the Constitution of the United States .... let a Constitutional convention be convened to do the right thing ... lets see the results ... it will never happen!
Our Constitution intended that a act of aggression (war) to be declared by congress ... so that it is abundantly clear that the majority has a say in such violent national act, that by its very nature effect every citizen ................. that has been over selectively overridden.
The reality is simple ..... My government has played its citizens for "fools" to many times .... it has abused its powers & lied too many times ... to be trusted.
I don't trust my government anymore and won't give up anything else without a fight ...
Give them no more money or power and change MAY come ... DON'T LET THEM TAKE AWAY ANY WEAPONS FROM OUR CITIZENRY ... or the ultimate price will be your economic enslavement without defense
I can picture the seller of a pistol in a brown paper bag, on a city street corner, checking the government background check list first before a sale to a felon.... What a JOKE!
NRA agrees in principle yes, but again it is another stupid, feel good, law that does not /will not work. The worry is that it might turn into a National gun owner database.
The number of crimes committed by legally owned firearms is under one percent of all firearm crimes. WHY you ask, because people who obey the laws are the only ones who own and use them legally. Criminals don't obey laws nor will they go thru proper channels to obtain guns. Why is this hard for Liberal/Dems to understand? . Furthermore, this new law/proposal would not have stopped any of the major "media" shootings over the past year if it were in affect.
http://www.dropshots.com/GCaplan#date/2013-01-20/08:18:15
JANUARY 18-20, 2013
The Real Obama Emerges (Again)
by JILL STEIN
If you’re having political déjà vu as Obama’s second term in the White House gets underway, you’re not alone.
The supposedly populist candidate — who won re-election promising to tax the rich, protect Social Security, and make the economy fair — has morphed back into an invaluable ally of the economic elite. Yet again, he’s willing to let you fall under the bus.
In carving out 2013′s first round of self-inflicted budget pain, President Barack Obama has laid the groundwork for much worse to come. By making most Bush tax cuts permanent, he gave away the massive bargaining chip he could have used to protect safety net programs in the next negotiating round. Now, thanks to his pre-emptive capitulation, austerity advocates hold all the cards.
While the deal extends unemployment insurance, this temporary relief is overwhelmed by massive, permanent gifts to the super-rich. Estate taxes have been repealed for all but the wealthiest 0.1 percent with a whopping $10.5 million per couple exemption. The agreement also locks in low capital gains and dividends rates of 15-20 percent, ensuring that billionaire bosses everywhere will pay lower tax rates than their secretaries.
Among new corporate favors, the deal retained one of the loopholes that multinational firms are using to dodge taxes on their foreign subsidiaries — an incentive to export jobs that cost us $1.1 billion in 2012. Meanwhile, vulnerable workers are hit with a big increase in Social Security payroll taxes, as rates revert to 2010 levels.
The fig leaf Obama provided to cover this surrender is a token tax increase on wealthy households earning over $450,000 per year. This marks a brazen retreat from his promise to raise taxes on those earning over $250,000, a meager reform to begin with in a tax system already rife with favors for the rich.
In this past round of budget bargaining, Obama proposed alarming cuts to key safety net programs that will be considered in upcoming negotiations. This tossed aside another key promise: to protect Social Security. It comes as nearly half of Americans are either low-income or living in poverty, and one in three seniors relies on Social Security to stay out of poverty.
Obama also offered to slash needed reductions in bloated military spending from $500 billion over 10 years, the amount included in the 2011 budget deal, to a mere $100 billion.
Obama’s abandonment of his progressive base repeats 2008 post-election history, when the hope-and-change candidate suddenly devolved into a fearless defender of economic privilege. His early White House appointments of Wall Street darlings Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner were followed, with breath-taking irony, by the naming of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, America’s leader in layoffs, to head the jobs council.
Team Obama then led the charge for trillions in Wall Street bailouts, corporate-driven trade agreements that send jobs overseas and depress U.S. wages, health care reform that locked public options out of the debate, drill-baby-drill energy policies, the sabotage of international climate accords, foreclosure neglect, surging immigrant deportations, drone attacks, assaults on civil liberties, and more.
As Obama’s second term begins, he’s again undermining the progressive base, paving the way for more austerity, disparities, war and corporate power.
Washington’s failure to deal justly and effectively with the fake fiscal cliff calamity leaves little hope it will resolve the real looming crises — the unraveling economy and accelerating climate catastrophe. The enormity of these threats compel solutions of equal magnitude — like the Green New Deal I promoted as the Green Party’s presidential candidate in 2012. It would obliterate the fiscal cliff while putting America back to work, greening the economy, cutting the oversized military, saving trillions through Medicare for All, and taxing the wealthy.
Fortunately, grassroots movements and non-corporate political parties have begun to lead the way. It’s time to join them while we still can, putting our voices, bodies, and votes behind real solutions that can truly deliver a peaceful, just, green future for us all.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/18/the-real-obama-emerges-again/
How many years have honest people been taking backgroud checks? Some of you people are so blind you just can't see. Anyone who wants to can see that our President is attacking your right to own firearms. Someone tell me one thing. What has our government done sense Newtown to immediately protect one school?NOTHING! I can,t believe some many people are so stupid. Do any of you even think the criminals of the world who already have records a mile long gets their guns through background checks.Remember they have several thousand already in Mexico. Just ask Eric Holder how many they have. Don't you think for one minute they won't sell them to the gangs here. I would rather see the government assign military guards to our schools. If they can send them to protect other countries,why can't they protect our children? The government got 58,000 of our solders killed for nothing in Vietnam. If the president really wants to do something for our kids safety,every state has National Guard.Let the governors call out these troops to guard our schools. I'm sure they could find enough retired military people to volenteer,mysef included. No want do nothing as simple as that because they are after the guns and the NRA. What does SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED mean? It seems to me that the governor in NY has already stepped on the 2nd ammendment.I'm not smart enough to know but i think that should be close to-------. You people keep on and when they get YOUR guns you will be the first they come after.
While i am writting i might as well get everything out. I would like to have anyone answer this that has seen anything,like crying parents,or bodies,or the crime scene,or anything showing what really happened in Newtown. I am reading alot about that shooting being put on like a movie. I totally remember sitting where i am right now at my table when the news story broke. s the details started coming in it was told the killer was armed with 3 handguns. Later on their was a scene where cops opened the trunk of the car he was in,and their was the assult rifle laying there. After a couple days it came out that the people were all shot with a AR-15.
Another thing i would like to know is why they left them poor victims laying in them halls decomposing allday,allnight,and the next day.I did notsee one parent trying to get to their child. I would hope most parent would be the same as me. They would have had to kill me to keep me out. Even the news crews were held a mile away from the school. What happened to freedom of the press. Someone just tell me you seen a body,or a casket,or a plastic bag,or even a funeral? My God the news plaster stuff worse on the news. Im not a sadistic,evil man,but i have seven children and thirteen grandkids,and i just want the truth.
We're not trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms, we're only trying to take away certain types of arms that no one has any business with anyway.
We're not trying to take away anyone's right to free speech, we're only trying to take away certain types of speech that no has any business with anyway.
We're not trying to take away anyone's right to religion, we're only trying to take away certain types of religion that no has any business with anyway.
We're not trying to take away anyone's right to a free press, we're only trying to take away certain types of free press that no has any business with anyway.
You know? It sounds really damn weird when you try to make these anti-second amendment arguments apply to the first.
Obama and Liberals think, Need to check people out before they buy a gun, your 12 year old daughter is a woman and you have no right to know if she is having an abortion, no need to know who is filling out those absentee ballots, the more absentee ballots the harder it is to figure out who is fraudulently voting.
And the President fully supports partial birth abortion, abortion right up until they are born.
Are these politicians that stupid to believe that every firearm purchased is through a dealer? Thousands of firearm transactions take place privately everyday. Do these idiots honestly believe everyone is going to run to the local courthouse to have a background check prior to completing a sale of a firearm privately?
If they truly believe this then the are living in Fantasy Land.
It's sad that you on the left think creating more laws are the answer. You don't even know or understand the laws that are already in place. Illlinois for example you have to have a FOID card which requires a background check therefore all your purchases have been background checked. Obama choose to take a small segment of person to person transactions in a few states that don't have a FOID card rule and stretch those numbers to fit his agenda. Your outrage should be at your government lying and trying to trample your rights, if you think these only affect "gun nuts" your wrong, your rights being eliminated are right around the corner, one group pitted against another at a time. Cuomo has not steak over 10oz sold in NY next I am sure. If you aren't already concerned about these power grabs by people who are suppose to be serving us you truly are a clueless lost cause and should move to Russia.
I'm a member of the NRA and I support background checks, but when you try grouping this peice of the puzzle with any of the other proposed legislation, like the banning of magazine capacity, you loose my support as well as many others I'm sure.
You need to get it through your heads that this isn't about hunting people. If the military, police and security forces can use more that ten bullets to protect themselves, the president and his family and others the general public I will continue to use them to protect me and mine.
And yes Mr Cuomo, you DO need more than ten bullets to protect oneself. Limiting magazine capacity is limiting my ability to protect my family, my home and myself.
Background checks, caliber and ammunition limitations and other regulations are just a foot in the door to circumvent and limit the Second Amendment.
There is a reason America is one of the freest countries in the world which allows their citizens to be armed.
@Roger "Also, drug AND alcohol testing. Tax the bullets 1.00 each and some problems also go away."
You must be high. 100 million gun owners or so in America at approx $50 for a decent drug test is 5 billion. Where are we going to get that from your bullet tax? Alcohol does not last long enough in a humans system to be "tested" in most cases even if given 24 hours notice. Stores cannot legally sell a gun to someone who they know is under the influence as it is.
About that bullet tax. What about my .22 Long Rifle bullets that come in boxes of 500 and cost $20 for the WHOLE box? You are going to tax a $0.04 bullet $1? ARE YOU F***ING INSANE? That $20 box of ammo would cost me $520... When I go shooting at a range I go through 100 to 200 bullets each time and you are going to tax me $1 on each... A trip to the range cost me $4-$8 in bullets, approx $10 for the range fee, and I have to supply my own targets. Instead I would pay $104 to $208 just in bullets... What about reloaders how is your tax going to work on them if they can cast their own bullets and make their own rounds? I cannot reload a rimfire round.
There are plenty of competition shooters that eat through rounds too.
Does anyone ever think anything through all the way or is critical thinking that painful? Maybe people just love to talk about chit they know nothing about. My 2000 (4 boxes from different manufacturers, 2 target or solid nose bullets and 2 hollowpoint ones) or so rounds of .22 LR ammo make me a nut for example. "Why would anyone need that much ammo"...it is how they sell it and how to save money. People buy by the "brick" (500 rounds) to save money.
Nothing new here !!!
Time for Senator "Pocket Veto" Reid to clean out the pending House legislation he has stuffed away.
Of course liberals are optimistic, they live in a Pollyanish world of rainbows and unicorns and are so far removed from the reality of the world we live in today, mostly because of the putrid tenets of their platform, that they are simply clueless as to what's really going on.
I am a conservative, I own guns, and I dislike the liberal platform with a passion. However, in principle I support background checks, restrictions on assault-style weapons, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, proof of having attended mandatory training, that includes live fire, for ALL gun owners, gay marriage, abortion under certain conditions, fairness to all citizens regardless of gender, race, religion, etc., etc.
I believe the tea-party hurts us more than helps, we should stop pandering to the religious right because they're going to support/endorse a Republican candidate no matter what and they bring no value to a political conversation, and we need to get in touch with the 21st century and stop living in the stone ages in some instances.
Surprise surprise, right?
Here's the problem for me and many like me, though: I still despise the liberal platform and they way they go about forcing their agenda down everyone's throat. I believe most of them are a bunch of pathetic, entitled, self-loathing, American-hating parasites who would gladly sell-out this country if it meant that they could preserve the personal rights they believe is their birthright, because they are selfish and short-sighted. And most importantly, Republicans know for a fact that even though most of us are more moderate than you might think, if we ever relent on any of these issues, it will open a Pandora's Box that we'll never be able to close again because a little is never enough for you. You believe you're owed everything you want, compliments of the U.S. government and our court system, and we're not willing to allow that happen.
So if you are wondering why this country is so partisan and nothing ever gets accomplished, look no further than your own selfish, self-important, entitled attitudes. You don't want to meet in the middle. Nothing other than total and absolute victory will ever be enough for you, and we'll never allow that to happen because it would spell the end of this country as we know it.
Obama's 23 edicts meant little that isn't already being done.
I am a gun dealer, he didn't say anything but window dressing.
The fact of the matter is, and apparently the majority of people are totally unaware of this, every conceivable angle in rulemaking has already been covered in existing laws, and people want 'more laws'?
They are truly uniformed.
I'm a gun owner for background checks... but I'm not for continuing erosion of personal rights...
our protections against unreasonable search and seizure, right to free speech, to habeus corpus, and a bunch of others can now be waived or qualified by our government effectively at will.... the 2nd amendment is the type of right that can easily be eroded over time until the day maybe 10 years from now, maybe 200 years from now, when its actually needed desperately...
it's ironic that democrats and liberals who know nothing about weapons, who should be stepping up to protect the bill of rights, are so in favor of it's continued decline.
this issue isn't about some fringe NRA 2nd amendment quoters needing ego stroke by owning scary looking firearms (which is maybe 5% of gun owners).... it's about personal freedoms disappearing in the space of little more than a decade since 9/11 .... liberals are the ones who should be adamantly against bans and for sensible regulation... but you are allowing a bad stat quoting few to drive you....
Sure, let just keep adding to the 28,000 plus federal, State and local gun laws currently on the books, that they seldom enforce...
Just keep in mind that the MSM conveniently forgot to report one of Flamin' Joe's recent statements:
Biden to NRA: We ‘don’t have the time’ to prosecute gun buyers who lie on background checks
And him and his sugar daddy are going "fix the problem". Yeah, right...
Hey Barry & Joe! The campaign is over! Start doing your DUTY...
We are a nation of randomly enforced laws... What else is new.
Roger 1.13 you really don;t have a clue do you? Do you have a commute to get to work? How about commuters get a $10 a gallon tax added to their gas because they are wasters of precious resources. Oh that doesn't affect you? How about eating meat, say a $10 a pound tax on steak because it kills animals. Sound insane... yes it does because it is and so is your idea. No gun owner cares about a background check but what we do care about is the government restricting the types and sizes and amounts of anything we can own, guns included. You know kind of like your NY idiots in charge limiting soft drink size, but then again maybe your one of those who would be the staff and the rod of the government because you have no gumption to live a life of your own. If so please don't try and speak for the rest of us who do.
Apparently 5 people were accidentally shot yesterday at gun shows on "Gun Appreciation Day" (sic)... Thankfully, no was was killed. I guess you don't have to be certifiably mentally ill to shoot innocent people. You can count being an idiot as a big contributing factor, however. How do you test for that?
I think obama needs a back ground check...He couldn't begin to pass one...We need a new law.
those dicheads in washington have done nothing yet why now,,,, are kids more safe at school now ??????????????????????????????????????????? ...no ,,,,we can;t win against our jackasssss government but we can defend ourself if we want to die
All we need is one good federal law that trumps those worthless state laws, like the ones in Arizona and elsewhere. The gun show loophole does indeed exist and there are states where it is perfectly legal to walk into a gun store and buy $20,000 worth of assault weapons, walk out and give them away minutes later. Assault weapons sold like that have been found at murder scenes around the country and in Mexico.
You gun nuts use Chicago as an example of how gun laws don't work. Well all you have to do is drive a fewmiles out of town and you can get whatever you want. That is why we need sane and sensible national laws. California's law taken to the national level will work wonders for the gun death rate.
Finally, anyone who says they need assault weapons so that they can revolt against our popularly ELECTED government is exactly the person who should not have said weapons. Those wackos at Waco thought like that.
Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC
The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
Kim yesterday there were five people injured two of them critically by drivers putting their cars in reverse by accident. How do you test for stupid? I suggest we start doing it for everything, if were going to do it we might as well go all the way socialist. That being said I suggest it easier, you just move to a socialist country so we can keep our freedoms.
Miklkit you are cluesless you go anywhere outside Chicago in the state of Illinois and you have a three day waiting period, background check and that is a fact. So to you this isn't a reasonable gun law??? And you wonder why nobody trusts the left to have a real conversation about the word reasonable. Please stop spewing left wing garbage falsehoods. Stop trying to blame the better part of the state for Chicago's filth.
There is never going to be a fool proof way to perform universal background checks. There is no way you are going to be able to monitor private sales of guns that are not registered. All this will do is create a new class of criminal. Any licensed gun dealer (even those who participate in gun shows) MUST perform a background check. So, the only people that are not covered are those individuals that sell their guns. Reducing the size of magazines will create another category of criminal if they do it in the manner that NY did. NO ONE is going to dispose of their higher capacity magazine. Nothing shall infringe on a person's ability to defend themselves or their family. As long as the bad guy is going to have a weapon with 15 or 30 bullets in their magazine - I demand the right to match them. Not permitting me to do so infringes on my right to protect myself. Before you start wailing about the awful assault weapons - perhaps you should have a knowledgeable person explain why they look the way they do. The pistol grip? A feature that only provides more stability. The adjustable gun stock? Makes the gun adaptable to more users...one size does not fit all after all. Then, perhaps you should go to a range and look at the bullet holes caused by firing one of the AR-15s - they use .223. Ask the demonstrator to show you the difference between that and other calibers and types of guns - including a semi automatic shotgun. One shot from a shotgun could be devastating. When you have a TRUE understanding of guns and ammunition, etc. THEN we can have a discussion. But as long as you anti-gun types base all your information on what the media and left leaning pols spoon feed you - we have nothing to discuss.
I am so tired hearing about "law abiding" citizens rights. I am a law abiding citizen and just where in your picture is my right. I am not safer and neither are you with a gun in the room, I am especially not safer if there are two guns in the room. The AR 15 is a military style rifle whose only purpose is to kill human beings. It is not particularly accurate nor is it reliable. Add to that a magazine capable of shooting 30-100 times and it is useless for lawful civilian use. Ban these guns and extended magazines in pistols. Allow only 6 to 8 shots without reload and the number of mass slayings will go down. The NRA and its members that do not appreciate my rights to feel safe can kiss my ass. There is no need to carry a gun into public functions. The second amendment does not give you the right to make others unsafe because you want to play cowboy/cowgirl.
Lorielle - You hit the nail on the head!!!
Johntho the world will be much safer if your car is not capable of doing more than the speed limit yet it is. People would live much longer were they forced to some type of scientific diet and not overeat or eat meat yet we can and do. Your point is at the top of your head my friend. We don't believe you or the government has a right to tell us how to live our lives as much as they already do (Cuomo is a great example as is the NYC soft drink size limit). You want to let them well you have at it just go do it elsewhere. This country was founded on different principles not your socialist views of knowing how everyone else should conform to your beliefs.
Exactly when will you start to cry foul? Likely only when they do something you don't agree with right... until then who cares it's not affecting you. Yeah that'll work, you're rights will be gone before you have time to say what happened.
Must be a bit slow today, exactly how would a background check have stopped the shooting at Sandy Hook? The shooter was neither a buyer or owner of ANY guns or ammo. Oh, sorry, I was thinking rationally, and thought the POTUS & VP were too.
I see that Sen. Cruz is already posturing for his run for President in 2016.
Sorry, senator, but we will still remember your fellow GOP Texan, George Bush, even four years from now. It'll be a lo-o-o-o-ong time before we forget how Bush/Cheney destroyed our nation's economy and plunged us into two wars.
Not even the backing of the "great and omnipotent" NRA is going to make us forget about that.
myownthoughts56,
I don't think background checks would have stopped the shooter at Sandy Hook.
But if his mother had not been allowed to buy FIVE ASSAULT WEAPONS AND KEEP THEM IN THE HOUSE WITH A MENTALLY ILL SON, then that may have.
The same way all those idiots who get behind a wheel and cause accidents are able to pass the driving exam.
A law abiding citizen can become an outlaw, and does daily, with one squeeze of the trigger.
Stop funding, again, where is my right. I don't give one little fornication about cars. You stupid ass it is guns we are talking about Don't try to tell me what this country was founded on, you don't have a clue, when are you going to get it, you three toothed bastard are taking away MY rights. So STFU @!$%#.
"Iamnotyou
"If there was a requirement that elected officials pass a psychological evaluation, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein would not be qualified to serve as an elected official." You have left out all of congress...both parties. Not a one is concerned with the average voting citizen in this country..only their wealthy benefactors who hand out to all of congress lots of payoff money. Its funny...people have complained about a tax increase on their checks..but not complained about the fact that the wealthy have a bar on taxes that protects most of their earnings ..and guess who placed all those bars there..why your elected in congress of course.
miklkit:
Mayor Bloomers tried that @!$%# in Ohio and got a reprimand from the USDOJ. Had they been in a bad mood and done their duty, he and those involved in that sting operation would have gone to jail on NUMEROUS felonies.
Johntho
... The AR 15 is a military style rifle whose only purpose is to kill human beings. It is not particularly accurate nor is it reliable...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you do not know what you are talking about.... the reasons the AR-15 is so popular is that its flexible, it was originally designed for military use, but its grown far beyond that: its modular and adaptable to just about any sized person or any use... hunting of various sized game, target, whatever... they are modern, people can also adapt them for personal style.... when maintained, they are very reliable, and overall it is a very accurate rifle.... it's the epitome of an American gun..... and that's why there is such deep support for it....
also, 30 round magazines are really handy at making it much less of a pain to reload magazines so often when target shooting... they save hours of time....
banning these is stupid, they are already out there in the millions, they are used in < 2% of gun crimes, and when they were banned, people just used other gun types to kill each other.... its retarded to ban magazines or ARs
Gun confiscation The 2nd Amendment and a way to preserve our rights
At this time I am not sure what congress is planning but I do not think it is in our best interest to wait and see. As then it may be too late.
It seem all the new laws that are being proposed to limit our guns or take them away are by Democrats.
I am a registered democrat. However that can be changed by re registering as a Republican. I plan on doing this the first week in February.
Who will join me?
If there are a few million of us that do the same thing at the same time, we can send a strong message to congress. We can vote some of them out of office in 2 years.
I plan on putting this on youtube and sending a copy to the NRA.
Lets get this ball rolling. Join me and post a YES on this post or a LIKE
Thanks
First of all, Johntho, your statement about AR's not being very accurate is one of the dumber things I've seen you post, and you post some stupid sh!t.
I can promise you that the AR is capable of putting a round (that's a bullet) center-mass (that's the middle of your chest) at 500 yards on pretty much every shot, with just a reasonably good shooter. I would suggest you find someone you trust who actually owns guns, ask them to teach you how to shoot, and get your little pansy-a$$ out on the range and have fun with it.
Regarding your opinion - as uninformed as it may be - around my right to have a gun in a public place, listen closely: If you and I happened to be in the theater in Aurora at the same time that night, the odds are that Joker-boy would be deader'n sh!t right now, and you would still be alive. Any why? Because I would have pushed my wife down to the floor, drew my Springfield XD-S .45, and blew joker-boy right out of his bullet proof vest, or died trying. Either way, though, there would have been a dramatically different ending.
As a side note, Republican lawmakers in Colorado are introducing legislation that would hold businesses liable if they ban concealed carry, and one of their customers is injured or killed because they couldn't defend themselves.
I friggin' love it - don't you?
No I don't love it. All this the the party of so called personal responsibity. So no longer are private citizens allowed to determine for themselves what other people are allowed to do and not do on thier private property? If the state says you have to allow people to carry weapons onto your private property you have no say in the matter?
Archstanton said:
And now he is trying his hardest to take the guns away. He probably knows that when he is done doing what he is doing, it will be time for revolution; and he wants to disarm everybody before that happens. I am pretty certain that the U.S. has signed onto some international New World Order thingy. There is too much of a pattern here. Anyone notice that we are copying the E.U. with this austerity crap, now the guns are being taken (to be more like Europe)?
and if you accidently shoot someone elses wife in the confusion can they sue you?
I don’t know about that but I do think that there should be another requirement…
Before a congressman/senator is allowed to vote on a bill they have to pass a test on what is in the bill. If they do not know the details of what is actually in the bill then, obviously, they are not qualified to cast a vote.
No one can honestly say whether the past ban on assault rifles or the current restrictions/controls on gun ownership, including those denying guns to convicted felons, weak and full of holes as they are, did any good - that's trying to prove a negative. They may well have prevented some deaths. We will never know, in part because the NRA has prevented any meaningful followup.
We do know they did not "destroy" the Constitution.
Theo,
Thanks for saying it. You are right on with that.
Johntho thanks for showing your stupidity and especially with your comments. It shows who truly is behind the irrational and mindless thoughts of the left. Inbred or uneducated elitist which are you? You still get to vote yet don't have any common sense, that should be against the law. If your not careful you might vote away that right too.... You are the reason there is no rational conversation and no common ground in this country. Just another burden on the working class, those on the left need to look no further than you to figure out why they are lumped in with the irrational and considered extremists.
First, the documented fact is that in the last 40 years there has been an almost halving of gun violence in this country! This has been done without any major new gun law.
Second, it is very easy for liberals to take away rights that they do not care about. If we had the same requirements on abortion as the libs want on guns, they would go crazy with protest. And which situation has caused more death? Personally, I do not own guns and believe in the ability of a woman to have this option, but, the liberals are extremely hypocritical when it comes to rights that they do not hold dear!
You people who claim to be so concerned over saving just one of the lives and say that the type of gun being banned could have impacted this are once again just focused on taking away guns and affecting gun owners rights. If you were so concerned you would stop focusing on gun types or ammunition and focus on those who commit the crimes. So disingenuous. Leon Pinheada starts rambling about hunting with AR's and armor piercing ammo... When was the last time ammo type had any impact on anyone getting killed? It hasn't and nobody uses AP ammo for anything other than having fun shooting through metal. Politicians are just once again stirring a frenzy over a non issue to make a power grab. They seem to be confusing a terrorists need for that type of ammo with a free law abiding persons fun with it. as do many of you. So what, we give up rights to settle their paranoia over terrorists? Terrorist wins.
Where is your outrage with the media making the public hypersensitive to this and creating copy cat killings? How many of these incidents would have never happened had the media not been so obnoxious about it's reporting. Nope not a word from the left on that yet your so concerned over saving lives. The media has blood on it's hands IMO, where is your outrage and concern over those lives that could of been saved. Nope we couldn't touch that free speech right now could we. Only gun owners rights. Tell me that isn't hypocritical.
Funny how all the liberal trash want background checks yet screamed like spoiled children when ask to show photo ID to vote, go figure, hypcrites.
Ok, let's see how Harvard Law sees this...
That is just part of a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy under the heading Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide? A review of international and some domestic evidence. It is a really good read if you have time. I know most libs are suppose to be the intelectual sort, and this is an unbiased look at what you are shouting for. It also looks at other countries for an answer. Unfortunately, since the United States is the land of the free (not for much longer I think), there is not the same kind of data for a comparison on some subjects. But it is still a good read, with lots of citation to corralate the facts which are missing from the reports on MSN.
I am for background checks, don't get me wrong. I did one when I went to purchase my weapons though. So what we're voting on...this background check thing (which we already do)...what else is in there? moonbeamracer got it right. I've seen too many things come from our government over my years to think there isn't some kind of shaft that comes with this. Our government exists for it's own ends anymore, not for the people's. So while Obama and the boys in the senate let you eat cake, what are they cooking up for themselves? After all, the Senate isn't going to touch this issue because
Which is, oddly enough, the same place that hasn't worked on a budget since 2009 so they can steer clear of the mess and unpopular decissions that need to be made. They'll hand that off to the Repubs so they look like crap. Same politics, different day in America.
Oh, parting thoughts...
miklkit, it would indeed be interesting to see an uprising in the United States. I wonder if that would show if, in fact the government you speak of is truely as popular as you think. I mean, while we did have the infamous "miricle voting machines" in Florida, how many provisional votes was that in Ohio? Two Thousand counted in like an hour or less? And how many more across the country? Come on, you can smile and nod. It's all good.
Haddie Nuff, I suggest you do some reading on our Founding Fathers and what they had to say about the Second Amendment. You'll probably side with Benjemen Franklin, since he was kinda put off by the idea of civilians and weapons, but everyone else had the idea that people like me (obviously not you) would train their children in proper use, safety, and keeping of firearms. But we don't do that, and that's how you get such irresponsibility and mass shootings. But you probably don't like Big Scary Guns and just think they are uncivilized! Tell that to some young punk who's trying to make a name for himself with his gang. Hard to do from your suburb, no?
Johntho, did you know the boarders are open? If you are so tired of hearing about my Second Amendment right (or any of my other rights for that matter), then pack up the kids and hit the hiways my friend. Unfortunately, this is the United States of America (soon to be the Socialist States of America, I'm sure...but for now...) and my rights were handed down to me through the constitution that my Father fought for, and his Father fought for in WWII, and his father fought for in WWI and his father fought for in the Civil War, and his father fought for...well hell, I think I can trace mine back to the French/Indian War and probably beyond. How about you? My family has served and fought for these rights, you don't like them, kiss my A$$ and get out!
The electoral college was created because the politicians didn't think the voting populace knew enough about the presidential candidates, rendering the people's vote virtually worthless.
Today, we know enough about the candidates to abolish the college.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Yeah, RIGHT!!! The ONLY thing we know about almost all of them is that they are essentially a bunch of egocentric liars out for personal gain, and the People are somewhere, way down on the list. The only choice we're given is, is it going to be donkey @!$%# or elephant @!$%#...
Hi Spiddas. Maybe if we abolished the college, candidates of the people would have a better chance.
Basing the President off of the popular vote would be one of the possible first steps of turning this Republic into a Democracy.
Here is something for all of the gun control advocates out there. Hell, it might even be good for the pro-gunners to look at. It's a bit simplistic, but it gets the point across,
Penn & Teller Bull@!$%#! - Gun Control - S03E09 (18+)
Jesus im so freaking tired of the people in congress, its not just obama, he cant do nothing if all congress wants to do is block him.
Help me stop this BS, sign my petition on the whitehouses website, its to set up term limits for congress.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-term-limits-members-congress/hD8b8j6z
The one problem with universal background checks is the fact that no comprehensive database exists, at this time. First, to be effective, every citizen in the country would have to have their medical and criminal histories input into the database, no exemptions. That would be a monumental task to begin with. Secondly, the issue of privacy would have to be addressed. Thirdly, there would have to be limits on how that database could be used to prevent abuse by employers, insurance companies, and others who have been historically known to abuse databases. While universal background checks will stop "some" violence, it will not stop all of it.
Over-zealous gun control actions have already resulted in cops in New York being affected by the legislation of their own legislators and Governor. The cops can't even carry firearms on school grounds legally because of the knee-jerk legislation. New York has put ammo legislation into place with requirements that have no way of being legally processed, so gun stores are not selling ammo, even to cops.
Let's not forget that there a number of gun crimes are committed by cops. Cops who undergo background checks and mental health checks. So much for keeping guns out of the hands of people who can commit crime with guns.
Universal background checks are the most dangerous item being requested. Why? Because the LAST thing you want is a governmental database (or list) of every gun owned and who owns it. The danger is once that occurs it is easy for the government (in the next step) to simply knock on your door and say "we are confiscating your guns - you have 3 guns a .357, a .38, and a 30-06 rifle. Where are they?".
I'll be DAMNED if the government will get my guns on their list. Not going to happen. History is clear that countries that ultimately banned all weapons did so by getting a list previously of who has guns so when the confiscation occurred they knew exactly where to go to get them.
The positive side is there is no way a universal background check can get passed. The Republican party is a bunch of wusses anyway but they won't go that far as to compromise on universal background check.
Magazine size limitations do nothing to actually fix the problem for several reasons: First, there are already many guns in ownership. Magazine limitations would only affect future sales. So that is irrelevant. Second, whether I can have two magazines that holds 20 or four magazines that holds 10 is irrelevant. The time savings is MAYBE 2 seconds. So even if they COULD confiscate magazines over 10 (but they promise they are not considering that - right?) it still wouldn't matter.
And "assault weapons" are not the issue. Even if you could confiscate those (but, again, they promise not to do that - right?) the events involving "assault weapons" are such a minor number it would be irrelevant.
There is one solution: Enforce the current laws. More laws will do no good if the existing laws are not enforced. When a person drives drunk we punish them for breaking the law THEN put in place punishments where they cannot use a car again and/or get the help they need. ONLY in the case of gun ownership has it ever been discussed to ban the item itself IN CASE someone uses illegally. There are on other instances in our society where that takes place. We don't ban cars. We don't ban fertilizer. We don't ban computers. We don't ban ladders. We don't ban speech.Only guns are discussed this way AND is the one of a very few items SPECIFICALLY protected by our Constitution.
People that should be included on any life time NO BUY / NO OWN list are those individuals that have been arrested & convicted for any sort of animal abuse.
It's a known fact that those that are capable of inflicting pain, suffering and death to defenseless, vulnerable animals & pets are mentally maladjusted are considerably more capable of inflicting that same pain, suffering and death to children, women and the vulnerable.
Universal....? just how the hell are you going to do that? and your Broad support here LIES only within the Liberal mindset and the press.
ia..
you got part of your name right...tramp
@depraw
what are you 2??
if you got something to add instead of just insults lets here it.
otherwise zip it, because it makes you look stupid and uninformed.
Its cool S.P.
one can only contribute to their individual level of intelligence, thus should be pitied rather then mocked for their lack of viable points. When ones Intelligence Quotient ( that's I.Q. for you depraw) is highly questionable it always results in insults and name calling. which lends itself extremely and absolutely handy as it simply glares in this type of forum and thus...gives you a great idea as to whom to ignore.
Speaking about the press I was watching the latest update on Sandhook yesterday
THE OFFICIAL REPORT has not been released yet.
What was interesting is the killer never used the so called assault rifle WHICH HAS BEEN WIDELY REPORTED IT WAS NEVER TAKEN OUT OF THE CAR. What he did use was 4 pistols. If this is true and I believe it is because that was what was first reported
Than why did the story change the press got it wrong?
Please post where you got this or seen it you know like a web site. Or are you just stirring the pot about assault weapons?
rufnek , i also read it i think it was the 1st couple of articles here on NSMBC. I am also not for this law for two reasons. 1st the states and cities with the toughest gun control laws are the ones with the worst violence. 2nd this executive order abuse is out of hand, remember what ever power you give to Obama now will also be the power that you give the next far right president!
Keep government in its place and let the states make there own laws, it seems like every time we give the government more and more control over us.
There was a video on you tube but for some reason it was removed. I was supposed to show the bushmaster being removed from the trunk. I didn't see it though.
Its called censorship don't worry Barry and the lib press are working hard on the problem...That is installing it of course. But to logically be successful at it you must first deal with the second amendment. .....Which coincidentally is whats happening right now.
Excuses, excuses and more excuses ..anything so gun buyers and owners can stretch their rights while they limit everyone else's. Yes. They DO limit the rights of others. I know of no sane individuals who want to see guns everywhere they go. I know of no sane, unarmed individuals who do not feel threatened when they walk into a bank and two men armed with lethal weapons walk in behind them. I know of no sane individual who wants to see guns in churches, at local festivals and in our schools.
You want to know just how lame ass these gun nuts are? They want school guards right? Do they also want to bar school windows? It's a documented fact that most schools have more than a front and rear exit...they are called "fire exits" and most schools have more than 4. So now what? Post 4 guards in every school? Will the NRA pay for that? Or will they make more excuses for not paying for what they are demanding? Adam Lanza got into that school via a school window.
Only gun idiots in this country can't stand the idea of being unarmed and this they can "responsible?" BS.
Witchking 2.4
Initial reports of the sandy hook shooting clearly stated that when they searched the shooters car, they discovered the bushmaster rifle. The story changed shortly after that so I think we don't currently know what is truth and what is distortion. Is this why Obama the left were rushing to pass an assault weapons ban, perhaps before the actual facts are released? Will we ever know the truth?
Wet Willy...Why do you need an assault weapon? Please clearly elucidate the need for any American individual to need an assault weapon in their home.
@ewent
when you give away all your freedom and power, don't expect the person that you gave everything away to, to give it back when you finally have second thoughts down the road when life is not the happy happy joy joy place you expected it to be.
Stoned Philosopher...How much more freedom am I giving away refusing to be exposed to the sight of guns everywhere I go? Come off that anti-government BS...It's that very mentality that always spawns anarchy. And right now, whether righties want to admit it or not, they are instigating what they know will result in massive gun ownership by a tiny minority who will have NO compunctions whatever about using those guns to show their authority over others. Like that hasn't happened and been proven in the history of dictatorship.
How much freedom will we have when right wing NeoNazis enforce their will on others with their misguided ideology supported by their ownership of mini arsenals? How many David Koreshes do we need in this country before you people wake up and see what the right wing instigators are really spoiling for?
I discovered this page: http://noliesradio.org/archives/55062
It has actual news reports even from nbc and video of police discovering the bushmaster rifle in the rear of Lanza's car, not to mention discripencies regarding how many handguns were found in the school. Why are there so many inconsistencies? Is all this just to make it appear the bushmaster was used in the shooting? If so, then it does indeed appear to be associated with an anti-gun conspiracy
Wet Willy...How many guns killed those little kids? Get back to the point please. Nancy Lanza's closest friends admitted she had a gun fetish and owned numerous lethal weapons. She also had a mentally unstable son in her home. Sorry, but if you play the role of responsible, legal gun owner you don't keep guns in a home with teenagers. Especially since the at least 3 of the last 4 massacres were committed by teens who had easy access to guns in their homes.
ew
As a retired member of law enforcement and a current firefighter, I was going to try and educate you on some of your previous observations. After re-reading your post, I have determined that to try and have rational debate with a progressive such as your self would be a complete waste of time. I will make two quick observations, fire exits are equipped with what is called panic hardware. It can be opened easily from the inside but not from the outside. These devices have been code in public occupancies (schools) for decades. The schools I attended years ago, before Columbine, had security mesh on all ground floor and easily accessible windows.
Ewent,
Do you even know what a assualt weapon is?? No, not what the media is portraying it to be but what is actually an assualt weapon?
Acutally i would have taken you for a follower of David Koresh. Myself i dont own a gun of any kind but know allot of people who do. Work with them and everything, call them friends and family. So what you are saying is that even though they have harmed no-one, that somehow they are enfringing on your rights just because they own a firearm???????
Do you see the absurdity in that?
Wake up!!
Why do people "need" to vote if they don't have a state issued ID?
Hell, why did Rosa Parks "need" to sit in the front of the bus?
Why do people "need" to go out and assemble?
There's one answer that fits all of those questions.
simple logic ewent.
If gun owners are as irrational and crazy as you claim..... why are there any anti-gun nuts left?
this message is for rufnec. My eyes are the proof what i seen,because i was watching tv when they interupted price is right with the braking news.
ew
The majority of city dwellers don't own guns, most gun owners are from rural areas. BTW more than 25% of adults own weapons.
A semi auto rifle comes in many forms, all of them can be made to look like a military rifle, non of them are automatic assault rifles. So why shouldn't people be able to own them?
ewent I hope a concealed carry holder don't have to save your life one day. And even if someone as dumd as you had kids in school you should want them protected.
Bill, Stoned Philospher and others.
Good posts all and especially for recognizing that rational discourse with the likes of ideological basket cases such as ewent is impossible.
Regarding ewent and his opinion of firearms, he must be one of those afflicted with a retarded sexual and emotional maturity that Freud spoke of.
Yes, this is why concealed carry is wisest. What you don't know won't hurt you!
It is best not to alarm the 'sheep' as they are easily frightened.
Sorry, not everyone who carries a firearm who isn't dressed in a uniform is a criminal out to kill. That perception by the easily frightened sheep is totally false.
Most Americans are for better gun control laws. I signed a petition that had over 300,000 signatures. If all you want your guns for is to revolt against our popularly elected government, remember, you are a small minority. You will not only be up against the police, national guard, and army, you will be up against the majority of Americans, who are also armed like I am.
In the meantime your pig headed refusal to clean up your act is letting the real criminals buy all the assault weapons they want. You say that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. Where do the outlaws get their guns? From you! You are willfully selling them to outlaws. They have been traced, but the weak laws we have now will not allow you to be procesuted for selling guns to gangsters. That will change.
The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC
You are just jealous because you can't. Or you would!
ewent, You do NOT have a RIGHT against anything, until it actually harms you. You have NO right to stop any citizen from carrying a loaded voice, until they libel or threaten you. Nor may you prohibit hands at the end of arms, until they become raised fists.
Just as you are not harmed by a good guy carrying a loaded gun on his hip. As a citizen, you would have the same right to defend yourself and be a responsible citizen. If you choose not to, OK, also your choice. However, YOU and others do NOT get to void the RIGHTS of other citizens, NOT your choice in a free republic.
Your irrational fears of guns and good citizens, would seem to indicate a slight mental disorder, please don't buy a gun, OK. Thanks.
that is exactly right myown...
miklkit, Most Americans are against the American NAZI party having meetings, rallies, and parades. Yet they still happen, because of RIGHTS. Those rights are not needed for those holding the majority opinion, they are there to PREVENT the majority from stripping the minority of their freedoms.
But, if absolutely you have to eliminate gun rights, or any rights for that matter. The Founders got an APP for that, called ARTICLE FIVE of the constitution. Two-thirds of both houses of congress and three-fourths of the many states (40 needed currently). It is tough and difficult for a REASON. Specifically, the Founders knew there would be people such as yourself, that would just react without thinking a critical matter through.
You don't want to obey the constitution, the supreme law of the land, yet you expect full and unquestioning compliance with Executive Orders made to 'bypass Congress'. So
liberalfair and even handed of you and yours.Good for you! Did you read it or just figure it was a good idea based on number of signatures?
No, I want my guns because I have the right to have them, and that right shall not be infringed upon, nobody worth listening to has EVER said they are needed to revolt against a populary elected government, ever. The rest of that paragraph is hysterics and advocating illegal activity that violates the Constitution.
Seriously? Wow. I had no idea me, my friends, or my family were selling guns to outlaws, willfully even. By all means, take my rights away because of criminals. I'm sure you'll feel much safer with an unarmed populace, not that the constitution says anything about you feeling safe, but that doesn't matter, right?
Right, is this the change you were looking for? Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws.
Read that a few times, the administration does NOT have time to enforce existing gun laws, so the answer is... more gun laws. Wow, I actually feel embarrased for Joe when I read that.
@ ewent
So you don't want me to own an AR-15 but you're ok with me owning a semi-auto hunting rifle, is that what you're saying? If so you don't make any sense.
The only difference between the following:
1. Black, plastic/metal, detachable magazine fed semi-auto AR-15 rifle (i.e. assault rifle for you gun grabbers)
2. Wooden stocked, detachable magazine fed semi-auto hunting rifle
is the way they look. That's it. They both function the same way.
In addition, most hunting rifles are chambered in far larger/more powerful calibers than the .223 caliber round the AR-15 fires. Your average hunting rifle can do more damage, more accurately, at greater distances than an AR-15 could ever hope to do.
So tell me again what your problem is with people owning AR-15s & the like?
BTW, limiting magazine capacity won't stop some nut from shooting up a school, mall, or office. It takes seconds to change magazines. So a criminal will just bring more magazines and/or guns with them to carry out their shooting spree.
The odds of getting killed by a gun (all types combined) in the U.S. is a small fraction of 1%. You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening. According to the FBI all crime, including violent crime, has been dropping for the last 20 years.
You gun grabbers are just hiding behind these well publicized shootings to further your anti-gun/anti-constitution agenda. At least be honest enough to admit that is what you're really doing.
Anything Schumer says can be discounted heavily. The guy is an idiot.
I own an AR-15 because I was properly trained to care for and shoot one (actually an M-16) as an infantryman in the Army, and I am confident in my ability to employ it accurately, effectively, and safely.
I own an AR-15 because contrary to popular belief, they are an excellent weapon to use for hunting. It is my preferred rifle to dispatch feral hogs, coyotes, foxes, raccoons and other predators on our property.
I own an AR-15 (with several 30-round magazines) because I enjoy competition shooting and the AR-15 is an outstanding weapon to use in carbine and three-gun competitions. If you enjoy shooting and you've never fired one, I recommend it. They are quite fun to shoot.
I own an AR-15 because it is MY responsibility to protect my family and my property. I cannot, in good conscience, abdicate this responsibility in the hope that local law enforcement will be there when I need them. I own several firearms (all properly secured), each designed with specific uses. My AR-15 is an important part of this collection.
I own an AR-15 because it is my right to do so.
I own an AR-15 because they are a pretty good investment these days!
I own an AR-15 because I love my country, but fear my government. And I can no longer discount the possibility that some day, someone might actually come to my door to confiscate my firearms and property.
Do all of you of pro-gun folks ever notice when you answer the gun grabbers questions/rants/idiotic-incorrect statements about guns with facts you never receive a response. Then they go on to post the exact same nonsense in very next article, day after day. They're not interested in the facts/figures/reality/truth. It's pathetic.
Too funny how you got so many liberal slackers to soil themselves, great job.
ewent...
Why do you need an assault weapon?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
None of your business. It really is that simple.
@ewent - ask Gen. Custer about the need for multi-capacity magazines. Make the native Americans the government and Custer's men the armend citizens and you will see that the NA's had arrow's and several repeating rifles as opposed to Custer's single-shot breech loading rifles. The NA's had a faster firepower rate, thereby giving them superiority.
Now move ahead to 2013...cops have AR-15 with 30 round magazines and more. Military has AR-15 with 30 round magazines and more. Criminals have AR-15 with 30 round magazines and more. Lawful citizens would have 10 round magazines max. Who do you think would win?
Feinstein is reportedly looking to propose legislation that would require firearms to be forfeited to the government upon the death of the owner. That would effectively take away guns from citizens without due process or compensation. Every time an anti-gun person makes the statment that no one is trying to take away guns, it is obvious they they have not looked at comments made by Diane Feinstein.
The United States has the most powerfully armed war machine in the world, and people have to ask why citizens want to be armed.
SIMPLE SOLUTION that will NEVER be accepted by the liberal left.....
Use your VOTERS CARD to purchase weapons.....
To register in any state, you need to be a U.S. citizen, 18 or older by the next election, and a resident of the state. Most, but not all, states have two other rules as well: 1) you can't be a felon (someone who has committed a serious crime), and 2) you can't be mentally incompetent.
Just use your VOTERS CARD as ID to purchase anything you want......
I respect your right to own and AR-15, and I am sure that with proper training anyone can learn to use one effectively and safely. However, if the day comes that your government decides to come to your door and confiscate your weapons, your not going to stop them with your AR-15. This is a fantasy created by people who watch to many macho gun movies.
If things in this country ever get so bad that Americans start shooting at one another then anything resembling freedom is done and gone.
This is a fine idea, since it is clear the second amednment was ment to only apply to law abiding and responsible citizens (ie the kind who vote.) However, bear in mind that in some states a felony coviction does not cause you to lose you voting rights forever. Also bear in mind that the law typically protects the voting rights of even people with mental disabilties. Some states have imposed voter competency laws that restrict voting right for some persons with mental illness.
Either way you are looking at background checks. Either a backgroud check to get a voting card or a background check to buy a firearm.
Universal background checks don't bother me as we do them now, close the gun show and private sale loopholes but! In no way will I ever go for some sort of national gun registry or gun license. I have had a background check for what few guns I own and feel everybody else should to weed out the criminal and the insane. However I don't want those records kept over a few months. The Concealed to Carry is a license of sorts and I don't mind that one, I feel one should have to go jump through the extra hoops to carry in public but no license to have a gun in the home for home defense...
I have to agree with you on that one Larry. I'll agree with the background checks but the registry and license is a non-starter with me as are bans! I have a concealed carry license and they took months to check me out for that so that should be enough! As to the so called 'gun show' loopholes the only part of that that's true is the private sellers selling their personal guns, the FFL Dealers have always had to use to phone in background checks at any gun show I've been too.
The State of Illinois is going to Give 250,000 Drivers Licenses to 250,000 Illegal Aliens.
NO backroung check, NO english language test, NO written test No Road Test.
And these non-english reading people can't even read the word "STOP". and 60% are colorblind.
No one needs to take a backround check to buy a car from a junk dealer. and they put them on the streets not knowing how to drive.
32 people died by the hands of Illegal Aliens driving the wrong way on the expressway in one area in 2012. More to come.
you:
You truly need to get out more. And if you can't at least cut back on watching so much AM radio we can tell that it's helping to rot your brain. But being a GOP member is not helping either.
rufnek
What Iamnotyou stated is FACT. ...you know ...that word that's scary to libs. Burying your head in the sand doesn't change it.
IA ...You have the right not to ram the right wing ideology down the throats of others who think it's pure BS. We don't bury our heads in the sand. There are 88.8 guns for every 100 people in this country. We are no safer. How about your kind learn to grow up and admit that more guns is making this country less, not more safe?
If you live in a remote rural area and need to protect your livestock, you need a gun. No hunter or sportsman needs an AR-15 to hunt. And the very idea that the NRA fights banning assault weapons proves who they are in rank of humanity...pond scum.
The background check the Dems are talking about is not just the gun show checks...It is for each and every private citizen to do a background check on anyone they sell a gun to. Yup, co-worker Bob, I've known you for 20 years but ya gotta get checked out by the government first before I sell you my grand pappys ole shotgun. Answer this...Do you have to make sure someone has a drivers license before you sell them a car? Do you have to make sure that the person buying your house is not a drug dealer with the intent to deal drugs out of it. No, then why should any individual be subject to such requirements as a seller.
Very true Larry. Back ground checks have been in effect for years now in every State. What scares me, is that I am an older person of 70 years and some of the guns I own were bought way before background checks. Some were given to me by my father. What are people like me suppose to do with those guns?
Will I be able to Will my guns to my children, or will the government just come in and take them. The FBI is already overwhelmed, the Country is broke and now we want to add this.
So YOU , the govt, or a group of libs get to make the decisions on who does and does not need what type of firearm? Are you kidding me with that crap? But i see you also included the lib name calling trademark. that pretty much sums things up.
I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and @!$%# a more logical argument then that.
Good bye and have a nice day all.
ewent I think you need to go get some if you can find anyone willing
You don't think they are keeping computer records of sales at dealers? And should they get the checks extended to private sales do you really think they won't keep track of those?
This is all an incremental move towards being able to find who's got the guns, and once they know that they know where to find them. This is just one more step towards confiscation. The British and Australian models are where they are going, and all the "we are not coming to get your guns" should be appended with "yet." And the gun grabbers in here lie like a cheap Persian rug. They want them all and will keep nibbling away until they do, unless we stop them.
We already have background checks.
You already have background checks? Where? This needs to be national.
Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC
The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
Larry, you are already screwed. Registration just makes it easier for them to know where to come grab the guns once they rule that nobody can own the scary looking things. Background checks can be used to identify all people who buys guns, no need for registration. You are already in a database. If you bought your AR-15 scary looking gun before background checks were needed, just follow the new rules and register the thing so they still will know about you. This is all about control and it always has been.
By the way libs (ewent), I have many different guns for many different activities and although I don't own a scary looking fake assault weapon I know of many who DO have them, DO use them for hunting and DO use them for fun shooting on the range. These guns are NOT assault weapons (fully auto and made for people killing) and are NOT made for killing people, so keep your unknowledgeable, lying tongues still and go watch Jersey Housewives.
Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
Scooter tramp-
It never fails that anytime a neocon assures us that something is a FACT...it never is.
://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-29/news/chi-illinois-drivers-licenses-for-illegal-immigrants-measure-advances-20121129_1_licenses-for-illegal-immigrants-immigrant-drivers-license-issue
ps-Go Hawks!
I agree. Ban that crap. Boohoo for the gun nuts. Go play Black Ops instead.
take - see post 3.13 above. There are no "real" assault weapons available to civilians.
One more time for you gun illiterate, gun grabbers. Get a clue already.
So you don't want me to own an AR-15 but you're ok with me owning a semi-auto hunting rifle, is that what you're saying? If so you don't make any sense.
The only difference between the following:
1. Black, plastic/metal, detachable magazine fed semi-auto AR-15 rifle (i.e. assault rifle for you gun grabbers)
2. Wooden stocked, detachable magazine fed semi-auto hunting rifle
is the way they look. That's it. They both function the same way.
In addition, most hunting rifles are chambered in far larger/more powerful calibers than the .223 caliber round the AR-15 fires. Your average hunting rifle can do more damage, more accurately, at greater distances than an AR-15 could ever hope to do.
So tell me again what your problem is with people owning AR-15s & the like?
BTW, limiting magazine capacity won't stop some nut from shooting up a school, mall, or office. It takes seconds to change magazines. So a criminal will just bring more magazines and/or guns with them to carry out their shooting spree.
The odds of getting killed by a gun (all types combined) in the U.S. is a small fraction of 1%. You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening. According to the FBI all crime, including violent crime, has been dropping for the last 20 years.
You gun grabbers are just hiding behind these well publicized shootings to further your anti-gun/anti-constitution agenda. At least be honest enough to admit that is what you're really doing.
Do all of you of pro-gun folks ever notice when you answer the gun grabbers questions/rants/idiotic-incorrect statements about guns with facts you never receive a response. Then they go on to post the exact same nonsense in very next article, day after day. They're not interested in the facts/figures/reality/truth. It's pathetic.
DING DING DING!!!!
You are correct Oneslackr!!
Just ask a Lib why the Founding Fathers would put anything about a state's rights into a section of the Constitution that gives you your individual rights. See if it rings a Liberty Bell in their heads. You rarely get past "Uuhhhhh....."
they're not about to let the facts get in the way of their ( fact finding investigation). the political agenda must be followed. they want the guns and will STOP at nothing to get them. obummer is going the way of hitler by saying i am going to make you safe ! so turn in your guns! hitler got elected by popular vote, and he bumped off some of his competition . he was a fascist, but used the socialist party to gain power, and once he had all the guns...............and the SS, and gestapo. well.....
when i hear some idiot say, in england, in austraila, ect, ect, it just really pisses me off. the very reason our founding fathers started this country, was that they wanted nothing to do with the king, europe and the way things were done there. the constitution is a beautiful thing, but without the 2A to back it up it is just words on a piece of paper. if you think when the government takes all the guns away from the law abiding citizens, that your gonna be safe, there will be no more crime, and the police will be every where at once. then you are a fool. and you will have neither freedom or security
Oneslacker
Not so fast...Your definition not mine.
An assault rifle is a AR-15 by definition - Barrel Cooling, mounting rails that allow multiple sights such as laser guides, scopes and thermal imaging in combination, barrel provision for flash and noise suppression, removable stocks and pistol grips for one handed operation. Ability to legally make the rifle "Bump-Fire" for less than $700
This is a military designed weapon in Reliability and Function.
So your definition does not hold water...Period.
Name one hunting rifle that is not styled in the AR that has that capability...name just one
The Bushmaster copy of the AR-15 is a fine weapon; I've shot it a few times at the range. My point is don't defend your arguement for no gun control over the "definition" because you will lose the battle.
kevin my friend, they want all semi autos not just the scary assault weapons as they call them, ANY semi auto with telescopic sights will be labled an assault weapon . just wait and see they will try, but obummer knows there is no chance congress will pass the bill, so he pops up with his executive order.
he needs to be impeached
Some one please explain why we cant condemn Muslims because of a few crazies, yet, because of a few American crazies we condemn all legal American gun owners.
Because liberals are two-faced hypocrites. The same way that they believe that abortion is fine and dandy, but a killer should not be condemned to death for his actions.
Jon...Nancy Lanza was a responsible legal gun owner of numerous weapons at the time that her son, Adam killed those kids. What about killing 27 people, 20 of them small children don't you gun nuts get? Do we have to pull off a Clockwork Orange on you to get you to understand the morals of responsibility with regard to protecting children?
All I see are a bunch of Me First, selfish, lunatics who think carrying a weapon is the be all and end all answer to self-protection when we already have more than enough proof it is anything but.
Tammy...abortions occur because women know men are unwilling to accept their part in procreation. Women don't take abortion lightly as you pathetically try to imply. And, I'd bet anything that your state is one of those Confederate right wing states that's one of the top 4 prison industry states that makes billions off taxpayers so your state lazy asses don't have to actually get out of bed before noon.
Ach! Let's not bring abortion into this. Personally I find abortion distasteful but telling a woman what she CAN'T do with her own body and then talking about freedoms doesn't further the cause of responsible gun ownership by legal citizens.
But it's ok for the woman to decide to murder the human being she is carrying? Someone want's to bring up the 20 dead kids... but the typical liberal want's to ignore MILLIONS of children being murdered via abortion. Not logical.
Then they throw up their "right to control their body" as though it trumps the killing of the child? We can't touch that right, which is NOT specifically found in the Constitution but is an invented one created by a liberal court; but we CAN openly violate the citizens right to arms which IS specifically named in the Constitution. Go figure.
There is no constitutional right to an abortion. If you want one there, amend the Constitution.
There IS a constitutional right to arms. If you don't want it there, amend the Constitution and remove the right.
Ewent, the Sandy Hook shooting was tragic and we do need to think about school security post Newtown. However we need to resist knee jerk reactions that effect the constitution not just the 2nd amemdment but all of them. If through the legislative process we make some changes concerning assault weapons or high capacity mags, so be it. We don't rule by decree here or executive order. If you trash a constitutional amendment that you don't like the then what is to stop from trashing all of them. I know some would also like to do away with the 1st and 10th amendment but thank god it takes a two third vote in congress and two thirds of the states to amend an amendment to the constitution. The legislature may be able to tweak the laws that effect them amendment and the supreme court will get the chance to see if they are legal...The founding fathers made it extra tough to change an amendment, we don't get to pick and choose which ones we like and the executive does not have the right to change an amendment by decree! I like the man, it is not personal, we just have to protect the constitution because that is what we all have agreed to live under.
Who is being murdered hwere? There was a doctor shot in his church! In 4 states there is only one abortion clinic because of violence and intimidation. Who are the real murderers? Why is it us law abiding centrists who keep getting shot by you radical right wingers, from the Kennedy's to Gifford?
Badass Wichita Abortion Doctor Responds to Death Threats with Lightning Bolt Car
Jon4ta,
Because theirs is a religion of peace.
And you have scary looking civilian firearms.
@ ewent
LOL. You've got that part all wrong. She was not a responsible gun owner. Had she been responsible she:
1. Wouldn't have had any guns in her home since she knew she had a mentally ill son
2. At the very least she should've had all of the guns locked up & only under her control
3. She shouldn't have taught her mentally ill son how to shoot those guns
What she did was the furthest thing from being a responsible gun owner.
What is the common denominator that caused all of these shootings:
1. VA Tech
2. Arizona (Gabby Giffords)
3. Aurora
4. Sandy Hook
Gun grabbers will say the the common denominator are the guns. Wrong.
No, the common denominator was that all of these shooters had mental problems/not wired right. People were also aware ahead of time that these killers had mental issues (in some cases years in advance). Yet nothing was done to help these people or to stop them. That is where the break down is.
It's not the hard working/law abiding gun owners who are out there running around shooting up schools, malls, & offices.
Address the mental health issues & the large gang problem that many cities have & 95%+ of the gun violence problems would go away.
Putting the majority of the focus on & clamping down on the people who are not causing the problems is not going to fix/change anything. Then that causes one to question why is it being done? There can only be 2 possible reasons for doing so.
1. The gun grabbers have an ulterior motive/agenda & are just hiding behind these shootings/using them as excuses
2. The gun grabbers are completely clueless/not in touch with reality/basing decisions strictly on knee-jerk emotions
If I had to put money on it I'd have to go with choice # 1.
@oneslakr - "2. At the very least she should've had all of the guns locked up & only under her control."
Has that been proven? If he killed her first, he could have gotten a key or combination from hiding and used it to unlock the guns. I'm pro-gun, but I'm also open-minded enough not to read too much into the media hype. I see extremism on both sides of the issue but extremism doesn't address a solution. It's all knee-jerk reaction and hyperbole. Violence can't be stopped, even Obama acknowledged that in one of his latest speeches. Yet, every person who wants to impose limits and bans fails to realize that at some point in time those same limits and bans will be used to curtain their rights at a later date via legislative precedent.
Let the seller who is not a licensed gun dealer access the database of people who are not supposed to be able to buy a gun. Now our government prevents the ordinary citizen from using the database. Otherwise all gun sales will have to done using the services of a licensed firearms dealer. That is close to universal gun registration.
Which is why it should not pass.
It would be useless anyway as criminals will not follow 'procedure'.
The Democrats want to keep a permanent record of who owns which gun.
That is registration, and that is illegal.
Their jack booted thugs dressed in police uniforms, can come to your house looking for a gun by serial number. with no warrant and no probable cause.
Iamnotyou...NO...it is NOT illegal. Where did you ever get that idea? A gun is a lethal weapon with the capacity to kill. What about that don't you get? The government, state, county and federal, all have the right to monitor that which has the potential to cause death. We do it all the time with the FDA, the EPA, the ATF and yes, even ICE.
Your post proves what is so dangerous about some gun owners...They hate the government. They hate the president and then they want us to believe they'd never use their guns to force their narrow minded will on others? BS.
ewent you are getting dumder the more you write. Why don't you turn that thing off and go stalk to your broom.
See ewent doesn't even understand that GOVERNMENT and it's agencies don't have "RIGHTS" they have POWERS and under the Constitution, only those powers ceded to the Federal government are theirs to do with what they want. All powers not specifically mentioned are reserved to the states and the people via the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Ewent is the most dangerous threat to liberty: a clueless, uninformed idiot with a vote. These people see no limits on the Federal governments powers and the Constitution as no impediment to their accretions of more and more power.
Thousands of people are killed by cars every year.
Thousands of people are killed by guns every year.
Guns should be well regulated just like cars are.
miklkit, Where exactly is that constitutional right to a car ?
According to Google 40,000 Americans die in car crashes each year, and they ARE regulated. 11,493 die by gun fire, more than half of this static is by GANG MEMBERS. So unless you're a gang member, your chances of dying by gun fire are far far less than riding in a car...
www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/understanding-kids-gangs
wiki.answers.com/Q/In_America_how_many_deaths_are_caused_by_
Thats what they mean by background checks for private sales. They want total gun registration.
Aint gonna happen!
Join the NRA today!
The NRA does not help stop unconstitutional things.
the NRA did not prevent assault weapond from being sold to foreign insurgent career criminals and foreign Drug Cartels and gangs.
If they want money from me, they have to do something for it.
just a plumber...Want to bet? 20 dead children drew the line in the sand for selfish, self-indulgent men and women in this country who choose to deliberately misinterpret the 2nd Amendment. I don't know who you people think you are fooling. You'd do the same misinterpretations of the 10 Commandments if it meant you getting your selfish way. And why should you care? It wasn't your school kids killed.....this time.
You'd better be able to stand armed guard over your kids in their classrooms. Because it wouldn't take much for some other mentally unstable gun lunatic to crawl through a school window like Adam Lanza did and bypass the army of armed security cops in the school. Get it yet? No one can be everywhere...and the common denominator is gun addiction and violent mentalities.
So ewent, your answer is to collect all the guns in the country and melt them down?
The only misinterpretation of the 2nd is by the brain dead like yourself, who ignore history, fact and the obvious.
Kindly post ONE, just ONE example of the framers expressing any opinion other than one of universal armament of the citizenry.
Betcha can't and thus your statements regarding the 2nd are simply vacuous, uninformed, unreasearched OPINION.
"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a
Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical
force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and
a disarmed populace."- James Madison, The Federalist Papers (No.
46).
Ewent, really, stop posting. You no longer have the right to express your views and opinions, either verbally or in writing because you have proved that you have no common sense. If you want to post or express your opinion again, please re-register and submit your receipt for computer ownership to the local authorities, along with having a sheriff sign off on whether he thinks you are competent enough to own one. Also, you'll need to pay a tax to do that, you'll also be taxed yearly on each silly, pointless post you make, and if you make enough of them, well, I'm sorry Ewent......you have been posting too many times....rapid fire posts....almost semi-automatic and they are assault posts. I'm going to have to ask you for your mouse. You must turn it in. You can no longer post more than seven times in a month. Your mouse will be given back with a limit-switch that, if you remove you will be facing Federal charges for. We can't do anything about your tongue and verbal yapping now but, trust me, we are working on that next.
Ahh, so you are the person responsible for deciding who can speak or not.
Seig Hiel!!!
Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
iknow..., Have to disagree, ewent has every right to post. But, you are correct, she is ill informed & silly.
I don't know if she could a mental balance test from her posts, but not my job, or yours.
@ ewent
The common denominator in these mass shootings isn't the guns.
The common denominator is that all of the shooters were mentally ill/not wired right. People who were familiar with these killers knew that they had mental problems ahead of time (in some cases years in advance). Yet nothing was done to get them help or to stop them (in the Lanza case there was also an irresponsible gun owner involved).
Guns are inanimate objects. Guns can't force anyone to do anything. Cracking down/restricting law abiding, gun owning citizens, who are not the ones running around killing people, is not going to prevent/reduce the killing or fix/change the problem.
Talk about misplaced efforts. If the goal is to truly reduce mass murders/school-mall-office shootings etc...then put your efforts where they will have the greatest affect/benefit.
Trying to go after law abiding citizens isn't going to change a damn thing.
So what happened to the "we do not have a gun control agenda" ?...Opps ..well crazy uncle Joe was tasked with it, thereby they can always blame him when this debacle blows up in their face.
It already has blown up! Look on the fire arms dealers web pages, OUT OF STOCK on most guns and ammo. Local dealers have seen the same thing. Now there are hundreds of thousands of more guns in the hands of the average person. What really sucks is I had planed on buying my wife a S&W P&M P but I have to wait for re-stocking.
Best post yet jon4ta.
Maybe Obama is smarter then we give him credit. Maybe he thinks we will have Jihadist terrorists infiltrating this Country and he is using a bit of reverse psychology, trying to get everyone to buy guns and stock up on amo. If this is not his plan then I guess he really is stupid because guns are flying off of shelves faster than flapjacks in lumberjack camp.
I was in a sportsman's Warehouse yesterday and the gun shelves were empty, but there was still a line and a 1 hour wait to see a salesman and place an order. They can't keep anything in stock. lol!
From the Post's responding to EWENT,Im glad I put her on IGNORE after the first vine I saw her posts on,along with the Pigotry and most of their ilk,They rairly have anything of value to add,and All one needs to do is listen to most of the news sources and Hollywood to hear the same broken record of lies,half truths,out of context,denial,blame and all the other trademarks of extremists Progressives/communist rants.I say Communist because the left are now Progressive,and that's just the NEW word for the old school word Commies,they want to restrict,direct,demand,redistribute,control everybody's life in every/any way they see fit,And have everyone on the Gov cradle to grave program's.
All responsible gun owners will go along with universal background checks. However, transfer between family members should be excluded. Gun owners really don't want anyone with a gun to be the kind of person who should not have them based upon their background. NO registry, No licensing for basic ownership.
Negitive on that!
@justaplumber. No doubt you and I are on the same side of the debate. I have had a background check on every gun I purchased . The last thing I want to know is that one of my neighbors obtained a gun and shouldn't have one because he got under the radar on a background check.
back ground checks for private sales is a ghost problem that will create total gun registration.
Keep up!
The argument against background checks is simply a loser. There is wide support for it. If we mean Federal national background check, NO WAY. Each state should have to have a system in place that insures that gun owners are qualified to own. BCI is a very simple method. I have a neighbor who wants a gun. He has no experience, no training and a slight problem in his background. He shouldn't be able to skirt a background check in private sale. He might be a problem based on his background. That should be determined by the background check system in my state.
No...they will not ....And we are not talking about ONLY gun registration but of the govts. ability to control what one may or may not have in their homes, despite the FACT that gun ownership and possesion is a legal activity.
and to note only one reason out of many for this......and i quote.....
as they have proven in yesterdays posting of the names of gun owners they have once again failed miserably at their jobs . When this administration does its job and lives up to its duty's and responsibilities then they can get back to us. until then HELL....no
I am pro constitution and pro 2A. There is no way a law abiding citizen should be denied the ability to keep and bear under any circumstances, and that includes no further restrictions to type,capacity or quantity. However, if we don't come up with a mechanism that prevents persons who may already be disqualified from receiving firearms, from obtaining them, we will lose more than that aspect of the debate.
IA.ScooterTramp...(#8.5)....It's already worse than you may know....Read up on Form 4473..In part:
"The dealer also records all information from the Form 4473 into their "bound-book". A dealer must keep this on file at least 20 years and is required to surrender the log to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) upon retirement from the firearms business. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473
I'm not reading anywhere that says the ATF needs a Court Order for a specific case to examine and copy these records ...Which is Carte Blanche for them...
Nope, not universal when you the private citizen have to call the BATF for PERMISSION to sell your own property...But I will tell you this..The guns that I have seen for sale by private owners have all had the following caveat...I will sell only to a CCW permit holder face to face.
No all are not, because some of us know what the government is up to. They ARE keeping records they are not supposed to. When gun shops close, they are required to send their records to the BATFE and despite the law prohibiting it BATFE is computerizing those records. In addition they have been sending agents out to examine and copy Forms 4473 at gun shops even though the record is not part of any ongoing investigation: also contrary to the law.
Once they get "universal background checks" they will be able to track every single gun transaction in the nation. Who sold it, who bought it and where it was last located: a road map for future confiscation. And some in Congress and the gun grabber community are suggesting on private sales the check be run on BOTH parties; the seller and the buyer.
The universal background check is a trap.
If there are people too criminal or too crazy to have a weapon, then they have no business being loose in society where by design or accident they might get one. It is THEY that should bear the burden of loss of rights, not the law abiding majority.
When you sell your car you change the registration. It's pretty simple and thousands of Americans do it every day. Gun registration should be about the same. Do you sell your car to an illegal or insane person? Why would you want to do that with a gun, which is far more lethal?
Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC
@miklkit - wrong...when you sell your car in my state, you can submit a form to inform DMV of the sale, but the buyer has to be the one to change the title into their name. The car is stil in your name until they do.
I had law enforcement do a trace on a gun found in a wall of a building. Guess what? Any records that could have been used to find an owner were destroyed after 10 years. It was, in fact, untraceable as a result.
This is something that can kill or mame of course there should be a background check for everyone who wishes to buy on no doubt about and that is the way it should be and that is a fact.
So cars can maim and killed! Got allot of body counts with drunk drivers, texting while driving, and just your basic i wanna kill someone with my car.
So lets do the universal back ground check on people who drive cars!
Because i know there are some crazy idiots out on the road with a 2000 lb missile.
NOT afact Carol, just your opion.
How about a baseball bat you can kill and maim with one of them or a hammer or a crowbar maybe a tire iron or a Samurai sword?
because we would clearly never test, regulate, require registration and insurance of automobiles......oh wait.......
Let's take it one step further... many MANY more murders were committed with knives and hammers than with firearms. I think we need a universal background check before you can buy a hammer or knife.
And while we are at it, why do we need cars that go faster than the posted speed limit? I think we need to legislate all cars sold in this country must have an electronic govenor that prevents the car/truck/motorcycle/rv from going faster than the posted speed limit (hey, my GPS can tell me what the speed limit is everywhere I go, should be easy for my car).
And why should our cars have fuel tanks larger than 5 gallons? How many people die every year in high speed chases with Johny Law? Only law enforcement should have vehicles with fuel tanks larger than 5 gallons. Can't run very far on a couple gallons of gas. And how many gallons do you really need?
Sometimes you need to counter absurdity with absurdity...
The State of Illinois is Giving 250,000 Drivers Licenses to 250,000 Illegal Aliens who cannot read english and cannot tell red from green.
No written test, no road test.
in Milwaukee 32 collisions happened in 2012 by Illegals driving the wrong way on the expressway. people died including babies and children.
Amnesty is the next step for Illegals, the guns they acquire don't have background checks as well, Obama will see to that and has.
What if a poor person scrimps and saves for a gun to defend themselves, and when they go in to buy it are asked for ID, is that discrimination if they don't have a state issued ID and can't excercize their Constitutional right?
So Carol, when do we start with knife, baseball bat, broken bottle, and tire iron registration?
After all they too are used to maim and kill....
Cannonballer,
Why would anyone be unable to have state ID? Did they take a bus walk or hitch a ride to the gun shop? And how did they register their kid for school ? Or turn on their power or open a bank account...OR VOTE ??
So answer is...NO if you can't even prove who you are,you cannot buy a gun or vote...or buy alcohol,cigarette's or Allergy Medicine,or give blood,or apply for any credit of any kind,or cash a check,or .......
If you can't prove who you are you should not be able to buy a gun either, but you can..............
Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC
Seriously? Did you just get to America from somewhere without television, or any type of media outlet? If so, and you came legally, welcome.
The whole "requiring ID to vote violates rights" was huge back in '12. It's not nearly as clear as the 2nd, but some people are able to find the Amendment where voting is a constitutional right that doesn't require ID.
Good!!! I would have taken it a couple of steps further and added that all gun owners including the people inside the home where the Gun(s) will be housed, all the residents have a back ground check and a letter from their family DR saying the family is stable enough to house a gun(s) at the residents address provided..Ok maybe the Dr is over the top sounds good but even for me, it's a bit much. Definitely would like to see family BG checks where guns are housed.... good Job... if a gun owner can't pass a BG check I don't want that person with a fire arm of any kind.....
Why do you want someone who cannot pass a BG check loose in society where they might get a weapon?
I woke up to a good Sunday Morning and then got sick when I saw Chucky Schumer on the web. It seems to be cruel and unusual punishment to the citizenry of this country to have to listen to total As*holes like him and Harry Ried and the rest of the Washington "leadership". Chucky got his 61 Billion in pork money so why doesn't he just shut up and give us a break. Maybe him and Chris can go on vacation together.
I have no problem with background checks. It's the results of those checks that I worry about. Who is going to determine if a person is "Mentally ill" and as such violent and unable to own a gun?
Would someone who is on medications for Depression be considered dangerous?
I am an epileptic and at one time was prescribed Nuerontin, which is a drug prescribed also for depression. A friend of mine also took it as a muscle relaxer for back pain.
Who determines which is which? There are many people out there taking meds that are good for a variety of Issues. And as well there are people who are taking meds for Depression or other forms of mental illness who are not at all violent.
I'm afraid we're throwing out the baby with the bath water.
While you may believe you are saving lives, you could be denying the rights of many in the process.
so basically what they are saying is that they are using a tragic and rare occurrence to push their agenda because otherwise they wouldn't have a chance of it succeeding.
GM SP
Exactly , gun control has never been about guns...merely control.
In a word stoned, 'Yes', that's exactly what they're doing.
gm scooter
yes a well armed government is always good for an unarmed populace.
Gun violence is rare? What planet are you from?
Most Americans are for better gun control laws. Far more than are for continued anarchy among gun nuts. I recently signed a petition for stronger gun laws that already had over 300,000 signstures.
Our popularly elected government is doing what we the people want it to do. Regulate you gun nuts.
@ everyface
Yes, gun violence is relatively rare. Your odds of getting killed by a firearms (all types combined) in the U.S. is a small fraction of 1%. You have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening. FBI stats show crime, including violent crime such as murder, has been declining for the last 20 years. This country is safer now than it was in 1993.
@ miklkit (your name should be milk toast or doormat)
You know what, I'm sick of readying your namby pamby metrosexual pansy boy crap, day after day. Why the hell are you afraid of an inanimate object? You have a much greater chance of getting killed in a car wreck or dropping dead from a heart attack than getting killed by a gun.
Take your damn petition & shove it, you gun grabbing Commie.
Use your VOTERS CARD to purchase weapons.....
To register in any state, you need to be a U.S. citizen, 18 or older by the next election, and a resident of the state. Most, but not all, states have two other rules as well: 1) you can't be a felon (someone who has committed a serious crime), and 2) you can't be mentally incompetent.
Let the govt. make all the laws they want, it just cranks up the black market so those who should not have guns will still have them. Are the feds going to confiscate every metal lathe and CNC machine. Any good machinist can make a very good gun in their shop and not register it. This is a joke but the press eats this up because the only people dumber than the politicians are the lackeys in the press. Does anyone remember the war on drugs and HOW SUCCESSFUL THAT HAS BEEN. These butthole politicians just want to pass laws whether they make sense or not. Takes the focus off of how useless they are and the state of the country fiscally. Of course to fix that it takes leadership which does not exist in Washington.
Because criminals don't obey laws we should just give up and not have laws? People break the speed limit all the time, so we should just give up and not have one? You really thinks this makes sense???
Concentrate on the criminals, enforce the current laws.
Passing more laws that further restricts the law abiding does nothing to reduce crime.
There is no evidence to support that these gun control measures will actually accomplish anything Trnc. The Libtards tried this all before... with the AWB ban of 1994 (which ran out in 2004). It also, among other things, limited clip capacity. All it really did was limit law abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights. It did nothing to deter gun crime. Criminals are already breaking many laws when they commit a crime with a firearm. Do you think one more restriction makes any difference to them? As the criminal element says... you can only hang me once.
During that AWB from 1994-2004, the DOJ and the FBI both concluded the restrictions and bans had no impact on gun crimes. What they found was most criminals arrested with firearms were using high capacity clips that were stamped 'For military and law enforcement use only'. This shows us 2 things: Criminals don't follow laws (which even the dimmest of Liberals should be able to figure out), and it is incredibly easy to get high capacity clips even during a ban.
I have nothing against laws that make sense. Making new laws that serve no appreciable purpose other than to give politicians something to beat their chest about (Look at me! Look at me! Look what I did to make you safer!), when actually all they are doing is taking an incremental step towards subverting citizens... I do not agree with. Libtards in Washington claim all these new gun control laws will make us safer. There is no evidence to support this. There is evidence that disputes it.
Here are two little known facts to chew on... Over the last 40 years, EVERY mass shooting (with 4 or more vicitims not including the shooter) with one exception has happened in a so called 'Gun Free Zone' or where firearms were prohibited. Guess someone forgot to tell the shooters they weren't allowed to shoot people there. And second, the FBI has been studying mass shootings for 35 years. Even though gun sales have skyrocketed during those 35 years, there has been no statistical increase in mass shootings. Tight gun controls haven't worked in Chicago (where during the first 6 months of 2012 there were more murders in Chicago than military fatalities in Afghanistan). In fact it has been a dismal failure.
I believe if the ATF were allowed to enforce the laws currently on the books, they might be able to put a small dent in firearms getting in the hands of those not legally able to own them. You see, ATF knows how guns are getting on the streets, but they aren't allowed to prosecute the people doing it. A felon gets out of jail. He goes to his baby-mama and has her buy him a firearm with cash from a legal firearms vendor. Felon gets a gun. This is called a straw purchase (same thing the Obama administration was doing with 'Fast and Furious') ATF is prohibited from prosecuting these women because the Federal Gub'ment doesn't want to look like it is picking on or bullying these 'innocent' women who supposedly don't know any better. The politics of law enforcement is both staggering and offensive.
Where are those criminals getting their guns? From legal gun owners and sellers. The current state laws clearly are not working. California's or New York's gun control laws need to be made national. That will slow down the number of guns that criminals are legally buying today.
Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC
The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
Are you really that naive miklkit? You are a special kind of stupid. The overwhelming majority of criminals do not legally buy weapons, they get their baby-mama(s) to do it for them. Or they buy them on the street. It is as easy as buying drugs. A... um... friend has a couple throw down weapons (anyone breaks into this person's home and they weren't armed when they came in, they will be when law enforcement arrives). Took all of an afternoon to buy 2 clean (no serial numbers) 9mm pistols on the street. And a hell of a lot cheaper than if they had been bought through a gun store.
And you are REALLY stupid if you think all this hoopla is about your 'safety'... it is about control. It is easier to control the masses if the masses have no way defend themselves. And the Libtards have been working on getting rid of that pesky Second Amendment for about 40 years now...
Use your VOTERS CARD to purchase weapons.....
To register in any state, you need to be a U.S. citizen, 18 or older by the next election, and a resident of the state. Most, but not all, states have two other rules as well: 1) you can't be a felon (someone who has committed a serious crime), and 2) you can't be mentally incompetent.
two questions
1. How?
2. when this does absolutely NOTHING will THIS administration take any kind of responsibility for its total failure?
sorry for some reason part of the above was omitted. It should have read....
two questions
1. How?
2. when this does absolutely NOTHING will THIS administration take any kind of responsibility for its total failure?
Doing nothing is not an option. The vast majority of Americans want better gun control laws. This is coming and there is nothing you can do about it. You are legally selling guns to criminals. The guns have been traced. This has to stop and the only way to do it is with NATIONAL gun control laws. You brought this on yourself with your total lack of conscience or remorse. Live with it.
I have owned guns for decades and still do in California and fully support the gun control laws here. They need to be made national to prevent more gun deaths.
This is what the feds are up against:
"Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."
By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers. Voth and his agents began investigating a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others."
The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC
Doing something just for the sake of doing something is not an option either. How about we enforce the laws on the books NOW... before we go and add a bunch more that will do nothing to deter gun violence, but will hurt legal gun owner's Second Amendment rights. After all, criminals are notorious for ignoring the rule of law. That is why they are criminals. Logic dictates they will ignore any new laws/restrictions on the books. I have yet to find a criminal that bothered with a background check before they bought/stole/borrowed a firearm. As the criminals say... you can only hang me once.
Libtards in DC (and apparently in Cali) love throwing around the term 'assault weapon'. It is a fabricated term by the anti-gun lobby. The terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are often confused. According to Bruce Kobayashi and Joseph Olsen, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review:
In other words, the term was fabricated to intentionally confuse uneducated Americans into thinking an "assault weapon" was the same thing as an "assault rifle". It isn't. These so called "assault weapons" are not even 1/10th as lethal as a true assault rifle. The Libtards are intentionally using this confusion to put restrictions on semi-automatic rifles... which are the most common type of firearm in the Country today. What makes an "assault weapon" according to the Libtards? A collapsible stock. A pistol grip. A flash guard. None of which contributes to the lethality of a rifle. These are all cosmetic features. According to Feinstein's own numbers, since the AWB expired in 2004, her 'assault weapons' were responsible for a whopping %0.6 of gun deaths. Yup, 1/2 of 1% sure sounds like an epidemic to me. Apparently all our other more pressing problems have been solved in DC... since they have time to waste on this nonsense. At least the Libtards are predictable. They never let the severity of a tragedy prevent them from exploiting it for their own political agenda...
I sure as hell wouldn't hold up California as an example for stricter gun control laws. LA is still one of the most violent cities in the Country. Just like Chicago. Both locations where gun control laws have failed miserably to curb gun violence.
Doing something just for the sake of doing something is not an option either. How about we enforce the laws on the books NOW... before we go and add a bunch more
---------------------------------------------------------------
But, that describes this ENTIRE Administration, from welfare/food stamp benefits, illegal aliens to gun control....
You can regulate the gun sales market till the cows home, you require a 4 year degree to be a gun owner, you can regulate background checks, mental health screenings and create another mountainous mirage of paperwork but one thing remains. You can't regulate human behavior gone haywire! Assault rifles, large magazines, clips all are nothing buts bits and pieces of the tool that delivers the ammo which hits the projected target. The little human factor being side stepped is the finger pulling the firring mechanism called the TRIGGER! Knee jerk simpletons for leadership! Both parties continue to suck!
UBC's are fine as long as there is some kind of data available to law enforcment relating to mental health. The people commiting these crimes are lunatics and always seem to gain access to weapons. This must be stopped. You can enforce UBC's all you want but it still won't solve the root problem.
Reid won't bring it to the floor because he recieved campaign money from the NRA. Reid speaks from both sides of his mouth, and both sides don't say the same thing. Thyere's going to be a hell of a battle, or battles, but ultimately the war will be won by the citizens. As for your president, he continues with his agenda to toally disolve the constitution and caqrry out his TYRANNICAL way. I love my country, but I don't trust it's government. Impeach and incarcerate is the needed measure.
My car is registered, my home is registered, my credit history is open to anybody who holds my SSAN. Just what part about having a deadly weapon registered as well is so difficult to understand. For 2011, the FBI stats showed that there were 12,662 homicides. 6,220 were committed with semi automatic pistols. 332 were committed with assault rifles. The remaining homicides were divided up between knives, clubs, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns. Now, with just assault rifles alone, we still have more gun deaths than the next four industrialized countries combined. The question of what makes an assault rilfe is simple. It is a semi auto weapon that has a removable high capacity magazine with a quick change capability (ie. bolt locks to the rear on the last round, press a button, magazine drops out, put in a new one, press another button , bolt closes, commence firing). Which leads me to the final question. Why does anybody need an assault rifle outside of being able to pretend they're Rambo. An answer that doesn't include "in case the zombies come", or "the evil government will come to get me" (you're already way out armed), or , "they're really fun to shoot. Beyond those tired answers, I'd like to hear an intelligent one.
Competitive shooting - timed fire and rapid fire segments in the program. Varmint hunting - shooting prairie dogs at 400 yards. If you miss the first shot, you have only a second for the second shot, because that critter is running fast for the burrow. However, you are missing the point. Prevention of tyranny is reason number one, and all the screaming in the world does not hide the fact that modern tyrannies have disarmed their population before they started the destructive behavior - Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, China, etc. Mohatma Gandhi, the great Indian pacifist leader, said the greatest crime the British visited upon India was it's disarmament.
Neolibs....First, don't confuse "need" with "right"....You may not see a "need" to own a firearm and the beauty of this nation and it's laws, you have that choice.
On the other hand, I too have the choice under the 2nd Amendment the "right to keep and bear arms" and that right "shall not be infringed"..
In all the cases you mention above, it was not law-abiding citizens who committed those violent acts...
Every one broke the law. By their choice....not the weapons choice....
Also, the statistic on the 332 homicides committed "with assault rifles" is wrong. That is the total of all homicides committed with "rifles" of all kinds.
Based on the "assault rifle" definition of military automatic or select fire weapon, no homicides were committed with that kind of rifle.
Of those committed with a semi-automatic AR (Armalite Rifle not "assault rifle")-15, only 1-2% of all homicides are committed with that type of firearm...
Why did you know that over 4,000 are killed each year with a knife and over 2000 are killed with bare hands or blunt objects....A much higher number than a semi-automatice modern sporting rifle like everyone is focused on.....Over 400 times more often....
Why just the other day it was reported that a man killed his wife with a skillet....or should I say "assault skillet"....Shall we ban all "assault skillets" or only those that hold over 2 quarts??
Even you are smart enough to see that with that small % of occurrence, our politicians are focused on the wrong "target"....
Focus on the person.....and why the person makes the decision to do harm, no matter what weapon is used.
To answer your last question...because the 2nd Amendment grants that right......Period.
Because I can.
I don't think any conversation or scenario to justify having an assault rifle will convince you one way or another Neo, but for debatable reasons I'll explain my position and opinion. With respect towards your own opinion as well.
Many gun enthusiasts are basically collectors, many antiques, rare bread guns and war hardware are extremely valuable. As you have noticed, in the past 3 to 7 years gun sales have been on the rise and finding some of these specialty weapons at reasonable prices has sky-rocketed. From an investors point of view, who is a legal owner of their respected collection, it is a very lucrative way to add some supplemental cash to the retirement fund.
Finally the argument that who needs these kinds of weapons is really irrelevant. Car collectors who collect 67 Cameros, collect them for their own personal reasons and by all legal court and law practices if they abuse the laws and jump into this 3700 pound machine under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol and kill 12 people at a Mall Parking lot they have just killed with a weapon. Don't blame the steel in the tool but the human hands that handle it.
Jon:
Ok. why can't any of that be done with a semi auto rifle with a fixed magazine with less than ten rounds. Except for the delusional belief that the evil government will take your gun away, of course. Also, you're missing another point. The people in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany didn't have their weapons taken away from them. In Nazi Germany there were Schutzverein and Jagdverein that celebrated hunting and marksmanship. There were similar organizations in Soviet Russia. How do you think the Soviets were able to raise partisan groups so quickly, there were a lot of armed people out there already. The people who were lead off were the ones everybody was told as being a problem and nobody resisted. Tyranny doesn't have to take your guns away to rule. The existing technology makes the toys you have in your gun safe pretty much obsolete. So if you're defending yourself from the evil government, you're already outgunned. Finally, lets look at what your conservative heroes have said about gun control.
George HW Bush cancels his lifetime membership in the NRA when they refer to Government Agents as jack booted thugs.
Ronald Reagan in 1992 when receiving an honoroarium at Georgetown University personally and publicly supported the Brady Bill. He had also stated that assault weapons do not belong out on the streets of this country.
Richard Nixon in 1970 wanted to make all semi automatic weapons illegal. Stating that there is no reason for the public to won such a weapon.
And finally, it was first Nixon and then Reagan, and then George HW Bush who all used executive orders to restrict the importing of foreign made assault weapons into this country.
China did not release it's numbers to the media but a US Diplomat got the records. 212,019 people were killed by assault weapons in 2012, and that was government shooting of unarmed protesters.
Chinal will be making Jeeps now.
Mexico had over 120,000 shootings in 2012, and several hundred of those were done with "Fast and Furious" assault weapons from the Obama* Holder conspiracy to supply weapons to the enemy in the drug war. Attorny General Eric Holder is still In Criminal Contempt of Congress and Obama* is exersizing Executive Privelidge to prevent Holder from being held acountable for the death of a US Border Patrol Agent.
That will not go away.
90% of the shootings done in America are done by Illegal aliens.
NEOLIB87:
YOU WROTE (I'm paraphrasing here): I don't understand the need for large-capacity ammo magazines or the need for assault weapons in our daily lives.
MY RESPONSE: Threatened citizens and many store owners in bad neighborhoods understand the NEED for assault weapons and high capacity magazines, especially during riots. Just the display of AR-15's by merchants in Florida during an episode of mob violence/looting (in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew) kept rampaging mobs from destroying the life-time investment of store owners and probably saved lives. During riots in Los Angeles (after the Rodney King incident), even the police refused to enter certain neighborhoods for their own safety. During hurricane Katrina, the police wouldn't/couldn't protect many neighborhoods from gangs of looters. The citizens were left to protect themselves.
Moreover, let me apply your logic to the known fact that cars kill more people than guns. Therefore, why does anyone NEED a car that can go much faster than 100 miles per hour when the highest speed limit anywhere in the country is far less than that number? Isn't speed one of the main factors in vehicular deaths and accidents? No one except police and emergency personnel need high-powered automobiles capable of high speeds. So, if you really are concerned about saving lives, why not fight for laws forcing manufacturers to make slower cars? Or at least demand laws restricting the ownership of high-powered vehicles to ONLY police and emergency personnel. High-powered vehicles should not be in the hands of private citizens.
Finally, when you asked why anyone NEEDS so-called assault rifles or high-capacity magazines, you deserve a succinct answer. So here it is: our Constitution contains the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the BILL OF NEEDS! And if you are still obsessed with the concept of “NEED”, let me offer this common sense advice: it’s better to have an assault rifle and not NEED it than to NEED an assault rifle and not have it.
Let’s not forget that NOT A SINGLE GUN was used on 9/11 or at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, when a fertilizer bomb wreaked death and destruction; unspeakable evil will always find a way to express itself, with or without guns.
Also, if the gun-grabbers think the solution to reducing violence in America can be achieved by disarming and preventing citizens from defending themselves, maybe the same solution should be applied to reducing violence in the world at large by disbanding America’s military forces. How safe then do you think America would be in a world where only our enemies had guns...or better guns...or more guns?
Use your VOTERS CARD to purchase weapons.....
To register in any state, you need to be a U.S. citizen, 18 or older by the next election, and a resident of the state. Most, but not all, states have two other rules as well: 1) you can't be a felon (someone who has committed a serious crime), and 2) you can't be mentally incompetent.
The support the president thinks he's going to get is not going to come from the people in washington but from those outside. He can't win there so he's going to do what he's always done in the past, namely whine to the American population.
I'll bet that if things don't go his way you're going to hear his crap all over again: "they won't work with me!!!". In other words the same old sh!t coming from him that people too dumb to understand will buy.
In this case there is absolutely NO LAW that will stop this kind of occurance. You just can not legislate peoples' actions. They will get whatever they are going to need to do whatever they are planning to do and neither you nor I can stop them.
The only way to deal with this problem is education and understanding that people with mental illness need to be treated like anyone else that goes to a doctor. They are sick and need help. But I honestly doubt American society can do that because there is just "something evil" with mental illness that defies peoples' common sense. Remove the stigma attached with mental illness because it's just plain stupid to think that way.
All gun dealers conduct checks, no matter where or when they make the sale. Most private gun sales involve no more than one or two guns, and most often are between folks who know each other. It is not feasible, or right, to require checks for a dad giving a gun to a son for his birthday, or for a man to give a gun to his wife. It might be possible for a private seller at a gun show to ask a dealer at the show to run a background check for him, and maybe pay the dealer for his time and effort, but there aren't that many of that kind of sales. I suspect that some of these newsguys that claim they bought x number of guns at a show without a check, may well have had a check performed. It really does not take very long to do it, the NCIS is a fast process. I can be in and out of a store in minutes with a gun, and I know the dealer did a check. My purchases are sped up somewhat by the fact that I also have a concealed carry license, so am in the state records for gun ownership, with a background check, but even so, it doesn't take long to do. Face the facts, though. If the federal government, and state governments did their jobs, and enforce current laws, we'd have fewer gun crimes. All we really need to do is enforce existing laws, including the mental health reporting, and most of the issues would go away. Some states report, some don't. Some crazies will always slip through the cracks, and comments made in the debates in the 1780's over the Bill of Rights reflect this fact. Our founding fathers were willing to accept a certain level of violence in order to ensure the ability to deter tyranny. Remember this, too - when the British were on the ropes after Dunkirk in 1940, it was private gun owners in America who rearmed Britain. It wasn't the government, it was a plea to private owners to send rifles to replace those lost to the Germans in the Dunkirk evacuation. Americans have stepped up in the past to save democracy elsewhere, if we are denied the ability to protect ourselves, our place in the world as a protector of democracy is seriously threatened.
Not True.
An Indiana Resident buying a gun in indiana is asked for identification only....show him your Indiana driver's license pay the man and walk out with whatever gun you have money to purchase.
Kevin you are completely and totally WRONG..UNLESS you have a concealed carry license and this includes law enforcement officers you MUST go through a background check. That dude is FEDERAL LAW and not state law. That tells me you have NEVER bought a gun, have you..
Amasing that King Obama waited until after the election to start pushing his anti-2nd amendment crap. Don't you bet all those "Blue Dog"Dimocraps that are up for reelection in 14 wish he would find some other Constitutional right to infringe on.
Next up will be making the 20 million illegals living here democrat voters.
How about actually enforcing the laws we already have?
Yes that would go a HECK of a long way to doing just what they want. I have my C&R FFL and when they sent my license to me (after several months of background checks by the ATF) I ALSO got 3 books on the gun laws, the books total about 5 INCHES THICK!! I do believe we have enough laws already they're just NOT being enforced!
Did you read those books? Betcha didn't. The current hodge podge of state laws totally defeats any attempts at common sense gun regulation. The Virginia Tech killer is a perfect example. One state denied him guns, so he went to the next state and got them. In Arizona one guy goes into a gun store and walks out with thousands of dollars worth of brand new guns he just bought and then gives them to the gangsters who gave him the money. All perfectly legal.
That will change.
Bloomberg Unveils Videos of Arizona Gun Show Sting - WNYC
The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal - Fortune Features
Fortunately, the SCOTUS has ruled that the SA is an individual right.
The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment
"Nobody Wants to Take Your Guns."
for those of you who criticize the NRA, note this - the only organization truly capable of, and actively involved in gun safety training is the NRA. If you think they are all about give kids guns, please take a look at the Eddie Eagle program - "If you see a gun, don't touch. Leave it alone, call an adult." Every elementary school would be wise to invite Eddie Eagle in for 4th grade or so.
Jon-2149156
Nobody has a problem with the NRA on gun safety, they have a great record on that. They started out as an organization that promoted marksmanship, conservation, and weapons safety. However, they've turned into a corporate front for the gun industry and they will push anything that means more and more guns being sold (read profit for the industry). La Pierre's response to Newtown was giver everybody a gun and we'll all be safe.
Neolib.....On the contrary, the NRA is standing tall for the rights of "We The People" and are a voice for over 100 million gun owners (whether a member or not) in defending the 2nd Amendment for what the Founding Fathers designed it for....
No different from how the MLB, NFL, NBA etc. organizes and supports growth of sports and guess what, the people who supply sporting goods prosper because of it.
I am uncertain how anyone who has fully researched the NRA, it's mission and how it approaches defending the 2nd Amendment can say it is solely a front for gun manufacturers...
I used to belong to the NRA. I left them when they went off the deep end decades ago. They are only a front for the gun lobby.
sniff, sniff sniff...what's that I smell? It's b@#$h%t.
The executive 'orders' are easily available, if you bother to look. It is only you and your kind who don't know what they contain, how innocuous they are, how much common sense they contain. Happy hunting (so to speak).
William. We can only hope they take the time to actually look those "orders" up and then actually read them.
And for all you who think the Administration is building a database of "gun owners", that's what you get for "thinking". The database that is to be created, maintained and shared in determining if one should be able to own or possess a gun, of any kind, is the database for the known criminals and known mentally disturbed. It is to be used in the process of performing the background check.
So unless you area known criminal or have been deemed mentally disturbed, you have no worries. Leaving you only with the complaint of having to have a background check or you can't have the BIG toy. What a horrible thing to have to do to ensure guns aren't going to those who shouldn't have them. I apologize if it inconveniences you.
Geanie the database is of current gun owners and not prospective gun owners..How can a prospective gun owner be a gun owner..They can't. The database that everyone can agree on is for those judged to be a mental health risk..Now there is the caveat..you have to be judged by a judge so those under psychiatric care will slip through the cracks and then there is another problem..Dr/Patient confidentiality..Currently the only way a psy doc can report someone to law enforcement is if the person being reported has EXPRESSED him/her self to be a danger to society..Until that Dr/patient problem is solved it is going to be difficult to enforce. Data base of who can own a gun?? That is what the FBI/BATF background check does. If you have a prison record and not had your rights restored by a judge AND local sheriff or police chief you cannot buy a gun legally..