I agree alcohol is a problem and leads to others but, prohibition actually created more crime and abuse.

@Tracy... I guess you just proved my point even more... So know are crimes going to increase for that we are going to have gun bootleggers like that of the prohibition period for alcohol!!

And Paul.... please refer to Jim Crow.... that also was passed by the legislature....

You can keep what someone "else" tells you the Constitution means.... I'll keep what the words say.....

thank god it's not my tax dollars,,,,

Ban it from law abiding citizens while others print the clips or guns at home.

@ cameron - California and New York already have the strictest gun laws, those restriction have done nothing. Same as those restrictions on drinking, I still see kids under the age of 21 drinking, driving, killing, causing accidents!

Terry-753375

Ban murder instead. If banning guns would work on criminals, then ban murder and see if that works on criminals. OH!!! we have already banned murder, didn't work.

what?

if we go with your theory, let's start letting drunks drive because we cannot prevent 100% of drunks from driving so why bother, right?

Your Birth is registered, Your Death is registered, and just about everything in between is registered. WHY, is it SO wrong to register a device who's soul purpose is to kill?

Background checks, mental health checks, etc. There are more checks into your background than you realize, just to get a job......But those same checks are infringing on your freedom when it comes to weapons??? Really??? What are you hiding, what don't you want found??? After all, if you're not doing anything wrong, why the objections? ( At least that is what the Right tells me when I reject big brother sticking it's ugly nose into my life.)

Fear is the Mind Killer, and we have a nation filled with fearful minds.......That is where change is needed.

Much Love n Peace,

Just say NO------to Violence.

Da Pup

>:o):

1.36

Discredied opinion

Wet Willy.... where do you come up with your paranoid UN-Facts?

There is no such thing as an ANTI- gun campaign.

yes, because you can use a vodka bottle to shoot 100 bullets in 2 minutes into 20 six-yr-olds...

what a "great" comparison...

Yet, you can use alcohol to drive drunk and run into a whole van load of people, killing them all, just like what happened in PA a couple of years ago. So, yes it IS a valid comparison.

BTW, if there were no AR-15 allowed, the nut would not have access to his mother's, would he? So yeah, it is a gun problem.

So, you actually think that in the absence of a gun he would have just decided "what the hell, I really don't want to kill my mother and all those children, so I guess I won't bother to find another way" Do you really believe that? If so, you are more ignorant than I thought.

Your logic is that the availability of guns causes people to decide to kill. What a stupid ASSumption.

LaPew and the NRA is a gun lobbyist group.

Wet Willy:

Thank You, wet willy, sounds like you KNOW what's going on!!!

More POWER to you!!!

Those that have no sword should sell their cloak and buy one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_cloak_and_buy_a_sword

It seems to be impossible for the right wing lunatic fringe to comprehend the fact the American people will no longer tolerate their children being slaughtered on the altar of the Second Amendment merely so selfish, immature wannabe Rambos can acquire pointless arsenals of deadly toys for their prurient amusement. The NRA cannot protect their playthings because LaPierre demonstrates his fetid organization is anything except a force for responsible gun ownership every time he opens his mouth and makes yet another asinine statement. Gun enthusiasts go even further by making the case for broad ranging gun control every time they heckle the parents of a child shot down by a mass murderer wielding an assault rifle. This sort of reprehensible behavior is working against their senseless cause and they cannot understand why. However, the American people know why gun control is necessary and we will welcome it when it happens.

Gun control. Now, more than ever, it is the right thing to do.

bayllie

you have no imagination, do you? Is it so hard to realize that any state's strict gun laws are only as strict as what other states allow?

you don't think people can get into their cars and drive to another state or vice versa?

Do you have to go through customs every time you leave/enter a state?

Odd thing about that is when you drive into California, they check you for fruit. No officer, that is not a banana in my pocket.

Dangerfield .... 'turn the other cheek' is but advice to diminish the pain from the coming second blow

dangerfield

Why do we remember the O.K. Corral?

most people remember Kurt Russel or Powers Boothe

The problem is not semi-automatic weapons, or assault rifles or magazines, or handguns but the domestic arms race that is spreading out of control in many parts of the country. Just as the Nuclear arms race or the policy of MAD was dialed down by negotiations so to must our out of control gun culture. Different states and local governments have different gun regulations based upon gun culture, but local laws do not slow down the flow of small arms to places like Chicago. Only a coherent national policy or state to state agreements will make a dent in this insanity. I don't see how anybody can say that packing heat protects you, all it does is turn up the temperature.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states

We are NO WAY consistent in our gun restrictions, our gun background checks, our gun safety.

And the NRA likes it that way.

Mr.Steady

Yet, you can use alcohol to drive drunk and run into a whole van load of people, killing them all, just like what happened in PA a couple of years ago. So, yes it IS a valid comparison.

no, it is not a valid comparison because the car would be more comparable to the gun sice it is the weapon that kills....so it would be more correct to say "ban all cars."

RI Mom -

there are very good reasons that the NRA opposes some of the items on your list:

"Microstamping" and "Encoded Ammunition"—NRA opposes requiring that cartridge cases be marked with serial numbers and registered to gun owners.

So you mark the cartridge case, great....now you'll need to do a number of things:

Create a database of all of the cartridge case lots and associate them with the owner. Who manages that database and keeps it up to date?

What happens when the gun owner sells that ammunition to someone else?

Even if you have the database, what value will it be if the brass is not left at the scene?

Mandatory Storage—NRA opposes requiring gun owners to lock all guns when at home, because locked guns cannot be used for self-defense and such a law would be enforceable only by home inspections by the police.

As well they should...if I use the firearm to defend my home and it's secured with a gun lock, what happens if someone breaks in? Do I simply ask them "Mr. Burglar, please wait while I unlock my gun"??

Protecting FFLs—NRA supports a law to prevent BATFE from revoking firearms dealers' licenses for insignificant technical violations.

Without knowing what the definition of a "technical violation is", there's no way to evaluate this

Terrorist Watchlist—NRA opposes legislation to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the watchlist, because the FBI will not say who is on the list or why, and the legislation would violate the 5th Amendment by preventing a watchlisted person from challenging the FBI in a fair and open hearing in court.

Again, this is well founded - with no checks and balances on the 'watchlist', what's to prevent people from being placed on the list for having an unpopular opinion?

"Smart" Guns—NRA opposes requiring that guns have expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire. D.C.

Again - a defensive firearm loses it's value as a means of defense if it's not readily usable. What happens if I'm disabled in one way or another and my wife needs to use this 'smart gun'

As so many have already pointed out, if the firearms laws we already have were enforced, perhaps with some changes to the NICS system to allow for the sharing of psychiatric history, a lot of these problems will be eliminated. Not all, of course - no matter what Congress does, you'll be unable to legislate evil out of existence.

So...Sandy Hook is the motivation? So why has the evidence been sealed for 90 days? Release all evidence pertaining to Sandy Hook so it can be assessed. If it can stand the light of day, there shouldn't be a problem...right? Otherwise, don't mention Sandy Hook and rifle in the same sentence again.

flintlock-4771495

Gun ownership is a right

and is someone taking ALL your guns away or is this debate about specific ones that they want to ban? And if that's wrong, tell me, can you go to a gun store and buy a machine gun, grenade launchers, or anti-tank rifles?

1.58

Make your case for solutions.... please.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states

Her assailant was nuts. Further he was on meds that made him, not just nuts, but manic. Everyone knew he was nuts - his college professor related that when he turned to write something on the blackboard he would quickly turn around in case Jarred was aiming a gun at him.

Nothing was done. He was a ticking time bomb but no one could do anything because committing someone who is crazy is too difficult. Same as James Holmes in Aurora and Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook. That's the problem that needs addressing. Nutty people on meds that make them both manic and dangerous freely wandering among us. Addressing that will have more practical impact than disarming the law-abiding.

blackcatwhitecat

Odd thing about that is when you drive into California, they check you for fruit. No officer, that is not a banana in my pocket.

that's too funny...

this is how ridiculous our gun laws are. It is harder to buy pot in some states than a gun...go figure

"Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the US gun related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22 countries. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world. Tribal conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's..." Something we should all be proud of.

So my question is... If the answer to gun violence are more guns, how many more guns do we need before we can all feel safe?

I mean no disrespect to the mothers and fathers of Sandy Hook. But if you really want to make a difference, Demand that the Pic's taken of your children laying there riddled with bullet holes and let America see that. Force the American people to see what you had to see. Then let Congress set on there hands and do nothing. That would cause a up roar unlike anything we have ever seen. Every parent in this Country raise hell. Every Grand Parent would raise hell with Congress to get something done. Look what MADD" Mothers against Drunk driving has done. We need something like that against Weapons of mass destruction. Make no mistake, An AR 15 with a 30 round clip is just that. A 9mm with a 30 round clip is as well. If we can not stop the sale of AR 15"s and others like them, We can dam sure stop the sale of the 30 round clips. For those of us that were around for Vietnam, seeing the carnage on TV and all those Caskets coming home every day. That is what stopped the war, along with the draft. Forcing people to go die so rich people can get richer, kinda got old. Educated people knew there was no reason for the USA to be in Vietnam at all. Just like that was no reason for the USA to have gone into Iraq, Except to get the oil back into the hands of Mobil oil. Again fighting a war for the rich. We can stop Gun makers from making such big profits by banning the sales of these Ar 15's. We can stop drunk driving and have to some extent by making Bar owners and bar tenders responsible when they keep feeding Drunks, drinks when they know they are drunk and then get in a car and kill someone, this has already been done, and it works. Not 100% but it has worked. We can do something like that with guns.

lee-936758

Ban abortion doctors, not guns..

Coat hangers and back alleys are the humane solution.

Flintlock.... Interesting that you should use that handle since your thinking also comes from the distant past. In the 222 years since the Bill of Rights was ratified there has NEVER been an occasion when our government turned its guns against its own citizens! (in the Civil War the south had declared itself a separate nation) Gun worshipers using the excuse that they fear their government are just reading from the NRA manual to justify their obsession. The US has the most powerful military in the world and you think that if they were to suddenly go mad you could hold them off with your little Bushmaster? Get real. More selfish rhetoric from those who will use any argument, no matter how low, to hold on to their toys at the expense of public safety. Also, this endless and stupid business of comparing guns to cars. Cars are for transportation and people die in them BY ACCIDENT!!! Guns are for killing people on purpose. Understand now? Comparing them is beyond ridiculous.

Everything in the world a gun can accomplish has been accomplished. Laws will obviously do nothing but put more people in our already over crowded prison system. I think a more reasonable statute would be to make guns completely illegal in certain areas or zones. For instance, School zones or certain parameters around the school zone. Cities, public areas ETC.. First time offense 5 years, second time mandatory life in prison. Just like drugs...

Create gun free zones and let people decide, You want a gun, fine, move to an approved area.

No reason my 5 year old should be at risk to appease 2nd Amendment nutbags.

Kids die every day. Then there are the children that are NOT born yet that are killed every day.

How many kids die each year from guns? Sure 1 is to many. Trying to make laws that infringe on the 2nd admendment is stupid. We need to enforce the laws we have now. Time enforce the sentences for thosse that use GUNS in there CRIMES instead of using it to get them to plead guilty to robbery, they throw out the gun charge. That needs to STOP, using a gun while comitting a crime should be a mandatory 20 years extra on top of the sentence you get for robbery. NO MORE letting them off with a slap on the wrist.

That is the problem they let CRIMMINALS off to easy when they use a GUN. Time for stiffer penalties for those using a gun in a crime.

lee-936758

Ban abortion doctors, not guns..

let the kids be born first and then let a guy shoot 6-11 bullets into their little, 6-yr-old bodies with hi AR-15...

every single one of you bringing up abortion as a tool to defend guns, how many sexually, physically, emotionally abused children have you fostered?

and why is it that red states have a higher % of children that live below poverty level and have no access to health insurance?

It would be great if you people started to care as much about the kids already been born as you do about fetuses.

mountainlady

The US has the most powerful military in the world and you think that if they were to suddenly go mad you could hold them off with your little Bushmaster?

you expect too much from them...common sense is not their strong suit.

to make guns completely illegal in certain areas or zones. For instance, School zones or certain parameters around the school zone. Cities, public areas ETC

I somehow think that Adam Lanza would be immune from such a law since he didn't even care about the consequences of murdering children.

Q22

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that guaranteed the right to smoke pot.

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that guaranteed the right to fire nuclear weapons, grenade launchers or anti-tank rifles...

...or AR-15s for that matter.

Better yet, show me where in the Constituion does it state that smoking pot is illegal?

let the kids be born first and then let a guy shoot 6-11 bullets into their little, 6-yr-old bodies with hi AR-15...

Funny that you are justifiably horrified at the thought of a six year old shot to pieces but apathetic to the thought of an infant being stabbed in the back of the head just prior to crowning.

For you stupid libs that keep touting the propaganda "Assault Weapons" There was a man that killed more people in Texas from a bell tower with a bolt action rifle than anyone who has used an "Assault Rifle" in a crime (which account for ONLY 1% of deaths from a violent crimes by the way).

Let's look to history (sorry to annoy you libs, I know you hate history) when we banned "Assault Weapons" in the 90's violent crime increased (go figure, damn logic) it decrease after the ban was lifted (shocking). Just curious, but what do you people have against logic or thinking for yourselves, why are you so fast to lap up propaganda without a second thought?

I am sick of these 2nd amendment fanatics. 2nd amendment is not quran or bible that can't be changed.

Better yet, show me where in the Constituion does it state that smoking pot is illegal?

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

RI Mom -

potential solutions:

1. Modification to HIPAA laws to allow mental health professionals' records to be shared with the NICS system.
2. Create a training/certification system for gun owners similar to what SCUBA uses - each 'level' of certification allows for purchase of that 'level' of firearm. For example, prior to purchasing a semi-automatic pistol, the prospective owner must take and pass a class and on-range test to ensure they are proficient with that style of firearm and can handle it safely. I can foresee multiple levels of training. The system would be self-funding because of the costs associated with the certification. The training time would also weed-out potentially unsafe owners.

Meanwhile, can you imagine the shock of those on the left if this same speech was given about abortion?

Over 3000 innocent babies a day are killed by their own mothers. Perhaps someone equally as crass as the jerks who heckled that father of one of the Newtown children for believing that gun control won't solve anything should just stand up at one of these rallies and thank the mothers of those babies for having not aborted them so that they could be around for Adam Lanza to kill, so that we could finally have an end to all the gun violence in this country--Finally, something will be done about all the babies dying...

Kevin how did that type of thinking work in Sandy Hook elemetary? Thats right got 20 children & 6 adults killed. Posting signs saying there are NO GUN ALLOWED. Just is a sign saying these people are easy targets as they do NOT have any guns to protect themselves or others.

How are the gun LAWS in Chicago working for them. They have STRICT GUN LAWS. They also have a HIGH # of murders by guns also. Making MORE laws that the crimminals will not follow makes NO SENCE.

You have to make it a 20 year sentence to get thoriugh to these IDIOTS that will use a GUN while committing a CRIME.

long and the short of it, gun bans dont work never have, look it up RI and bay, crime went up during the ban times. go for total gun bans, Plz, bet it would end up like proabition. RI your solotions that you posted would not work, use your head for something other then a hat rack, too many bullets to mark, lock up guns when at home, how are you going to enforce that, as it is, criminals have it easy in the socalled gun free zones like chicago and New york city, reread the stats the stated about reduced violent crime, and for a comparison you wont like 2.5 milion people are wounded or killed by a knife each year. why dont we hear about that? Cause its not as glamorous as a gun, nor is a knife a protected right like gun ownership is. RI yes there is an anti-gun campaign going on, look at what you and others like you are spewing, the entire idea is to take as much as people are willing or dont know they are loseing. Common sence, if something didnt work to begin with, it wont work a second time.

I am sick of these 2nd amendment fanatics. 2nd amendment is not quran or bible that can't be changed.

By all means change it. But do it legitimately - through constitutional amendment - not through legislative fiat.

Kevinoffsite:

"Create gun free zones and let people decide, You want a gun, fine, move to an approved area."

I would love to see this, then you libs would be so quick to try and find a gun (that you can no longer purchase thanks to your own stupidity) and move away from the gun free zones.

Here's some info, we already have gun free zones, that's where most violent crime already happen, why????? Because there is no one with a gun to stop them. You libs defy logic.

And in the book of Matthew, Jesus said that those who live by the sword will die by it. The quote earlier about selling cloaks to get swords is incomplete. Jesus told his disciples that two were enough (book of Luke). The purpose was to help him fulfill prophesy and not that everybody should sell their cloaks and buy swords. When Peter took one of the swords and cut of the ear of one of the priests men, Jesus told him to desist. Jesus also told his disciples to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

Show me in the constitution where it says we can NOT use AR-15 to protect ourselves.

MJ that would only work if they went to a shrink in the first place. I bet some of the shooters could of gottenguns legally by themselves. OR they get them ILLEGALLY and knowing they are CRAZY would NOT prevent that.

Show me in the constitution where it says we can NOT use AR-15 to protect ourselves.

It doesn't say I can't use a tank to destroy all of my neighbors' houses, either.

"Create gun free zones and let people decide, You want a gun, fine, move to an approved area."

think the criminals will abide? arent banks typically gun free zones? how do people rob banks? Feathers? harsh language? Pretty please with sugar on top?

The Drug War is the direct cause of over 51% of all murders in this country, including 50%+ of gun murders. (Add the drug gang related murders, and the non-gang related drug-related murders, either over drugs or turf, and you get 51% of murders, both in non-gun murders and in gun murder.) If you want to save most of that 51%, legalize drugs.

Gun control, including assault rifle bans and high capacity magazine bans have had no measurable effect on reducing violent crime and murder rates when tried in the past. "Assault" rifles are responsible for 3.5% of homocides in the USA, and less than 2% of murders.

As guns have proliferated, high capacity magaznes have proliferated, violent and sexualized TV, movies, and music have proliferated, and single parenthood has risen, we have had a 49% decline in the murder rate (last 20 years, and 20% the last decade). The violent crime rate has fallen at almost the exact same trate over that period. So, logically, there is no correlation between gun ownership rates in the USA and violent crime or murder rates. No correlation means there can be no causality.

Mental illness is also not heavily correlated to violent crime or murder (believe it or not).

Go to this article before you post opposing studies, as it debinks several of the usual studies cited in it's links embedded in the article.

5 Facts About Guns, Schools, And Violence

What every legislator - and citizen - needs to know.

No one wants to ever again see anything like the senseless slaughter of 26 people – including 20 children - at a school. But as legislators turn toward creating new gun laws, here are five facts they need to know.

1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years.

The violent crime rate - which includes murder, rape, and beatings - is half of what it was in the early 1990s. And the violent crime rate involving the use of weapons has also declined at a similar pace.

2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years.

Despite terrifying events like Sandy Hook or last summer's theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent. "There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University, who studies the issue. Other data shows that mass killings peaked in 1929.

3. Schools are getting safer.

Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be.Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crime, the victimization rate per 1,000 students dropped from 53 to 14.

4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before.

Over the past 20 years, virtually every state in the country has liberalized gunownership rules and many states have expanded concealed carry laws that allow more people to carry weapons in more places. There around 300 million guns in the United States and at least one gun in about 45 percent of all households. Yet the rate of gun-related crime continues to drop.

5. "Assault Weapons Bans" Are Generally Ineffective.

While many people are calling for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons – an arbitrary category of guns thathas no clear definition – research shows it would have no effect on crime and violence. "Should it be renewed," concludes a definitive study, "the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement."

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is as horrifing a crime as can be imagined. It rips at the country's heart and the call to action is strong and righteous. But as Joe Biden and his panel of experts consider changes to gun laws and school-safety policies, they need to lead with their heads and not just their hearts.

Over the past dozen years, too many policies – the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, the TARP bailouts – have been ruled by emotion and ideology.

Passing sweeping new restrictions on Second Amendment rights won't heal the pain and loss we all feel but just may create many more problems in our future.

Here's some info, we already have gun free zones, that's where most violent crime already happen, why?????

Show me numbers then prove that a gun-free zone causes violent crime.

I am saddened and disappointed by all the posters who present the same old tired "straw man" arguments against sensible gun control.

"Alcohol/Cars/etc kill more people than guns, why not ban them?"

Alcohol and Cars are both regulated and controlled. There are strict limits on how safe they must be, who can sell/buy, etc. Car owners must have avalid title and register their car periodically, then obtain a license to drive. As others have posted, I would totally agree to have the same restirctions on Guns as there are on Cars.

"An Assault Weapons Ban is a 'slippery slope' to taking away all guns"

I suppose Reagan signig a bill outlawing the sale and manufacture of machine guns was part of the slippery slope? How about outlawing flamethrowers, hand grenades, and nuclear bombs? Reasonable restrictions on very dangerous weapons just makes common sense.

"More Gun Control legislation won't prevent all gun deaths"

Stricter DUI laws, a federal manadate on drinking age, and lower allowed blood alcohol content has not prevented all deaths by Drunk Drivers but it has prevented a few. If we outlaw the sale and manufacture of assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, then eventually the supply will "dry up" as illegal weapons are confiscated by law enforcement activities. Unlike alcohol, it is not easy to make "bootleg" weapons.

"We need a federal database for all the mentally ill"

Who decides the level at which you need to be places in this database? How can you argue for a federal database that includes law-abiding mentally-ill Americans but refuse to register your weapons?

So I ask all of you posters who are against common-sense reforms like Universal Background Checks, a ban on Assault-style weapons, and a ban on high capacity magazines:

Do You intend to stand by and do nothing while more innocent children are killed?

Cameron Ford,

Chris, there are many restrictions on alcohol... drinking age, when and where it can be served or consumed, the amount you are allowed, restrictions when operating vehicles... all created to -- and successfully -- reduce the number of accidents and violence.

There are no such restrictions on guns. But since you are so eager to compare the two, I agree with you: maybe we should impose similar restrictions on guns as we do on alcohol.

You are just a plain old liar. There are many restrictions on the purchase of firearms, when and where they can be carried, punishments for violators, age to purchase, restrictions when operating vehicles... all created to -- and successfully --- reduce the number of accidents and violence. There are more guns than cars but more deaths by cars than by guns. There are 40,000+ deaths each year due to alcohol related accidents. There are 11,000+ deaths due to firearms each year. I would say that the current restrictions on firearms are far more successful at preventing deaths than the restrictions on drinking and driving.

So we have a rich, sheltered politician who happened to meet up with a lunatic who put a bullet in her head and she survived, and somehow she's the spokesperson for gun control? Why? Because she's white? Because she's a female? Because she's a politician?

I feel badly for her and what she's had to go through because of that idiot who shot her, but I honestly couldn't give a sh!t less what she thinks about my right to own weapons which, by the way, is protected by the 2nd Amendment since you liberals don't seem to want to say that out loud. Just as the 1st Amendment allows you to spew your vile, un-American filth unabated.

Timothy McVeigh murdered substantially more people with a bomb made out of fertilizer than all of these insane school shooters put together, and many of them were children. So why haven't we outlawed fertilizer?

I've said this before and I'm going to say it again, the mass-shooting issue cannot be adequately addressed with gun control and here's why:

- There is an estimated 1 billion guns in this country (3 for every man, woman & child), so that ship has already sailed.

- The government is never getting back the guns that the citizens of this country own. Not now - not ever. They can try, but it ain't happening.

- If they ban ammunition we will still keep our weapons loaded, it will just cost more. (Prohibition or the war on drugs anyone?)

- Even if they repealed the 2nd Amendment and enacted an absolute ban on all firearms, there are so many out there that this country wouldn't see any effect for probably a century or more, and even then it would be negligible as the black market would be in full-swing.

Face it, we live in a world of 7 billion people (that's BILLION). Every society is going to have its share of lunatics and those lunatics are going to kill people when the voices in their head start talking. So all we can do at this point is take measures to protect ourselves, our families, our homes, our businesses and, most importantly, our children.

How are we going to pay for it? Simple . . . Our government needs to stop sending billions of our tax dollars overseas every month to lazy, ungrateful countries that have had hundreds of years to figure out how to survive on their own, and are still just as clueless and backwards as they ever were (common denominator anyone?), and use that money to protect our schools, improve the psychiatric care for our citizens, keep undesirables out of our country, eradicate liberalism, build more prisons and make them so unmercifully horrible and painful that no one would ever want to do it twice (Russia anyone?), and a hundred other things that money would be better spent on.

As they say, it ain't rocket science...

Ridgelon - Lib? One thing is for certain, you have no idea what your talking about. I couldn't be less liberal, but I do understand how folks like yourself can't see the difference. I guess anyone who disagrees with your political non-sense is a liberal, huh? Now hurry up, The Rush Limbaugh show starts shortly...

seaskip

I would love to see the Giffords tell LaPierre off, the NRA is a heartless association !!!

The second amendment "The right to bear arms" refers to Militia service of war only, not intended for personal use !!!

The NRA thinks they are above the law and most Americans think of the NRA group as loose cannons !!!

• 3

• !

#1.61 - Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:07 PM EST

seaskip: How convenient for you to cite the Second Amendment out of it's intended context... you missed the part about > "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I could point you to documents from the Founding Fathers, as well as from Supreme Court case precedents, that have established the Second Amendment as allowing citizens to own & use firearms.

But then, you still wouldn't read these documents, as it's too dark to read when your head is up your own ass, or the asses of the anti-gun crowd.

Why don't we ask how well Chicago is doing with gun violence? 40+ murders since the beginning of the year... I'm sure that those criminals will be lining up turning in their automatic weapons...

1.89

A G R E E D

!

.

.

.

MJMcMahon

RI Mom -

potential solutions:

1. Modification to HIPAA laws to allow mental health professionals' records to be shared with the NICS system.
2. Create a training/certification system for gun owners similar to what SCUBA uses - each 'level' of certification allows for purchase of that 'level' of firearm. For example, prior to purchasing a semi-automatic pistol, the prospective owner must take and pass a class and on-range test to ensure they are proficient with that style of firearm and can handle it safely. I can foresee multiple levels of training. The system would be self-funding because of the costs associated with the certification. The training time would also weed-out potentially unsafe owners.

Thank you...MJMcMahon
If only folks would continue to post do-able, sensible solutions.

The Level of Ignorance and Stupid in and amongst the Democrat Party and in liberals in particular never ceases to amaze me.

"Too many children are dying" WHY?

A new report out today found that on average, five children died from abuse or neglect every day in the United States between 2001 and 2007. The report by the advocacy group Every Child Matters, estimated that more than 10,000 children died over the same time frame. In 2007 alone 1,760 children died, a 35 percent increase over the death rate in 2001. And, due to poor reporting and record-keeping in many states, the actual number is estimated to be as much as 50 percent higher.(ABC News)

More than 20,000 American children have died over the past decade in their own homes because of family members, with about 75% being under four years of age and nearly half being under one. The U.S. child-maltreatment death rate is three times higher than Canada’s and 11 times that of Italy. (Allgov.com)

This year, 23 children have died of hyperthermia in cars in 13 states, the advocacy group Safe Kids Worldwide says. There were 33 such deaths in all of 2011 and 49 in 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety

Between 2006 and 2010, 561 children age 12 and under were killed by firearms, according to the FBI's most recent Uniform Crime Reports. The numbers each year are consistent: 120 in 2006; 115 in 2007; 116 in 2008, 114 in 2009 and 96 in 2010. The FBI's count does not include gun-related child deaths that authorities have ruled accidental. Administration (NHTSA, Aug. 2012) reports.

More children die in a month from abuse, and neglect, mostly at the hands of those on welfare and drugs than by guns in a whole year. Yet you people scream "Ban the Guns, Ban the Guns". And my guess is less than fifty people(and except for these rare instances, ZERO children) are killed each year with a so called "Assault Weapon", yet this is what you go after? THAT IS STUPID!!!

{As a side note, Kansas introduced legislation to mandate drug test for those on welfare, can you guess the response from Democrats and Liberals}

And even more so, going after the magazines. It was the large capacity magazine that saved many in Aurora, Co. The hundred round Beta mag, caused a feed jam in the rifle, causing a delay in the shooting. (he quickly changed to the more lethal guns, (and my guess, most of the fatalities were caused by the shot gun and handgun, and the injuries were caused by the AR15.) (bet you don't read that in any news reports)

Given the situation Lanza was in, 30, 10 round mags, is no different than 10, 30 round mags. So what difference does limiting magazines capacity do?

"we must so do something" WHY?

Is there anything in the Proposed legislation that would stop another Adam Lanza? NO! I have read nowhere that parents can commit their Adult children (or anyone for that matter) for observation while the process for complete institutionalization takes place. This is why Adam Lanza was able to, and the MOTIVE behind the rampage, go to his mother's house, kill her and take her fire arms. She was unable to protect herself and other because YOU GD LOW LIFE LIBERALS, GOT YOU PANTIES IN BUNCH OVER THE MOVIE "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST", AND MADE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE INSANE PEOPLE TO BE COMMITTED TO HOSPITAL.

And don't give me any crap about Republicans CUT Funding, That's like saying my Dad won't buy me a car. "Dad, will you buy me a Ferrari?" "No, son." now if "Dad, will you buy me a useful, practical, car that works." "If you do your chores, son." But Democrats don't want to do the chores, and they want the Ferrari, and it is all Dad's fault they don't have one.

And don't give me the "Lock up your guns" argument, either. How do we know Ms. Lanza did not indeed have the guns in a safe, I have heard nothing about the status of the guns prior to this. Even so, he could have held a knife to here throat, forced her to unlock it. Same as any other safe, criminal breaks in, (knowing all guns are now in safes, do to Federal Lock Down laws) grabs a kid at knife point and forces mommy or daddy to open the safe. (And you can shoot the criminal, because that would show you didn't have your guns properly secured)

From 1918 until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun w/30 or 50 round magazine), BAR (High power machine gun w/20 magazine) or even a M2 .50 cal. Belt fed machine gun, no questions asked. Where were all the spree shootings then(other than criminal gangland)?

It was not uncommon to walk into a local hardware store and buy a case of Dynamite to remove tree stumps. If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

NO, the only thing that has changed in the last 50 or so years is the Secular Progressive agenda has wove its tentacles into society. Family is irrelevant. Dads are irrelevant. Males, especially white males, are irrelevant or even 'need' to be marginalized. Morals and Personal Responsibility are irrelevant.

My point is, since the 60's and the Progressive march toward hedonism in this country, with the rise of the welfare state, abortion and easy divorce, discipline in this country is gone. There are no consequences. No longer are men being raised by fathers. And how do you become a real man, if you don't have one to show you the way? Granted it isn't always successful, but it seemed to be more successful than the alternative.

How many of you think the US Constitution grants the US citizen the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980

“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008

And to the right-minded people here, remember to vote up those you agree with. Or add a Kudos or a Ditto as a comment.

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.

wow she looks fantastic, what a tragedy she has been through.

arent banks typically gun free zones?

Seriously? Maybe Elizabeth Banks..

(Does that include the armed guards?)

We live in a country awash in weaponry, and no amount of legislation is going to prevent random acts of violence, but it sure gives everybody here a lot of chances to tippy toe that soap box....

What a shame that the brain injuries suffered by Giffords, due to the actions of a nut-case, affected her logic and reason so adversely. Get well Congresswomen, but please leave law abiding citizens and the Constitution alone until you recover your full brain function and ability to reason! So sorry to see your tragedy being exploited by the unscrupulous anti-gun/anti-Constitution radicals.

bayllie

Q22

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that guaranteed the right to smoke pot.

I must have missed that part of the Constitution that guaranteed the right to fire nuclear weapons, grenade launchers or anti-tank rifles...

...or AR-15s for that matter.

Better yet, show me where in the Constituion does it state that smoking pot is illegal?

Show me where in the Constitution does it state that AR-15's are illegal. At the time, muskets were assault weapons, but they were also defensive weapons. Why when ICE wants to buy 7,000 AR-15's do they call them "Personal Defense Weapons", but when we have them they are called "Assault Weapons?"

The 2nd Amendment does not mean nuclear weapons. SCOTUS has defined it as a right to bear firearms that can be carried by a single person, not related to military service, mainly, small arms and rifles. They said "arms" because they new that technology would advance in firearms, if they had meant "muskets", they would have said "muskets".

New York city is a "gun free" zone. No one but law enforcement are allowed to carry guns. Take a look at the crime rate for the city.

tracy-957476

I agree alcohol is a problem and leads to others but, prohibition actually created more crime and abuse.

TRACY! I absolutely LOVE your evaluation of prohibition. This is what I and others have been trying to say about guns:

Take them away from law abiding folks and only CRIMINALS and the GOVERNMENT (synonyms?) will have them. There will be MORE crime, MORE criminals, MORE violence.

Its about Mental Health. Not guns. Anyone with half a brain can see that the common thread here is mental health. Ever since Cain killed Adam's son Abel the type of weapon doesn't matter. You cant legislate against criminals with any success, criminals don't care about laws. Try registering rocks, see how far that gets you.

Show me numbers then prove that a gun-free zone causes violent crime.

First, all but one mass shooting in the last few decades as occured in no-gun zones. That includes Columbine and Ft. Hood because they were no gun zones for all but armed security...like every no-gun zone is for everyone but police. In both cases the shooters struck where the security wasn't, as to increase response time. In the Columbine case, they came so heavily armed with guns and bombs that the security guard ran (smartly).

Secondly, more armed populations have lower violent crime and murder rates. Whites are more heavily armed than non-whites, and the whites have the lower rates of murder and violence (I'm not white BTW). The poorer you are the less guns you have on average, the the richer the more guns. The richer people with more guns have less violent crime and murder rates. Rural people have more guns per capita than suburban and urban people, and the more urban you get the more violent crime and murder rates rise. In every demographic case where MURDER (not homicide, which sometimes includes suicide, always includes shot-by-cop incidents, legal self defensive justifiable homocides, and accidental shootings) and gun ownership rates are compared the lowest violent crime rates and murder rates are found in the demographic where there are more guns. This is not purely because of gun ownership however, it's also because those same high risk demographics are disproportionately affected by the Drug War (which is the direct cause of over 51% of murder and over 50% of gun murder).

Thirdly:

A study done by the Harvard Jounal of Law and Public Policy reports some interesting statistics.

The study, which appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

(Does that include the armed guards?)

most dont have armed guards.

We live in a country awash in weaponry, and no amount of legislation is going to prevent random acts of violence, but it sure gives everybody here a lot of chances to tippy toe that soap box....

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Bay@1.80

How many baby's have you aborted? 2? 3? At age 6 a child at least has a chance surviving, Your kind KILL them before they can at least run. You dirt bags could care less about those 20 children killed at Newtown, It's just a convince to attack 2nd rights........Baby killers is what your kind are..

NoCommi's

How typical of liberals .. every time they want us to surrender some of our rights they parade some drooling brain damaged sympathy case. What we see is two people who are firmly attached to the Government tit each of them making about $20,000 monthly for a grand total of $40,000 monthly.

The comment above sums it up. It is not a gun problem, it's an american problem. Sad state of affairs.

Baillie - You present alot of information, the problem is that most of it is inaccurate.

1. While you can purchase guns from neighboring states, it is limited to shotguns and rifles. For handguns, the gun is shipped to a FFL dealer in your home state and the transaction takes place there. But in all cases a background check is run either by the FFL dealer in the state you are visiting or the FFL dealer in your home state.

2. 40% of a gun sales occur without a background check. Well this statistic has been completely debunked and labeled as inaccurate. This number was generated from a poll of roughly 250 people around 20 years ago. So using this statistic is intellectually dishonest.

3. "BTW, if there were no AR-15 allowed, the nut would not have access to his mother's, would he? So yeah, it is a gun problem." Well the problem with this statement is that an AR-15 was not used in the shooting. Instead it was determined that the shooter used 4 handguns and the AR-15 was left in his car.

If you want a honest discussion about guns and gun laws, then use the actual facts and stop making them up as you go.

New York city is a "gun free" zone. No one but law enforcement are allowed to carry guns. Take a look at the crime rate for the city.

------------------------

OK...hey it's pretty low and getting lower every year...Thanks for asking!

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx

--------------------------------------------------------

Caesar-

That is a very true statement...where there is no other law...

Again, what was the fight at the OK corral about and what was the very first things towns did to attract families?

and...I have never been in a bank in NYC that was without an armed guard...nor have I ever been lucky enough to meet ms. Banks

This will cost billions and criminals are not going to register their guns and if the ghestapo comes to your house for anything and computer shows you have guns watch out it will be the swat team

A gun is a tool...not good or bad. The good or bad is in the heart of the user.

Liberals don't want mental health dealt with or hard prison sentences or the death penalty to eliminate the criminals. They just want to take away everyone's tool. Sorry, the criminals and insane will just find other tools.

Here's an idea:

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Now, we know that this militia isn't necessarily a government one, or even a previously established one. It just means that people should be available for it. But to be available for a 'well regulated' militia, wouldn't it be wonderful if you were at least marginally trained? How about we institute a gun-owner's license, similar to a driver's license, but the records being more private (like medical records or the like). These can come in 2-3 flavors, maybe longarms, handguns, and concealed-carry. To get each license, you have to take certain firearms safety courses and pass various mental and background screenings. Then, once you have a license, you can buy any guns that that license covers, whenever you want, without any new records. The license only says you're allowed to buy and use, not that you actually have any, or how many, or which. Just like a driver's license.

After all, the vast majority of gun deaths do come from people who aren't safety trained. Let's face it, no law is going to stop law breakers from getting guns, but maybe we could stop untrained people who don't know what they're doing from getting them (the many accidental shootings)?

RI Mom

There are solutions

and then there are OPPOSITIONS

"Microstamping" and "Encoded Ammunition"—NRA opposes requiring that cartridge cases be marked with serial numbers and registered to gun owners.

Two minutes with a diamond file or 20 minutes on a metal lathe with a piece of drill rod and no more microstamping.

Mandatory Storage—NRA opposes requiring gun owners to lock all guns when at home, because locked guns cannot be used for self-defense and such a law would be enforceable only by home inspections by the police.

What's the maximum floor loading in your house? How much does that gun safe weigh? Ever been in a house collapse? 4th Amendment, whats that? It's not surprising that the NRA opposes that, it's surprising that the ACLU and various Builders organizations don't oppose it.

Protecting FFLs—NRA supports a law to prevent BATFE from revoking firearms dealers' licenses for insignificant technical violations.

Because everybody always follows insignificant technical rules and regulations and bureaucrats would never abuse it to force an unwanted business to close. (I'm sure that you don't ever speed or park illegally.)

Terrorist Watchlist—NRA opposes legislation to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the watchlist, because the FBI will not say who is on the list or why, and the legislation would violate the 5th Amendment by preventing a watchlisted person from challenging the FBI in a fair and open hearing in court.

Because the government would never make a mistake right? If they won't tell you who's on it how are you supposed to know IF you are on it?

"Smart" Guns—NRA opposes requiring that guns have expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire. D.C.

Because that worked so well with laptops and PDA's right.

More Guns, Less "Gun Control," and Less Crime There are more guns and gun owners in the U.S. than ever.

During the last decade, "gun control" has been significantly reduced.

The federal waiting period on handguns ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national instant check.

Congress refused to renew the federal "assault weapon" and "large" magazine ban, allowing it to expire in 2004.

Congress and 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry.

Forty-two states have Right-to-Carry, and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law.

And violent crime is down 50% from 20 years ago so it looks like its working.

Your points are unsubstantiated and no critical thought was put into implementation, effect or efficiency. Try thinking for a while instead of regurgitating media talking points.

In 2008, Al Franken won by 312 votes. now Al Franken is co sponsoring a gun ban bill. In the same 2008 election In Minnesota, there were 393 Convicted Felons who voted in the same election that Al Franken won. since it is illegal for a convicted felon to vote, I can only assume that they do not care about any other laws either. Such as owning a gun.

Also in the 2008 election, Barrack Hussein Obama* violated campaign laws and received a $375,000.00 fine.

Why did the Mass Media wait untill after the 2012 election to publish the fact the Obama violated the campaign laws and got a fine?

What did Gabriel Giffords do to deserve getting shot?

Where was the Security detail? She knew that she was being threatened and she still went into a wide open space without a security detail.

This Gabriel Giffords shooting is the Secret Service's fault.

And what government again handed assult weapons over to the cartels

Caesar Augustus-

we need to keep the guns out of the hands of "nut cases",,, mentally ill,crooks, gang bangers and so on.

true. however the liberal left doesnt want that. they want to remove guns from law abiding citizens. The blackmarket for Arms is quite lucrative even if guns were outlawed.

False sense of security.

#1.16

"False sense of security." Actually it is just a "sense of security" for these people for they are emotional compromised. Unless you have actual security, then there is no security, false or otherwise.

It is just like the TSA and Airline security after 9-11, there is no need for passenger screening, any more. (except for explosives, and that needed to change after Lockerby) The paradigm has shifted, no longer will passengers sit idly by like sheep and allow the plane to be over run. Look at the shoe bomber or any other would be terrorist, beaten to a pulp by the passengers.

But you are correct, the appearance of "security" must be maintained for the SHEEPLE.

And for those who say I don't need an "Assault Weapon";

And do you know when the end of civilization will be? When the solar flare will strike? Youtube "Doomsday Preppers" I am not that paranoid. My guns are for putting deer meat in the freezer, and stress relief. (while you on Youtube, "Exploding Pumpkins") But seriously, do you know when the NEXT meteor is going to hit? While never a Boy Scout (4-H) I believe their motto, Always be prepared. I am not going to wait for FEMA to show up. (They have such a wonderful track record)

Were the AUTOMATIC weapons sold to the Mexican Cartels by Eric Holder registered? Ban illegal immigrants. Deport Illegal border jumpers. Jesus Christ. When our Government is is the buisness of selling guns to drug lords and providing weapons for free to Al Quadea ( Syrians) does anybody believe that this Fema Nazi Feinstein doesn't have a secondary agenda. Gun violence does need to end. Violence against women needs to end. Violence against children needs to end. Violence against animals needs to end. Common sence will not prevail in this issue. More people were killed by knives and hammers last year than by guns. More black kids were killed in Chicago that in Newton last year and not a soul complained. Rushing a bill through Congress because of a knee jerk reaction will not end gun or any other type of violence. FYI Gifford was not shot with an "assault" weapon and every weapon may be used to " assault". You want to solve the problem? Make being violent and stupid illegal...That shoul take care of the problem.

bayllie

let the kids be born first and then let a guy shoot 6-11 bullets into their little, 6-yr-old bodies with hi AR-15...

every single one of you bringing up abortion as a tool to defend guns, how many sexually, physically, emotionally abused children have you fostered?

Again, abuse is a PERSON issue, not a tool issue. It DIRECTLY relates.

To put it quite simply:

Killers use guns as their weapon of choice to KILL.

If you want to stop them, you have to limit the ability of KILLERS to get guns.

To stop gun violence, you have to get rid of guns.

There is NO other solution.

Mountainlady, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed both houses of Congress in September 2001. The wording of this resolution is very vague. It gives the president the power to order the military to use deadly force on what he or she deems "terrorists". It also does not limit this power to foreign people or lands. It can be used on citizens (which it has been) either at home or abroad. It also gives our government the ability to detain citizens without legal counsel or due process. The legal process can be usurped by military tribunal.

I am not saying the government makes a habit of using force on its citizens but it sure would make it easier to control us if we were completely unarmed.

Yeah, LaPierre is right, you're never going to get criminals to follow the rules so lets just get rid of all the rules. I mean laws against murder don't seem to deter muder so why have the laws at all. And I always thought the laws against drunk driving were silly because people still drive drunk so get rid of those laws. I still hear of people robbing banks so obviously criminals don't care that there is a law against it so why have the law at all. I say we get rid of all laws, rules and regulations and let our society sink into a state of anarchy because criminals don't follow the rules anyway.

For the uninitiated......here is a youtube video of an IDPA event. The International Defensive Pistol Association has matches all over the country at clubs years round.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h47LoRxvkqg

Why don't you watch this and see how fast someone can reload a handgun and keep shooting. You don't need an "assault rifle" to cause the type of damage Lanza did at Sandy Hook. In case your memory is too short, Cho killed 32 at Virginia Tech with handguns.

In 2008, Al Franken won by 312 votes. now Al Franken is co sponsoring a gun ban bill. In the same 2008 election In Minnesota, there were 393 Convicted Felons who voted in the same election that Al Franken won. since it is illegal for a convicted felon to vote, I can only assume that they do not care about any other laws either. Such as owning a gun.

Also in the 2008 election, Barrack Hussein Obama* violated campaign laws and received a $375,000.00 fine.

Why did the Mass Media wait untill after the 2012 election to publish the fact the Obama violated the campaign laws in 2008 and got a fine?

What did Gabriel Giffords do to deserve getting shot?

Where was the Security detail? She knew that she was being threatened and she still went into a wide open space without a security detail.

This Gabriel Giffords shooting is the Secret Service's fault.

First, if you're arguing for gun ownership to protect you from a tyrannical government, I suggest you argue for the private ownership of tanks, fighter jets, drones, and smart bombs, RPG's... As those are some of the things you will need to actually have even a CHANCE of taking on our government. And if you're going to argue that the military would be on our side, well then you WON'T even need a gun, seeing as they have plenty.

Second, until we have rampage vodka bottle chuckings, then NO, booze is NOT a logical comparison, seeing as the deaths that derive from it are accidental. The same goes for any other comparison you want to make. You can logically compare the accidental deaths from guns with the accidental deaths from other things, but you can't compare the accidental deaths from other things with the purposeful deaths via firearms. To make an on point comparison, you need to match intent.

Finally, if hammers, knives and cars are weapons that cause the same harm as guns, then why do you need guns to protect yourself? You ALREADY have hammers, knives and cars.

I'm saving my post for later. Woo hoo!

Despite such assertions, private gun sales are a minimally used means of transferring guns between parties. Yet, they would have the public believing most guns are thusly transferred, a complete lie but it promotes their anti-gun agenda.

Actually, the private gun transfer that is most troubling is when a gangbanger buys a stolen or otherwise illegally acquired gun on the street. There ain't any legislation that's going to put a stop to that which is why this entire anti-gun charade is aimed squarely at the law abiding citizen, and him only.

"We the people" should be very wary of the so called universal background check proposal until we can see exactly what it entails since Obama and his cronies routinely propose something only to have it end up being something entirely different.

To repeat ad nauseum, this anti-gun legislation has absolutely nothing to do with any shootings except to provide cover to push their long desired highly unconstitutional anti-gun agenda.

time for sensible "SCUM CONTROL" not gun control ,control all the scumbags out there ,have a "scum buyback program" where citizens can turn in unwanted &"wanted" criminials ,crazies,psychos ,gangbangers/thugs,top dollar paid ,double paid for crooked dirty cops and crooked"assault politicians"

357 for president for 2016...ak47 vice president..

Q22

Funny that you are justifiably horrified at the thought of a six year old shot to pieces but apathetic to the thought of an infant being stabbed in the back of the head just prior to crowning.

and please show me where I said such thing. PLease, Q22, show me. Making sh*t up does not equal to FACTS.

Yep. Prohibition worked really well. No alcohol for under 21--works really well. No tobacco for under 18--works really well. Drugs are bad mkay?---works really well.

I wish the world were a perfect place, but no amount of legislation will ever make it so.

Here's an idea:

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Now, we know that this militia isn't necessarily a government one, or even a previously established one. It just means that people should be available for it. But to be available for a 'well regulated' militia, wouldn't it be wonderful if you were at least marginally trained? How about we institute a gun-owner's license, similar to a driver's license, but the records being more private (like medical records or the like).

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was for the individuals to RETAIN their NATURAL (not granted by govt, but yours by virtue of your humanity) INDIVDUAL (not collective, like "militia only" - the Founders didn't even believe in any collective rights; none of the rights in the Constitution are collective rights...see Classical Liberalism, the philosophy of both factions of the Founders and Framers) NEGATIVE UNALIENABLE (which means "not subject to law or border") RIGHTS.

Any such liscencing would mean that right no longer exists...it would then be a privilege granted bu the govt, like driving privileges. Rights are not just simple privileges, because they are not granted to you by the govt. When govts make laws to impede, infringe, or restrict non-violent people from exercising their rights that is called tyranny.We have enough tyranny these days on the 4th Amendment...so no thank you.

All the following links are found at:

http://guncite.com/

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?

http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

A Second Amendment Analog

http://guncite.com/gc2ndana.html

Supreme Court Cases

http://guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

Quotes from the Framers and Their Contemporaries

http://guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Quotes from Constitutional Commentators

http://guncite.com/gc2ndcom.html

Commas and the Second Amendment

http://guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

Comments in Newspapers on the Second Amendment

http://guncite.com/gc2ndnew.html

Lastly, the argument that the Founders didn't intend us to have today's weaponry also does not hold water. At the time they allowed canons to be owned privately. See, in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution it clearly says we are to have NO standing Army for more than 2 years in peace (we are to have a standing Navy only, as that is necessary to repel and deter invasions). They knew standing armies (like Cromwell's in England) are used to set up dictatorships and that they are used by Empires to promote wars otf aggression and occupation. They seriously distrusted the idea of having long term standing armies, and instead opted for a militia system. That is STILL the law. Our govt simply breaks that law in peace time without any debate because both Parties and the media allow it and the people are too lazy or ignorant to educate themselves.

The Founders and Framers intended the armed males of adult age (21 in the Constitutitont, tnto 18 - that was lowered without Amendment illegally to facilitate the draft, which was NOT in the Constitution and wasn't put in place until the Civil War, and was quickly gotten rid oft until WW1). So all armed males of adult age were to be in the militia in case of DEFENSIVE war to REPEL INVASION ONLY...if there was no war then in peace time the membership in the militia was purely voluntary. The ownership of ARMS (not just firearms, aka guns) was a right of every individual, male or female, whether they were in the militia or not. "Well regulated', as I linked to above, was meant as 'supply, cooridinate, and train to repel a potentional INVASION ONLY a few times a year'. It didn't mean "regulate" like modern liberals mean it today. It literally meant "make regular". This is also why it is ridiculous to re-interpret the "interstate commerce clause" to mean anything but "make trade between the States regular by outlawing tariffs and other protectionist measures between the States", or misinterpret the "good and proper clause", or similarly the "general welfare clause" to mean any nonsense the federal govt wants them to mean (which is what they do).

If background checks were voluntary for private party, in state sales, I can guarantee that I would use it if I were selling to someone that I didn't know.

I can also guarantee that if a shady person is selling to another shady person they're not going to use background checks required or not.

So really just make it free for people who want to use background checks for private party, in state sales and you'd see it used a lot. It would be used by default for out-of-state sales.

and you liberals get pissed when asked for your id when you vote. go figure

Again, what was the fight at the OK corral about and what was the very first things towns did to attract families?

it was a pissing match. it was two gangs fighting. one behind a badge, the other behind a sash.

Q22

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

hey genius, do you even know what the 10th Amendment means??

you just agreed with me:

The Tenth Amendment reinforces the federal system created by the Constitution and acts as a bulwark against federal intrusion on state authority and individual liberty.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/the-constitution-in-one-sentence-understanding-the-tenth-amendment

So I am going to ask again: show me where in the Constituion does it state that smoking pot is illegal?

First, if you're arguing for gun ownership to protect you from a tyrannical government, I suggest you argue for the private ownership of tanks, fighter jets, drones, and smart bombs, RPG's... As those are some of the things you will need to actually have even a CHANCE of taking on our government. And if you're going to argue that the military would be on our side, well then you WON'T even need a gun, seeing as they have plenty.

First, that was the original intent.

Second, we shouldn't have a standing army legally in peace time for more than 2 years following the last war...that was the original intent and still is the law (Article 1 Section 8).

Third, you are making an extreme argument we aren't ourselves making...arguing to the extreme case straw man, an informal logical fallacy. You are also making quite a logical leap.

Fourth, Egypt's military stayed neutral largely while the relatively unarmed people warred with the police. It'd have went better for them with guns.

Fifth, how did lesser arms work out for the Vietnamese? Taliban? Egypt? Libya?T Syria? About 40% of all nations that attempt to stop counter-insurgency strategy by better armed nations? Seems to me lesser arms win in guerilla wars...like our American Revolution for example. Do you know why? 300 million guns owned by about 45% of households...vs a few hundred thousand troops attempting to kill us while we refuse to fund them via taxes in a Revolution. They would have no logistical chance without safe places to rest, re-supply points, etc. It would be bloody, but even assuming not one soldier sided with us and defected to the Patriot side with tanks, bombs, and planes, we'd still win. They know this full well. As the famous quote goes "no army can stop an idea whose time has come". But I'm fairly confident at least 50% of the military are Patriots, not Tories (if not 100%). I'd point my money on a military staying neutral while we war with the police, just like Egypt.

So your entire argument is nonsense. It's just wishful thinking that the most armed populace in the world can't overthrow the most armed military in the world...because the most armed military in the war has lost to lesser enemies before (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.). The Russians also learned this lesson abroad and at home.

Nick-4294049

Why don't you call the parents of the victims of Columbine and tell them that there is no loophole when it comes to background checks and private gun sales.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who opened fire on their classmates at Columbine High School used a semiautomatic rifle, pistol and shotguns they purchased through acquaintances who had visited a local gun show. There was no required record of the sale and no background check; just an exchange of cash and a handshake.

Keep denying that guns purchased legally end up in the hands of criminals or crazies...and those guns were not stolen. They were resold.

Now, if there are no loopholes as you claim, why didn't the people who sold those guns privately GO TO JAIL?

In May 1999 the NRA supported universal background checks, including gun shows, no exceptions (you can Google Wayne LaPierre's testimony before Congress then.) Like the First Amendment and free speech, limits can be placed on the Second Amendment re the types of firearms citizens may own. It's been decided before the Supreme Court; even the most conservative of justices, Mr. Justice Scalia, agreed.

"Justice Antonin Scalia suggested the Second Amendment shouldn't stop the U.S. from barring certain weapons.

Scalia, a strict interpreter of the Constitution, said there's an "important limitation" on the right to bear arms.

"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'," Scalia wrote, in an opinion first cited by UPI over the weekend.

Scalia reiterated that sentiment in July of this year [2008] when he told Fox News Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for federal gun control legislation.

Guns make pussies think they are real men, that's why most gun owners don't want any regulation. The bigger the gun, the more ammo, the more deadly firepower they have to stroke and fondle the bigger their ego grows. This debate is a struggle between commonsense on the part of people who want to make the country safer, and sheer mindless stupidity and false bravado on the part of the gun advocates.

Wayne Lapierre says background checks are useless because criminals will avoid them. How utterly brainless and stupid is that logic? I can't believe such a mindless twit has anybody's attention, let alone a Congressional panel. The whole purpose of universal back ground checks is to allow law abiding citizens, who submit to the requirement, authority to buy arms, while criminals and mentally deranged who won't accept or fail a background check can't buy weapons. Of course it's not foolproof, but it presents a barrier to screen out the people who shouldn't be able to acquire weapons.

The NRA, in a monumental display of callous stupidity, mirrored on this post by many right wing gun nuts, doesn't think any regulation will work. Get a brain, you mindless twits! Stop stroking your symbols of manhood long enough to form an original thought. We need laws to screen out the bad actors from the merely over-inflated misguided egos.

Caesar-

I am sort of surprised at your reply/replies.

Never known you to deflect...or fail to reply with insight.

Wayne LaPierre's priority is not to protect innicent civilians. It is to make sure as many guns are sold as possible. That is the only conclusion I can draw when he doesn't want stricter background checks. When he claims this is because criminals would never abide by this, he is full of it. There are many questions surrounding the gun debate that can be argued legitimately on either side. But this guy is just proving himself to be a POS.

duplicate post

I wonder if the N.R.A. and their support are correct. Maybe instead of more and better schools of learning we should make those schools into armed forts.That way the gun manufacturers can sell more products and the guards at those forts can teach all of the kids how to shoot better and kill more easily. The lobby for the N.R.A. will be able to show that they do have the welfare of our country in mind, and they also as well as spending more of our tax money on matters that they deem important , are providing jobs.

I am sort of surprised at your reply/replies.

Never known you to deflect...or fail to reply with insight.

sorry to disappoint. OK corral has what do with Gun rights? What was the state of Tombstone, what state was Tombstone in during the aforementioned incident. Perhaps im not seeing what your point is. I do find it ironic the vendetta ride by the law dog himself, came full circle making him the outlaw.

They have outlawed the guns in the UK, it has nothing to do with the US. much like Tombstone

"My problem with background checks is you're never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks," Wayne LaPierre, CEO and chief lobbyist for the NRA,

No, your priority is to sell as many guns and as much ammo as humanly possible, period.

Criminals don't obey laws, so why don't we just do away with laws, 'Einstein' LaPierre?

*SHEESH*

Maybe instead of more and better schools of learning we should make those schools into armed forts.That way the gun manufacturers can sell more products and the guards at those forts can teach all of the kids how to shoot better and kill more easily.

And then soon our population will be reduced so drastically by all the killing, the gun manufacturers won't have a customer base.

It could work. ;)

What happened to her is tragic, but using her as a real life bobble head isn't right. She has no clue about gun control. There are over 300 million guns in circulation; so please quit with the banning b.s. How about locking thugs up for life after they commit a brutal crime. The nut job who wants to kill innocent kids can just as easily walk into a school with a few 9mm handguns and a pocketful of 10 round clips and murder as many as he wants. I don't think you are ever going to prevent the nut jobs from carrying out heinous crimes. Better security measures at schools and other places will help mitigate the number hurt or killed, better background screening and making someone who owns a gun(s) responsible if one of the mentally unstable kids takes the gun and kills people. They should be required to utilize gun locks or safes. I wonder if the mother who was killed by the nut who slaughtered those children had her guns in a safe or had gun locks on them, what he might have done.

dirp

To put it quite simply:

Killers use guns as their weapon of choice to KILL.

If you want to stop them, you have to limit the ability of KILLERS to get guns.

To stop gun violence, you have to get rid of guns.

There is NO other solution.

#1.132

I sure hope you are not in position that requires you to responsible for others. Your argument is a non-sequitor.

Of course there is another solution.

In order for your argument to be true we would have to get rid of every gun in the entire Country, police and military included, so that no gun could be used in a violent act.

Something you should consider, there is actually (at least according to some studies) a lower incidence of crime pertaining to CCP holders, and police. That is right. Your typical CCP holder is actually a more law abiding citizen than a police officer. Imagine that. But Hey you liberals are pretty Schizophrenic when it comes to the Police, First it's "The Police are evil, corrupt and we need to pay special close attention to them, ala Rodney King, Drew Peterson, or you can google "Police officer arrest" or "Cop Arrested" or "Police Corruption" is the best:

More than 300 Chicago police officers have been convicted of serious crimes since the 1960s. We list them and our proposed recommendations for curing police corruption in a new report to the mayor and the aldermen. Police crimes include beating innocent citizens, protecting drug dealers, accepting bribes, murder and lying about torture. Thirty percent of these crimes involve police officers convicted of illegal drug dealing and protecting street gangs.

The problem of police corruption is not caused by occasional flawed police officers or “bad apples.” Rather, the apple barrel is rotten. Too many police officers violate citizens’ rights, engage in corruption and commit crimes while avoiding discipline or prosecution.(Chicago Suntimes, Jan. 16, 2013)

And out the other side your @asses you are spewing "Only Cops should have guns". Make UP My Mind! Are cops good or are they Bad? ("Uh, ah, well, oh, uh, not all of them") In my opinion if there are even only a few corrupt cops, then should I not be able to defend against them? They after work for or ARE the Government.

One could easily argue, (based on the premise that you did not intend on disarming the police or military, that ensuring everyone had a gun would end gun violence. Taking from the same logic the US and Soviet Governments took on Nuclear proliferation, i.e. Mutually Assured Destruction. IF You try to kill me, THEN I will try to kill you.

"It behooves a man to be upon his best behavior, when he knows not, who about him is armed", unknown, circa 1900.

Also, you forget one thing, "My GOD given" (even though I am an Atheist) BIRTH Rights. The Right to Free Speech, Practice (or not) Religion, To be Secure in my Person, and Life to name a few. I have the Right to defend my life against my fellow citizen every bit as much as I have a Right to defend it against my Government. I am a cripple, and I can not simply run away from a criminal, I am getting older, I can not thrust nor wield a knife as I once did. WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE ME DO? Do everything the nice criminal tells me? Give him everything, and maybe he won't kill me? Is that your answer, and if it is, you are a low life, despicable coward.

Do you know why there will never be another Hi-Jacked American Aircraft? The passengers won't allow it after 9-11. Until then, what was the paradigm, "Do everything the nice criminal Hi-Jackers tell you, and You just might live through it" Now, today, Try setting off your shoes or your underwear and see how badly you are beaten. I believe one guy on Southwest Airlines died in an incident. We need to tell people to attack their attackers, not do what they say. Just imagine, that if in the 1970's the told passengers to attack Hi-Jackers instead of going along how many hi-jackings could have been prevented?

"The country will collapse when those who work for a living are outnumbered by those who VOTE for a living..."

Criminals don't obey laws, so why don't we just do away with laws, 'Einstein' LaPierre?

no, just pass more that will make them obey.

Bayllie - I never even mentioned the word "loophole" in my post to you. I simply pointed out the missinformation you were using to promote your view. Instead of standing up for your false information you go off on a loophole tangent.

In the final analysis, those who advocate for gun control are doing so for the public good, while those who support unfettered gun sales and ownership do so for their own selfish reasons.

There are over 300 million guns in the hands of Americans now. The weapons industry and the NRA knows that their market has been saturated unless they can successfully ramp up fear and Second Amendment fever.

Wayne LaPierre is as transparent as water.

The entire notion that the NRA or anyone would be against universal background checks is just fracking crazy. If the message wasn't already clear, the message coming from the NRA is:

"We don't give a flying @!$%# about YOU, YOUR CHILDREN, or anyone in your family for that matter. We don't care if your kid gets gunned down by some crazed mad man with a full arsenal in his trailer, a sale is a sale, and since we are ONLY BEHOLDEN TO GUN MANUFACTURES and arm's dealers in this country, we deem it appropriate for ANYONE, to get ANY gun, at ANY time, with NO questions asked. If you don't like it, you can go @!$%# yourself."

That's the NRA's message in a nut shell. How anyone can support that madness is just terrifying to me.

But alas, universal background checks polls at something like 91% nationwide, so enjoy your march to irrelevance NRA, NOBODY IS GOING TO MISS YOU!

Sarah,

The battle of Athens, TN in 1946 is a perfect example of how our 2nd amendment rights are necessary. Please, don't try and claim something like, "That was 1946, things are different now" because corruption by public officials will always exist. There have been times and there will continue to be times when an armed populace are necessary to restore democracy, law and order.

JohnLaz

You don't need an "assault rifle" to cause the type of damage Lanza did at Sandy Hook.

That is because he did NOT use a semi automatic rifle. There are MANY news clips that say that.

Kaybeetoys - You acknowledge that there are over 300 million guns the US now. In 2010 there were just over 11,000 gun related homicides (keep in mind this number also includes justifiable homicides). That means 0.00004% of the guns were missused - assuming a different gun was used in each instance. Now I agree life is precious and these mass killing are pure evil. But I can think of no way whatsoever to make a criminal follow the laws. I definitely do not want to punish the law abiding citizens who possess the other 99.99996% of the firearms because a few people refuse to follow the law. FYI this law will not prevent another shooting like this from happening, since the government will most likely grandfather in all weapons currently in circulation.

kaybeetoys

In the final analysis, those who advocate for gun control are doing so for the public good, while those who support unfettered gun sales and ownership do so for their own selfish reasons.

That is bunk and you know it. If you will study the FACTS instead of the hyperbole you will find out that in communities where law abiding citizens are allowed to keep and use guns to defend themselves the crime rate PLUMETS!

There is a real and factual reason that criminals target NO GUN ZONES for the mass shootings. Think about it. Do you want all of the country to be a NO GUN ZONE?

Kaybeetoys,

There are 250 million cars in the U.S. and the deaths caused by car wrecks is triple that of the 300 million guns. If you are that concerned about people being killed then I would think you'd want to jump on the bigger causes.

That is because he did NOT use a semi automatic rifle. There are MANY news clips that say that.

and all of those conspiratorial "news" clips are false. But I'm sure you believe the world including the entire Connecticut police force and the medical examiner are part of some crazy anti-gun conspiracy to take away your precious 2nd amendment rights.

:rollseyes:

FACT: Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster .223 to gun down 26 people, and a handgun to take his own life.

{as an aside, I'm not a huge anti-gun nut and I support the 2nd amendment, but it's lunacy like this posting, and the idiocy by the NRA that makes me unable to even provide one single ounce of support for their "cause." I will not stand up for "crazy."}

That is bunk and you know it. If you will study the FACTS instead of the hyperbole you will find out that in communities where law abiding citizens are allowed to keep and use guns to defend themselves the crime rate PLUMETS!

I won't even begin to address this comment, as you shot any and all credibility you had on the matter with post #1.166.

jack-1792739

What happened to her is tragic, but using her as a real life bobble head isn't right. She has no clue about gun control. There are over 300 million guns in circulation; so please quit with the banning b.s. How about locking thugs up for life after they commit a brutal crime. The nut job who wants to kill innocent kids can just as easily walk into a school with a few 9mm handguns and a pocketful of 10 round clips and murder as many as he wants. I don't think you are ever going to prevent the nut jobs from carrying out heinous crimes. Better security measures at schools and other places will help mitigate the number hurt or killed, better background screening and making someone who owns a gun(s) responsible if one of the mentally unstable kids takes the gun and kills people. They should be required to utilize gun locks or safes. I wonder if the mother who was killed by the nut who slaughtered those children had her guns in a safe or had gun locks on them, what he might have done.

#1.150

Read my post at 1.108 at least in reference to locking up guns.

And I agree "What happened to her (Or any one else) is tragic, but using her as a real life bobble head isn't right. She has no clue about gun control."

@ ET. AL.

The biggest complaint I have is that people who don't have a clue about guns are trying to dictate to us what makes them "safe".

I wish I could post pictures here. I have a photo of two guns, and I show it to people all the time and typically (~85% of the time) a person will say "Gun 'A' is a hunting rifle, and Gun 'B' is an "Assault Weapon".

Gun 'A' is a factory original Wood Stock, Stainless Steel, .223 Cal Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, with scope.

Gun 'B' is an after market (Butler Creek) Black Synthetic (Nylon Plastic) folding Butt Stock, Blued Steel finish, with Rubberizes Scope, Bi-pod, 30 round magazine, and after market flash hider, .223 Cal Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.

THEY ARE THE SAME GUN. ALL I CHANGED WAS ITS APPEARANCE. So, to me, any "Assault Weapon" ban is just STUPID. It addresses a NON issue.

If you want to stop this gun violence, Then go back to 1920's family values. no more welfare, easy divorce, no government intervention at every turn. Make dads relevant, make moms stay at home with kids until they are at least in school. And don't give me any of that "Racist/Sexist" crap either. THE FACTS BACK ME UP.

But this will never happen, because then you people would have to admit that Liberal/Socialism doesn't work, and the Government is not the solution to all the problem. Nope, it's still the Republicans fault, and we just need to do away with guns (at least of civilians).

@sarah,

Tell that to the Taliban. They seem to be doing quite well against our modern military. Also, Afghanistan defeated the former Soviet Union which was also a Supper Power at the time. I also believe that our military suffered a defeat in Vietnam to a relatively undeveloped country. Guerrilla warfare tactics are the scariest any military has to face. You honestly believe that our military is large enough to police every area of the country. Our air force had a hard enough time patrolling the skies of Iraq during the Gullf War. I think the US has a little more land area than Iraq. I also believe most people in the military would turn against our fascist government. Read history before you utter comments that you know nothing about.

Meant Super not Supper

Terry-753375

What happened to Giffords and the children at Sandy Hooks is a nut problem, not a gun problem.

So what is your solution...try to restrict "nuts" from getting guns or just lock up anyone diagnosed with mental illness and throw away the key? One or the other slick...you choose.

Un, NO, the problem in Afghanistan is NATION building, and that there is no real structure or infrastructure.They have NOT beat us at an all out fight, hence over ten years later we're still there. And they DO have more then just handguns and semi-automatics. Are you suggesting we be allowed to build IED's, just in case our government gets out of hand. Call the FBI and let them know that, and then get back to me. You might also want to take a look at the number of US troops killed and compare that to the number of dead Taliban, Afghani civilians, and everybody else who got in the way intentionally or unintentionally.

Then I have some questions for you...

And, who are these representatives in our government that you need a gun to protect your liberty from? How are they planning on getting around our systems of checks and balances? Why are they out to destroy the very source of their power (as in the government). Are they planning on using our military against us? Why would the military be okay with that? If not, why wouldn't we use our military against them?

What do you think their bodies looked like afterwards, when they were identified by their families?

Likely better than the children pulled from smashed vehicles every day.

Your appeal to emotion fails.

How many times do you have to be shot to be acceptably DEAD?

What difference does this make?

More people are killed by drunk drivers. More children drown.

.

kfilly, it's a good thing for all these Arab Spring states that they all had robust second amendment-like protections under their various dictators. And if not for such protection, I am sure the American Revolution would have failed as well.

Wait a minute...

Anybody arguing that you need the second amendment in order to overthrow an oppressive government has apparently not paid attention to any overthrow of any oppressive government in history. It's a red herring, totally irrelevant to the real discussion.

Nick:

...40% of a gun sales occur without a background check. Well this statistic has been completely debunked and labeled as inaccurate. This number was generated from a poll of roughly 250 people around 20 years ago. So using this statistic is intellectually dishonest.

...Well the problem with this statement is that an AR-15 was not used in the shooting. Instead it was determined that the shooter used 4 handguns and the AR-15 was left in his car.

If you want a honest discussion about guns and gun laws, then use the actual facts and stop making them up as you go.

For someone purporting to use facts, you are playing a little loose with yours.

Yes the survey about background checks may be flawed, but it does have elements of truth:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/30/kirsten-gillibrand/gillibrand-says-40-percent-guns-sold-today-escape-/

As to the weapon used in the Newtown shootings, I prefer to believe the Chief of Police who investigated the incident:

http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/

OP has it right, LaPierre has it right, and Giffords is getting close...

It's time we talked about curbing gun VIOLENCE, instead of all the talk about curbing guns.

Banning a weapon without addressing the underlying problem - the person who wishes to cause harm - will be just as ineffective today as it was when we tried it 20 years ago. Why repeat the same action and expect a different outcome? That is the definition of insanity.

Fielden - I just watched a video this morning of NBC News stating that the AR-15 was left in the car and the guy used 4 handguns. I just did another search and found various conflicting stories so apparently there is some misinformation out there about which weapon was used.

The 40% number does not have on ounce of truth to it - NONE.

Question: Will banning the AR-15 prevent anyone from being murdered? The answer is NO. Fact is there are already plenty of AR-15s already in circulation and those will probably be grandfathered in and be legal to own. Not to mention the record sales that are happening right now. I also believe the majority of gun related murders are done with handguns. Which everyone swears will not be banned, only they want to limit the magazine capacity. Can you guarantee the ban will stop with AR-15s and not be pushed to band other firearms at a later date?

Steve,

The problem is that you, nor I, nor LaPierre has the right to legally say what the Constitution means. The only entity with the power to do so is the Supreme Court. What the SCOTUS says about the Constitution, how its amendments are interpreted into the rule of law, means that is how that particular amendment will be enforced by the law. If they came out and said that, for example, money was free speech and that donations could not be infringed upon under any circumstance, then under the law anyone can donate any amount of money to any organization that they want.

That actually did happen by the way, look up Citizens United. Very soon it will hopefully be voted down. I may not agree with it but it is the law for right now. In the same way the SCOTUS can tell you how the second amendment can be enforced and just how much regulation can be used therein. They have said that the second amendment does not have immunity from regulation and therefore regulations can be placed on gun ownership.

Lame Wayne doesn't want to make it harder for criminals to get guns. Without background checks at gun shows, it's easy for criminals to get weapons. Close the loopholes.

We track cars better than we track guns. I gave two guns to a friend, as a birthday present. He is a British immigrant who recently got his US citizenship. He is thrilled with America's 2nd amendment. However, he agrees that, just like cars, we should have a titling system for firearms.

That this committee didn't begin with a discussion about high capacity magazines or assault weapons is indicative of the futility in getting bans on either passed in the house.

The universal background check proposal seems the most reasonable on the surface, which is probably why they're starting with it, but the reality is, even if it is actually made into law, that it will do little if anything to prevent guns from going to criminals. Fact: if you are selling guns to criminals you are already breaking the law. How is another law going to help?

In Virginia, you can be criminally insane and walk into a gun show and buy any weapon from a gun dealer who is posing as a private seller and you will not be required to have a background check. You might have to flash your drivers license or some other form of ID though.

Thank goodness new gun laws are on the way.

How is it that Barry wants all to have a background check to buy a gun but no background check is needed to be President of our country?

Why do you have to have a background check and fingerprinting to be a substitute school teacher, but you don't have to have one to walk into a gun show and buy a gun?

Nick: I just watched a video this morning of NBC News...

I still trust the Chief of Police over either you OR NBC News.

The 40% number does not have on ounce of truth to it - NONE.

At that particular time with that particular sampling of respondents, 40% said sales occurred without a background check. Truth.

Can you guarantee the ban will stop with AR-15s

People will try to circumvent the law and the law will have to be updated. Can YOU guarantee that no one will be killed with an AR-15?

What many fail to realize is the NRA opposes much more than the latest attempts to curb gun violence. They have pressured congress to oppose the naming a head of the ATF, they have opposed any law allowing research into gun violence, they have opposed funding to staff and the financing of background checks (while claiming the existing checks are not working). This Lapierre character is an insult to any thinking person's opposition to assault style weapons. The NRA members (not the manufacturers) have polled 75% in favor of uniform background checks on all sales. We need to spend the money to enforce coming restrictions. Gun violence is a cancer in our society. The world thinks we are crazy. We have more guns per capita than any country in the world. Know who is second? Yemen.....a country we have categorized as a terrorist nation. What does that make us?

Why would anyone listen to a man like Wayne "the Warlord" LaPierre who tells us to buy more guns and arm ourselves against foreign invaders, when this same man evaded the military draft in 1969 by claiming he has a nervous disorder?

Nathan-1680585

kfilly, it's a good thing for all these Arab Spring states that they all had robust second amendment-like protections under their various dictators. And if not for such protection, I am sure the American Revolution would have failed as well.

Wait a minute...

Anybody arguing that you need the second amendment in order to overthrow an oppressive government has apparently not paid attention to any overthrow of any oppressive government in history. It's a red herring, totally irrelevant to the real discussion.

#1.177

No, You are exactly correct, we don't NEED 2nd Amendment Rights, to over throw an Oppressive Regime. But the point of the 2nd is not to overthrow one, it is to stop it from getting that far. It is a reminder to our ELECTED Representatives, to behave themselves. We won't be coming with torches and pitchforks, but with Arms.

But tell me, Where are they getting their weapons from in the Arab Spring? And just who would give us Aid, were we to fall, China? Evidently you have no understanding of human nature, nor of real world politics. Do you think Europe would remain the "Bastion of Freedom" it is today, without the US being behind it? Or any other place? Perhaps. But I doubt it. The US sneezes and the whole world catches cold.

And if it is a "Red Herring", then why is it mentioned so many times in the writing of those who created this and the Document you belittle? How can it not be pertinent?

And I am guessing you think we get our Rights from the Constitution. Truly an astounding intellect.

I had to get a background check before I could purchase my firearm.

I also spent 6 months researching which firearm suited my needs, and approximately 48 hours at the range practicing with the model of firearm I intended to buy before I actually purchased it and allowed it into my home.

My better half was right there with me.

Why shouldn't YOU have to do the same?

I understand the criminal element has no intentions of doing that, but what does the criminal element have to do with being a reasonable, responsible American?

Just because hoods, punks, and hardcore criminals don't give a rat's ass, we should just allow anyone to walk into a gun show and purchase whatever they want?

I see all of these people talking about how we're letting criminals influence the fruition of new gun control laws, and how wrong that is, and yet these same people are being influenced by criminals when they say "criminals won't care, that's why this won't do any good."

That's ridiculous.

Don't do it based on what a low life criminal will/will not do.

Do it because it makes sense, based on its own merits.

Personally, I don't see the point in having an entire amendment for gun ownership in the Constitution. I can understand the practicality of it during the 18th and 19th centuries, but not now. You don't need the latest military technology for self-defense; most thugs come in with a knife or a small pistol. All you would need is a shotgun and you're good to go.

There is no real reason for any civilian to own a semi-automatic rifle or even the latest type of pistol. Criminals are very efficient at choosing what to use as a weapon or a tool; if a knife will work better than a gun, they will use that knife at a moment's notice. In most situations, all you need is a revolver or a repeating rifle to defend yourself. As for hunting, semi-automatic rifles could tear the animal apart; a good Winchester will take down any bastard charging at you.

The real reason gun owners feel that gun control is bad is that they (and by they I mean a select few) are afraid that the federal government will declare martial law and suspend civil liberties indefinitely. So, the Framers installed the Second Amendment to calm down the states rightists and the mass population who had just lived through a tyrannical regime. Now, if that is the case, why the hell would you think (as Sarah pointed out) that an AR-15 would make any difference against tanks rolling into the streets of New York??? Vietnam and Syria aren't proof that citizens can hold off powerful forces indefinitely; modern U.S. troops are trained in urban warfare, and have better weapons. And by the way, why the hell would the government want to suddenly become tyrannical?? Why would the government want to turn its guns on its own people??? I know that our current (and former) government wasn't the brightest or the most productive, but even they know that going Big Brother on us would blow up in their faces eventually, mainly through a protracted and costly conflict. Why would you think that our own government would turn its guns against us???

And FYI, gun control has been widely used across the industrialized world, and I see few examples of it being used to oppress the people. If you want to oppose stricter gun laws, than at least have a good reason besides the threat of a tyrannical government.

GTR5

How is it that Barry wants all to have a background check to buy a gun but no background check is needed to be President of our country?

He was vetted by the Democratic Party, He was vetted by the Republican Party and he has been under a magnifying glass ever since...you are an idiot.

GRT5,

Because H. Clinton and J. McCain, the two SUPER POWERFUL people who had the most to lose, would've let THAT slip by.

"My problem with background checks is you're never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks," Wayne LaPierre, CEO and chief lobbyist for the NRA, said

Well, Mr. LaPierre, this is known to be false, and I suspect you know it to be false. In just one year alone, 2010, 80,000 people tried and failed to pass a background check because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories.

Guess what those people do next? They turn to private sales.

Now, I'll grant you, it's true that criminals will be able to buy guns from other criminals, and don't forget: in a system requiring universal background checks, anyone selling a gun to a criminal is, himself a criminal.

I'm fine with shutting down the flow of guns from lawful makers and owners to criminals. Because criminals' guns will tend to be confiscated at crime scenes, during arrests, and will tend to malfunction due to poor care and misuse. This is exactly the sort of measure we need to tilt the balance of gun ownership toward the lawful, careful owner.

So, Mr. LaPierre, will you sleep tonight knowing that you lied to Congress under oath today? I suspect you will.

Oh, and Whiskey Eye? You might be surprised to find out that we absolutely do regulate First Amendment rights and it is absolutely possible to take away rights of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition that no one has any business having anyway. Let's look at a few.

Religion: Human sacrifice. Too extreme for you? How about underage sex? You've seen the stories.

Speech and press: Fraud, child pornography, wartime secrets, "fire" in a crowded theater. Should I go on?

Assembly: Sit-ins, even on government property. Riots. Limits on picketers. Blocking sidewalks and roads.

Petition: Prisoner civil rights lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits. Pretty much all of "tort reform." Government and employer immunity.

Even Justice Scalia doesn't believe that the Second Amendment isn't subject to reasonable regulation.

Why do you hate Justice Scalia?

Freshiee,

You are right with your question "why would the government want to suddenly become tyrannical?"

We can blame much of this paranoia on the Tea Party as well as the NRA/GOP/Fox News crowd. Just yesterday, a friend of mine sent me an email that the TP is circulating and it quotes some mysterious "high ranking military official" who "confidentially told someone in the TP" that President Obama was "weeding out all the military personnel that refused to fire on civilians."

The whole email was obviously bogus, but just drives home the ridiculous claims being used to fan the flames of mass paranoia.

Excerpts:

I watch Wayne LaPierre and his ilk, who certainly think of themselves as Good Guys, and with all due respect, I do not see "Good Guys," I see "Unstable Guys." Wayne LaPierre's terror terrifies me. Among the fear-based justifications from people like him, though not, to his credit, from Harris, is that the government will get taken over by tyrants and citizens will need guns to remove them. Castration anxiety and clinical paranoia... what a burden it must be.

Being conservative, I guess their nightmare is a limp-wristed liberal tyrant forcing them to drive fuel efficient cars and eat broccoli or face death by slapping. This vision presupposes that the army and various police forces will agree tyranny is a good idea and support it. Even if you believe this can happen and armed revolt is the only solution, are you going to win against the full might of the most powerful military force in the world? Imagine yourself clutching your little Bushmaster as a government drone flies so high above you that you cannot even see it much less shoot it down. ("Draw!" Oops, wrong century.)

If tyranny is the problem and weapons the solution, then citizens should demand the right to acquire missiles, fighter jets, and bombs. They should form militias and keep massive stockpiles of weapons in secure facilities. The current solution (individuals carrying little guns in the face of the U.S military) is as silly as the nightmare itself. America is not Germany in 1939, or even Afghanistan, despite the Talibanization of certain branches of American Christianity. Furthermore, if massive numbers of guns can bring down a tyrannical government, they can also bring down a democratically elected one. (How many democratically elected U.S. presidents have been shot so far?)

But the man who wrote The End of Faith (and allowed himself to imagine such a thing) cannot imagine the end of handguns in America. It will never happens, he flatly states. Among other things, there are too many. Yes, and more by the minute thanks to articles like his that argue that more guns make for a safer society. No wonder so many people are getting shot when there's only 270 million guns in the country! How much safer we'll all be when we pump this up to 600 million or a billion!

Forgive my sarcasm, but this defeatism is depressing and goes against the spirit of the nation. I can't imagine an America with no handguns, but I can easily imagine an America with very few, and since when was the possibility of only partial success an excuse for not trying at all? In what other context do you hear people say with a straight face, "Criminals don't obey laws, therefore there's no point in making laws"? Why even bother to go down a path of evidence or comparison or common sense? Point out that strict gun laws demonstrably mean less gun violence when applied across an entire country -- look at England, Japan, Australia -- and, no matter how strong your proof, it's all for nothing because out comes the ultimate trump card: the Second Amendment, holier than the Second Coming even if it kills us.

How ironic that a constitution explicitly designed to be changed is constantly brandished as an argument against change.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-chapman/gun-violence-prevention_b_2577305.html

Roadkill

We track cars better than we track guns. I gave two guns to a friend, as a birthday present. He is a British immigrant who recently got his US citizenship. He is thrilled with America's 2nd amendment. However, he agrees that, just like cars, we should have a titling system for firearms.

#1.183

And we use our cars in public spaces, and we pay taxes on cars, boats and RV's. Seldom is a gun used in a public space. We do not tag or register race cars, nor do we have taxes on them for they are not used in public spaces as they are prohibited from such places. The guns that are used in public spaces are generally used by those who have a license or permission to do so i.e. CCP holders and Police.

But nothing you people are suggesting will do anything to curb or stop the violence. Registering, licensing, etc. does nothing to STOP it.

Here is an example. 26 years ago I sold a Ruger Black Hawk Revolver to a college roommate.(I needed a little cash) Great guy, and we have been friends for the last 23 years. Three years ago, he was going through a messy divorce, and I guess she finally pushed the right button. He shot her dead with that gun. Never in a million years would have I expected him to do such horrific thing. And no doubt, even a month prior to this, he could have, or would have been sane enough to pass any "Background" check. So tell me, how do you STOP that?

There is only one way to stop a guy with a gun, and that is another guy with a gun. Until you people figure that out, then there is nothing to talk about. If you want to get a handle on violence, then we need to get a handle on the criminals causing it. Three felony convictions and an automatic death sentence. PERIOD Do away with welfare and the "No-Fault" Divorce (where minor children are involved) Add consequences to life.

But I am beginning to warm up to the idea of having to get a "Buyers License" much like the Hunter Safety certificate to get a hunting license. I was at a gun this last weekend and it scared the Hell out of me. The lack of knowledge I was exposed to there is frightening. It used to be Fathers or Uncles took the young ones under their wing and showed them the ropes of gun ownership, gun knowledge and safety. I guess not any more. I think most of the "Kids" (20 somethings) were driven to the gun show by all the media hype. But this goes back to my original post "If we don't have Dad's raising their children, then we have only half an adult, when they get that old"

As a general rule most gun owners don't have a huge problem with background checks.

What we do have a problem with, however, is the arrogant hypocrisy from the left where you want to invade our privacy when it pertains to gun ownership, but you want to scream bloody murder when we ask that you show a valid ID at the voting booth.

Gun ownership and the right to vote are both guaranteed by the Constitution, but it's funny how liberals are okay with ad hoc qualification around the 2nd Amendment, yet no one had better utter a negative word about the rights you hold so near and dear.

You all just don't get it, do you? Your arrogance and your hubris just keep getting in the way of good ol' common sense.

bravo, rradiko

In particular, bravo for realizing that the U.S. military would shut down a truly tyrannical government overnight, without a shot being fired.

The only thing I'd add to your post is the notion that insurgencies theoretically can succeed against a well-equipped modern army, but it would take years, and the physical and economic destruction would be so enormous that it had really better be worth it.

But this just circles back to the point that, long before we reached such a tyranny, the U.S. military would shut down the tyrants.

The Second Amendment indeed might have been drafted with the "tyranny" argument in mind, but we have something the drafters of it didn't have, and didn't want: a standing army.

So I always want to ask the gun fetishists who fall into the error of making the "tyranny" argument: why do you hate the U.S. military?

Very nice attempt at diversion, Carryingconcealed.

Let me be of assistance to you.

This thread isn't about Voter ID.

Thanks for playing.

RonB, I agree with you.

I recall a tongue-in-cheek statement from a feminist in a Playboy magazine interview, and she said that, "Those civilian gun nuts are jealous of the military because the troops have the biggest d--ks to shoot with." Taking away firearms from mentally unstable gun fanatics would entertain their greatest male castration nightmares that would render them impotent. They would rather die than give up their loaded weapon(s), to someone in uniform (an authority figure) trained to use a much bigger weapon than their own. "The only way you'll get my gun is after you pry it out of my cold, dead hands." Thus, their desire for one-upmanship as a way to inflate the power of their insecure masculinity. "I got more than you ...and mine is bigger than yours." Pity the one that brings a handgun to an assault rifle shootout. Pity the owner of the assault rifle that brings it to a 50 cal machine gun party. Pity the 50 cal. man that brings his to a guided missile showdown ...and so on.

Sadly, rradiko, you're right.

For some, it's a fetish. And it definitely has "size" implications.

No, RonB, it isn't about voter ID, it's about invasion of privacy; something you nuts on the left squawk about every chance you get.

I used the the comparison of voter ID to background checks for guns in perfect context. It is you, my friend, who is attempting to divert attention away from the left's hypocrisy but, then again, that's what you liberals do so well, isn't it?

Now let me thank you for playing...

-

@ rradiko #1.198

Excerpts:

I watch Wayne LaPierre and his ilk, who certainly think of themselves as Good Guys, and with all due respect, I do not see "Good Guys," I see "Unstable Guys." Wayne LaPierre's terror terrifies me. Among the fear-based justifications from people like him, though not, to his credit, from Harris, is that the government will get taken over by tyrants and citizens will need guns to remove them. Castration anxiety and clinical paranoia... what a burden it must be.

Curious you should say that while your guy is in office. Not that many years ago all I heard from the left is that a tyrants (Republicans) had taken over the Government, and were destroying the Constitution with the Patriot Act. Hmmm, maybe there is something to this rhetoric.

Being conservative, I guess their nightmare is a limp-wristed liberal tyrant forcing them to drive fuel efficient cars and eat broccoli or face death by slapping. This vision presupposes that the army and various police forces will agree tyranny is a good idea and support it. Even if you believe this can happen and armed revolt is the only solution, are you going to win against the full might of the most powerful military force in the world? Imagine yourself clutching your little Bushmaster as a government drone flies so high above you that you cannot even see it much less shoot it down. ("Draw!" Oops, wrong century.)

Funny thing, "presupposes that the army and various police forces will agree tyranny is a good idea and support it." when you previously mention "fear based justifications" and you go on to mention Germany. And for the most part I would describe Hitler as a limp-wristed Liberal. My guess is you are not very good at math or history, because you haven't been able to connect the past events and sum up a conclusion.

If tyranny is the problem and weapons the solution, then citizens should demand the right to acquire missiles, fighter jets, and bombs. They should form militias and keep massive stockpiles of weapons in secure facilities. The current solution (individuals carrying little guns in the face of the U.S military) is as silly as the nightmare itself. America is not Germany in 1939, or even Afghanistan, despite the Talibanization of certain branches of American Christianity. Furthermore, if massive numbers of guns can bring down a tyrannical government, they can also bring down a democratically elected one. (How many democratically elected U.S. presidents have been shot so far?)

No, you are correct, America is not Germany 1939, but it is starting to look like Germany circa 1920. And the whole idea of the militia (even though it is irrelevant to the ownership of arms) is that it need not be stockpiled with arms, the members are to bring their own.

But the man who wrote The End of Faith (and allowed himself to imagine such a thing) cannot imagine the end of handguns in America. It will never happens, he flatly states. Among other things, there are too many. Yes, and more by the minute thanks to articles like his that argue that more guns make for a safer society. No wonder so many people are getting shot when there's only 270 million guns in the country! How much safer we'll all be when we pump this up to 600 million or a billion!

Yes their are a lot of guns in this country, and if you have read a few of the comments here you should know that out of 300+ million guns only 11,000 or so are murdered by them. Of that number how many put themeselves in harms way? drug dealers, gang bangers, and the like? And how many are innocent by standers to that violence? and how many are just innocent victims or were victims that were going to die no matter what tool was available for the job?

Forgive my sarcasm, but this defeatism is depressing and goes against the spirit of the nation. I can't imagine an America with no handguns, but I can easily imagine an America with very few, and since when was the possibility of only partial success an excuse for not trying at all? In what other context do you hear people say with a straight face, "Criminals don't obey laws, therefore there's no point in making laws"? Why even bother to go down a path of evidence or comparison or common sense? Point out that strict gun laws demonstrably mean less gun violence when applied across an entire country -- look at England, Japan, Australia -- and, no matter how strong your proof, it's all for nothing because out comes the ultimate trump card: the Second Amendment, holier than the Second Coming even if it kills us.

So it would seem your solution is to take a away a tool at my disposal to exercise my Right to Defend my Life. And if you are going to be a racist pig and compare these other mostly white, monolithic race nations, then maybe you should be comparing them to the mostly white regions of this nation. We can not compare these other nations to our own as you Liberal so often like to point out we are a "Multicultural" Society.

How ironic that a constitution explicitly designed to be changed is constantly brandished as an argument against change.

And my guess is you have absolutely no understanding of the Document at all, and I would surmise that you believe all Rights stem from the Bill of Rights.

Carry,

Registration of firearms and voter ID should both be the law of the land. Neither are prohibited by the constitution. Just don't try to do it in a short timeframe. Five years for each to be implimented. Why would a law abiding gun owner object to their weapons being registered? (unless they were planning to do something crimiinal with them.) If they were stolen, they might stand a chance of getting them back when the criminal is caught. Every eligible voter shoul be able to get a photo ID if they have 5 years to do it. (I still think that all eligible voters must vote or pay a fee for the priviledge of not voting. It is a right but also a duty. The fees collected would put billions towards the defecit at current voting levels.) Universal background checks (even thorough ones) should not bother any law abiding potential gun owner either.

Why don't we use the existing background checks already in place? In California, there are approximately 20,000 individuals that have been identified as either being a felon or certified mentally unstable that have purchased a gun, registered it, and are still in possession of it. So why do these people still have a gun? We identified them, but according to our California "politicians" we don't have enough money to fund a staff to go and collect them from these individuals. So, why pass more legisilation when can't even do the job with the existing laws? More "politicians" trying to puff their chest out and act like they give a flying care about those innocent children.

It's time to declare the NRA a terrorist organization, bent on protecting the questionable right of irresponsible and immature "gun enthusiasts" to own pointless weaponry that is being used to murder our nation's children. Rise up against these criminals and protect our children, our families, and our communities by enacting rational gun control legislation! Now, more than ever, it is the right thing to do!

ED-2874315

Carry,

Registration of firearms and voter ID should both be the law of the land. Neither are prohibited by the constitution. Just don't try to do it in a short time frame. Five years for each to be implemented. Why would a law abiding gun owner object to their weapons being registered? (unless they were planning to do something criminal with them.) If they were stolen, they might stand a chance of getting them back when the criminal is caught. Every eligible voter should be able to get a photo ID if they have 5 years to do it. (I still think that all eligible voters must vote or pay a fee for the privilege of not voting. It is a right but also a duty. The fees collected would put billions towards the deficit at current voting levels.) Universal background checks (even thorough ones) should not bother any law abiding potential gun owner either.

#1.208

Registration of firearms:

all of the guns I have purchased were registered at the time of purchase, so what is the point of re-registering them? The serial numbers on all my firearms are in a file for theft and insurance purposes. So if one is stolen, and I report that serial number, it goes into a police data base for notice if it ever turns up. So what more will registering it do.

The Australians did a registration thing too, you know what they did with it? They ended up confiscating the guns. Yeah, I am going to trust OUR government with data like that, I think not. Maybe I am a little paranoid, maybe it will be OK, but I look at Social Security and my SS number was never meant to be an ID, but here we are.

Universal Background Checks:

When they first started the NICS system, I was always "delayed". I guess my name was similar enough to someone else that didn't pass that caused them to check closer. I never did find out the reason, even though it was eventually cleared up. But at the time, I had no recourse. No number to call, no form to fill out, it just was as it was. Which made it nearly impossible, well much more expensive (and I don't have a lot of money) to buy guns at shows or in some other city, (the guns had to be shipped to a dealer in my home town and then I had to pay that dealer his fees as well)

So unless your system has some way of addressing errors or mistakes in it, or giving the people a place to appeal to then there is no way i can support.

Sailcat,

You are yet another of a long line of liberals using the tragedy of innocent children being murdered by a lunatic who took his mother's guns. You are the kind that blindly follows the liberal speaking points about the supposed care of protecting innocent children but doesn't give a crap about the millions of unborn children that have been slaughtered because it's a women's "choice". Perhaps we should ban abortion because it's the right thing to do!

You, JK. are the sort of degenerate who would cling desperately to his weaponry and pretend your perceived right to own them trumps the right of small children NOT to be gunned down by them. You have no integrity or honor. Shame.

Sailcat, your argument is retarded. If you were an avid shooter, you'd realize how ridiculous your comments and stance are. Thank goodness all of these stupid gun-grabbing initiatives will be cast into the wastebasket in Congress-- and there isn't anything you can spin that's going to change that fact. We deserve NOT to listen to your idiotic, nonsensical comments. After all, there should be "reasonable restrictions" on your first amendment rights.

By the way, I hope you don't need to call the police. Ever. Since you prefer to label the NRA a "terrorist organization" when they are the ones that provide police shooting trainers (free of charge, by the way), I'm fairly certain the police will shoot at and miss whoever is assailing you.

Sailcat, your argument is retarded.

Is that the best you have? No wonder your kind loses so often. You lack the cognitive horsepower to understand the issues and you definitely lack the moral courage to do the right thing. Your parents must have been very disappointed in you.

Sail,

Please get over yourself. I've never owned a gun, but respect the right of people to have guns. If you can't or won't make the leap of logic to know that having yet ANOTHER gun law in the vain attempt to TRY and prevent another Sandy Hook is not going to do anything, you are a deluded person. You can put all the restrictions on guns that you want, take away people's right, all in your hallowed pitiful attempt to make YOU feel good. You are are a pathetic person. So let me ask you...where is all your outrage for the unborns that killed everyday? Why aren't you screaming that Planned Parenthood is a terrorist organization as well? And most importantly, where was ANYONE (yourself included) talking about gun violence and more gun control laws before all this happened? You are like the fair weather friend...only when it pops in your pee brain do you think people need to take action on something that we already have laws, yet we are too spineless to enforce.

Ban handguns.

fyte 4 justice Guns make pussies think they are real men,

So, our military and law enforcement are a bunch of pussies then?

"Too many children are dying," she said Wednesday, breaking up the syllables during her testimony.

Why is she addressing abortion at a firearms hearing?

Fieldon -

I still trust the Chief of Police over either you OR NBC News.

I really don't care who you do or don't trust. Fact is there is conflicting information out there about which weapon was used.

At that particular time with that particular sampling of respondents, 40% said sales occurred without a background check. Truth.

That 40% number comes from a survery of around 250 people 20 years ago. I did a survey yesterday afternoon, and 100% of the people went through background checks that purchased firearms from my local gun store. Truth!

People will try to circumvent the law and the law will have to be updated. Can YOU guarantee that no one will be killed with an AR-15?

So you admit that eventually you would like to update the law to include handguns, and eventually ban guns altogether. I can not guarantee or prevent what any person will or will not do in the future. My point is neither can you. So why should I willing allow my 2nd Amendment rights be limited any further if you can't guarantee me it will prevent these types of mass killings? That's my point.F

Fact is areas with gun bans tend to have higher rates of crime. I look no further than our President's very own Chicago. Now here in my home state of Georgia, we have the city of Kennesaw. They passed a law in 1982 requiring every home to have a firearm. Using the logic of the left, they should have mass shootings and murders multiple times a day. But what has actually happened. Well the 1st year, crime dropped 89% and has remained low over the last 20 years.

What makes you think this gun ban will work when history has proven over and over that gun bans do not prevent gun violence?

Sailcat: Sorry but JK doesn't sound like a degenerate (shouldn't you have your sorry, liberal ass banned for that anyway?), but you certainly sound like a demented, frothing-at-the-mouth, liberal lunatic.

How about we start deconstructing the 1st and the 14th Amendments, the ones your faux party cling to so tightly. And don't say no one dies from those Amendments because I die a new death every day that I have to see you and your ilk slithering around my country spewing your putrid pablum.

Coloradoman - Now that is funny! And true...

Poor Ron B, dont really have a clue much less data to support your background checks inferences, lets help you out on that son!

Year
Rejections
Rejections
Total NICS
Total firearms

Federal
State
Checks
Purchased

1998/99
89,836
133,000
10020963
6,559,176

2000
66808
86000
8543037
5,591,806

2001
64500
86000
8910191
5,832,125

2002
60739
75000
8454322
5,533,738

2003
61170
65000
8481588
5,551,585

2004
63675
62167
8687671
5,686,476

2005
66705
65221
8952945
5,860,109

2006
69930
64512
10036933
6,569,629

2007
66817
61460
11177335
7,316,074

2008
70725
65208
12709023
8,318,633

2009
67324
62073
14033824
9,185,776

2010
72659
66992
14409616
9,431,749

2011
78211
72111
16454951
10,770,513

2012

19592303
12,824,053

Totals
899,099
964,744
160,464,702
105,031,441

Total Crazies & Felons rejected
1,863,843

Now, we see from DOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001 & USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer report 2008

We see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows.

Then in the 2008 report, shows that a 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys/theft at 95.52%, 3.64% retail stores, .64% gun shows in today’s numbers.

So since the background checks, which by law (Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 & the 5th amendment) means that 85% of the current 22,417 gun control laws requiring IDENTIFICATION which means self incrimination, dont apply to felons & crazies and such, explain again what the background check will accomplish?

So sad how the BATF in 2010 admits that it only prosecuted less than 1% of felons caught attempting to buy from a licensed source since 1994, in fact in 2010 out of 76,000 felons rejected, they only prosecuted 44 = .00058% or about 1/2 of 1/10th of a percent for you Kenyesian math experts!

@ Baylie

In the final analysis, those who advocate for gun control are doing so for the public good, while those who support unfettered gun sales and ownership do so for their own selfish reasons.

Really? You must feel alot safer now that Delaware AG Beau Biden is abolishing sheriffs rights to arrest anyone. Way to stand behind law enforcement Little B

Nick: So you admit that eventually you would like to update the law to include handguns, and eventually ban guns altogether

I said no such thing. My point was that, as new products come onto the market, the laws will need to be re-evaluated.

Kennesaw. They passed a law in 1982 requiring every home to have a firearm.

Are you telling me that you are not OK with the government telling you what you may not do, but you ARE OK with the government telling you what you must do? Interesting...

How many times must rightwingers repeat the same idiocy?

They don't have a clue about the Constitution in regard to states rights, the Supreme Court, etc. And they no clue about history, or perhaps they would learn a lesson from threats to defy the federal government and laws of the land. Most notably slavery, then civil rights, and so forth.

Always these rightwing states, typically in the south but now also in the west are backward bigoted and brainless. Always they have to be forced to join the rest of the nation in order to progress. Sweet Jeebus, how many times must we as a nation go through this crap with these yahoos?

After hearing that simpleton Sheriff in Pinal County Arizona who got a spanking by Rev Al, it's clear these rightwingers are the Stupid Party. Stop with the lame, empty threats to ignore federal laws, or worse to secede from the Union -- Been there, done that, including states rights at the beginning of our nation and the founding father realized it doesn't work.

Please don't make us have to send troops in AGAIN!

Just reading some more of the posts in this thread...

The "gateway" fallacious argument is hilarious. We have traffic laws, but no one is going to take your car away -- The same goes for guns, okay? Or the absolutist argument that if we can't solve a problem in it's entirety, why even try to improve it? The high capacity clips are directly linked to the number of deaths in recent rampages, and true universal background checks are a no-brainer.

OMG, you rightwingers need to move to Glenn Beck's Independence USA where he will be the dictator -- Hahahaha!

fielden oh so you just want ban new products as they come into the market. Well the AR-15 was originally designed in 1957. So you want to ban this weapon and promise to never go after handguns and eventually all guns? Yeah right.

Well, the Kennessaw law actually has a few exceptions:

Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony

As you can see, if you choose to not have a firearm then there you were exempt from the law. Meaning the law did not force anyone to do anything, it merely sent a message to criminals that most likely our citizens are armed and the criminals decided to go be criminals elsewhere.

@ TruePatriot-445959

How many times must rightwingers repeat the same idiocy?

They don't have a clue about the Constitution in regard to states rights, the Supreme Court, etc. And they no clue about history, or perhaps they would learn a lesson from threats to defy the federal government and laws of the land. Most notably slavery, then civil rights, and so forth.

Always these rightwing states, typically in the south but now also in the west are backward bigoted and brainless. Always they have to be forced to join the rest of the nation in order to progress. Sweet Jeebus, how many times must we as a nation go through this crap with these yahoos?

After hearing that simpleton Sheriff in Pinal County Arizona who got a spanking by Rev Al, it's clear these rightwingers are the Stupid Party. Stop with the lame, empty threats to ignore federal laws, or worse to secede from the Union -- Been there, done that, including states rights at the beginning of our nation and the founding father realized it doesn't work.

Please don't make us have to send troops in AGAIN!

#1.226

Then please explain the Constitution to this poor, unsophisticated Dumb Farm Boy. Please. And do explain to me what a Republic is, at least in your mind.

True Patriot - The shriff merely got his idea of not enforcing a laws he deems unconstituionl from the liberals. The precedence was set by these so-called sanctuary cities that do not enforce immigration laws.

You lose all credibility when you resort to name calling snd stereotyping various regions of our country. I mean I thought the left was the party of compassion and tolerance? Why so much hatred?

I wonder if by the year 2050 we will all be armed with phaser guns like on Star Trek?

Think how easy clean-up would be. No conservative or liberal corpses left behind.

We can all just kill off the people we don't like, or zap anonymous people we never met, and be thankful that the Second Amendment protects our rights to own such weaponry.

Since it is not guns that are our problem and the nut cases are..then what can possibly be the problem with background checks whereever guns are sold..gun shows or stores ? WHat is the NRA afraid of ? Granted...criminals will get guns anyway..but why allow nut cases or criminals to just walk into any gun show and buy whatever they want ? Why make it easier for any of them ? Or is this just about money and profits ? I already know we have way to many in congress that have been bought off ...and I thought they were suppose to work for the general public..not special interest groups who have deep pockets.

Ivan, really whose getting the money? Who exactly is making all of this money? All new firearms are distributed and sold through licensed FFL dealers today. A BACKGROUND CHECK is done on all of those sales today!!!!!!! They are attempting to make every gun sale in the country to have a background check. I as a private citizen cannot perform a background check on my neighbor if I so choose to sell him on of my guns. You see the goal here is not background checks its I believe national registration and this is a baby step. You can say well its my responsibility to go to a FFL dealer and get the background check done and pay a fee. Well do you really think a criminal will do this? The answer is NO!!! So why add an additional layer of requirements when it accomplishes nothing? On top of that our Federal Government today prosecuts less than 1% of all felons who try to buy guns today when they fail background checks. How bout we start with prosecuting 100% of those people before we go to making new laws.

True,

Oh you mean like cities around this country that refuse to hand over illegals to ICE? You mean like that kind of compliance with federal law? The thing you continually fail to understand is that you are the nutcase. Perhaps when you grow up a bit instead of repeating over and over again the same old tired lines from your liberal handbook, you might start to join the real world. You want more laws? Look how well they do in Chicago?

Concealed,

Thanks for the props!! It's tough feeling like Einstein around some of these liberals...

@ carryingconcealed:

You have an inflated notion of privacy that has never found much support in the law. Even Warren and Brandeis recognized that the right of privacy has to step aside in favor of a superior public interest.

You also don't understand the left's objection to Voter ID requirements. It has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy. Surely you know that when you walk in to the polling place, whether there are voter ID laws or not, you have to tell them who you are so they can pull your card, and the parties and candidates are entitled to have poll watchers there, in addition to the precinct clerks, to write your name down.

@ Rlee emerysgt:

I must sincerely apologize for not having made my point clear. Because you completely missed it.

Wayne LaPierre said that criminals won't go through universal background checks.

This statement is flatly contradicted by the well-known fact that in 2010 alone, 80,000 criminals submitted to background checks even though there were available, non-black-market ways for them to buy guns without doing so.

80,000 criminals who chose to try a background check when they didn't have to.

Do you have any evidence to think that number will go down, and not up, if you were to take away all non-black-market alternatives?

Here's a word of advice, my friend: don't assume that you're always debating with amateurs who can't hold two thoughts in their head at the same time.

Wayne LaPierre is lying on this, and he knows it, and you're trying to cover his back.

Here's a question for you: Why?

RonB - I completely concede that the left's objection to Voter ID has nothing to do with privacy and everything to do with ensuring their parasitic voting base is allowed to vote, whether here in this country legally or not.

Now you feel free to dispute that with whatever contrived "facts" you'd like to present, but at the end of the day that's exactly why the left opposes Voter ID. Without the votes from the liberal parasites surviving on government hand-me-outs, many of whom are felons in this country illegally, the left would never see another day in office.

Carryingconcealed:

Your tenacity is to be commended.

But again, I repeat: This thread is not about Voter ID.

Thanks for playing.

Incidentally, I invite you to continue to be Bobby Jindal's "stupid party." The Democratic party has millions upon millions of "job-creators" like me. And you need me to switch my vote.

So, your choices are, ignore me, pretend I don't exist, imply I'm a "taker" or an illegal, or....

I'll leave you to figure it out. But right now? You're not likely to gain a single vote with your approach.

10 PRO-GUN MYTHS, SHOT DOWN

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

-----------

MYTH #1: THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

FACT-CHECK: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Sources: Congressional Research Service (PDF), Small Arms Survey

-----------

MYTH #2: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE—PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

FACT-CHECK: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership.

Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

-----------

MYTH #3: AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY.

FACT-CHECK: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
-- Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
-- In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

-----------

MYTH #4: MORE GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS CAN STOP RAMPAGING BAD GUYS.

FACT-CHECK: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5.

-----------

MYTH #5: KEEPING A GUN AT HOME MAKES YOU SAFER.

FACT-CHECK: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
-- For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
-- 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
-- In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

-----------

MYTH #6: CARRYING A GUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE MAKES YOU SAFER.

FACT-CHECK: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
-- In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
-- A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

-----------

MYTH #7: GUNS MAKE WOMEN SAFER.

FACT-CHECK: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
-- A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
-- One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun that women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

-----------

MYTH #8: "VICIOUS, VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES" DESERVE MORE BLAME THAN GUNS.

FACT-CHECK: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

Per capita spending on video games: United States $44. Japan: $55.
Civilian firearms per 100 people: United States 88. Japan: 0.6.
Gun homicides in 2008: United States 11,030. Japan: 11

Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime

-----------

MYTH #9: MORE AND MORE AMERICANS ARE BECOMING GUN OWNERS.

FACT-CHECK: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
-- About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
-- Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

-----------

MYTH #10: WE DON'T NEED MORE GUN LAWS—WE JUST NEED TO ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE.

FACT-CHECK: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
-- Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
-- An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
-- 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
-- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

-----------

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

"DumbFarmBoy," said:

So it would seem your solution is to take a away a tool at my disposal to exercise my Right to Defend my Life. And if you are going to be a racist pig and compare these other mostly white, monolithic race nations, then maybe you should be comparing them to the mostly white regions of this nation. We can not compare these other nations to our own as you Liberal so often like to point out we are a "Multicultural" Society.

How ironic that a constitution explicitly designed to be changed is constantly brandished as an argument against change.

And my guess is you have absolutely no understanding of the Document at all, and I would surmise that you believe all Rights stem from the Bill of Rights.

------------------------

"DumbFarmBoy,"

I see that you get a lot of mileage out of exercising your ad hominem fallacies against me and all other non-conservatives on this comments section that you disagree with. Try to give fact-checked substantiation to your accusative claims instead of projecting; by doing so, you can win over skeptics better than falsely assuming the motives or demeaning the intelligence or knowledge of the commenter, while maliciously assigning to them negative traits they didn't possess.

Here are examples of providing appropriate substantiation to the readers:

---------------------------

1. Where there are more guns, there is more homicide.

A broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Source: Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Source: Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Source: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Source: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

States with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

BTW, "DumbFarmBoy,"

Why is it you end up labeling many of the non-conservatives you disagree with -- in most of the comment sections that you take so much effort to undermine anything they say-- as "liberals," "socialists," and "racists"? Are you even aware what the textbook definitions are for these nouns?

Why, and without provocation, all the hyperbole, accusations, misleading narratives and suppositions coming from you ...and all lacking in any fact-checked substantiation? You don't even know us. And you also accuse many of not "knowing," the Constitution. So tell us -- without plagiarizing from any site -- what it is you personally 'know' about it?

Speak up, we're all ears, man, including my "legal eagle" friends on the NewsVine...

You're confused, RonB, but I expect this whenever I'm talking to a member of the rainbows and unicorns party.

I think most on the right are starting to accept that we're not going to get back in power anytime soon with the way liberals continue to pander to the lazy parasites of this country, and consequently pad their voting base.

However, your party's ideology isn't sustainable, and eventually this country will go the way of so many European countries and the bottom will simply fall out. When this happens the citizens of this country will have no choice but stop backing the moral depravity and failed socialist programs of your party, and put conservatives with some common sense, ethics and vision back at the helm. At least if they want to survive.

Your party's days are numbered, that's a foregone conclusion. The fact that you don't see the train coming is what makes it all the more entertaining.

@ rradiko #1.240

10 PRO-GUN MYTHS, SHOT DOWN

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

And the Federal Government is the only source of funding for research? Well, in all fairness, I guess for a dope smoking hippy Liberal Communist, that is probably a true statement.

And the data they were collecting was the personal data of gun owners. Perhaps, you would be comfortable giving over you personally data to the Government in relation to your posts on these vines? Perhaps being required to have a permit to post your opinion, or write something negative about a Government Leader? After all, the pen is Mightier than the Sword.

-----------

MYTH #1: THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

FACT-CHECK: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Sources: Congressional Research Service (PDF), Small Arms Survey

In numerous interviews in the past Feinstein, Biden, and numerous other Senators and Representatives, Including Barry Obama, have called for or said they would support the outright confiscation of guns. Just Google, Feinstein confiscate guns interviews

-----------

MYTH #2: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE—PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

FACT-CHECK: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership.

Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

And people who live in cities have a higher propensity to be dope smokin liberals. Crime rate among CCW holders is lower than the general public (at least in Kansas) and in some cases is even lower than police officers. (at least in New Orleans and Florida) several sources, including the Wichita Eagle.

-----------

MYTH #3: AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY.

FACT-CHECK: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
-- Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
-- In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

I would like to see your source on that. See above, and also
www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

-----------

MYTH #4: MORE GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS CAN STOP RAMPAGING BAD GUYS.

FACT-CHECK: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5.

CCW holder Nick Meli, is reported to have stopped the Oregon Mall shooting. see others: gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

Google concealed carry holder Oregon mall shooting

-----------

MYTH #5: KEEPING A GUN AT HOME MAKES YOU SAFER.

FACT-CHECK: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
-- For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
-- 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
-- In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

We will leave suicides out of this debate. People who commit suicide, will find another way. Accidental shootings account for 606 deaths in 2010. A number that needs work for sure.

In 2001 96 children under 14 died of poisoning from household products. CDC

In 2011 119 children under 12 died from accidental or incidental gun shots. According to FBI Stats,

And more kids than that die from abuse and neglect. read my post above.

-----------

MYTH #6: CARRYING A GUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE MAKES YOU SAFER.

FACT-CHECK: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
-- In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
-- A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Again, reference the data pertaining to the Incidence of Crimes committed by CCW holders.

Are the people in these studies, from Philadelphia, thugs from a bad neighborhood, or are they good citizens?

-----------

MYTH #7: GUNS MAKE WOMEN SAFER.

FACT-CHECK: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
-- A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
-- One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun that women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Were the women in these studies armed? The argument you make here is a non sequitur. Just because these thing take place in states with higher gun ownership, does not mean these women had arms themselves. You, yourself point out that gun ownership is by women is only 20%.

-----------

MYTH #8: "VICIOUS, VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES" DESERVE MORE BLAME THAN GUNS.

FACT-CHECK: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

Per capita spending on video games: United States $44. Japan: $55.
Civilian firearms per 100 people: United States 88. Japan: 0.6.
Gun homicides in 2008: United States 11,030. Japan: 11

Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime

Again another non sequitur. Japan is a monolithic culture, and is fairly highly disciplined. They have beer vending machines, just like soda vending machines here, open to the public. Just how well do you think that would go over here, when we can't even have cigarette machines.

And it is not the video game by itself, millions of kids play the games, and millions of kids are just fine. It is the combination of a lack of good parenting, along with a mental instability that is the trouble.

-----------

MYTH #9: MORE AND MORE AMERICANS ARE BECOMING GUN OWNERS.

FACT-CHECK: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
-- About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
-- Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

If your math is correct then there are 873,600,000 guns in this country, which according to most estimates is off by about 300% better check those facts again.

Gun owners make up about 20 to 25% of the population, each owning about 4 or 5 guns. That's 60 to 80 million gun owners, and about 300 million guns.

-----------

MYTH #10: WE DON'T NEED MORE GUN LAWS—WE JUST NEED TO ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE.

FACT-CHECK: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
-- Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
-- An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
-- 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
-- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

-----------

Even the Washington Post give Obama 2 Pinocchios for the 40% of gun sales number. The actual number based on that data is between 14 and 20%

>>

See what I mean about studying the problem before you go off half cocked and do something stupid, like violate a man's Rights?

@ rradiko

BTW, "DumbFarmBoy,"

Why is it you end up labeling many of the non-conservatives you disagree with -- in most of the comment sections that you take so much effort to undermine anything they say-- as "liberals," "socialists," and "racists"? Are you even aware what the textbook definitions are for these nouns?

Why, and without provocation, all the hyperbole, accusations, misleading narratives and suppositions coming from you ...and all lacking in any fact-checked substantiation? You don't even know us. And you also accuse many of not "knowing," the Constitution. So tell us -- without plagiarizing from any site -- what it is you personally 'know' about it?

Speak up, we're all ears, man, including my "legal eagle" friends on the NewsVine...

#1.242

Spoken Like a true liberal, Change the Subject, Ignore the Facts, and Name Call or Marginalize.

I have posted several comments that have yet to be refuted. So if I am lacking in "any fact-checked substantiation?", point it out. I will gladly admit if any of it is incorrect, false or misleading and correct it if it is. Instead you change the subject and post unsubstantiated claims of "hyperbole, accusations, misleading narratives and suppositions" challenging my credibility.

Do you want to know why I label "non-conservatives", because I have zero respect for you emotionally compromised thinking people who are driving this debate. You have zero understanding of that of which you speak. Most of you have zero understanding of how most guns function, their proper uses, or the consequences to the lawful uses of them.

E.G. (I can no longer find the story) Several years ago, a young competitive shooter was denied access to a match because the gun she used had the magazine in front of the trigger assembly, much like Tech 9 pistol. Do to language in a law in that state, New York I believe, the gun was illegal.

And I have dozens of comparisons. I wish I could post pictures here to show you. Not that it would do any good. I am sure there is no way I can demonstrate to you that what most of you, Feinstein, Biden and others are suggesting is futile at best, (even Biden has begun to admit it) or completely devastating at worst.

And no, I posed the question first. I asked True Patriot to give me his understanding of the Constitution, and you jumped in, so you first please. Explain how your Rights come from the Constitution.

rradiko

All of you. Whenever you try to blame someone, or try to associate an event to something else, please provide fact-checked substantiation to your claims.

(Come on, I can't be the only one that is tired of coming across misleading narratives, ad hominem fallacy attacks, paranoid conspiracy theories, politically-prejudiced suppositions, naive cynicism, juvenile sarcasm, rigidly uncompromising opinions, absolutism, disrespectful labeling, malicious buzz-words, unfounded accusations, projecting, emotional hyperbole, one-upmanship duelling, power-gaming, infighting, trolling, predatory sophistry, demagoguery, religious intolerance, propagandizing, and so much HATE).

Is it possible for the commenters here to keep a cool, level head about this, and "stay on point" ...or is this asking too much? Are there any adults in the room that can offer some realistic, workable, win-win solutions to reduce the odds of tragedies occurring like this against our consulates and embassies? Or is this going to be a continual zealot's game of, "fixing the blame," and not one of, "fixing the problem"?

#2.55 //worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/01/16804949-us-embassy-compound-in-turkey-hit-by-terrorist-attack?threadId=3657673&commentId=73895110#c73895110

This was going to be my reply, to your comments above: (but I decided to refrain)

"My guess is you are too ignorant or of a sufficiently diminished mental capacity to formulate a cognitive and cohesive argument to support your position. And you must revert to parroting what others have said, even though you fail to fully comprehend what was said. But hey, you're cool, right? You sure told me off". DumbFarmBoy

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt (as I presumed your comment might actually be your own, even though it did not actually fit in to the argument), but not now, Troll. I know now these are not your own words. And I came up with my reply all by little self, whom did you plagiarizer? And I know it is plagiarism because as I said, the comments above do not fit into the argument. That is a copy and paste, and my guess is, you have no understanding of it either you little troll. What disgusting waste of human DNA you are. What a sad little pathetic excuse of a person, to steal from someone else, so that you may look or appear somehow superior. But that is the truth of the matter isn't it? That is all you liberals care about is "Appearances" isn't it? You could give a crap less if the gun laws you are supporting actually do any good, just as long as you appear to be trying.

And I guess I am correct, you must revert to parroting others.

EVERYBODY, THIS COMMENT COMES FROM ANOTHER VINE, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE LINK. THIS IS A TROLL.