If you want to keep guns our of the hands of criminals, toss their cells more often

If you want to keep the hands out of the mentally unstable (whatever that means)...???????

Commiting any crime with a firearm as a tool to commit that crime, should come with 10 year minimum...IE Robbery ~2 years--> Armed (with a gun) Robbery ~12years... Rape ~50 years--> rape at gun point 60 years...

The only way to get the get guns out of the hands out of criminals is to make the penalty for having or using one a deterrent...

WM: You do understand that it is myth that you cannot by weapons in Mexico??

You can buy them from government military controlled stores.

Why would they do this?? Perhaps because they are corrupt? or afraid of their populace??or both??

Remember, not that long ago there was a southern revolt there. And reported human rights violations.

not to mention the 50,000 people killed by cartel violence over the past 6 years. I imagine they want to arm the populace because their law enforcement gets shot down by the dozens daily.

Honestly, if we can remove 32oz drinks, the reduction in sugar will most likely reduce all forms of violence.

That Chicago is such a peaceful city with those strict gun control laws.

I am glad to see Obama talking about the economy again. Oh wait, nevermind.

mr phea you are right on we had an officer in manchester nh shot and killed maybe five years ago his name was micheal briggs . he was shot by some scumbag by the name of micheal addison. come to find out addison had numerous gun charges against him in mass. a state with the toughest gun laws around. this guy shouldnt have even been on the streets. the courts let him out. how about enforceing the laws we have so no more inoccent people die!

Irespond..."I am sure that the second ammendment never meant to be used for weapons like those, tear gas and other militia equipment that is designed for war time."

The Second Amendment is a prohibition on government. It prohibits the government from denying citizens their right to self defense. Self defense is an inalienable right....a human right. (Only a fool would argue otherwise.)

What type of arms can be used for self defense is open to debate.

Read again what Obama said. Practically nothing. He touched on the right to bear arms and the need for better government attention to those who violate firearm laws. He's trying to please both sides at once. That's all.

Typical politician. So much for change. Business as usual in DC.

There is a reason Japan didn't invade the US mainland in WWII: GUNS.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass". Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

Don't let the government strip away any more of our rights. The government cannot protect citizens from everything harmful in this world. We have a duty to protect ourselves, our families and our communities.

The right to bear arm.

Hitler did not like it either so he banned firearms form all the little people so they would not be able to fight back when they started killing the innocent civilians.

I wish they still taught history in schools.

IRESPOND, you may have read some of the US Constitution, but you seem to have missed it's historical context.

"I am sure that the second amendment never meant to be used for weapons like those, tear gas and other militia equipment that is designed for war time."

We had just fought a war against our government, one whose first move was to attempt to confiscate our weapons and ammunition. Those are precisely the weapons the second amendment is intended to protect.

For those of you that think gun control is the answer, Google "UK Knife Crimes". There are many ways to kill people, but only one common factor and that is there's a person doing the killing.

Want to talk Guns? Fast and Furious, nuff said. Enforce our laws on immigration. Enforce our border laws.

No, IRESPOND, I do not want you to have a nuke, a sidewinder, or any of many other weapons. But our Constitution says you can. I'd much rather you be stable enough to not think you need them.

the president said, would be ensuring that criminals and mentally unstable individuals like Jared Lee Loughner, who killed six people in Tucson, are unable to purchase firearms.

“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said.

The criminals and mentally unstable part of that sentence I can support. However, when did US soldiers start using the AK-47 or is he talking about another group of soldiers that regularly use the AK-47? Only soldiers I know that have Ak-47s in their hands are PLA/PLAN, Al Quida and other not to be named soldiers, like former Warsaw Pact militaries.

I got out of the Corps in '91. I immediately bought a Colt for plinking. In all this time I haven't gone crazy in a movie theater. Why should I lose my right because of one idiot.

If he would have killed a busload of kids with a spatula would we be having a debate about spatulas?

Talk about political pandering with a statement that has absolutely no substance to it. First off, the AK-47 is a fully automatic weapon and it therefor already illegal for civilians to own in most states. Second, there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally ill if they have not already sought treatment for their illness and have a record of mental problems. Those committing these attacks may be mentally ill, but most of them had never been diagnosed or treated prior to their attacks. Or is the president proposing that everyone who wants to buy a gun should be subjected to a mental health evaluation?!?! Lastly, we already have many gun control laws in this country, the problem is that most of them are not adequately enforced. We have background checks required for gun purchases in most states. The problem is that the laws are not being enforced. You have gun shops where employees will sell the gun to themselves on paper when they are really selling to someone else to avoid the waiting time and background check if they think it is going to cost them the sale. These type of straw buyer transactions are far more common than most people realize because the business is more concerned with making the sale than with following the law. Also, background checks and waiting periods do not apply to private sales since there is no easy way for private individuals to run the checks. This is because of the government bureaucracy, not because gun owners are against doing the checks.

Adding new gun laws is not the answer to the problem, better enforcement of the ones we have is. It is far too asy for criminals to get guns on the street outside of normal sales channels because of lax enforcement of gun laws. If you make it impossible for people to legally obtain guns all you will do is ensure that only the criminals are armed.

Timmer2 and JS in SD just a little FYI an AK47 is a Russian weapon which is built in several countrys. It also is built in semi and full auto configurations.

Mr. Obama has tip-toed out with this because Bill O'Reilly has been saying it for about a week, so probably seems safe to verbalize it in front of a camera now.

I have a feeling the street price on my AK is about to go up.....

“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said.

Basing his opinion on what he sees overseas and in Mexico huh?

First off, If I choose to want to own an AK-47, I will. Secondly, Aurora and AK-47's is a big no. There wasn't one involved.

“Too often those efforts are defeated by politics and by lobbying and eventually by the pull of our collective attention elsewhere.”

This statement is evidence that our president knows how to sh*t words out of his mouth. So many words and not enough "to the point". First, the "efforts" aren't defeated by politics and lobbying, they are protected by our constitution. And what the hell does one mean when they state "And eventually by the pull of our collective attention elsewhere"? You're all for discussing it and talking big, then you blatantly tell American in the most lengthy way possible that you are distracted. Good job, now keep your mouth shut.

Obama criticized Congress for opposing other measures to reduce violence, “particularly when it touches on the issue of guns,” and offered broad strokes

Of course Congress opposed it. I find it amazing, that an individual wanting to be the president of America, can't even read and distinguish themselves as someone who upholds, trusts, and believes in our constitution and what our forefathers developed. Way to go Obama, you're truly not an American.

I've always maintained that "if it's good enough for a standard beat cop, it's good enough for me, plus hunting rifles". If government thinks that police should be roaming around with an AR-15 and shotgun in their trunk, and Glock in their holster, then that's a self defense setup. I don't need fully auto (waste of ammo anyway). That and access to hunting weapons.

People get bent out of shape about assault weapons. Civilians for the post part only own guns that look like assault weapons. They are lower power and have less range than a standard hunting rifle. The capacity of magazines is over-rated since reloading is a breeze even without them.

The focus should be on identifying the signs that someone is of marginal sanity and making sure they don't get their hands on guns.

A person intent on mayhem is going to find a way to cause mayhem--- doesn't need a gun. Could just as easily drive a large vehicle into a crowd waiting to see batman. Could just as easily detonate a home-made bomb. Could just as easily poison a salad bar.

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have, including your guns. Be afraid. Be very afraid of big government.

– Thomas Jefferson

I don't think Irespond understands what a semi-automatic weapon is versus any other weapon.

It amazes me the number of people who don't understand the technology but want it banned because big media says they should be banned.

I own numerous firearms and nearly all of them are semi-automatic. There's a 90+% chance most people crying on about arms control have committed more acts of violence at their breakfast table this morning than I've ever committed with any of my firearms.

“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said.

I think a lot of US citizens would agree that the White House belongs in the hands of a leader.

Can AK-47s be bought legally in the US? Yes, but they are not fully automatic. They are illegal to own unless you have an FFL and jump through a bunch of hoops with the ATF and local law enforcement. The assault weapons ban is/was a joke. By saying something is an assault weapon made all the Left Wing Liberal Wack Jobs all warm and fuzzy when they named the bill that. It didn't outlaw assault weapons. It banned the further importation of them and restricted the manufacture of high capacity magazines. You can add a high capacity magazine to a hunting rifle or shotgun and you'd have a weapon just as deadly as an AK 47.

What I think we have here is an OWS individual taking matters into his own hands. The Batman movie slammed the Occupy Wall Street movement and this guy was there to defend the movement. Homeland Security should put out a memo to law enforcement that they Occupiers fit the profile of domestic terrorists.

spoken like a true communist, this guy gotta go in 2012

His comments certainly came fast and furious.

“I believe the majority of gun owners agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons,"... but taking mine away isn't going to help.

Irespond..."The founder Fathers intended for you TO DEFEND YOUR COUNTRY, NOT GOING AGAINST IT,THEY WANTED YOU TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT."

Sorry, but their are numerous quotes by Jefferson and others that clearly indicated they wanted citizens to be able to defend themselves against the government. You can look them up for yourself, but here is one:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

And regarding the intent of the Second Amendment and the 'militia' claim, this is very educational:

http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

east coast...there are many people who simply do not like guns. They have no desire to learn anything about them. They don't like them so they want them to go away.

It's that simple-minded.

it was a long ways from mexico, to text something so stupid

"If assault weapons were banned, gang members wouldn't be able to buy them."

Heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. All illegal. Banned. That's why no gang members ever by these drugs.

An AK-47 is an fully-automatic weapon (machine gun) that is illegal for almost all Americans to own. Typically the only people the government allows to possess these are gun range owners so people can experience shooting them at the range. The police don't even have them, only the criminals who of course obtained them illegally. Semi-automatic replicas of the AK-47 are available for ownership. However, there is virtually no functional difference between those and any semi-automatic hunting rifle. They only look different.

I agree with obama...lets outlaw criminals - oh wait, we all ready do. Ok, lets outlaw crazy people, too! Wait, how do we do that? lol Outlaw certain types of firearms? Just how far would the government take that idea and who decides on what firearms are to be outlawed? We manufacture arms now that are made for civilian use to strict government requirements. What is the next step in the march to make weapons that won't kill humans too? Before firearms we had swords, spears and bows.......we could go back to that - oh wait....they can kill people too?

We have laws now that cover firearms issues, do we need more of the same that are useless....I have a great idea - lets expand the TSA to the point that we have agents in every gun short or place of gun sales. The American people are already so happy with that operation...it's a natural fit.....don't you think?

Lets get real with the laws we have - lets enforce them strictly without judicial discretion.....you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail for a long, LONG time...no second chances, no time off for good behavior, either. We always hear about how we should feel guilty for protecting our 2nd amendment rights and - "OH, what about the children"? So if we have to make more prisons to house these criminals away from civilized society we won't have to say "Oh and what about the children" anymore! We just need to have our legislators act with more common sense!

Monnie ... The initial "Gun Tracking" operation under the Bush administration "Wide Receiver" started in 2006 and employed the use of RFID chips implanted in the weapons which were involved, with the joint co-operation of the Mexican authorities. When problems arose with tracking efforts on the south side of the border the operation was terminated.

Phea ... In most areas the use of a gun adds an automatic 7 to 10 years on the sentence of the guilty party.

Jared Loughner should never have been able to purchase a slingshot had the Pima County sheriff performed his function properly and reported his history of aberrant behavior and thus raised red flags on his background checks. There are too many law already in effect which are poorly enforced and therefore do nothing to stem the problem.

Former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley had a very well armed security detail that accompanied him. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is no different, the sidearms carried by their security personnel are commensurate with those carried by White House secret service people.

There was a 4 year old boy killed at a neighborhood playground in The Bronx, after a charity barbeque and basketball game; where's Michael Bloomberg with his rhetoric over a tragic incident which happened in his own backyard??

Another side of this and I think it should appeal to the left. Give everyone who is of legal age to vote an assault weapon and the right to carry it anywhere. (A free give away from the govt. so you lefties should be happy) Then it is fair to everyone. Good and evil people.

No, IRESPOND, I do not want you to have a nuke, a sidewinder, or any of many other weapons. But our Constitution says you can. I'd much rather you be stable enough to not think you need them.

But you don't want him to be stable enough to think he doesn't need an AK-47?

In any case, no our Constitution does not say that he can have any particular weapon. The following is the exact text of the first sentence of the 2nd 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.

Notice the "well-regulated" part? That is, in fact, why more restrictive gun laws in certain cities have been deemed Constitutional.

This is not an argument about Constitutionality. It's an argument about public safety and those who would deny us the right to walk into a movie theater safely.

All these patriots waving around copies of the Constitution as an argument against gun laws remind me of that old adage...Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

"This was written at the time when people and Government had the same level of weaponery." - IRESPOND

I hate to break this to you, but the typical citizen did NOT have the same level of weaponry. The typical citizen certainly did NOT have artillery pieces sitting in their living rooms. They did NOT have private gunships. In fact almost none even had bayonets.

Obama criticized Congress for opposing other measures to reduce violence, “particularly when it touches on the issue of guns,” and offered broad strokes of what he would do differently in the future.

He said he would continue to work with members of both parties and also community leaders to arrive “at a consensus around violence reduction, not just of gun violence but violence at every level.”

“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said.

What a joke. AK-47 is a Russian weapon, what kind of soldiers are you taking about.LOL

No members of congress is oppose to reduce violence.However violence is committed by people, gun is an instrument. The problem is people not guns.

President Obama forgot the rising violence in his home town. What he did to reduce it when he was member of Illinois Assembly. Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, have of the toughest gun laws, and the highest level of violent deaths. Does it say something

Irespond..."

This was written at the time when people and Government had the same level of weaponery. Do you suggest that we should have the same level of weaponery now as the current military to keep checks and balances?

Is that practical? Is that desirable? Really?"

You forget the citizens have one other "weapon" on our side. Military personnel take an oath to uphold the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So if the government turned on the citizens, what makes you think much of the military wouldn't be on our side?

Same tired old bullshlt from the liberals wanting more gun laws. At least Mitt understands that more gun laws WON'T HELP!! Enforcing penalties for crime will do a hell of alot more than further restricting our right to keep and bear arms. But, of course, it's easier for a bunch of idiots to scream for more gun laws so they can feel like they "did something".

Guns aren't the problem; the circus known as our "justice" system is. The Aurora shooter was caught red-handed, there are dozens of eye witnesses, and though he has appeared in court, he hasn't even been charged with anything yet. Considering the overwhelming evidence, this turd could have been tried, convicted, and executed already.....all with due process. Then instead of watching his smirking face ad nauseum on TV, potential copycats could be considering how quickly and efficiently his azz made it into that lonely grave.

Guns are here to stay, fools. The only answer is to allow CWW (concealed weapons permits) to law abiding and firearm educated citizens. Then watch the crime rate drop. Guaranteed.

Obama is the most devisive President EVER! He constantly promotes class, race, and gender warfare. Obama lives to pit one American against the other and HE is calling for everyone else to reduce their violence and rhetoric?! You people want to reduce the division and violence in this country? Here's a clue for you: GET RID OF BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

@ Pigotry 1.37

actually a Democratic rep. is trying to get CCW in Illinois. We are the only state in the Union without the right to protect ourselves. 71 votes are needed to override a Gov.(D) veto. If Chicago is allowed to opt out it just might pass.(go figure)

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have, including your guns. Be afraid. Be very afraid of big government.

– Thomas Jefferson"

Except he didn't say the part in bold.

Obama the chosen one, messiah...tell me more about how criminals obey LAWS!!! That sounds SOOO enlightened...WOW!!!

The president said more must be done to keep weapons from criminals and the mentally unstable, vowing to do more but offering few specifics on how to prevent such occurrences under existing law.

Well, since criminals DON'T obey laws, why make laws stricter on law abiding citizens? Criminals also don't undergo psychiatric evaluations so how do we know if they are mentally stable or not?

Why does he NEVER offer specifics just more HOT AIR?

The title of this article should have been MSNBC reopens and reopens and reopens old wounds ...and by the way the gun debate too.

Mexico has outlawed guns ,  see how that worked only criminals have them --watch this if you think the government will protect you

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/03/narco-execution-videos-and-its-effects.html

If we learned anything from the war on drugs it's that banning something works really well as a means of keeping it out of people's hands.

Here's the thing folks. The second amendment was intended as a failsafe so that if need be we the people could overthrow our government. So yes, the founding fathers did in fact intend for us to have military weapons.

I agree with keeping them out of the hands of criminals and crazies. But how do you do that? This guy in Colorado had only traffic tickets. He had no previous mental health diagnosis (we still don't know for sure he's crazy). Ok so he bought a lot of weapons in a short period of time. I would support red-flagging people for investigation if they purchase more than 2 weapons in 2 months or something like that...

I'd rather that the resources that would be diverted to a futile "war on guns" be used to support mental health screenings and treatment so that more crazies would get diagnosed and treated before they crack. Education and intervention for youth at risk for gang involvement might also help reduce violence. And finally ENFORCE the laws we already have. One strike you're out. Period. Done deal.

I am not a lover of guns. I don't own one, I don't know how to fire one, and I would not have one in my home. I don't like them and they scare me.

But I also know enough about history to be afraid of allowing the government to disarm the populace.

Do you really think that a semiautomatic weapon is the best gun to defend your family?

You god-damned right I do. What, you think I'm going to protect my family with a single-action-only pistol? You people who want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens had better learn just what the f - hell - you are talking about.

Semi-automatic - pull the trigger, bullet fires, gun reloads ready for ANOTHER pull of the trigger.

Full-automatic - pull trigger, bullet fires, gun reloads, bullet fires, gun reloads, etc. until trigger is released.

So yeah, I will use a semi-auto to defend my family. And if you've got a problem with that, too damn bad.

What a waiste of breath this guy is. He said absolutly nothing in this speach. And criminals or mentally challenged? That would not have stopped the Colorodo insident.

And for you morons who say you dont need a AK-47 to hunt deer or bear or protect your family. That may be true but not everybody buys guns for those reasons. Some people are collectors and they like to shoot these weapons on a range. Have any of you blowhards ever shot an AK-47? Its quite an adreniline rush! Now lets move on to something more important like the economy because this argument is stale and there are too many gun owners in this country so you anti-gun people have already lost 10 times over. Deal with it!

oskar-1391552

President Obama forgot the rising violence in his home town. What he did to reduce it when he was member of Illinois Assembly. Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, have of the toughest gun laws, and the highest level of violent deaths. Does it say something

First of all when he was in the general assembly they did pass a assault weapons ban, as far as the level of violence in Chicago, 2 years ago a off duty Chicago police man was killed while at his fathers home(retired Sergent) and these goofs shot him and tried to take his motor cycle, his father stopped 2 of them by killing them. the guns used to murder this officer who just got back from a tour in Iraq, were bought in Mississippi and illegally funnled to Chicago. they charge and convicted the gun shop owner and the idiot who brought them to Chicago.

my point is that alot of the guns on the streets of Chicago, new york and philly are bough through gun shops in states when the laws are laxed and funnled up to the gangs.

no matter who tough the guns laws are you must attack the guns shops in other states what makes it possible to get the guns to chicago.

don't make this about the laws in Illinois but the very laxd laws in other states that makes it possible to get illegal guns to chicago, new york and other bif citys.

contention

I am glad to see Obama talking about the economy again. Oh wait, nevermind.

For you, and the other brainless wads that agreed with your dumbness:

Presidential Economic speeches:

July 4, Parma, OH

July 9, White House

July 13, Roanoke, VA

July 17, San Antonio, TX

July 23, Oakland, CA

July 23, Reno, NV

July 24, Portland, OR

July 26, New Orleans, LA

Now, you would have had to search to find these, or perhaps watch a news broadcast to learn of these. Perhaps, you could try reading. Or, have someone read to you.

The one cool thing about this is, you may even try and read one or more of these, and then have something remotely intelligent to say or write about the President's economic positions. For better or worse, at least you'd be speaking out of your mouth instead of your ass.

You see, it's is one thing to take issue with the President's politics, party or intellect. He does have an excuse, after all: He actually knows a lot of stuff that you (I'm sorry) know nothing about.

It would be so good for this country if you, and your 'up arrow' crowd actually took the time to actually learn some history; both recent and not.

Byron Raum,

All these patriots waving around copies of the Constitution as an argument against gun laws remind me of that old adage...Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

You are referring to a quote by Samuel Johnson - but Johnson was referring to "false" patriots in this statement. So I assume that all those to whom you subject this quote are in your estimation false patriots. And you are the opposite, right? So you'd give up your liberty (rights) for security?

QUOTE:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."........Benjamin Franklin

J. Camp, you seem to be confusing campaign events with actually addressing economic problems.

@ IRESPOND....just an observation, guy, but I don't think anyone wants to hear from you anymore! The collapsing of your comments approaches that of an all-time high (formerly owned by Feisty Redhead of IL). I just don't think people want to give up their rights....ANY rights....why is it so hard for the Left to understand?? Why do those from the hippy era, who used to cry "FREEDOM" in every breath, now lead the charge to destroy it??? Truly, a lost generation...

....just an observation, guy, but I don't think anyone wants to hear from you anymore!

I really do not care very much about your opinion, but thanks any way.

Just because the gun owners and the paid NRA lobbyist collapse comments, does not mean that everybody here is the same as you.

Just because the gun owners and the paid NRA lobbyist collapse comments, does not mean that everybody here is the same as you.

Right. They're all here to conspire against you. You must be one of those left-wing radicals that ran around saying Bush blew up the WTC after it occurred and that the video was all staged to appear as if planes were flying into the buildings.

Irespond,

Evidently you try to spin everything to your favor... You can research what I am about to say... The very writers of the second amendment when questioned about it did say, the them 'Militia' meant every man woman and child should be taught from early childhood to defend this country from all invaders foreign and domestic. Also, the right to 'Keep and Bear Arms' meant that that every household should be armed to defend its self from all envaders. Now you can do the research to find out the exact man who wrote/co-wrote the amendment said this as I do not remember off the top of my head, but it is quite clear they meat for every citizen who wants to be armed to be armed. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!

Hi all,

Thank you everyone for your interesting comments yet some show the ignorance and stupidity that still exists in the US and the world. If some of you pro-gun people actually have guns, I am definitely scared out of my genius mind. The gun laws that continue to support us to have guns are so old and do not apply in today's world. We do not need guns anymore. It does not make sense to have a gun unless you are in the military or law enforcement and that should be very heavily regulated since there are a lot of nuts in the military and law enforcement. Anyway, people with guns are dangerous. The only piece of weapon we should be able to have is maybe a taser but no guns.

For you pro-gun people, you are a pawn in the slavery of the corporate owned world. The only reason why guns can still be easily obtained is because of money. If you disagree with that, you are a complete moron and idiot, just like almost all of the repiglicans and "con"servatives. The NRA, like politicians, only care about money. If money did not exist in regards to distributing guns, we would not have a gun problem. Guns do not exist to protect you, they only exist for people to make money and to hurt others. It is just like alcohol, tobacco, pornography, et cetera. Those products are absolutely dangerous and abusive, yet they are still legal, only because people are making billions of dollars off of these products and then paying off politicians and special interest groups to keep these products legal. Wake up you idiot pro-gun people. You are just a slave.

And, then everyone tries to stand behind our supposed right to bear arms. Again, as we continue to progress and evolve in our country, some laws made hundreds of years ago do not apply to us anymore. Having a gun should be a privilige, not a right. We have a lot of stupid laws. Just because a law says it is ok to do something, it does not make it healthy or positive to do it (tobacco, alcohol, guns, pornography, et cetera).

The only reason that Mitt and other stupid "con"servatives and politicians are supporting us needing to be able to have guns is because the NRA and other pro-gun groups are paying them to tell us that we should be scared of the government and should be able to protect ourselves. And, these are the same people who are wanting to run our government. That is hypocritical. On one hand the repiglicans want us to be free and be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from the government and on the other hand, they are saying that we should not trust them in the government. Trust me, I do not trust the repiglicans in the government because they give us every reason to not trust them and if you do trust them, you should not be allowed to vote or have a gun because you are an idiot.

Guns should not exist and should not be available to the public. Period. We do not need guns anymore. We should not have access to guns anymore. It does not make sense. I'm not going to be fooled into believing a hypocritical politician like Mitt and all the other pigs who have been paid off to say things, especially dangerous statements that continue to allow millions of people to have access to guns who shouldn't have them, such as the mentally ill, children, criminals, and re"pig"licans.

So, all you brainwashed pro-gunners need to step out of your closed minded and manipulated world. You have been distorted and placed in a certain state of mind that sounds patriotic and constitutional but is really all about someone getting rich and making a lot of money. And, as you all know, Mitt is all about the money and could care less about innocent people dying. It blows my mind that people still believe in the "con"servative values when all they do is support lies, death, war, fighting, the rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting poorer, evil and horribly ran corporations with no regulations, sexual and physical abuse, less rights for children and women, increased abuse against women and minority groups, racism, and prejudism. It enrages me that some women are still repiglicans because the "con"servatives all support a patriarchal society where the man has power and the women is the subordinate. Wake up women and stand up for your rights, which the pigs are trying to take away.

It is also redicuous that the repiglicans continue to want less laws and government oversite of people to allow us to be free, but they pass more laws and want more government involvement than the democrats, especially if the laws support not allowing women to have control over their bodies and people not being allowed to have affordable and good health care. It's crazy.

Stand up America, and fight for your right to be safe and not have to worry about a crazy pro-gun repiglican trying to shoot you because they believe the lie that we should be able to have guns and protect ourselves even though the politicians who are saying that to you only care about the money they are paid for by the NRA and other pro-gun groups and are actually the only ones we should fear and should have a gun to protect ourselves against. I'll just use my taser. The taser is a more mature and progressive intrument anyway. Guns are for cowards, sissies, and people who do not know how to protect themselves like a real American.

OMG !!!! I have read all comments so far but irresponse and zen lover are by far the most moronics idiots in this forum.

the second ammendment is all about PROTECTING citizens from government abuse and tyrany. It warantees the right to own arms should one ever need them again; it states ARMS, not small arms or government controlled arms (wich it already got away with so much control)

What part of that plain fact are idiots like these do not get through their thick skulls?

One of the main thing we as Americans should be concerned more than gun right is EDUCATION making sure every citizen every kid can complete his/ hers to become free man...the more one's academic level has the smater one is

I would swear IQ tests should be a requirement for everyone to take and labeled in one's DL or ID !!!

Keep trying your agenda all of you who think we are smaller and insignificant; freedom lovers are better prepared and has been better choice than opressors !! always has and always will

now think all you idiots with the darkest hole in your body and let it rip away

Our right to bear arms was specifically granted in order for us to fight off a tyranical government you F*****G RETARD

As usual, those who have guns, can't wait to use them. Thanks for showing us your agressive, rude personality.

There should be a requirement that people take an anger management class before they purchase a gun.

You have to love the Republican, extremist knee-jerk reaction.

Not once... NOT ONE F***ING TIME... did Obama or ANYONE say they want to take away your guns. That was never said... NEVER.

The only thing that was stated was to make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally unstable.

Now, all the Republicans on here start yelling and crying... saying he wants to take away your guns. Well based on what was actually said, the only people he wants to take guns from are criminals and the mentally unstable. So if YOU Republicans feel he is trying to take YOUR gun, obviously that means YOU are either a criminal or mentally unstable.

So which is it, Republicans? Are you criminals or mentally unstable? Or both?

Zen Love and all the rest of the uninformed gun grabbers/banners;

Please do allow me to present you with some facts instead of the woeful misinformation you are dwelling under.

Currently, counting all Federal, State, County, City and District Of Columbia gun regulation and control laws, there are 27,738 such laws on the books. Under these laws, it might interest you to know that a convicted felon found in possession of a firearm is subject to 10 years in prison, if they use said gun in commission of a crime add 5 plus a sentence 3 times longer than would normally apply for said crime, and this has been on the books since 1934. Let's enforce these laws before drafting new one's that won't be enforced. But that would involve putting a large number of the democratic base in prison. Since the left seems to think criminals are just misunderstood.

Since May,1 1986, no fully automatic weapon can be sold to the public, nor can it be constructed for, registered or transferred to the public. Any such weapon shall be for military or police use/possession only and only through the military armorer or police arsenal. So if full autos are being sold it is illegal and likely smuggled in from Mexico. The only full auto to legally remain in civilian hands were all registered with the ATF before May 86.

The NFA, National Firearms Act of 1934 has been and continues to be updated it was in 58, 63, 72, 82, 93, and 07. ATF regulations continue to be revised and changed, as the importation ban on "so called" assault weapons and parts kits in 2005.

I know it's difficult for the left, but, there are plenty of laws to keep guns from the hands of criminals. Sadly criminals by nature care little for laws. Laws only apply to those who choose to abide by them. Laws and police are clearly not an iron shield that can not be breached. You live by the law or not, and there is little the powers that be can do to change this.

However, following laws blindly and without question poses it own set of pitfalls. Following blindly is what gave rise to Hitler, Mussolini, the various Kings, and every dictator in the world. See North Korea, Iran, China, etc. Once the people find they have been duped, it is of course, to late. Here's a quote from a European national leader of the recent past you gun banners should love, "We have reached the point in our great nation of full gun control and registration. Our citizens enjoy a level of safety and security unparallelled in any industrialized nation, We invite the world to join us in this brave new era" Adolf Hitler 1938.

Currently, there are 1,900,750,000 guns in world wide circulation, that's approximately one gun for every 11 people on the planet. The vast majority of these are military full autos, left over from various wars, and stolen from the former Soviet Union during the chaotic times after their collapse or legally sold to governments by other governments only to end up in the hands of cartels, freedom fighters, revolutionaries, and ordinary people after civil war, coups, and the black market arms traders. All can be cheaply had in many areas of the world. An AK-47, (the real one not a semi auto copy) for the price of a Coca-Cola.

The approximately 84,750,900 law abiding gun owners in the U.S. are not the problem. It's the criminal and otherwise lawless element. Just as the normal motorist isn't the problem, it the impaired and drunk drivers that are. Where's all the calls to ban cars? A gun is simply a mechanical contrivance just like a car, it is up to the operator how it is used or not. They are not possessed with powers of self determination, they do not whisper in the ears of the lawless, nor can they kill anyone on there own. Stop giving them power they clearly do not have.

Firstly the 2nd Amendment is not for "hunting / ect..", it's purpose is to prevent the government for disarming the civilian population. So many people forget that the USA is founded by rebels who fought openly against a tyrannical government. Our founding fathers were seen as traitors, insurgents and "bad guys" by the British Empire. When they built the foundation of our country they wanted to be 100% sure that it was impossible for the USA to become a tyrannical dictatorship. Ultimately ALL rules / laws come down to enforcement, and if the government has a monopoly on the capacity to do violence then they also have the power to enslave their civilian population. As long as private citizens remain armed then they could, in theory, rebel against a future tyrannical government.

That is what the 2nd amendment is about. Self defense from crime and self defense from a future tyranny.

Finally a comment by the POTUS that makes sense...

First ENFORCE the current gun laws that already require BI of criminal and mental problems. In ALL states and gun shows... NO WAVERS allowed...

The current laws also require;

1. Having guns registered, even when they are inherited...

2. ALL guns sold across state lines or out of the country, must be documented...

3. Most states also require weapons training prior to receiving a gun permit. Make this a requirements in ALL of the states...

IMO - If you purchase ammo, it should be restricted in quantity and to the weapons YOU have registered...

The Legal responsibility of a GUN should be like your vehicle. You loan it to someone, you are financially responsible. This liability should only stop when you transfer ownership or you can PROVE it was stolen...

Nico

by your numbers, it's 1 gun for every 3.6 people, not 1 for every 11.

Irespond,

We need to stop the sales of semiautomatic weapons in stores. Most "normal"people have no use for a gun like these, and certainly you can not walk around "concealing" them in your coat. These type of guns are only designed for the military.

People will still have "the right to bear arms" but I am sure that the second ammendment never meant to be used for weapons like those, tear gas and other militia equipment that is designed for war time.

It is amazing that you could make so many posts with so many views and without first knowing about the topic or the laws. First, do you even know what a semiautomatic gun is? From your post, so we are going to assume that you do not as that is the only logical conclusion one could pull from all your posts. Instead of just reverberating Liberal talking points on the issue especially when you clearly have no scope as to what you are discussing.

A semiautomatic gun is ONLY a firearm, which automatically reloads, but will only fire one round per trigger pull. Therefore, specifically what your issue with this is. An AK-47 is a semiautomatic weapon but NOT all semiautomatics are AK-47’s. You CERTAINLY can walk around and conceal a semiautomatic gun it happens every day. An AK-47 has a practical purpose to those that are not in the military it is hunting, yes you can hunt with an AK-47. You must think that a semiautomatic is just an AR-AK style gun. You could not be more wrong most hand guns today are semiautomatic guns.

Many Democratic states make it virtually imposable already for good men/women, with NO criminal record what so ever, to get a conceal carry. Does that make sense to you because to me it does not? As it is a proven fact that states were you can obtain a conceal carry permit there is less violent crime and those states that finally made it easier for you to get a CCP the violent crime rate went down. Here are a few statistics

A comprehensive national study in 1996 determined that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms.

The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

The thought that those of us that lawfully own guns that we would just turn the over to the government is out of the question. People have a right to defend themselves and that does not exclude the government as you suggested when you quoted T.J. The second amendment was for the purpose of just that people having a right to defend themselves against one government. That is in fact exactly, what had happened to them with the Revolutionary War they revolted against an unjust government. The military works for the government. Certainly, as a law a biding citizen you should have the right to every weapon that the US military. That is not the case so you have nothing to worry about there.

They will never be able to take guns away just look the government cannot even keep guns out of the hands of criminals now. All a war on guns will create is more crime and the public then becomes pray. The police do not prevent crimes they only investigate them after they occur. There are some exceptions to this as with most things in life. Why don’t you go down to your local gun store and educate yourself on firearms especially if you are going to try and debate them as you are without knowing the facts. You are missing many key talking points and if you know nothing about guns, those talking points will not help. Look up the YouTube video of a 71-year-old man that saves people during an armed robbery by two armed men, just type that in and search.

It is not a crime and the only reason for the government to start attacking the 2^nd amendment, when only law-a-biding citizens can buy a gun, is to strip us of even more of your rights. That is what you should be asking yourself why would the government not want good men/women to carry a weapon?

The second amendment was created to protect the governed from the governing. In short to protect the people from an unjust government.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787

"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." Thomas Jefferson

Posted in the wrong spot yeasterday

AC,

Finally a comment by the POTUS that makes sense...

First ENFORCE the current gun laws that already require BI of criminal and mental problems. In ALL states and gun shows... NO WAVERS allowed...

The current laws also require;

1. Having guns registered, even when they are inherited...

2. ALL guns sold across state lines or out of the country, must be documented...

3. Most states also require weapons training prior to receiving a gun permit. Make this a requirements in ALL of the states...

IMO - If you purchase ammo, it should be restricted in quantity and to the weapons YOU have registered...

The Legal responsibility of a GUN should be like your vehicle. You loan it to someone, you are financially responsible. This liability should only stop when you transfer ownership or you can PROVE it was stolen...

Most of these are laws. The problem is not with legal gun owners it is with criminals.

We do back ground checks on every gun sold in the US.

Guns sold across state lines as you say do not happen. If you live in one state and want to purchase a gun from another state it has to be sent to a licensed dealer `in your state, thus you bought the gun in the state you live in and they record the SN of the gun and do a back ground check.

There should be required no matter what state you live in.

Why would you restrict the amount of ammo you can buy? There are many different reasons this would not work. You have guys that shoot competition, guys that hunt, guys that only buy for self-defense and guys that like to go to the rang all the time so that the can shoot competition.

You are responsible for your gun. It must be secure at all times and you are not to loan a gun to anyone but if you do, you are just still just as responsible as the person you loaned if someone is shot with you gun you will go on trial.

NO the president is not right you can hunt with an AK-47.

You people that come on here with no idea of what you are talking about are part of the problem. If you take, the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens the only ones left with guns are criminals.

The police only investigate crimes after they happen. There are exceptions to every rule.

We are no longer 13 individual states(or countries) held loosely together by one central government. We, the people, hold the power in our hands, only many do not use it. We, the people, have allowed our government to become what it is today. Are we, the people, doing anything to change it?

huskergal,

I totally agree with everything you just said.

This is a how we fix Congress and our debt, it was offered up by someone at this time I will not name the person that said this, but some of you may know who said it but first need to see the responses to this plan.

offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told ------. "You just
pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more
than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible
for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!
The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail,
cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.

------ ------ is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed
around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this
contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive
the message. Don't you think it's time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

this is one issue im in full agreement the prez. collect all the aks sell them to the afgans and BUY AMERICAN!

I'm responding to all you moronic and idiotic repiglicans and "con"servatives who continue to make false and untrue statements about the reasons we should be allowed to have guns. You are the reasons we should not be allowed to have guns. Thanks to your irresponsibility, ignorance, and hatred, you have made what was once an appropriate law to have guns to be able to defend ourselves into a negative and destructive law that continues to allow crazy people like yourselves to have guns and kill innocent people. It's rediculous in this day and age for anyone to say that we need or have to have guns. The worst rationalization for having guns is for you to quote an outdated and impractical law for our right to bear arms. In addition, you go even further in your idiocy to say that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government. The only reason we need to protect ourselves from the government is because of people like you who vote in insane politicians who are crazy repiglicans and "con"servatives who make the most horrible laws and policies, such as the need for citizens to carry guns. Are you serious? What is this 1875? Do you want to meet outside of the salon and challenge each other to a dual? Are you that immature and stupid? And, how are you going to protect yourself from the "tyrannical" government? Which, by the way, is only tyrannical when we have repiglicans in the government who make and support stupid laws like this one who gets everyone killed. Yes, the repiglicans are 100% responsible for all of the gun deaths in the US and the world because of their support for guns, which we do not need. It is the goal for the repiglicans to make strict and invasive laws to control us and then try to get us to hurt each other.

WE DO NOT NEED GUNS.

Anyone who thinks we do needs to be deported to Africa, so you can live in a country that believes in using guns to solve their problems, hatred, fighting, and murder. that is a government you need a gun to protect yourself against. Not the US. We are awesome and a great country and do not need guns to solve our problems just because of the real reason that you want guns, which is because you like shooting guns, and that should not be a reason for us to be able to possess guns. Guns kill people and stupid repiglicans and "con"servatives with guns kill people.

zenlove sorry to say guns are not going away. colt had a gun called the peacemaker. guess what if you had one of those you could keep the peace. now seeing that guns will not be going anywhere you are always free to go to a gun free country if you wish to. if you could go out and round up all the bad guys and make everyone safe i will give up my guns until then i will keep mine handy just in case and by the way im not a republican. so keep wearin them rose colored glasses

Hi all,

Your comments surprise me. Yes, right now you have a right to own guns, but you are being selfish and just thinking of yourself and thinking of the world in a limited way. The bigger picture and what is more important is that guns do a whole lot more bad and negativity than not having guns does. You know that is true. Just because you think you are safe and legal with a gun does not mean that everyone else is. It's not worth your "feeling" safe, so that millions of other innocent people have to die because you have been brainwashed to be afraid of others. P.s. I'm not a democrat and never will be. I make my decisions based on wisdom and intelligence, not fear and B.S.

In addition, what is up with all the comments about raping and abortion. If someone is going to hurt you, they are going hurt you. It does not matter if you have a gun or not. So, you idiots that say that people are going to hurt me because I don't own a gun is absolute moronic. In addition, I hope that you get arrested for even suggesting and saying that I am going to get raped. I would never wish violence on you just because you make a certain decision that is different than mine. All that tells me is that you have nothing else to use to defend your horrible pro-gun choice, so the only thing that makes you feel better is to wish harm on me or wish that I get hurt because I don't want to conform to your stupid pro-gun beliefs. I can't wait until there are no more guns and none of us have to worry about being shot by stupid idiots like yourselves. Again, my comments make sense and are based on reality and facts. All you can do is make stupid and ignorant comments out of distorted thinking about what "might" happen with or without a gun. Give me a break. Again, if someone is going to hurt you, they are going to hurt you.

I don't know this following statement for a fact, but I would bet that more people who own guns are at an increased risk to get hurt more than people who do not have guns, and that has to and even includes people who use their guns in bad and negative ways. You have to admit that you are involved with all the other crazies who own a gun legally and illegally because you support people who want to have guns for protection and others who have guns to illegally and negatively hurt others. You need to take full responsibility for being a part of a bigger problem by supporting guns. You are also supporting crimes and murders with guns. In addition, you are also supporting gangs, mobs, and other criminal groups who use guns. In addition, you are also supporting children and adolescents who get a hold of guns and accidentally kill themselves and others because you were stupid enough to have a gun in the home.

Finally, no one is ever going to hurt me with or without a gun. I don't need a gun and neither do you to protect yourself. I'm not only a genius, but I'm also a bad ass.

PEACE, LOVE, and HAPPINESS (anti-gun values)

not, fear, anger, hatred, murder, and death (pro-gun values)

Which one do you choose?

zen love,

Let me ask you a few questions? Will there still be criminals with guns if the US was to outlaw guns? Yes! Would murders still take place if we outlaw guns? Yes! Did we fight a Revolutionary war that involved a tyrannical the government? Yes! Will the government retain all of their weapons if guns were outlawed? Yes! If the answer is yes to these questions how can you ask anyone to give up their rights? Just because you see no value in guns that does not mean that we are all how did you, put it oh yes “I'm not only a genius, but I'm also a bad ass.” Most of us are not as lucky to be a BAD ASS and a GENIUS but this statement shows me that you are not the genius you think you are, or you would no matter how bad you are there is always someone bigger and tougher then you are. Sine you have clearly put all of your faith into our government let me ask you how that is working out for you. This morning when I got up they were discussing 3 murders on the news. So I see that the government, that you put so much faith in to keep you safe, was unable to keep those people safe last night. Look at the people in Colorado I am sure those people thought they would never need a gun but if just one of them would have had a gun who knows how it would of turned out but I like those odds better than the odds they had that day. As for your claim that only the government should have guns well that is how you make salves out of men by taking away their right to defend themselves. That is how we founded this country is by going to war with a tyrannical so as is that history all ways repeats itself then guns are good peace of mind for some of us. Your claim that you are not a Democrat nor will you ever be a Democrat you can see people’s confusions right when all you do is regurgitate the talking points by the far left then that is what people assume. It does not matter the reason for our rights being taken what is the issue is the government keeps taking our rights Just look at the good that guns can do when in the hands of law abiding citizens instead of just criminals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4wcmGUK_-w

Nice vid, Bill-- a great example of how firearms can be used for the common good. That'll show those parasites what-for.

Check this one out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk

WMG-21,

That was great video. Also note how quick on his draw the guy was and all three shots hit the intended target. I wonder if he lost his job. These are the types of people stricter gun laws will affect. They will not affect the criminals as the last time I bought a gun I did not see a gang standing in line. It seems to me that are for tougher gun laws also advocate for liter sentences for criminals. That is what’s wrong with the picture. Once you commit of a crime the state/fed takes way some of your rights when instead of punishing me they should not allow criminals the following luxuries TV’s, commissary, all day yard time, so they can deal drugs and commit other crimes, and keep them all locked down 23hrs a day. That would cut down on the number of guards that are assaulted, it would take less manpower to monitor the inmates and it would get rid of the drug problems in the prisons. If drugs were found after all of those implementations then we would know that it was one of the officers bring it in and soon he would be in the next cell. The left tries and makes this about nut job right wingers when in fact it is people of both parties that use guns but the left is the side that advocates for tougher gun law and lighter sentences for those that commit crimes. I am not talking about marijuana possession crimes those should be done away with and Obama should not be using our resources to bust dispensaries in states where it is legal for medical use. Instead he should use those resources to tighten our borders. That is a whole other argument.

Zen-

First-

A "genius" wouldn't feel the need to use stupid inflammatory gems like "repiglicans" and ""con"servatives". A "genius" would also know how to spell "redicuous" correctly (ridiculous). Normally, I wouldn't nit-pick, but when it's a self-proclaimed "genius", I feel like something should be said.

Second-

There are many, many liberal democrat gun owners. " repiglicans are 100% responsible for all of the gun deaths in the US and the world because of their support for guns" is both moronic and false.

Third-

"Finally, no one is ever going to hurt me with or without a gun. I don't need a gun and neither do you to protect yourself. I'm not only a genius, but I'm also a bad ass".

I'm now convinced you are no older than 18. I remember back when I was 18 (I've grown up a lot in the past 4 years), and thought I was a bad ass, no one could hurt me, and that I knew everything...then I got raped, and learned what it was like to be a victim with no one to help you. I learned that you have to be able to protect yourself. The police will not always be there.

Fourth-

"Again, if someone is going to hurt you, they are going to hurt you."

FALSE. You're telling me, that if a man breaks into my house, with the intention of hurting me, he is going to do it no matter what I do to stop him? My gun WILL stop him.

When my grandfathers girlfriend's house was getting broken into, while she was inside, she yelled at the man to stop. She yelled she had a pitbull in the house (which the man could see barking it's fool head off). It wasn't until she pointed a shotgun at him that he fled. You may say "she should have called the police!", but where she lives, the police would have taken over ten minutes to get there. Please tell me how "real Americans" defend themselves?

Lastly-

"I can't wait until there are no more guns and none of us have to worry about being shot by stupid idiots like yourselves"

That is NEVER going to happen. My father is a machinist, and can take a chunk of raw metal and turn it into a gun. If guns could be made hundreds of years ago, WHY do you think people can't make them themselves now?

Why is it anybody alledgedly quoting the Second Amendment ignores the first line, " A well regulated militia". Doesn't this make it sound like the the government should know who has weapons? Wouldn't allow the government to maintain proper ammunition stockpiles for the militia? Of course when was the last time the US Government actually called up a "Militia"?

And I am sick of calls from NRA idiots who tell me that The President and Attorney General are going to take away my Second Amendment Rights. Why can't they answer the question "What are they doing to do this?" An why are none of them members of "A Well Regulated Militia"?

Drat,

"Well regulated militia" does not mean government regulated. You must first understand the language used at the time of writing to understand what it means. "Well regulated" meant an organized militant force, ranks, discipline and command authority. A militia is literally a small Army of locally trained civilians that can quickly be converted to a fighting force should the need arise. A militia can purchase howitzers, tanks, bombs and heavy weaponry, provided they have the money for them.

Its the built in clause to prevent government monopoly on violence and it outlines the purpose of the 2nd amendment. By creating small civilian militias you also create an obstacle to the overthrow of the US government and a severe obstacle to the invasion of the US by a foreign power.

For a moment imagine how easy it would be for someone to initiate a military coupe. President doesn't like how things are running, orders all troops home. Secretly positions forces in power structures around the country. One day announces martial law, disbands congress and the supreme court, has military troops take over government buildings. Within 24hrs the USA ceases to be a democracy unless there is a tangible force to resist such a move. The chain of command goes from the President to the Secretary's to the JCOS all the way down to the lowest private. No civilian body is involved, there is no check on that power other then the loyalty of those same Generals and the constant cycling of Presidents and political party's (prevents one party from becoming too powerful).

That is the single greatest nightmare our founding fathers feared the most, and the reason they implemented half the rights and protections in the constitution. They saw the government as a good thing but also something that could be greatly abused should it be trusted too much. Thus the freedom of the press (government can't control the news), freedom to peacefully gather and protest (you can publicly show your discontent), freedom to arm yourselves (you can resist a coup), freedom for unreasonable search and seizure and so forth.

People need to fire learn where they come from to know where their going.

@Drat

The well-regulated militia is a byproduct of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not a prerequisite. Additionally, in the US, by law, every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of the "unorganized militia" (think: the draft). The "organized militia," by contrast, is the national guard. These descriptions were adopted by the 1903 Militia Act, which simply clarified what everyone had already assumed at that point. Most recently, this was reaffirmed by the supreme court in the Columbia v. Heller case.

Of course when was the last time the US Government actually called up a "Militia"?

Iraq. Afghanistan. Katrina. Etc. (remember that the organized militia is the national guard).

And I am sick of calls from NRA idiots who tell me that The President and Attorney General are going to take away my Second Amendment Rights. Why can't they answer the question "What are they doing to do this?"

Most would point to the UN Small Arms treaty. Hillary Clinton already signed on as backing the measure. However, this is unlikely to affect US ownership because it specifically limits sales of firearms between member states (at the commercial level, i.e. non-military) but doesn't limit sale within a member state. So, at best it's a disingenuous argument. For starters, what Hillary signed was only a measure of support for continued development of the treaty. The actual document hadn't even been written yet. A quick Snopes.com check will tell you what the deal is-- but at this point, it's irrelevant. The measure deadlocked and never went anywhere. At this point, it's been "tabled."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

So the "NRA idiots" were basing their anxiety on a non-existent treaty for which the US had suggested some support for, but which never materialized (and you might like this next part) due to member states taking issue with the current text, including the US.

Nice straw man... did you buy him at Costco?

Procrustes: Actually, If you knew anything about the subject. You would know drum magazines jam.

Luckily His jammed. But by all means, lets write a law about something the writers are clueless about.

Been done before.

@Procrustes

I have 2 of them they just add to much weight to the rifle for my taste and they jam a lot unless you use tons of graphite, but they are a nice conversation piece. All that aside I blow through 30 rounds and drop a mag. It lets me keep track of how much ammo I've used. My buddies and I buy in bulk it saves us money to buy cases instead of boxes. Unless you want to use that wal-mart crap for 4 dollars a box of 20. If you do a lot of recreational shooting I suggest you invest in a reloader.

Procrustes-797831, you can get one online for about $139.00 plus shipping. Get rounds for it at the same time. Less than $300.00 for 1000 rounds, plus shipping. If you need an AR-15 knock off, you can get one at the same place for high $800.00's, but you might have to wait 5 days for the background check...better pick one of those up at a local gun show. For about $1,400 total you can get all fixed up for target practice and family protection! If you have any money left over, you might consider body armor...they sell a lot of it to the troops and military families for Christmas presents.

Procrustes may have been attempting a little irony.

You do if your homeless, an old homeless man was shot 64 times by saginaw michigan police for, Ha ha, Threatening the poor scared police with a kitchen knife.

Me too. I have several. The war is coming. I know what side your on and it aint mine. Libchit.

Why is every time a criminal breaks the law the government want to punish the law abiding citizen.

Why punish the entire country due to one wack job?

Let freedom ring!

Procrustes-797831

"I need a 100-round magazine for my assault rifle to protect my family."

I think you were trying to be sarcastic---you failed.

Do you claim that you have a select fire weapon? I doubt it.

I know what side your on and it aint mine. Libchit.

It does not matter how many weapons you have. You can't go against our own army.

The second Amendment was created to PROTECT the citizens, not to go against them. The minute that you start using weapons against other citizens just because they are against your political views, you are turning into a common criminal.

The second Amendment was created to PROTECT the citizens, not to go against them. The minute that you start using weapons against other citizens just because they are against your political views, you are turning into a common criminal

Worse...a traitor...like the south trying to rise again. Won't work this time either.

@IRESPOND, Perhaps you should actually READ the Constitution instead of displaying it as your avatar. Go back and re-learn your US History. You will discover that the Constitution was framed to PREVENT the Federal Government from becoming too powerful and oppressive like the Monarchs of Great Britain at the time. While you're at it, take a gander at the Declaration of Independence. Our nation was "born" out the open armed conflict of the "common man" against tyrannical leaders and "legitimate" soldiers.

by the way, anyone who needs a 100 round magazine or an assault weapon to protect their family must be a VERY poor shot. Like people who have to use "Fish finders" to catch a fish. Yes, I realize the OP was being sarcastic to make a point, but look how many knuckleheads that replied are serious.

My ammo drum came with a double-decker moon pie and a bag of fat back pork rinds. It also had a shirt that said I'm with stupid and an arrow pointing up. Such a deal!

100 round mag **drool**

There is no drumming for support or anything politically binding to anything the President or Romney are saying. Nothing is going to change in the gun laws due to this and nothing should. The laws are effective, the people following or not following them are the problem. Gun dealers do not always follow the rules. I've had checks done every time i have purchased a weapon. I'm not a criminal, I can buy pretty much whatever I want. For this thread, huge capacity magazines for any weapon add weight and inaccuracy for those inexperienced with using them. If those who own the weapons have any skills, it should only take one shot to protect yourself from one attacker. One statement made alot of sense, AK-47 rifles do belong only in the hands of the military.

"I need a 100-round magazine for my assault rifle to protect my family."-Ignorant ass-hat let me see you find such an item as they will not even feed correctly so it's the usual gun grabbing libturds who like to pretend this is real.

AMERICA WAKE UP OBAMA AND HOLDER ARE COMING FOR YOUR WEAPONS-FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUNS. IF HE GETS A SECOND TERM OUR RIGHTS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. THE 2nd AMENDMENT IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING IT WAS PUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION TO KEEP THE PEOPLE SAFE FROM GOVERNMENT'S ENCROACHMENT AND TYRANNY.

The second amendment was written to protect that right of the state to have a militia. Each state has the right to protect itself from other states and from the federal government.

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.

Oblabla doesn't have a clue that if a wacko can't get a gun because of "gun control", he'll just go downtown and get it from someone who steals honest citizen's guns. No legislation is going to stop this. Or he could get it from "Fast and Furious".

Am am very pro-gun, there is nothing wrong with collecting and owning firearms of any kind, even fully automatic weapons IMHO.

But, I do agree that more effort is needed to prevent them from getting into the hands of criminals.

STOP the Gun-show trading and order by e-mail, not just assault riffles and handguns, but ALL Rifles, Shotguns, Side-arms, and Assault Riffles.

If you want to own and collect fire-arms then you should be willing to trade a certain level of your personal privacy to help ensure those weapons never fall into the hands of criminals.

The first time Obama opens his mouth about gun control and out of it comes a completely asinine statement, and to be truthful, I never expected anything less from him.

Referring to the aforementioned weapons as "assault weapons" is completely incorrect as the term was pushed upon them by a liberal anti-gun press. They employ the usual socialist propaganda technique, which is; "Repeat a lie often enough for a long enough time and it becomes truth."

What Washington hopes to do is start the process of removing all guns from the citizens of the United States, so that when the country collapses financially it will be an orderly transition to indentured servitude.

Bill-328037

"Oblabla doesn't have a clue that if a wacko can't get a gun because of "gun control", he'll just go downtown and get it from someone who steals honest citizen's guns. No legislation is going to stop this. Or he could get it from "Fast and Furious"."

I'm sorry, but that is total BS.

This idiot, the Virginia Tech loon, and just about every other one of these mass-murderer freak-out shooters obtained their weapons legally... They obtained a whole pile of weapons legally.

Most of them are seriously introverted cowards, that would never have the stomach to buy Black-market weapons in the first place, and certainly not an arsenal.

“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said.

The President went off teleprompter and flexed his knowledge muscles on firearms. The "soldiers" that the President might be referring to as deserving of those AK-47s are Chinese or Russian- we use AR derived weapons systems. "Not in the hands of criminals" is a cute line as under the President's watch the DOJ made it their business to provide taxpayer paid for weapons to known international criminals in two "Fast and Furious" operations (one in the Southwest, one in Florida). The President used executive priviledge to close the passage of DOJ documents from Congressional investigators so we might not be able to see the whole picture of the program. Traditionally executive privilidge is used to cloak Presidential knowledge and involvement, while President Obama claims to know nothing of the program he feels compelled to sheild it from exposure. Interesting.

On the issue of mental health, criminals, etc. and getting guns- we have these things called thousands of existing gun laws that, if enforced, would also take more people out of the market. Mind you that criminals don't usually abide by the laws, so they might not attempt to legally purchase weapons anyways.

Lastly there are those violence statistics that were eluded to by the President- Did you know that gun violence and homicide has dropped significantly over the last 10 years? From the DOJ, homicide rates have dropped to those of the 1960's. Not a fan of those evil right wingers at the DOJ? How about the liberal Huffington Post- They noted on 7/20, "Gun murders sank from more than 10,000 in 2005 to 8,776 in 2010, and appeared to drop again in 2011, according to a recent FBI preliminary report."

So while it may be possible to enforce current laws better to further cull out the mentally ill and criminals, the current laws are working. Put that together with the massive increase in gun purchases over the last 3-4 years and their leading to less violent gun crime and you've got the case that more guns is safer than less guns. Maybe criminals are less likely to do stupid things when they might get hurt. Just a thought.

Rockyroad-531554

The real aim of this administration is to take every nut job incident and use it to take away all guns from normal citizens. They are signing a UN agreement they think can overrule our 2nd amendment rights. Obama also wants to shrink our military and use more "contractors". Hmmmm, imagine the situation that would place us in for a hostile takeover.

What they never mention is the gun violence happens mostly in the neighborhoods of the government dependent and NOT with the use of legal guns. So why don't they do something about that first. The rest of us need our guns to protect ourselves. If someone had a carry permit in that theater a lot fewer people may have been killed or injured. We cannot make ourselves safer by disarming ourselves and leaving all the guns to the criminals and this administration that is for sure!!!

Yes, the gun jammed, but if he used a different weapon, then there would be less than a few hundreds bullet flying when he first come in.

Really? We all know it jams, but it would result in less death since everyone would have more times to run away with much much fewer bullets flying toward them.

Who would have thought that this incident would become just another prop on Washington's political theater stage! I never saw this coming!

I should note that there is a major piece of front door/back door legislation coming to the US- the UN's Small Arms Treaty. This little beauty is said to have the Secretary of State's endorsement (assumingly the President's endorsement) so we'll vote for it. The Premise- the UN should control international arms sales and individual countries will give their soverignty to the UN for control purposes.

The only saving grace is that the legislation has to go through our Legislative branch for approval/decline. As I've heard it, the real threat is that the Senate may choose to sit on it- aka not vote on it. If that happens, and what I've heard is correct, the bill will pass due to process. IF that happens, then it's game on for major gun control changes in the US. Think, "We have to do these common sense roundups, the UN treaty requires it." You get the picture.

ChitownMatt

If your moniker didn't reveal that you are from Obama's town we still wouldn't give much credence to your rant since you have no proof that any of the bad guy shooters got thier guns legally. The last bad incident in Colorado the kids took thier parents guns. Maybe the problem should be recognised for what it is, a problem with the shooters not thier choice of weapon. Perhaps it should be considered that the PC BS of liberals and the way they think kids should be raised is more at fault than guns. How many of these type of incidents did we have in the past before PC became the norm? Guns have been here since before the United States was formed, so it is just plain stupid to try to blame the guns. Liberals refuse to take the blame and/or just want to make the rest of us as helpless as possible as they do the takeover they have wanted for generations. NOT

@shakingmyhead - I originally thought the same thing, but the darkness, smoke and general confusion in that theatre would make returning fire a very risky proposition. Naturally, I wasn't there but as a CCW holder I know I'm responsible for every round I fire, and the risk of hitting a bystander was probably too great to take the shot. BTW, NO "UN agreement" has *any* validity over US law.

JoeNY

We definitly do get the picture. This is just another move by this administration to reduce and destroy our Constitution and our Soverignty. Another heads up, RED Flag to why we MUST vote this crew out totally come November. Then the treaty can be recinded if it is passed. Remember in November ABO, get out there and use your vote to save our country.

Wiley-344381

It could very well be that a good shot might not have been possible, but at least there would have been that slim chance which is better than none. As to the UN agreement, don't discount this administrations action with none constitutional presidental executive orders. If he were to sign one removing our guns, there might not be enough time to get to the Supreme Court to stop him.

I am truly impressed. The NRA (the lobby group for the Mexican Cartel) has mobilized again. Gee - I guess that the millions that they are given to ensure that drug dealers can buy their guns is a good investment.

FYI - of all you posters -- how many of you actually own an AK47? Probably very few, as most are bought by gangs and drug cartels. So - you are posting to defend the right of drug dealers to buy guns. Hope that you are proud of yourselves.

Skiing111:" Like people who have to use "Fish finders" to catch a fish."

Apparently you do not fish very often, fish finders dont "catch a fish" they do however come in handy finding large groups of fish or good bottom structure for various species. Plus give you the depth and water temp. Depth is important to know so you don't ding up your prop on the bottom. So do you knock people who use belts to hold up their pants??

Aside from the fact that is hardly a good comparison. How about "like those people who used 10 dozen worms to catch a fish"

Right on Joe!! Well said.

First, Obama said "AK-47's only belong in soldier's hands and not criminals". I guess it shows Obama doesn't know what he is talking about (or intentionally misleading the people - I guess the later) because AK-47's are illegal to own without very strict government approval. You see an AK-47 is an automatic weapon which is illegal to own. So Obama was wrong (or lied - I guess the later). Yes it is true you can buy something that looks LIKE an AK-47 (called an AR-47) which is a semi-automatic weapon.

Second, but the problem is what defines an "assault weapon"? Do you know if a rifle has a hole in the stock for your thumb it is considered an "assault weapon". I can have a semi auto rifle and a semi auto pistol that holds the SAME amount of rounds but the rifle could be classified as an "assault weapon". What's the difference?

Many say we gun owners will not "compromise". Compromise with what? There is no clarification. There is no logic. We understand that liberals have an end game which is to get ALL guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. We ALL know that is true. But they know they can't get that done so they try to make a little progress here and a little progress there.

First it will be their arbitrary definition of an "assault weapon". So those are illegal. Then someone will go crazy with a semi auto pistol that holds 12 rounds and claim the bad guys STILL can get a gun that causes damage saying "nobody needs 12 bullets for target practice"!! So they will ask to get magazines limited to 8 rounds. But now we have a nut with TWO guns and 6 magazines so we MUST do more!! Reduce to 4 rounds then 2 rounds. Ultimately they pass the Barney Fife law that says you are not allowed to have more than one bullet for your gun and is illegal to actually have it IN the gun requiring you to carry in a watertight container in either shirt or pants pocket.

THIS is the problem with liberals. If they were to have a rational discussion we could come up with a compromise but that will never be good enough. So if you give liberals an inch they will take a mile - so we can't give an inch. We must hold our ground. Does someone need a 30 round magazine? No. But where does it stop and WHO decides where it stops. 25 rounds? 20 rounds? 10? 5? 2? Barney Fife law?????????

Tell that to Eric Holder you moron.

What laws will we put in place to prevent people (criminals) from stealing buses and mowing down people as they exit a mall, sporting event etc? I guess we will have to outlaw buses too eh???

When will people realize that new laws will only affect law-abiding citizens and NOT criminals???

I'VE GOT IT!! I KNOW HOW TO FIX EVERYTHING!!!!!
NO MORE PESKY GUN CONTROL DEBATES. HERE'S HOW...

First, Obama needs to pour the ENTIRE government welfare, Obamacare, and Planned Parenthood funds into research with the Hadron Collider folks, this way they can figure out how to use the particle collider to create a black hole, just large enough for Obama to go through, waaaaaaayyyyy back into history, far enough back that he can un-invent the gun! Then every guy he encounters in the past who is destined to create any firearms, Obama will instead convince the man that he shoud instead spend his time growing daisies and pansies. The result should be that when he gets back he will discover that instead of gun shows, people will instead be going to flower shows! And when two governments disagree with one another, instead of going to war and killing one another with guns we will instead supply each of our soldiers 100 daisies and pansies. Then when two opposing armies confront one another on the battlefield, instead of shooting at each other, they will take a handfull of pansies and slap the enemy soldiers with it while saying things like,
"Oh you brute, you brute, you brute! Why don't you just leave us all alone and go home?! Ohhhh...BOOHOOO, HOOOO!
This should effectively put an end to wars.
WITHOUT A DOUBT...THIS IS THE SOLUTION TO OUR GUN PROBLEMS!!! We must endeavor to spend WHATEVER it costs to make this happen! Let's re-elect Obama, because HE alone is the only man that I believe could get behind this bill and make it happen! Wha-da-ya-say everyone? Are you with me?!
LET'S DO IT!!!!!
---------------------------------------
Paid for by the committee to make fun of ludicrous ideas like "Gun Control" ----- I'm Barak Obama, and I PAID for a pepperoni pizza today.

@Wiley-344381 -I wasn't there but as a CCW holder I know I'm responsible for every round I fire, and the risk of hitting a bystander was probably too great to take the shot- Some of the most intelligent commentary I've seen yet. Well said, sir.

I am painfully tired of reading the drivel from people who would like us to beleive that if they were there they would've been able to remain calm and shoot Holmes in the head, from a distance greater than 21 feet, on uneven ground, in the dark, amidst the screaming and the smoke. They would've been able to acquire that target and hit it, while it was moving. These are the comments that scare anti-gun folks. "I have a giant ego and I'm armed" This attitude does not make anti-gun folks want to educate themselves about guns. It makes them want to take mine.

You can get an AK-47 100 round drum and yes they are heavy but I would want one for collecting since high cap mags have doubled in price much less a drum mag.

The new pistols are 6 round I think and my 15 round clips are mucho money now.

The UN Small Arms Treaty - supported by Obama and Clinton - is the groundwork being laid to remove all guns from law abiding American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism measures. Second amendment rights are something the administration refers to as 'loopholes' they want to close - and collect all of the small arms from the American public. As in Katrina, the local officials confiscated arms from the public and the criminals ended up looting and murdering people who couldn't protect themselves. It pitted our own National Guard troops against those citizens. There is a small window of time for Americans to contact their representatives and demand that the 2nd amendment rights of all law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms remain intact. As the amendment states, that right 'cannot be infringed'. A vote for Obama is a vote for a totalitarian state hiding behind a mask of 'safety and security'.

Every time there is a shooting like this we get calls for more Gun control and every time holes are then punched through those arguments.

Bottom line is this, The Second Amendment just like the first amendment isn't something you through away because of a few bad eggs, it's there for a reason and needs to be protected. Making guns illegal is like having cocaine illegal, you're not suppose to be able to own or buy, yet we all know we could if we wanted to.

Why don't we talk about why so many crazies are allowed to walk the streets. I have heard many doctors say it is much harder to hold someone for further evaluation then it used to be yet no one wants to talk about that.

Gun Owner / Romney Supporter

Shaking my head-2479300

Wow, you are absolutely right.

Liberals and Political Correctness are the cause of all the problems in the World... Not people like you. (SARCASM)

"Guns have been here since before the United States was formed, so it is just plain stupid to try to blame the guns."

WHO IS BLAMING GUNS????

We are blaming CRIMINALS with GUNS!!!

Maybe Mr. Obama will come out with another Executive Order or have the DOJ or DHS issue a "regulation" to ban assault rifles.

Yep, those AK-47s are bad weapons.....maybe Mr. Obama could "sweet" talk the Chinese about his issue.

Wait a minute....all Mr. Obama has to do is wait until the United Nations "passes" their "Arms Control Treaty".

Areuteatarded,

Your posts make me laugh they are so stupid and ignorant.

overseas contributions are legal, as long as they are made by American citizens. But the Obama campaign had to return a number of overseas contributions from non-citizens in the 2008 cycle, and it has been accused once again of being too lax in preventing such contributions in 2012

You idiots talk out of both sides of your mouth so much I'm suprised you even know what you stand for day to day. What do liberals in California do...

California is replacing the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge. It sounds like the type of large public works project that will provide needed jobs to Americans.

However, it is keeping hundreds of Chinese workers employed. To save money, California outsourced the construction of the bridge to China. The bridge pieces will be shipped to the U.S., and assembled by Americans.

Irespond: It does not matter how many weapons you have. You can't go against our own army.

The second Amendment was created to PROTECT the citizens, not to go against them. The minute that you start using weapons against other citizens just because they are against your political views, you are turning into a common criminal.

Not that I see this on the horizon but it just goes to show how little people such as you think about how precious and fragile your freedom is. I bet the Brits were saying the same thing to our forefathers too. Do you see George Washington as a common criminal? Besides this isn't about another revolution (yet) it is about reserving our freedom to bear arms. I am a serious advocate of gun owners but yes we need to keep guns from criminals but not at the cost of other freedoms. Criminals will always and I mean always be able to commit atrocities no matter how many laws and safeguards are in place. Laws are only for law abiding citizens. They aren't the problem here so to make more laws and or bans only hurts the average citizen not the whako's

WHO IS BLAMING GUNS????

We are blaming CRIMINALS with GUNS!!!

We have laws that make it illegal for criminals to own guns. What we are bad at is identifying people with mental disorders and even when they are diagnosed they are allowed to own guns as long as they never commit a crime.

Guns cause murder like spoons cause obesity.

JoeNy,

All you have is circumstantial coincidences, do you have any direct correlational data?

Logic,

I agree, so what do you propose?

I was saying that it is far too easy to buy guns legally... report them stolen and then turn around and sell them to criminals.

It happens all the time.

I also think it is far too easy to order firearms through the internet and mail.

Most reasonable Gunshop owners would notify the police if some creepy unknown person came in and bought two or three side-arms, a shotgun, and a score of boxes of ammo.

@I'm just saying, Your icon, does it represent the next phase of your agenda...?

Just wondering. Yes how horrible to discriminate against those who prefer to practice the behavior you appear to be obsessed with.

Let's hope equal rights are achieved, but not in the mixing of species.

the outlawing of guns worked very well in Mexico didnt it . think they are safer now than before ? watch this

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/03/narco-execution-videos-and-its-effects.html

“I believe the majority of gun owners agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons," the president said.

Yeah, okay. Sounds good to me.

"That we should check out a person’s criminal record before they can check out at a gun store."

Uhh, that's already a law. Every single person who purchases a firearm at a gun store must pass an FBI criminal background check. Some states also make you wait several days (even though the background check only takes a few minutes) before you can leave with it... Are you even aware of the laws we already have on the books? Maybe you should start paying attention to those before passing new ones that, by your own mouth, would be duplicate legislation...

"That a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily.”

See above. This is also already a law. Jesus, Mr. President, I thought they said you were qualified...

In cases like the AZ and the Aurora shootings, there isn't much you can do to prevent these cases by legislating increasingly restrictive gun control. Why? Because both Loughner and "The Joker" would have passed those too. These were people with no criminal history and no psychiatric history. You could put every check, re-check and background bloodhounds on the job and these people still would have been able to purchase their guns legally.

You want to make a real difference in this sort of gun violence, Mr. President? Pass legislation that makes psychiatric care more readily available. Everything else is just so much partisan sputter.

Taking away the right for citizens to bear arms does not eliminate the criminal element from obtaining and using weapons against innocent, law-abiding citizens. In fact, it makes these citizens more of a target... easier targets.

From ABC's 20/20:

"After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

"But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

"Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

"England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' "

There will always be nutjobs out there who manage to get their hands on guns, just as those with criminal intent will always find a way to arm themselves. Some acquire guns legally. Many others acquire their weapons illegally with little problem.

Face the facts. People who are bent on committing murder and causing mayham have used knives and boxcutters, and machetes. They have detonated bombs made from simple ingredients such as fertilizer and fuel oil. They have used their own bodies to pass the AIDS virus to the unsuspecting. They have used legal drugs and illegal drugs as they target strangers and lovers... even patients in hospitals assigned to their care. They have used fire, cut brake lines on vehicles, and even used their own hands to strangle life from their victims. They have bludgeoned their victims with baseball bats, rocks, and pipes... pummelled them with their fists and stomped them to death with their boots. They have piloted jetliners full of passengers into buildings filled with workers.

Banning guns won't stop the killing. The only way to stop killing-- ban people.

Logic:

Not one state or local law has been overturned using the 2nd Amendment as grounds to do so on a Federal basis. You may want to review Cruikshank vs US and Miller versus US for an understanding of how SCOTUS overturned state and loacal laws.

"Banning guns won't stop the killing."

Banning certain types of weaponry will have a significant impact on the ability of mass murderers to inflict the sort of carnage we saw in Aurora. Assault weapons (and their accessories including 100 round magazines) make it much easier for killers to cut down large numbers of people at a single go. If that means the juvenile bib droolers who lust after AR-15s and similar pointless weapons have to give up their toys, then so be it. The Second Amendment does not exist merely to protect the pathetic fantasies of immature wannabe Rambos.

After reading all these comments there is one thing common to all. FEAR.

When did America get so fearful? Home of the brave is a distant memory.

Fear is used to sell most products (fear that you will smell bad=deodorant). It scemes that Fear has penetrated all aspects of American life. I don't think that living in fear is very productive, but then I don't have a solution either.

I think Michael Moore said that on Piers Morgan's show earlier this week.

not-Dem in 2.14

Sorry to say but you have fallen for an NRA lie. The right to bear arms was created to protect our country from invasion by enemy forces from a psychological perspective. If an enemy army has to go house to house to kill all of the armed citizens it will take them too long to take over the country and gives the military much more time to get there to kick their asses.

That is the rational behind the right to bear arms. It has since been distorted by gun advocates and other anti-Government idealists into the meaning you just stated.

In reality the right to bear arms is a psychological trick, it has no real value. Guns cannot destroy a tank. Most civilian guns (out side of the more heavy weaponry like the 50 cal, which is military grade anyway) cannot pierce military/police grade body armor. You are not going to stop a determined invasion with the right to bear arms nor can you stop the Government if they choose to employ the military and the military does not tell them to go **** themselves.

Look at Egypt. If the military has taken Mubarak's side all of the protestors would likely be dead or in military custody. Look at Syria, the military there is shelling cities and killing civilians. Look at what happened in Libya, Ghaddafi used his military to fight back against and to some extent contain a well armed rebellion.

What really overthrows Governments and invasion forces are not guns, it is determination and indomitable will power that is not broken by scare tactics. As they say, guns are guns, they have no special powers. It is the person behind them that makes guns into either tools for good or tools for evil.

It's indomitable will power and guns. Which one of the founding fathers did you conjure up that told you the 2nd amendment was a psychological ruse? I bet it was that rascal Ben Franklin. He was always a joker. Why last night he told me...but I digress.

Jack,

it did not start out that way. But as time has progressed so has technology. The common citizen has no chance against tanks and other large scale weapons. Most of the citizenry also will not be able to take the stress that comes from seeing their neighborhood being blown apart either; owning weapons does not mean you have military level combat training, it just means you own a gun and maybe took safety use classes.

Back in the days, though, when guns were the only weapons of war it was not psychological, it was a very real deterrent. In modern times where tanks can be air-dropped/ferried, bombs can be used, and snipers can hit targets more then a mile away it has become a psychological tool against invasion.

@Geowil:

Commentators often attack the vitality of the military and political functions of the militia concept with the argument that they can no longer be performed by a militia.[81] Simply stated, the argument is that an armed citizenry cannot restrain a domestic tyrant or deter a foreign conqueror backed by a modern army. This empirical assertion is frequently made by lawyers, politicians, or other advocates who offer neither argument nor authority for the proposition.[82] And while this assertion may be true in some limited number of circumstances, as a categorical assertion it is demonstrably false.

Consider some recent examples. The Vietnam War demonstrated that a modern military power can be resisted by guerilla fighters bearing only small arms.[83] This lesson has not been forgotten. In 1992, the United States declined to intervene in the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina after an aide to General Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advised the Senate Armed Services Committee that the widespread ownership of arms in the former Yugoslav republic made even limited intervention "perilous and deadly."[84] The deterrent effect of an armed populace was emphasized by Canadian Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who led United Nations peacekeeping troops in Sarajevo for five months. Despite the tremendous capabilities of the United States Armed Forces, he explained, the prevalence of arms ownership in the area caused him to believe that if American forces were to be sent to Bosnia, "Americans [would be] killed.... You can't isolate it, make it nice and sanitary."[85]

The validity of these concerns has also been demonstrated in the current conflict in Chechnya where "[m]ore than 40,000 soldiers from the (p.1141)Russian army ... have quickly been humbled by a few thousand urban guerrillas who mostly live at home, wear jeans, use castoff weapons and have almost no coherent battle plans or organization."[86] The Russian army's nuclear capability apparently has not translated into a tactical advantage in the streets of Chechnya.

In addition to these anecdotal examples, there is further evidence of the military practicality of an armed citizenry. The 1966 Arthur D. Little, Inc. Report ("the Little Report"), commissioned by the United States Department of the Army, concluded that in spite of recent technological developments in the modes of waging war, a modern war will almost certainly be a "shooting war" in which the basic individual weapon of combat will be the rifle.[87]

The Little Report does more than refute the notion that riflemen are militarily obsolete in the nuclear era. It offers an additional insight into the military value of armed citizens: they make better soldiers when they enter the service. They are significantly better marksmen than those who did not own arms prior to enlistment (even when marksmanship is measured after military training) and are more confident in their ability to perform effectively in combat.[88] Furthermore, gun owners are more likely to enlist, to prefer combat outfits, and to become marksmanship instructors.[89]

Read: http://www.americanlawreview.com/2nd_amend.html

@Sailcat

Banning certain types of weaponry will have a significant impact on the ability of mass murderers to inflict the sort of carnage we saw in Aurora.

The "Joker" killed nearly everyone that he did with a hunting shotgun (Remington 870) with a 6 round capacity and a .40 caliber Glock handgun with anywhere between 9 and 17 round capacity, depending on model and magazine. By all counts that I've read, his "assault weapon" wasn't used much, and by at least one count I've read, wasn't used at all, but was simply recovered in his car. Wherever the gun was, the fact remains that the majority of the dead were killed by a shotgun-- so in what world does your restriction on "assault weapons" effect his ability to fire a scatter rifle? You're seizing on the assault weapon because it looks scary-- ooh, a black rifle-- without actually thinking about the capabilities and limitations of that weapon platform. So-called assault weapons, a term that simultaneously describes .22 caliber plinking rifles, a plethora of semi-auto hunting rifles and almost everything in between, is a term coined by politicians with no working knowledge of firearms. The term has been criticized by lawmakers, lawyers and (yes) the gun lobby for being too vague and for effectively outlawing some of the modern hunting firearms put out by the world's top firearms manufacturers. This was one of the reasons the ban was allowed to lapse. It might also interest you to know that "assault weapons," no matter how you define the term, are used in less than 1/2 of 1% of ALL gun crime-- so your pushing to ban a weapon that will have no statistically measurable effect on gun crime. Just thought you ought to know.

Geowil,

Cannons were in use well before the Revolutionary War. Men with single shot muskets charged straight at them and took them out, many dying in the effort. Now that's psychological but it did not deter the riflemen.

Tanks are better taken out with IED's and Molotov cocktails but they can and are taken out with nothing more.

Sniper rifles have an advantage if the range is over 300 yards but in the usual urban setting a multi-shot, iron sited weapon that can be quickly reloaded is way better. Especially if the adversary is within 50 yards. A 10 year old could be taught to fire a semi-automatic rifle but a sniper rifle takes more training and experience.

You are wrong about body armor also. A pistol round cannot penetrate it but a rifle round can. Even is a rifle round does not penetrate body armor the foot-pounds of energy delivered is incapacitating. There have been a few people with bad judgement who tried this out. I'm sure you can find videos of them on Youtube.

What is a psychological advantage is well-disciplined troops. The U.S. military has realized that seasoned and well trained troops do not buckle under fully automatic fire aimed at them. The U.S. military has also limited the current rifle issued so that it will fire no more than a 3 shot burst and cannot be fired fully automatic. The exception is the SAW (squad automatic weapon) which does fire fully automatic.

What really overthrows Governments and invasion forces are not guns, it is determination and indomitable will power that is not broken by scare tactics.

This is correct and it also takes a well regulated militia to defend us. Are you gun owners willing to become a well regulated militia to protect your state and the rights your state grants you?

Jack,

Yes they were, but they did not have the protection that modern takes do. You would easily take out a cannon by killing those operating it. It is much harder to do so with a tank if you do not have anti-armor weapons or cannot get onto the tank to lob a grenade into the port hole.

As for the IED thing, how many Americans have training that will allow them to make one? It is not something you can just look up online and build successfully. I also said most civilian class guns (read that as hand guns or shotguns) cannot breach certain types of bullet proof armor. For example a 45 cal revolver can do a lot of damage but it cannot pierce bullet proof materials. A 30-aught on the other hand can however outside of big game hunting no one needs one of those.

I based my definition of what is and what is not "civilian" based on the likelihood of needing said weapon. No one needs a .50 cal rifle. It is overkill for any civilian situation. Same with the 30-aught in most cases. No one needs to own an ak-47 or an assault rifle with the ability to hold more then 30 to 50 round in a magazine. No one needs magazine extenders for hand guns. A simple side arm will suffice for the majority of civilian needs outside of hunting.

I know of two, there are probably more, plausible scenarios where America could have been/be invaded. Check them out if you are interested. The first, and more plausible, is World in Conflict. The second, at less likely, is Homefront.

@WMG

Is this Vietnam? How many Americans do you think that the ability, the training, the mindset to be able to carry out guerrilla attacks? Warfare has also drastically changed from the Vietnam war era. We have drones now, highly accurate sniper rifles over longer distances, more advanced weaponry and armor. Also that report uses nuclear weapons in an inappropriate way. The next nuclear attack will not be carried out during war but as an act of terrorism by a terrorist organization. No state, not even most rouge states, will risk using nuclear weapons; this includes Iran and North Korea.

Nukes are a tool for bluffing. Those that would use them are not mature enough to be allowed to have such technology.

I am not saying that we could not fight off an invading force, I am just saying that it would not be all sunshine and daises as some seem to think. The amount of people killed would be astronomical.

@huskergal

I am not a gun owner.

I am not saying that we could not fight off an invading force, I am just saying that it would not be all sunshine and daises as some seem to think. The amount of people killed would be astronomical.

Agreed. No one here, that I've noticed, has ever suggested that warfare would be "sunshine and daisies." A foreign invasion force would be horrific, but can you see the difficulties they might face taking over, say, Oakland? Or Chicago? Short of leveling the place, they'd have a shoot-out at every block.

Geowil: IEDs are not hard to make. They make them all the time in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere. Do you think we are so dumb over here that we cannot do the same thing? The Abrams tank has been made obsolete by IEDs

If you are saying that a 30-06 is too much gun for a civilian to own then just try confiscating them.

I'm not even sure you know whereof you speak.

Actually it sounds as if Obama is trying to drum up support to outsource our military small arms production to China.....considering that our soldiers do not use AK-47s.

I think it's too late to control assault rifles; they are already out in doves. Here is what we do: Life sentences for any gun assaults, no exceptions. If you assault someone with a gun unlawfully, you pound rocks in prison for the rest of your life. We have to have REAL consequences for misuse of guns. To make room for all of these new prisoners, we release the non-violent drug offenders or work on our national drug policy. This will please both sides. Keep your guns but if you slip even a little, brandish a gun wrongly, etc... then you do hard prison time.

Coastal-- Although I think that's overkill, I'll certainly take punishing violent criminals over mandatory minimums for drug possession.

How does where "AK-47's belong" matter? The shooter in Colorado used an AR-15.

Take away every AK-47 in the world and it would not have mattered.

Coastal Exchange.. I have a better idea. When there is a case such as the CO shooting where there is no question of guilt, we find the nearest tree and throw a rope over the biggest branch and hang'm high. Let him swing to send a message and let the media feast on it. They have NO right to a trial. It's BS. He's guilty! Why debate the issue. I trial for cases such as this are nothing but a get rich scheme for lawyers. If we need a trial by his peers, we pull 11 family members of the victims and put it to a vote.

Before we add any news gun laws to the books, someone should check with Eric Holder to see if he would actually enforce them.

Well at least we know where Romney stands on this issue, a firm stance on BOTH SIDES as usual. Allways for someting or against something at one time or another. MR. Pander Pants!

Romney signs ban on assault weapons as Governor in 2004.

True to his own nature, the flip flop begins the next years when the NRA gets a hold of him. ROMNEY FLIP FLOPS AGAIN!!! How many more times can this clown flip flop? He has no memory of what he ever says, mental time traveling only works in his mind!

Ref below : Wall street Journal site 7-20-12 blog.wsj.com

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney opposes all new gun control laws today, but that wasn’t always the case. In 2004, as governor, he signed a permanent assault weapons ban into law in Massachusetts. The law included other elements welcomed by gun-rights supporters, but Mr. Romney defended the assault weapons provision on its own merits.

“I believe the people should have the right to bear arms, but I don’t believe that we have to have assault weapons as part of our personal arsenal,” he said on Fox News in 2004.
The federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Today, Mr. Romney’s campaign Web site says no new laws are needed. “Like the majority of Americans, Mitt does not believe that the United States needs additional laws that restrict the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms,” the site says.

The issue is in the news again in the wake of the Colorado rampage that killed 12 people early Friday. One of the guns used by the killer was an AR-15 assault rifle, police said.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said, “As he has repeatedly said, Gov. Romney believes that the best way to prevent gun violence is to vigorously enforce our laws.”

As the Journal reported last year, the change began in 2005. In May of that year, Mr. Romney declared a “Right to Bear Arms Day,” and the governor’s top aides began meeting almost monthly with the Gun Owners’ Action League. Mr. Romney also signed legislation cutting some red tape detested by gun owners in November 2005, and less than a year later he became a member of the National Rifle Association.

Dear Coastal and Mark-There are already mandatory sentence adders included in sentencing a criminal who uses a firearm in the commission of a felony, the deterrent isn't working well. Your approach to mandatory life sentences might be worth trying, but the left will scream it is too harsh a punishment. In the Tucson Shooting there were a number of instances where Law Enforcement and the Military could have/should have alerted someone Loughner was not stable, Why didn't they do the right thing? Mr. Holmes apparently has some issues that indicate he is unstable, but only time will tell if there was opportunity to stop it before it started. There are already a Bazillion Laws on the books concerning the sale and ownership of firearms, let's enforce them before we enact another hindrance to the law abiding citizen who is the one who suffers when a Knee-Jerk reaction is taken. The Ignorance of the majority of posters is blatantly obvious, please educate yourselves in the proper use and nomenclature of a firearm.

Coastal Exchange

I would agree to life without parol for harming someone unlawfully with a gun but the simple brandishing would not fly for that penalty. For unlawful harm or even committing a felony using a gun getting life and the rest of us keeping our 2nd amendment rights I say, deal!

Rick-3416939

OH Holder would probably enforce them but only on certain groups of people, certainly not on any Obama supporter. Then the violence could spread from where it seems more or less contained to the rest of our towns.

By the Border,

I don't mean for criminals. I meant for anyone including non-criminals. You pull a gun out of road rage, etc... you go to prison for 15 years, etc regardless of your "rap sheet". Guess what, most of these mass murderers have no rap sheet so sticking to traditional prosecution laws doesn't work and trying to outlaw guns doesn't work either so we need to toughen laws and make them absolutely MANDATORY no exceptions. 1 strike rule.

We have to do something civilized to show we are not the wild wild west while still preserving our right to defend ourselves. We have to have something make people think twice before carrying a gun illegally or brandishing a gun for no reason.

Coastal- I'll go with you for a minute. For the doing time for illegal gun use, yes I'm for that and we have existing laws for those cases. For homicidal maniacs and the criminal whom uses extreme measures for crime, I'd just assume the death penalty. Unfortunately there are a lot of legislatures that want to end the death penalty as "cruel and unusual". I say why not, the "aledged" criminal in Colorado- whom used a long planning process, meticulously executed his plan, systematically murdered a large number of people an a manner that might be described as terrorism deserves to die- regardless of his mental state. You can't reform him, if you find him guilty he should die.

Recently in CT they had two guys found guilty of stalking a family, kidnapping them, systematically raping the daughters, assaulting the father to what they thought would kill him, then setting the house on fire to kill off everyone else. The guys were caught (in Cheshire), tried and convicted for the crimes. So they are now sitting in prison for murdering 4 people. The CT legislature then decided that the death penalty is too cruel, so they removed it from the laws. Now these guys, in their 30's and 40's are going to sit in a prison for 40? 50+ years? sucking off the taxpayers to live when they should be dead. That's not justice.

To your comment, "Keep your guns but if you slip even a little, brandish a gun wrongly, etc... then you do hard prison time." I can offer that there are far more laws and eyes looking to take away your rights to own weapons than those protecting your rights. That is- if you are walking through a grocery store (with a concealed permit and holstered weapon under your shirt) and someone catches a glimpse or realizes what's under your shirt, they can call the police and have you charged for public menacing eventhough you didn't do ANYTHING illegal. Is that fair? I think not. With a charge like that against you the gun gets impounded, as well as any others you may own, and you go through the criminal court process. If found guilty you loose your right to own for life as many of these charges are tied to gun legislation prohibiting further ownership (felonies or otherwise). SO there are laws there, but there also have to be protections for law abiding people living in communities where an anti-gun population may use provocative means to clear them out.

This needs to be approached from many sides:

Harsh punishment for those who commit crimes with guns

Making it more difficult to buy certain types of guns and ammunition, especially assault rifles.

Not allowing certain people (those with criminal records, mental health issues, on terrorist watch lists) to purchase any weapons at all.

The sane, law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase certain guns, but we should emphasize the need for training, particularly anger management

NO ONE wants to ban all guns. The NRA says people do to scare you into buying more.

Actually JoeNY, I think the scenario you described regarding the grocery store is fair. Having a concealed permit should, and does in most states, gives you an extra right to carry a gun but also extra responsibility to ensure you are not menacing the public. Open carry laws are what the NRA will want next and, although I agree with concealed permits, open carry is too far IMO.

If you have that concealed permit and you mess up, you should do EXTRA time. It's about personal responsibility. I live in Florida and I hear about lots of stories of people pulling guns on each other in traffic, etc... some of those are concealed permit holders. Those should be automatic life (15+ years minimum) sentences. In reality, these people will get probation, if anything, and maybe if they had a permit they'll get that taken away. That's not enough, I think. IMO, if you get into a witnessed road rage and the cops find a gun in your car, regardless of you showing it or not, you should do hard prison time. I know it's harder than most think is reasonable but I'm trying to think outside the normal gun control box.

Coastal Exchange - I admire your enthusiasm but your idea is scaring me a little. Maybe I need you to define road rage. The way I'm interpreting your law concept looks like it will evolve very quickly into the "gun owner is at fault" and/or "gun owner serves longer sentence". In an earlier comment you said "I don't mean for criminals. I mean for anyone including non-criminals." Now the example you followed on with was in fact a criminal act. So I guess I need to know what you mean. If someone gives me the finger and I give it back? Could you also imagine a defense lawyer making a case that his or her client was singled out and ostricized because he or she was/is a gun holder?

I don't care if I had to register my guns. I do not subscribe to the paranoid beleif that if the government knows how many guns I have they can come get them. Really? I know a guy that has 5 D.U.I.s. 2 of them were injury accidents. The government knows where his car is...... in his garage.

I agree whole heartedly that laws need to be enforced, strictly. I also agree that the punishment should suck. The way prison is described today, it sounds like a punishment my parents use to hand out when I broke curfew. "You can't go outside and you have to do laudry, clean the bathroom and make dinner for 2 weeks."

Coastal- Open carry is allowed in many states, many of those states have harder restrictions for concealed carry because out in the open is easier to detect than put away. Most places with concealed carry would allow you to carry openly if you so chose. So legally you are wrong, if the law allows you to have a hip holster you should have every reason to wear one if you want. You aren't openly threatening anyone with it on you hip- you are informing them that you have one.

With your logic I think it would be reasonable to put people away for years for having ANY alcohol in their system when they get in a car to drive home. Hey, it's a personal responsibiltiy issue so if you are going to drink at all then you should know better than to drive for atleast an hour per drink. So let's give everyone driving home from that baseball game 5 years for having a beer with their hotdog- they deserve it!

On the road rage item and the legality of gun ownership there is a great divide between the two. If I'm driving around and happen to piss someone off whom forces me off the road and is coming at me with a tire iron I will choose to pull my weapon and solve the issue (disarm or die and wait for the police to arive). If I keep the gun in the car, but am forced to defend myself otherwise, you'd advocate my going to prison because it was there at all. I don't advocate road rage, but there is clearly a difference between being mentally unstable and defending one's self.

With your logic you should be charged with being a "John" if you get pulled over in a bad neighborhood and there is a whore across the street. You were intending to use her services, weren't you? I was going to the store and went through the red light. Sure you were.

Mandatory minimum sentences have never worked for any crime where they have been attempted. Consider that in the 60's in Nevada selling marijuana could get you LIFE in prison. Did that stop the flow of drugs? Nope.

Open carry laws are what the NRA will want next and, although I agree with concealed permits, open carry is too far IMO.

I live in a gold star open carry state. It's never been a problem here. Why is that "too far?"

If you have that concealed permit and you mess up, you should do EXTRA time.

In the original post about the grocery store, in what way did the theoretical permit holder "mess up?" How did (s)he menace anyone? What danger was posed to the public by them picking up that carton of milk before heading home? Does the fact that they exercise their second amendment right mean that they are a "menace"? Consider this guy, by all counts a hero-- was he a menace for showing up to a Walmart with his pistol?

72-yr Old Man Shoots, Kills Attacker of Woman at Walmart (Video LINK)

IMO, if you get into a witnessed road rage and the cops find a gun in your car, regardless of you showing it or not, you should do hard prison time.

So now you're advocating punishment for potential crimes devoid of any factual evidence of intent and actual implementation? That sounds like your typical Orwellian nightmare... count me out. I don't want to give any government the authority to punish any citizen for crimes they might commit. I can see it now:

"Well sir, your license and registration seem to be in order, but you were speeding... I see you just stopped off at the grocery store, lets see: milk, eggs, bread... Aha! A 12 pack of Coors. While you're perfectly sober now, I can imagine that you'll probably have one or more of these beers later. I'm booking you now for DUI. Place your hands on the hood of the car, sir."

"But I'm not drunk!"

"Yes, but you have the potential to be drunk, so therefore, you are drunk, thanks to the Coastal Exchange Act. Come to think of it, you have the potential to resist this arrest. I'm going to go ahead and add that to your list of offenses."

“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,”

I generally like Obama but this was a dumb thing for him to say. Our soldiers don't use the AK-47 for one thing, and gun enthusiasts can only own the non-military version of this rifle. Obama really needs to get back in touch with everyday people.

Reply to show me drug cartels are buying guns in U.S.: Read the article, "Legal U.S. gun sales to Mexico arming cartels", by Sharyl Attkinson on CBS news. You can also google 'Are Mexican drug cartels buying guns in the U.S.', you will get pages of sites.

When you talk about the NRA my first thought is mentally unstable individuals. Anyone that thinks it is okay for people to be able to buy, on the open market, AK-47s or AR-15s is nuts. These weapons were made for one purpose, to kill people.

These people always conviently forget about the 2.5 MILLION times a year that guns in private owners hands save lives EVERY YEAR. While I, and every gun owner, feel horrible about any innocents hurt, this does not change the fact, that guns save lives. If this was not true, why would the police carry guns? The police don't carry them to kill criminals. That is not there job. Their job is ONLY to apprehend suspects AFTER they commit a crime. It is the private citizen's responisibility to protect himself, family and property. We have raised a generation that, for some reason feels, it is the police's job to protect them. I often hear, "what do you need guns for, thats why we have police." When that is absolutely not the case. As everyone SHOULD know, the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Why would they anyway. They were never intended to be a security force.

Barlow- I respect your lack of interest in firearms and your right not to own them, however you comment clearly shows a negative perspespective without an education regarding firearm usage in the US.

As noted above, military AK-47s and AR-15s are not available to the public. Those available to the public are strictly modified to meet US laws and are semi-automatic. Semi-automatic is defined as one round fires per pull of the trigger, not firing many rounds per pull as noted in tv news videos. Another definition of semi-automatic regards the usage of a magazine (holder of rounds pressed upwards with a spring). This allows the firearm using a blowback system, etc. to fire/expel the used casing/place a new round in the chamber of the firearm. It solely is an engineered system for reloading, an alternative to a revolver whereby you have a cylinder holding upto 8 rounds that must be removed to be reloaded.

Usage of firearms in the US- There are a series of uses of firearms today- Target shooting(can be everything from paper at distances, steel targets, reactive targets-IE. clays, timed events, moving targets, etc.), 3-gun competitions (use of three very different firearms for accuracy and time), competitive shooting (different styles of weapons/distances/sights/courses/conditions, cowboy shoots, etc.), hunting (for food, animal population control, and environmental protetction), recreation (typically target shooting), general training/safety courses, precision marksmanship courses, self defense (home or personal), security, law enforcement, and finally military use. These categories are only expanded upon by gender, age, caliber of round, age and style of weapon, etc.

Per your comment about purpose- you can use that same blanket thought about many things. Arrows started out for hunting, but there is a huge targetarchery/competition market now. Knives started out as sharp rocks for hunting and cutting flesh, but now are everything from a butchers knife, land clearing machette, butter knife, etc.- but you could say that knives have a purpose to kill too.

Your perspective on the NRA is bulletpoint partisan. I severely doubt that you've ever read a position paper by the NRA or understant the multitude of actions the NRA endorses and participates in (environmental preservation, self defense, supporting the military, supporting the freedom of choice, education programs, etc.).

All I would suggest is that you consider doing some reading on these topics and maybe you'd get a better understanding of firearms, their uses, and their organizations. There's a lot more there than you are indicating.

I don't think anyone is or shoudl be arguing for no guns at all, but I ask this...do you have a handgun locked away or do you have an assault rifle. What I don;t get is why some people can't differentiate that. I'm still waiting to see someone state what the logical adult purpose is of owning an assault rifle is besides the ability to cause massive damage. While no one knows what the real solution could be to this issue, we need to start trying things out so that we can move past these damn stories involving unnecessary weapons and their use in killing many individuals.

On a side note, does anyone else get annoyed at the finger pointing when it comes to any story with any political backdrop? Both sides suck, both sides cater to special interests before the American people, and both sides would rather play partisan bull than work to fix any situation.

This is a non issue for this years election. Obama is just trying to buy some of the more ignorant American's votes by using the massacre to pull at their emotions.

Obama criticized Congress for opposing other measures to reduce violence, “particularly when it touches on the issue of guns,” and offered broad strokes of what he would do differently in the future.

Now that IS a surprise. Blame the other guys with no details of his own!! Again!

I find this speech amusing. Our troops/soldiers don't use AK-47's and the latest shooter in Aurora used an AR-15.

This President is more of a publicist than a President. "We're going to do this! I don't know how, cause that's someone else's job, I'm just telling you that WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE!"

Oh come on people, as long the the NRA has their iron grib around the throats of every legislative and executive body of government in American...NOTHING will change, and as along as the NRA can stampeded people into purchasing more and more guns, making more and more money for the gun manufacturers of the world, it ain't going to change no matter HOW many people end up dead. BUT what I want to know is how a single lone wolf terrorist can order 6,000 round of ammo, full suits of body armor, assault weapons and extra long clips, along with pounds and pounds of explosive materials and tear gas, etc etc. Have them delivered by UPS and FedEx to a private residency AND nobody tells homeland security, FBI OR local police that "Hey...you might want to take a look see at this guy".

This is how disconnected he is about firearms.

And I quote“I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals,” he said."

Only America's enemies use the AK-47. It is not an American weapon our forces use.

So according to this statement he wishes the guns in the hands of our enemy soldiers.

Brilliant!!

Hi all,

Thank you everyone for your interesting comments yet some show the ignorance and stupidity that still exists in the US and the world. If some of you pro-gun people actually have guns, I am definitely scared out of my genius mind. The gun laws that continue to support us to have guns are so old and do not apply in today's world. We do not need guns anymore. It does not make sense to have a gun unless you are in the military or law enforcement and that should be very heavily regulated since there are a lot of nuts in the military and law enforcement. Anyway, people with guns are dangerous. The only piece of weapon we should be able to have is maybe a taser but no guns.

For you pro-gun people, you are a pawn in the slavery of the corporate owned world. The only reason why guns can still be easily obtained is because of money. If you disagree with that, you are a complete moron and idiot, just like almost all of the repiglicans and "con"servatives. The NRA, like politicians, only care about money. If money did not exist in regards to distributing guns, we would not have a gun problem. Guns do not exist to protect you, they only exist for people to make money and to hurt others. It is just like alcohol, tobacco, pornography, et cetera. Those products are absolutely dangerous and abusive, yet they are still legal, only because people are making billions of dollars off of these products and then paying off politicians and special interest groups to keep these products legal. Wake up you idiot pro-gun people. You are just a slave.

And, then everyone tries to stand behind our supposed right to bear arms. Again, as we continue to progress and evolve in our country, some laws made hundreds of years ago do not apply to us anymore. Having a gun should be a privilige, not a right. We have a lot of stupid laws. Just because a law says it is ok to do something, it does not make it healthy or positive to do it (tobacco, alcohol, guns, pornography, et cetera).

The only reason that Mitt and other stupid "con"servatives and politicians are supporting us needing to be able to have guns is because the NRA and other pro-gun groups are paying them to tell us that we should be scared of the government and should be able to protect ourselves. And, these are the same people who are wanting to run our government. That is hypocritical. On one hand the repiglicans want us to be free and be able to bear arms to protect ourselves from the government and on the other hand, they are saying that we should not trust them in the government. Trust me, I do not trust the repiglicans in the government because they give us every reason to not trust them and if you do trust them, you should not be allowed to vote or have a gun because you are an idiot.

Guns should not exist and should not be available to the public. Period. We do not need guns anymore. We should not have access to guns anymore. It does not make sense. I'm not going to be fooled into believing a hypocritical politician like Mitt and all the other pigs who have been paid off to say things, especially dangerous statements that continue to allow millions of people to have access to guns who shouldn't have them, such as the mentally ill, children, criminals, and re"pig"licans.

So, all you brainwashed pro-gunners need to step out of your closed minded and manipulated world. You have been distorted and placed in a certain state of mind that sounds patriotic and constitutional but is really all about someone getting rich and making a lot of money. And, as you all know, Mitt is all about the money and could care less about innocent people dying. It blows my mind that people still believe in the "con"servative values when all they do is support lies, death, war, fighting, the rich getting richer and the poor and middle class getting poorer, evil and horribly ran corporations with no regulations, sexual and physical abuse, less rights for children and women, increased abuse against women and minority groups, racism, and prejudism. It enrages me that some women are still repiglicans because the "con"servatives all support a patriarchal society where the man has power and the women is the subordinate. Wake up women and stand up for your rights, which the pigs are trying to take away.

It is also redicuous that the repiglicans continue to want less laws and government oversite of people to allow us to be free, but they pass more laws and want more government involvement than the democrats, especially if the laws support not allowing women to have control over their bodies and people not being allowed to have affordable and good health care. It's crazy.

Stand up America, and fight for your right to be safe and not have to worry about a crazy pro-gun repiglican trying to shoot you because they believe the lie that we should be able to have guns and protect ourselves even though the politicians who are saying that to you only care about the money they are paid for by the NRA and other pro-gun groups and are actually the only ones we should fear and should have a gun to protect ourselves against. I'll just use my taser. The taser is a more mature and progressive intrument anyway. Guns are for cowards, sissies, and people who do not know how to protect themselves like a real American.

He used ""ak47 because it is the number one assault rifle in the world.

As for legislation? I have to say I basically agree with all sides.

Militias could once again be the savior of this fine country or maybe it's demise. I know it may not have any bearing to you in this argument but to me it does.

Maybe we need a law of protection of large groups? You must provide so many armed guards to people? Make it a tax right off.

Punishing the many for the acts of a very rare small few is exactly why people dislike Washington.

However? There are many different forms of arms you are already not allowed to own, nuclear arms, chemicle arms, biological arms, etc. does this infringe on your second amendment?

Obama is a classic anti-gun liberal. "Lets use a tragedy to spread our Ideas" only an anti gun liberal would be that selfish. And people fear what they dont understand, and Obama obviously doesnt understand the difference between an AK-47 and an AR-15, and he is some commander in cheif if he doesnt even know what kind of firearm his own troops use. Criminals will find weapons no matter what, and insane people are banned from purchasing them already. In this sad case it was society that failed to recognize that this kid was insane and get him the help and prevent him from purchasing said firearms. Up until the point that he went postal, there was no way any gun dealer (and he did purchase his firearms leagally from a gun shop) would be allowed to deny him based on his background or even appearance for fear of being sued for discrimination. America this is you standing in a pool of your own self made fecal matter, good job.

Btw. The reasons to own an assault rifle are as follows:

1. The "check this out" and "go Boom" factor. Owning an assault rifle is like having a garage full of fireworks. Dangerous as all hell when used irresponsibly, But, with the right permits etc. it can be a really fun time.

2. Molon Labe. Molon labe is what king leonidus yelled at the battle of thermopolye, it means "come and get it". When the bad guys come knocking with their tec-9's, uzi's, Full auto glock's, and AK-47's( "choppers") I can Fight back with my 19-19, Ghalil, AR-15, AK-47, .50 cal., Uzi, and a whole host of other firearms. They will back off pretty fast.

3. The government. When they say give me your guns, They are getting the bullets first.

@SyracuseJay

When you say assault rifle I take it you mean the AR15 platform. The reason so many American own one is because it is buildable from the ground up. Dozens of companies make parts of this rifle that you can build your own from parts to fit your need (it is a very simple process that just needs a small investment in tools first). Some build short barreled rifles for home defense, others build 24" barreled target rifles. Because of the simplicity and flexiable nature of the AR15, it is great for anything from target shooting to military use (M4, M16, etc).

And I will Correct myself, the 19-19 is a full auto, belt fed, .30 caliber machine gun used in WWII, The .50 cal is a semi Auto Sniper rifle. The glock is a pistol. and Uzi's and Tec 9's are considered machine pistols. The Ghalil is just the isreali Cross between the AR-15 (which is exactly the same as an M-16 or M-4, the only differences are fire selectors and barrel length.) and the AK-47 to create a Semi-auto assault rifle that has a Full Auto capability that is both reliable and accurate.

4. Zombies. Nothing is better when zombies come than a few 30-round mags of 7.62 and a AK-47. It may not be the most accurate gun, but it will throw lead in that general direction no matter what you do to it...

The founders could not conceive of the modern pistol let alone an assault weapon. 3 shots a minute fro the muzzle loaders of the day took a lot of practice to achieve.

If they had known the yearly death toll of 2010 (murder, accident, suicide) would equal the total deaths in the revolutionary war. They would have written the 2nd ammendment much differently.

"That we should check out a person’s criminal record before they can check out at a gun store."

This from 0bama, an alleged lawyer specializing in the Constitution. Why did he and Michelle voluntarily surrender their law licenses any way? It is usually done to avoid negative publicity instead of being censured, or when you're about to be disbarred.

0bama should know/realize that as head executive of the USA he has a "Justice Department" that is required to enforce the laws of the land. One of those laws requires a background check with the FBI prior to a legal purchase of ANY firearm.

See: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

So once again our CEO is pandering to the ignorant. The ignorant who think that the militaristic appearance of any firearm makes it an automatic weapon, or "machine gun". The anti gun media calls every semi-automatic gun an assault weapon based on appearance alone.

On the subject of the Mexican Drug Cartels buying their "assault weapons" here in the USA, the 0bama Administration allowed the practice of "gun walking", a thinly veiled attempt to villify businesses who sold firearms along the Mexican border. The goal was to shut down gun sales in America. It allowed Hillary Clinton and others to say that 90% if the weapons confiscated south of the border came from US gun dealers.

The truth of the matter is that the Mexican Government said, "these firearms have Serial Numbers on them that are unique to the USA and they're being used by the Cartels." They were! THE 0BAMA ADMINISTRATION VIA THE JUSTICE DEPT. TOLD PEOPLE TO SELL THE GUNS KNOWING WHERE THEY WERE GOING AND WHO THEY WERE GOING TO!

See: http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/07/fast-and-furious

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/atf-fast-furious-sg,0,3828090.storygallery

They were not telling us about the AK-47's and other weapons that were imported by the Cartels from other countries, just the guns that came from the USA with 0bama's blessing.

For those of you who rant against the NRA, you are the reason people like me belong to the NRA. The NRA is made up of MEMBERS, REAL HONEST TO GOD PEOPLE! It is not a faceless evil lobbying group that the leftist media and leftist politicians would have you believe. We are your friends and your neighbors. There are millions of us who just happen to belong to an organization who represents US against politicians and ignorant do gooders who believe that all private ownership of firearms is wrong and evil.

"Why do you need a gun?" Is a common leftist question. I need a gun because I use it to hunt, killing and butchering my own meat instead of going to a store where someone else has killed and butchered the animal so I don't have to.

I also own guns for protection and deterrence. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Which means that in addition to the typical background check to buy a firearm, I also had additional background check via the FBI to see if I qualified to legally carry a pistol. I also live in a State which allows "open carry", meaning right out in the open where anyone can see I have a gun on me. Although I don't carry in the open I have nothing against people that do, I believe in surprize.

Crimes involving guns have been steadily dropping for years in spite of what leftists would have you believe, millions of times each year people use firearms to thwart criminals. FBI statistics show that.

Gun Control? Sorry, but the only people who want Gun Control are tyrants or want to be tyrants. 6 million Jews...up to 20 million Germans, Poles, Russians and other Eastern Europeans. Over 2 million Cambodians, Laotians and Viet Namese. Millions in Africa and the Middle East....all victims of "Gun Control."

Another reason? When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

And I almost forgot. The Second Amendment! It has kept invaders away for a long time, and kept ner-do-well politicians at bay too! The Second Amendment is the force that allows us to keep using OUR First Amandment Rights!

I think most of you are falling prey to a mindset that doesn't work and never has worked. The ideas of changing the laws, stiffer penalties, background checks (more laws) does not work! All of these things lead our country farther and farther toward a "Big Brother" situation. All of these ideas hurt America. What we need is to have 4-5 out of 10 citizens (law abiding) to have concealed weapons permits and to actively carry their weapons at all times while in public, metal detectors in schools and hospitals, government bldgs etc with gun check ins. Then you get someone bent on a shooting spree in public, you will have 50 guns pointed at him the moment he brandishes anything. He will get lucky to kill or wound even one person. After the first rampager fails and dies in a hail of citizen gunfire there will be no more rampages. Done deal.

As a supplement to an actively armed public, we need to teach our children that their is meaning to life, that life matters. That God is real, loves us and is good. That there are consequences to our actions and that there is life after death. No longer should we deal with the existential questions of the heart with a scientific barrage of atheistic garbage that leaves men disillusioned, hopeless, angry and pessimistic. When you teach your children that morality is subjective and that we are all an accident without ultimate purpose, you destroy the fragile spirit of love an hope that naturally grows within the hearts and minds of young people. We need to nurture the creative loving spirit that, like a tender shoot is grasping toward sunlight.

I would think that Obama signing on to the UN small arms treaty, knowing full well that it violates the U.S. constitution, would be an impeachable offense.

@ED - talk to dead people much? How else would you know what the founders would do?

Chevs

There's giant loophole in the brady bill that allows 40% of all firearms sales to go unchecked through sales at gun shows.

Crisp

If you had read extensively from the writings of the founders, not just the official documents, their intentions would be clear to you as well.

Irespond,

We need to stop the sales of semiautomatic weapons in stores. Most "normal"people have no use for a gun like these, and certainly you can not walk around "concealing" them in your coat. These type of guns are only designed for the military.

People will still have "the right to bear arms" but I am sure that the second ammendment never meant to be used for weapons like those, tear gas and other militia equipment that is designed for war time.

It is amazing that you could make so many posts with so many views and without first knowing about the topic or the laws. First, do you even know what a semiautomatic gun is? From your post, so we are going to assume that you do not as that is the only logical conclusion one could pull from all your posts. Instead of just reverberating Liberal talking points on the issue especially when you clearly have no scope as to what you are discussing.

A semiautomatic gun is ONLY a firearm, which automatically reloads, but will only fire one round per trigger pull. Therefore, specifically what your issue with this is. An AK-47 is a semiautomatic weapon but NOT all semiautomatics are AK-47’s. You CERTAINLY can walk around and conceal a semiautomatic gun it happens every day. An AK-47 has a practical purpose to those that are not in the military it is hunting, yes you can hunt with an AK-47. You must think that a semiautomatic is just an AR-AK style gun. You could not be more wrong most hand guns today are semiautomatic guns.

Many Democratic states make it virtually imposable already for good men/women, with NO criminal record what so ever, to get a conceal carry. Does that make sense to you because to me it does not? As it is a proven fact that states were you can obtain a conceal carry permit there is less violent crime and those states that finally made it easier for you to get a CCP the violent crime rate went down. Here are a few statistics

A comprehensive national study in 1996 determined that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms.

The results of the study showed:

* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.

The thought that those of us that lawfully own guns that we would just turn the over to the government is out of the question. People have a right to defend themselves and that does not exclude the government as you suggested when you quoted T.J. The second amendment was for the purpose of just that people having a right to defend themselves against one government. That is in fact exactly, what had happened to them with the Revolutionary War they revolted against an unjust government. The military works for the government. Certainly, as a law a biding citizen you should have the right to every weapon that the US military. That is not the case so you have nothing to worry about there.

They will never be able to take guns away just look the government cannot even keep guns out of the hands of criminals now. All a war on guns will create is more crime and the public then becomes pray. The police do not prevent crimes they only investigate them after they occur. There are some exceptions to this as with most things in life. Why don’t you go down to your local gun store and educate yourself on firearms especially if you are going to try and debate them as you are without knowing the facts. You are missing many key talking points and if you know nothing about guns, those talking points will not help. Look up the YouTube video of a 71-year-old man that saves people during an armed robbery by two armed men, just type that in and search.

It is not a crime and the only reason for the government to start attacking the 2^nd amendment, when only law-a-biding citizens can buy a gun, is to strip us of even more of your rights. That is what you should be asking yourself why would the government not want good men/women to carry a weapon?

The second amendment was created to protect the governed from the governing. In short to protect the people from an unjust government.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere.

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 1787

"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." Thomas Jefferson

I'd like to add to my post (3.38) that a bi-partisan majority of the senate opposes the signing of the UN Small Arms treaty because doing so would violate the constitution. This is something the UN cares nothing about because most nations deny their people the right to bear arms.

However, Obama would have no problem signing on. As previously alluded to, a clear case for impeachment is he actually signs this UN tripe.

This may very well be what Obama meant when in response to inquiries from the anti-gun bunch about new anti gun restrictions, he said not to worry as he was "working under the radar".

In Tucson there was someone in the crowd with a concealed weapon. When this person was interviewed he told the story of how he was a second away from killing the wrong person, someone who had subdued the gunman. Onlookers saved the man by screaming "not him, don't shoot". Who's doing the shooting? As soon as you brandish your weapon, others may try to shoot you and besides, in a crowed theater, there are problems with missing and blowing away innocents. I don't buy the gun lobby claiming that to reduce gun violence, increase the number of guns, gotta call BS on that. Background checks and reduced magazine count would be logical steps, of course no full auto. No anti-tank or surface to air weapons or FAE's, and certainly no lazer guided tactical nukes. Really where does the gun lobby want to put the limit?

Actually the man who subdued the shooter had a permit and a concealed weapon. He said he did not use his weapon because he thought that he might be shot in turn. He was a cool hand. He did the right thing. If what you related above is true, can you cite the source? The gun carrying hero who subdued the shooter was on multiple news programs.

The founders could not conceive of the modern pistol let alone an assault weapon. 3 shots a minute fro the muzzle loaders of the day took a lot of practice to achieve.

Then you would be surprised to know that the first machine gun was invented in 1718 by James Puckle, and that the first revolver (that we know about) was crafted in 1597 by Hans Stopler. Each of these weapons were capable of greater than three shots per minute. The Puckle machine gun had a fire rate of 9 rounds per minute-- phenomenal at that time-- so to suggest that, in the face of these technological advances in (and prior to) their own time, the founding fathers would be incapable of speculating on the continued advancement of firearms technology is to strain credulity. I mean, Jefferson and Franklin were both inventors-- constantly seeking and creating new technologies. You're telling me these people had no ability to forecast the future of warfare? I find that to be a rather dubious assertion.

what about the Mexican drug cartels?

Most of the guns used by the Cartels are guns purchased legitimally in this country. The NRA has opposed legislation that limit the repeated sales of guns in the border towns, calling for the "rights"of drug dealers.

Irespond- Please post where you got these stats. NJ has strict gun control and Camden is such a peaceful city. Chicago has strict gun control and is another peaceful city. Norway has extremely tough gun control and a lunatic kills almost 100 people. Now tell me how criminals follow the rules again!

"Most of the guns used by the Cartels are guns purchased legitimally in this country."

Please post a link to a legitimate sight confirming your claim. Mexican drug cartels get weapons from all over the world.

Eric Holder breaks the law and gets two officers killed and Obama protects him.

One wacko breaks the law and Obama wants to punish the entire country?

Keep America free!

Law-Abiding citizen have the right to own weapon, as 2 amendment, YES.

unfortunately All CRIMINALS are all LAW ABIDIN citizen before.

Jack335?: So you want to punish people before any law is broken?

Bring out the thought police! Grab Jack! Yeah the guy over there with the illegal tinfoil hat! He does not have a permit for that hat!

New Amendment,

Law-Abiding citizen have the right to own weapon, as 2 amendment, YES.

unfortunately All CRIMINALS are all LAW ABIDING citizen before.

Taliban love and swear with their Rifles,they're terrible and know "nut" when handling & preparing hamburger.

Sound familiar?

Jack355: I am trying to follow whatever odd kind of point that you maybe trying to make.

I see nut and hamburger but I am scratching my head as to what the heck you are trying to say?

Jack wins the prestigious ignore button! Congratulations sir! You don't make any sense!

Rockyroad,

You want the truth but you can't handle the truth

How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

If you still scracthing your head,remove your hat turban ,you feels better.

You know everyone says about gun control. Does anybody realize if we were not aloud to own guns the crime rate would go up, because the criminals who still aquire guns, through blackmarkets and things will know that people do not have guns to protect themselves.They will be pretty much free to attack anyone they want and there won't be anyway for us to protect ourselves against there guns.

The Left keep talking about gun control and yet this President and the African American leaders cannot even control the violence and killings in the slaughterhouse city of Chicago and they have the strongest gun control laws. Yea Obama sure shows concern for gun cotrol that's why he and his Administration shipped guns over the border killing 300 Mexicans and a border PATROL AGENT! I find this President and the Left a bunch of hypocrites.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I say no new laws until Eric Holder starts enforcing the ones that we have on the books. Picking and choosing laws to enforce for political gain is pretty reprehensible for any administration. But the Obama administration seems pretty content to ignore any law that doesn't jive with their ideology.

The U.S. has no jurisdiction over Mexico. I believe the Mexican cartels are in Mexico.

Well you want to keep guns from the Mexican cartels? Starts with gun laws in Arizona and the people who sell them. Arizona gun sellers know their guns are going across the border daily....$$$$$$ talks and the people of Arizona walk away from the issue. Then the same people from Arizona ask the feds to come and protect them from the guns they sell to Mexico! All about NRA and gun sellers and $$$$$$$.

For you fast and ficticious wingnuts, Arizona gun laws prevent the feds from doing anything about Arizona gun sellers putting guns in the hands of the Mex cartel. No judges will prosecute no matter how much proof Holder etc have. It all starts with Arizona and ends wth Arizona and $$$$$.

Our buddy Erik just did what our buddy Bush along with our bubby Cain wanted, Erick Holder will not go down unless he takes both Bush and Cain with him.

I dont have a gun, I want one, but I dont need one to whoop any of you fools posting tought talk.

Scared little punks, every so often I get tested in my line of work and you are a waste of time, some day I probly get shot by some scared little punk that will run to mama. YOU PEEPS CRACK ME UP, I AM FREE DONT NEED YOUR GUNS AND BRING IT ANY TIME.

I don't know how it is in other states but it is really hard to get a gun legally in PA. The first gun I ever bought it took like two weeks to get approved for it and I have no criminal record at all not even a parking ticket.

Rick, you have monsters hiding in your closet...monsters under your bed........They are gonna getcha!

STARSAILING - The purchases were questioned, but the BATFE told the dealers to sell them anyway. Hence why Holder's a$$ is on the line in the first place.

NOGOODTHERAPY - I would say that there were at least 2% (psychology, everything is at least 2%), of the people in the theater who believed the same as you, perhaps some of the dead ones. Good luck on getting your firearm, and make sure you carry, because you never know when you may run into the next nutjob and may save a few lives along the way.

To the citizens of Aurora, my sympathies for your losses. But carry that firearm, if you can carry concealed, carry it into the theater. I may get the tresspassing fine, but, I will be alive to pay it.

Dear Starsailing-I hate to inform you but Federal Law supercedes Arizona Law, we just had a fine example of that demonstrated, SB1070. The Supreme Court ruled portions of it unconstitutional, but they also found portions of the law which compliment Federal Law constitutional. I'm not so sure I would use Mr. Holder as your Knight in Shining Armour, seems the Attorney General has been found in Criminal and Civil Contempt of Congress. He would not be the one I would want to represent any cause. Please take a little time to read and understand the constitution, it may help your understanding.

I just posted this stat on another site regarding Norway. Per 100,000 individuals, the US has 19xs the number of homicides with guns as does Norway, 1.5xs the number of suicides as does Norway and double the rate of accidental deaths. Why do gun supporters keep bringing up Norway?

For those who say, "Enforce the laws on the books," can you tel me which laws should be better enforced?

IRESPOND-2315268

I agree you do spew what appears to be facts but with no back up proof. It has been confirmed by ballistics tests that the gun that killed our border agent was supplied to the Mexican Cartels by Holder's boys and our fearless leader spouting off about gun controls refuses to provide requested documents so Holder and Company can be held accountable. Can you say BS hypocrit.

Look it up Bart, no need to look it up for you.

Bart Conner

You are kidding right? What laws need better enforcement, how about all the ones Holder has refused to enforce like Black Panthers with night sticks outside polling places last election, our immigration laws that this whole administration refuses to enforce which leaves gang members and cartel thugs moving further and further into our states. How about the laws already on the books about using a gun during a felony that get plea bargained away often before the trail. How about the unconstitutional actions of this administration using executive orders, why has the congress (that is both house and senate) done anything about this? How about Obama giving away our money right and left without congressional approval to foreign countries including terrorist countries? What planet have you been vacationing on?

Donny....Per Issa, No laws broken, no lies found, no evidence of any one doing anything wrong , said on Fox news. No there...there. Issa just wanted info not related to case. Holders ass is not on the line. Issa made up story about Obama taking guns away just to get the sheeple up in arms. Again, no there , there. Everything debunked over and over and over. Fast and fictitious! All your sheeple friends pounding their fists on the table...and lied to. How do you feel about being lied to by Issa?

InPennsylvania

I don't know how it is in other states but it is really hard to get a gun legally in PA. The first gun I ever bought it took like two weeks to get approved for it and I have no criminal record at all not even a parking ticket.

Not sure what part of PA you are in, but I can walk into any PA store that sells firearms and walk out in one hour with a firearm in hand. Class III items would take longer as there is a federal backround check that needs performed but we are talking months and not weeks. PA does not have a waiting period and does not require a firearms permit.

Taking away the right for citizens to bear arms does not eliminate the criminal element from obtaining and using weapons against innocent, law-abiding citizens. In fact, it makes these citizens more of a target... easier targets.

From ABC's 20/20:

"After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

"But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

"Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

"England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.' "

There will always be nutjobs out there who manage to get their hands on guns, just as those with criminal intent will always find a way to arm themselves. Some acquire guns legally. Many others acquire their weapons illegally with little problem.

Face the facts. People who are bent on committing murder and causing mayham have used knives and boxcutters, and machetes. They have detonated bombs made from simple ingredients such as fertilizer and fuel oil. They have used their own bodies to pass the AIDS virus to the unsuspecting. They have used legal drugs and illegal drugs as they target strangers and lovers... even patients in hospitals assigned to their care. They have used fire, cut brake lines on vehicles, and even used their own hands to strangle life from their victims. They have bludgeoned their victims with baseball bats, rocks, and pipes... pummelled them with their fists and stomped them to death with their boots. They have piloted jetliners full of passengers into buildings filled with workers.

Banning guns won't stop the killing. The only way to stop killing-- ban people

How about gun shows ?

QUOTE:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."........Benjamin Franklin

I really don't think anybody is talking about taking away your guns. Nobody said that, but as soon as the rabid gun owners hear anything about gun owner restriction their into the "cold dead fingers..." thing immediately!! Talk about mentally unstable individuals, NRA gun owners for sure. Assault rifles need to be banned, high capacity magazines need to be banned. All you have to do is ask the police. As a gun owner since I was ten years old, I'm now 65, I would support an assault weapons ban. The three guns I have now will protect me and my family, even without a 100 round drum magazine!!

First, the quote from "20/20" is from an opinion piece by John Stossel in 2007.

Actually, gun homicides in the UK are now below what they were when gun control was enacted. There were 59 gun homicides in 1997 and there were 41 in 2009, the last year we have complete data for. In fact, there were 53 in 2007, so he was wrong in the first place. There was a spike during the early 2000s, but levels for the last few years are at or below prior to gun control laws there. See here: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/280/number_of_gun_homicides

What's interesting to me is to compare their gun homicide rate with ours. Their rate in 2009 per 100,000 was 0.1. Our rate in 2009 per 100,000 was 2.98.

Found here: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/england-and-wales and here: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

You can purchase military Ak-47's internationally for less then $100. Why would drug cartels buy civilian ak-47's for $500-600 if they can buy military for $100. They are using MILITARY hardware in mexico. Do not believe the out right lies about massive US guns. Yes some do occasssionaly. Especially custom handguns intended for Cartel bosses. Gold plated 1911's, etc. I can't even understand how supposedly rational people believe they are buying RPG's from china, heavy machine guns from old eastern blocs, but then drive to the US to buy semi-auto small arms at 5 times the price. These are the same people who are building and using WWII class submarines at 10's of millions of dollars.

The NRA defends the "right" to buy hundreds of high powered rifles and fights any law that would permit anyone knowing how many they bought. The NRA uses the fear factor the government wants to take their guns when no matter who's elected those owning a few guns for hunting or personal protection would never have to worry. Who but a nut job needs assault weapons and hundred round magazines?

The genie is truely out of the bottle on the guns in America issue.

Handguns can be good for self protection if you are so inclined, but an assault weapon may be fun to shoot, but it is not a defencive weapon. The founders could never have envisioned an automatic pistol let alone an assault weapon. If they had known the death toll the second ammenment would rack up, they would have rephrased it, emphasising the militia (army reserves) connetion to arms ownership.

DrDrGimmeTheNews, Clicked on and read your link showing gun crimes in England have dropped. Then saw this link and learned there are problems with the reporting. It seems not all crimes involving guns are reported. And what's even more interesting is that knife crimes continue to grow in England. As of the date of this article they were due to top 38,000 for the year, up from 22,000 the year before.

And where do those criminals get their firearms? A lot of them were stolen from reckless and irresponsible gun owners, of which there are far too many.

I know a guy who keeps a .357 Magnum in the glove compartment of his pickup. I asked him why and he said it was for "protection." "Protection from what," I asked. "Protection from criminals with guns"....like the guys that had stolen his two previous .357's out of the glove box of his unlocked pickup.

There is no cure for stupid and there is no requirement for an I.Q. test to buy a gun but clearly there should be. He is far from the only idiot that bought a gun legally and essentially gave it to a criminal.

Anonymous gun buy-backs with incentives should be a regular, frequent and recurring event everywhere throughout the country. They have been proven to be successful.

If you want to protect your family, I doubt an AK-47 would accomplish much more than a smaller gun unless you are fighting an army, in which case you and your family would most likely die anyway.

I'm all for gun-owners using their AK-47s in shooting ranges though. They should be kept locked there.

Hoodie, I can see your point but challenge you to design such a test that is fair, impartial, and -- most importantly -- actually works. The problem is that you are mistaking intelligence for discipline. It's not a matter of being smart or stupid; you have to have self-control. I know some very intelligent people with no self-control who I would be extremely skeptical of as gun-owners. Any test for "IQ" would fail to prevent them from buying guns. But how do you test for self-control? Leave them in the room with a freshly-baked cookie for two hours?

To your specific example: is that guy stupid because he puts his gun in his glove compartment, or because he doesn't lock his car? Personally I'd say the latter.

The NRA is all about gunsales.

Hoodie-2290570, there should be IQ tests for voters and drivers as well.. but that's not happening either.

Hoodie,

I agree, the guy should lock his truck.

But the real problem is the CRIMINALS THAT STOLE THE GUNS!

Punish the criminals and not the innocent American people!

Maybe I should go buy a gun before they are banned? They might hold their value better than the U.S. dollar.

I wonder if the New Orleans Katrina gun grab was just a test to see how easy it would be to round up firearms?

The real problem is the massive prolifieration of weapons that have no rational purpose for the public to own.

No one is calling for firearms to be banned...we are asking for sensible management exctly in the same way we manage driver licenses to reduce car accidents and auto related deaths.

culheath, there is no difference between the AK-47 and a hunting rifle other than the outward appearance. The same goes for an AR-15.

An "assault" rifle gets it's designation based on the body design.

Actually Bookem' any rifle which is capable of laying down a superior rate of fire is by definition an "assault rifle".

At one time a Trapdoor Springfield would have fit this parameter as it was superior to a muzzle-loader; jump from that to a 30-40 Krag, etc, etc; the current paradigm would probably be the SOG carbine which is chambered for 7.62 NATO and is preferred for urban warfare.

Just saying.

Who is going to protect your guns?

@culheath, and how's that working? 14 million guns were sold in the US last year. I'd venture to say that there are MANY more guns in the public hands, than there are cars. Look up the death rate attributed to both. Should we ban cars? And, how many of the people are driving without a license or insurance? Both are REQUIRED by law.

bubby - "Actually Bookem' any rifle which is capable of laying down a superior rate of fire is by definition an "assault rifle".

Wrong. All semi-automatic weapons have the same rate of fire - as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger. Full-auto weapons are already restricted to dealers/collectors.

matt EXACTLY personally i do not have a gun i have no problem with yours the president did not say more gun control he said more control of the VIOLENCE!!!!! if any of the people in the theater had a gun they would not have had them it was a gun free zone

I understand every one's point about solid gun laws for ex-cons. The problem comes in when you begin to draw down on the definition of criminal, and mentally unstable. How many unregistered guns are out there, by law abiding citizens simply because they fear the increasing power of our current government. Unregistered is illegal correct? Mandatory prison sentences for gun violations? I am a prison officer 12 years. They want to cut my pay now as it is because the states can't afford to incarcerate. As the economy worsens the crime rate will increase, and guns will be used. Letting out criminals for minor drug issues is short term fix, re-writing the drug laws "short term". As long as the economy is piss poor crimes of desperation will continue. Us venting, the big heads don't care. Our actions are harmless. When you have Homeland security scientist and psychologist commenting on shows like the Colony "Thats a little strange" We are nothing more than lab rats.

Romney should be banned, he assaults our intelligence!

So, why was the .357 in the car and not in his holster? Oh right, he probably had to go into a GunFree/Criminal Opportunity zone.

"...if your fighting an army you and your family will probably die anyway..." Right, but the idea is that you take 5-7 of the enemy with you and with a million gun owners, that means enemy troop cost is 5-7 million, roughly, get it.

Starsailing - spit that out, the president needs to take a pi$$.

DawgBroke

@culheath, and how's that working? 14 million guns were sold in the US last year. I'd venture to say that there are MANY more guns in the public hands, than there are cars. Look up the death rate attributed to both. Should we ban cars? And, how many of the people are driving without a license or insurance? Both are REQUIRED by law.

Right now in most places in the US an assault rifle can be purchased with no questions asked. Some states have restrictions. There should be a national registry and people should have show training credentials before they are "licensed to own the weapon.

Yeah yeah I know the gun owners will pounce with constitutional issues and freedom rhetoric. I don't care. Because we are being falsely divided by this gun rights issue.

The real problem is not firearms anyway. The real problem is the habitual attitudes we get from living in a violent culture that produces the violent psychos we have to deal with after the fact.

The lone wolf psycho is as unstoppable as the well planned terrorist, they come out of the blue with no previous indications that anything was wrong. You can't stop that, it's randomness.

It's the habitual violence of the culture we have to change. If you want personal responsibility ... here's your chance to take some. Join in stopping the violent nature of the culture...get serious about your use of firearms and the way you can mange the regulations around them to make the country safer...whatever you can do.

Hoodie-2209570

Before we get an I.Q. test to buy a gun we need on to be able to vote!

starsailing

I agree someone with a high I.Q. like Romney probably does assault the intelligence of those at an I.Q. of 75 which includes most of those that support Obama.

Don and Shaking....Personal remarks against people blogging get you banned on the blog.

Good ol Romney against assault weapons one day, the next another flip flop. Never ending flip flop. The job is for President not Pander in chief.

As repubs said after he was chosen as the pitiful last, "Everyone should like Romney, he has been on every side of the issue one time or another!"

I just asked Bin Laden what he thought of Romney and his flip flopping on assault weapons, He answered, "Gurgle gurgle, blub blub."

Starsailing....the only comments getting collapsed are staggeringly from the Left....Why is that??? Could it be that your comments are really meant as a form of 'cheerleading' for the current president, instead of addressing the issue? Seems that way...

I am laughing that Obama wants the AK-47 in the hands of soldiers. That is the weapon of choice of our enemy ?? We use AR-15's. Pretty soon people that work will be getting off and you will see the comments change from working Americans.

I just bought a new Bow it shoots over 320 feet per second. The spinning muzzy razor head tips is designed to put a hole in my quarry the size of a half dollar. The kinetic energy is crazy, It will run right thru a large animal like an Elk. That will fill my freezer for a year. I could have bought 2 assault weapons for the cost of this bow.

Go figure that out.

burning

AKs were designed for soldiers, what's funny about that? The AK is the generic assault weapon, there are more of them than all other assault weapons combined. The AK is synonymous with assault weapon. How many AKs are in the States? More than AR-15s and M-16s.

Good choice on the bow.

Given the reports on his apartment. It would not be hard to extrapolate, that minus firearm availability, he would have used explosives.

Yup, he more than likely would have used a bomb, with more carnage probably done than what he did with a gun. My problem with Obama's speech was when he said we should check peoples criminal background before they check out of the gun store. Oh, hello Barack, I know you're from Chicago, where you guys buy your guns out of car trunks in parking lots, but gun shops do run a federal background check. This dude is clueless.

Firearms are more than 3 times more likely to kill you than knives. Take the UK as an example. Our violent crime rate is almost the same as that of the United States, but the murder rate is five times lower.

Obviously gun control laws won't stop someone that is determined to kill you, but they certainly do help to prevent deaths on common robberies and gang violence, and make it more difficult for the average nutjob to get his hands on assault weapons.

Coon And Friends is comparing the UK crime and death rate to the US. Do not forget that you have to take in the fact population of the US is greater than that of the UK and most other countries. The" United States", not one state. UK and other countries are not united. Don't quote me on this Coon, if a UK citizen defends himself with a knife, in his own home, he or she goes to jail instead of the criminal?

Ok Coon... What about Switzerland? Care to tell us about the nuts with "assault weapons" there? Give it a go.

Violence in a society is a social problem. Stop trying to make it into something that it's not.

Last time I checked there were more murders/shootings committed with "illegal" guns than "legal" guns. Criminals do not typically follow the law. So, more gun laws will do very little to prevent criminals from shooting people. In the first 4 monthes of 2012 Detroit has had 92 homicides. How many of those were commited by legal gun owners? 0

I've been looking at some stats regarding firearms used in violent crime, specifically murder, in the wake of all the rhetoric. Knives are actually used to commit murder with a much greater frequency than are rifles (including those scary black ones with drum magazines). For example in 2010 149 per 1000 murder victims were killed with a knife compared to 27.5 with a rifle.

Source: Uniform Crime Reports, Expanded Homicide Data: Murder victims by Weapon 2006-2010

Herb: A "rate" statistic takes into account the size of the population. They divide the total number of events (ex:deaths) by the total size of the population, so the statistic is directly comparable between populations of different sizes.

Politically speaking...Obama wants to get rid of guns to control America...of course he's going to let the criminals keep their guns, they are what keep him in his power. Chicago has very strict gun laws...and looky see....they have they highest crime in the country (gun deaths from criminals). Folks, if guns are taken away from responsible people, you will see anarchy. Count on it. For crying out loud, go check the countries that have gun control...look at the loss of their freedoms. I believe most of the media is bringing this to the forefront in support of Obama...and any more loss of lives is on their head...and I blame them for any deaths because they plant the seeds of chaos.

Obama wants to get rid of guns???

Give me ONE piece of evidence that even hints at that.

You're just making up your own version of Obama.

Cindy...Obama wants to take away guns from America......?....Really?....same old NRA Fox, Rush rants to get you to buy more guns and accessories for their profit $$$$$$$$...Give your source for your rant..........We want to laugh more!

Curious....would you advocate that full-auto AR-15 weapons be readily available for purchase ?

It seems that any real talk about any real solutions is next to impossible.

I am pro gun but am becoming increasinly worried that a lack of responsible gun ownership laws may be the very thing that brings on a ban.

This most recent nut bag in Aurora had no mental illness record or criminal record yet he still went on a rampage.

How do we prevent this type of thing from happening again and again?

Like my elderly father says to me again and again regarding the current state of affairs in America...." I have no answers "....much like our leaders, apparently.

Obama hints: UN Small Arms Treaty is meeting now. The position of Obama and Clinton (support of this ban would effect American citizens) and can be considered a bit of a clue. As well, Obama and Holder have stood against the rights of some Americans to either have guns and/or levied substantial taxes on those who wish to purchase guns or ammo. Information does indicate that Obama may say he has no problem with the second amendment, and yet his past actions speak otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z745MfGynYY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zP7_koRXQ&feature=player_detailpage

Twice as many people were killed by guns in the rest of America that day than in Aurora. Where's the reporting on all those others. Houston, we have a problem.

Herb

Rate, takes into account the different population numbers.