boner flinched his mouth... creepy...

he's not for real...

I

How magnanimous of you Boehner!

After all,.....it's not like Joe is holding a gun to your head.

But unless you pass some version of Biden's gun control reforms,...he could be.

Maybe NBC/MSNBC should send their reporters to abortion clinics and report on the millions of children being butchered in this country. They are sad about 20 and don't care about millions.

What crime is being committed?

When is the Time Man of the Year going to have an answer himself? The buck stops?

How about Opey as the President. all kinds of questions but no answers!

No, the sheriff was liked by all. He was smart enough to get Benghazi buried untill after the election. And smart enough to put someone else in charge of gun legislation due to his inexperience, and coming from the city of Chicago with the most gun murders!

Feisty, It's a shame CNN has not followed the community's request.

“He's appointed Vice President Biden to lead a commission, and when the Vice President's recommendations come forward, we'll certainly take them into consideration.”

===============

Well how overly generous of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to say he won't close the door reviewing recommendations from a Commission created by the President of the United States. Who the hell are these people anymore?

...and at some point it would be nice if that 'A' Rating given by the NRA meant as much as the 'F' rating, the vast majority of the rest of Country is giving you.

For goodness sake...these people are ridiculous!

I doubt they will agree on anything

feisty -

"On a side note, KUDOS for NBC/MSNBC for pulling their press corps out of Newton at the request of the community!"

It actually took the community to ask them to do this, and you are giving them kudos? Uh-mazing...

One thing I will say is that at least, for the moment, Boehner expressed a willingness to "consider" sensible gun restrictions, or as Lawrence O'Donnell put it, "massacre prevention laws" which seems a much better description for banning military-style assault weapons. I will, however, wait to see if "consider" is to get the press off his back or just another conservative word for "maybe when pigs fly or hell freezes over", whichever comes first.

Feisty - and Paul Ryan is Gomer Pyle! We have the cast of characters almost all wrapped up!

You forgot Mitch Mcconnel as Ernest T Bass

I can see votes for gun control in exchange for tax breaks for the wealthy.

Jody - and a number of pro-gun Democrats are now willing to look at assault weapon bans. The NRA news conference tomorrow will be interesting.

@ Jody,

You mean "consider" like they "considered" compromise or raising the debt ceiling? Yeah, I don't think they will budge any time soon. Our government can't get anything done despite the clear frustration from the people of our country. Anything short of a threat to their cozy jobs is no motivation. And even then, denial warps what they believe qualifies as that threat. Our politicians are now gutless, selfish, political shadow puppets for their particular parties with no sense of reality or what anyone but their party actually wants.

Although I remain hopeful I am wrong, the pattern of the recent past says otherwise.

Not commiting to anything at this point is smart. It is still early in the process. Biden and his group have yet to even meet. No one knows what will come of this. Also, no one knows what ridiculous un-related items Dems will try to add to any legislation - just like they did with the bill for emergency aid for Sandy victims....WHY is there money in this EMERGENCY bill to work on the roof of the Smithsonian (roof issues unrelated to Sandy) --- or money for our base in Cuba???? Congress should not be permitted to add any unrelated items to any gun control legislation they attempt to pass!

Fiesty,

Because he closely resembles "Otis the Drunk" from the old Andy Griffith Show...

I am afraid that most people here no not of which you speak. I however found that hilarious.

You are very aware that I tend to be conservative, but I have to say this. Have we finally become a nation of two governments. Obama, the elected President speaks and the Speaker of the House answers with "We'll think about it." Really?? Two party system, but one fricken government. I don't always agree with "We the people", but that is how it is supposed to work. The are losing me fast!!!!

Hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas, Happy Hoiliday or whatever you wish for. Have a Happy New Year too! I am headed to Houston to do some team roping with a life long friend. Might even have a margarita or three!!!

P.S. All for banning assault rifles. Don't own any. Keeping my other guns though. Locked up!

azdr#'s, obviously, you miss the points which is NBC/MSNBC respected the wishes of the families in Newtown and they deserve recognition for that. How much respect did McCain, Graham and Ayotte give to the families of Christopher Stevens and the others when they asked that the deaths of their loved ones not be used for a political witch hunt in search of a scandal. And no, there is no comparison to the discussion about sensible gun laws to reduce the number of massacres in this country to the slanderous accusations of McCain, Graham and Ayotte. We're still waiting for their comments on Sandy Hook Elementary as well as their apology to Ms. Susan Rice.

Seriously folks, let's put forth some suggestions and possible solutions we all can live with. First, I don't understand why kids are toting guns to schools for the past 4 days. Where I live, which I thought was family friendly, 4 kids have brought guns to school this week, 2 of them in elementary school, for protection. That leads into my next question is who are these parents that have guns available to these children? Last Friday night was the time for ALL GUN OWNERS to get up and examine their "collection" to make sure they were unloaded, locked up and have a sit down conversation with ANY member of the household about gun safety.

It is now time to make parents pay for any child found carrying a weapon that the parent purchased. A $10,000 fine should wake you up with money going to a National Victim Fund. You would also relinquish your weapon and would not be able to purchase another for a given period of time.

Next, semi automatic weapons have no business in a civilian's possession. Hunters use rifles and bows not assault weapons so I think they would be agreeable. Time for a ban on semi-automatic weapons. The Second Amendment was drafted at a different time under different conditions so let's stop playing "I have my right to bear arms" games at the expense of innocent people. We have anti-bullying laws that trump the First Amendment so now we need to tweak the Second.

Next, there should be no guns in school except for authorized personnel and that should not be any educator or administrative person. School Boards can hire off duty police officers or security officers. I believe most secondary schools already have officers so we are merely adding elementary schools to the budget. Those $10,000 fines will surely offset the expense because there will be parents and gun owners who will still be careless.

Lastly, ammunition will be registered and signed for just like sudafed in a drugstore. There will be a one time purchase limit per month unless exception made in advance. For all of you folks saying that won't work; that it will cause a black market, you are right but we have to try otherwise we will be Gotham City in no time.

Anyone else want to offer up solutions? Our leaders need help with this one and we are "We The People".

So our president sold illegally, firearms to murderous criminals under the guise of operation "Fast and Furious", for the purpose of demonizing guns. People were murdered using these firearms, but no one would have been harmed had the guns been sold legally. Now after another school shooting that was probably the result of SSRI medication our President want's to take away the right for our citizens to own guns legally. I really hope this nations citizens aren't stupid enough to allow this to continue.

From the article above:

"The president is absolutely committed to keeping his promise that we will act and we will act in a way that is designed -- even if as he says we can only save one life -- we have to take action," Biden said at a meeting Thursday with cabinet and law enforcement officials.

If Republicans can't agree with Democrats on the utmost need to do whatever is necessary to save children's lives, then 2014 will be a landslide for Democrats and the New America.

Simply put, Semi-automatic weapons need to be made illegal for ordinary Americans to possess.

Period.

I'm sure there will be plenty of muskets and single shot pistols left that you can buy at Wal-mart.

This way, everyone's rights will be upheld.

Salud

Judy Judy Judy Judy Judy

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

GOP message to all of you: Merry Cliff-mess. (a Fiscal Cliff-Mess)

jw101 - you're lying. We've asked you to cite a source and you can't. You're - as usual making things up.

LymyrdSky - you would have to go back to Bush/Cheney if you want to talk about the sale of guns to murderous criminals. Clearly you would prosecute them first since they started it.

TXHorseman. I'm not Feisty but also remember Otis well; he was a lovable drunk who usually checked himself into jail to sleep it off. I used to be a republican so understand your frustration--they lost me years ago. Enjoy your trip and Merry Christmas!

LynyrdSky, no, our President did not do what you claim--try reading the independent report that found that neither the WH or Eric Holder had anything to do with Fast & Furious. BTW, those kinds of deals began under President Bush's watch and his DOJ.

I hope they pass legislation to close the gun show loophole, require mandatory background checks and figure out a way to block the mentally ill from obtaining weapons.

Aside from that, I'm against banning specific weapons because of how they look. That's all this is really about, after all. Civilian AR-15's:

• Aren't automatics and function no differently than any other semi-automatic firearm-- be it handgun or rifle. Their rate of fire isn't any faster either.
• Magazine capacity has nothing to do with it either. 10 round mags can be swapped in less than 2 seconds.

Banning specific firearms is a witch hunt and will have zero impact if passed-- just like in the past. True assault rifles (that have the ability to fire full-automatic) have been banned for public sale since 1986. You can obtain a class 3 license, pay about $10,000 for the rifle and hope that the required ATF permits will clear for transfer of the weapon.... Sorry, I'm just calling a spade a spade.

The new America?????? WTF??? There was nothing wrong with the old one until clowns like you voted.

Hello folks, Problem – Reaction – Solution. As Rahm Emanuel has said “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

Problem – Children and teachers murdered at school by a person on legal pathogenic Big Pharma drugs with a gun.

Reaction – Community and citizenry are horrified and fearful. They are “reminded” by their government “why they are needed” and beg government to intervene.

Solution – Government creates taskforce to provide pre-emptive recommendations.

1. Repeal or alter citizen’s second amendment rights.
2. Remove guns from its citizenry.
3. Implement and install metal detectors at all schools.
4. Implement and install surveillance cameras in all schools and class rooms.
5. Require children to have a RFID tracking chip installed.

If you think this is farfetched how do you think our government has been getting away with taking our country to a different war every year and allowing the banksters to fleece us. What was once considered conspiracy is now reality, there are no coincidences! Wake up people!

LynyrdSky

The new America?????? WTF??? There was nothing wrong with the old one until clowns like you voted.

Oh, Lenny. The world is changing. So is America.

There's three women on the Supreme Court now. Soon, it will be five.

According the the 2010 Census, by 2030, there will be more Latinos and Hispanic Americans than White Americans.

Gays and Lesbians are able to marry in several states, and several more states to come.

A younger generation is moving up with more progressive ideas for the nation.

The Train towards the 21st Century has left the station, Lynyrd, and folks like yourself are still on the train platform wondering WTF?

Salud

Obama’s government stockpiling millions of rounds of ammo to arm the DHS and TSA

You can see the original federal purchase document requesting all this ammunition at:
http://www.naturalnews.com/files/DHS_ammo_buy.pdf

The numbers in the document, by the way, are in thousands.

In it, you’ll discover that the U.S. government has also purchased all the following ammunition in addition to the 450 million rounds of .40 hollow point “anti-personnel” ammo:

• Over one million rounds of hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
• Over half a million rounds of non-hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
• 220,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #7 ammo (target ammo)
• Over 200,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #00 buckshot ammo (tactical anti-personnel ammo)
• 66,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun slugs (tactical anti-personnel, anti-vehicle rounds)
• Over two million rounds of hollow-point .357 Sig JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
• Over four million rounds of .40 S&W JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
• Over 60,000 rounds of .308 match grade anti-personnel sniper rounds (BTHP)
• Plus, hundreds of thousands of additional rounds of .38 special, .45 auto, 9mm, 7.62×39 (AK rifle) ammo, and others.

Still want to disarm the American people?

“We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

Ronald Reagan

Yeah Thomas we are still on the platform because we know where that train will end up. Some of us are smart enough and have seen this type of thing before and where it leads. Trust those who are older and wiser, they are the ones who made what you have ever had. If you feel froggy bring it on.

I would'nt believe a word that Obama told me either.I take that back,if he said he was going to spend more money and put this nation on welfare i would believe him.OK all you right wingers,LOOK..I disagreed with you..ATTACK and when you do just keep in mind that it makes you no better than any other GOP you claim to hate so much.

If I take the president at his word, he wants legislation that will actually help prevent another Sandy Hook.

Legislation that bans the future sale of high capacity magazines and assault style weapons will not do that. That falls into the "we need to look like we're doing something even though we all know it wont really help" category. I am not against the ban, just against deluding myself or anyone else that it will help. Banning future sales after countless millions have already been sold is just a gesture.

Now, if you want to ban ownership of these things, then the government would have to seize them. Which they probably could do, but not without paying market value for them. Lots and lots of dough.

People bluster about revolution. But most will comply. I would. Easy for me to say since I don't own an assalt rifle, but I have a few guns. Mind you it would be politically costly - to both sides. Siezing American's property has a way of getting them involved.

Of course, another answer is to spend the money hardening America's schools. Metal detectors, etc... Also lots of dough, but it has the advantage of screening lots of other types or weapons too. It also avoids the property rights issue, and creates a few jobs in the process.

How to pay for either? There in lies the problem.

We can not tax our way out of everything. Eventually we have to set our priorities. If protecting our children is not at the top of the list, then you may want to join a different species.

Right.

I'm sure the republicans on the hill will be so excited to consider gun control legislation that they'll all get a boehner.

They need to do their job and come to an agreement on the fiscal cliff problem. This gun garbage is a cover to get them out of doing their job. Gun control would not have stopped the attack. We need the budget decisions first and foremost then they can worry about making up more laws that do not work.

They need to do their job and come to an agreement on the fiscal cliff problem. This gun garbage is a cover to get them out of doing their job. Gun control would not have stopped the attack. We need the budget decisions first and foremost then they can worry about making up more laws that do not work.

Classic Michael Moore tweet:

If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.

Thomas,

You know what they say. Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill. If you haven't learned to respect your elders, you better learn to respect your betters.

All things I heard growing up when I thought I was faster and smarter than the old guys. Experience comes from making mistakes and yes we have made many. You don't have to agree, but you should listen. I have changed my opinions on things about every decade before kids and about every 5 years since.

Have a good holiday. Stop and listen every now and then!

more hate and vitriol from the compassionate left. you folks are simply amazing and very entertaining.

thanks for all the laughs you enable with such silly words.

That's all they've got, billybob, that's all they've got. If you ever see one of them offering an original idea on this site, please let me know... because it will be a first. But I've been visiting here for a couple of years, and from the regulars it's either parroting the DNC talking points, or more often just inane juvenile name calling like the very clever Feisty's "Otis" crap.

Michael Moore.. Pffft.....someone was going to teach him the difference between apples and oranges, but alas, he kept eating them.

The actual comment here is that the Sleeper of the House is a phenominal dissapointment. A treasonous coward who either doesn't have the communication skills to articulate a cogent, opposing response - or he's simply going through the motions to render the 'illusion' that he has any authority at all, and that his marching orders do not come from a higher source.

Either way Boner - Epic Fail

unconventional-6647560

Unfortunately few possess such logic in the emotional debate over assault weapons bans. They even ignore the fact that prior bans had no effect on gun crime. They ignore the fact that many weapons not called "assault" weapons are capable of inflicting comparable levels of damage, and in doing so highlight the illogical nature of their argument. It is as you say, nothing more than giving the appearance of doing something.

If those who see gun control as a means to prevent future violence want to actually make a difference, then they should be calling for the ban and confiscation of all guns. Anything less contradicts itself and is just for show. Then we can talk about how they actually plan on carrying out such a ban.

Boehner says He'll consider some form of gun control? He's likely lying. He might come up with some owners tax, or the like, on all those who own BB guns. Probably ask manufacturers of water pistols to refashion their dangerous appearance. Make 'em look more like a tube and plunger. Boehner is about as sorry as a lone brittle shuck in an empty cob bucket.

While your looking at supposed gun problems, how about getting the fiscal mess in order. We spend billions of dollars helping all these other countries, some of which don't enen like us, how about allocating some funding for school security? How about armed security guards for schools, just like we do for government buildings? It is a sad thing that might need to be done, but think I would rather have my child come home and say" Dad or Mom, someone tried to kill some of us at school, but the security guard killed him first." Think about it, gun control over the budget, think the budget is way more important and would have a positive ending. And it is something that will work. Get the economy straightened out, get people back to work so they can have a realistic financial like and many of these problems will go away. Oh and don't forget to put a rider on the bill for guards at school and how about a little security training for school officials and if they're not up to the task, replace them with someone that truly cares about protecting our children. Don't pass another feel good law that won't accomplish anything.

P.S. All for banning assault rifles. Don't own any. Keeping my other guns though. Locked up!

Hi Tex!

I knew there had to be something we agreed upon! ☺

Wishing you & yours a Very Merry Christmas to you & yours, if I don't see you before!

I'm not going to ask if you were naughty or nice... lol

Boehner says the House "could" consider Biden's proposal because Der Fuhrer Nordquist hasn't made them sign a "no new gun laws pledge". But the NRA will.

And the gun supporters have so many reasons why not, but ASOLUTELY no ideas on improving the situation (beside suggesting everyone carry a gun). They like the status quo that is only getting worse as gun sales shoot (no pun intended) through the roof. It's the Wild West all over again. I guess that's just how conservative they are....they liked the way things were 150 years ago.

"even if as he says we can only save one life -- we have to take action" - agreed. Looking at the situation and considering all options, gun control is the worst choice. Why? According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, people use their guns 3.5 times as often to stop crimes as criminals do to commit them (more than 2.1 million times a year). This is a very emotional time, and rightly so. Let's mourn our dead, support those who remain and find a true solution.

Because he closely resembles "Otis the Drunk" from the old Andy Griffith Show...

Come to think of it, Eric Cantor reminds me of "Goober"!

LOL" But then who is Ernest T. Bass,

maybe Pelosi,

Work on passing a budget and don't worry about this right now!

TXHorseman

Thomas,

You know what they say. Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill. If you haven't learned to respect your elders, you better learn to respect your betters.

Thank you, Tex.

I'm glad you think I'm young.

Salud

Notice he said they "could" consider the gun panels proposals- no promises, just trying to act like nice guys until a proposal actually does hit their desk... then falls into file #13

as gun sales shoot (no pun intended) through the roof

And why do you think that is? Even before any bans have been proposed, they have failed. Nobody has done more to increase the number of firearms in our society than our man Obama. I worked at a firearms manufacturer in 2008, and Obama's comments during the campaign almost bankrupted our company trying to keep up with demand. The same thing is happening again.

1Truth - but you're NOT speaking the truth.

Lusitania -McConnell? He'd be the Perfect Earnest T. Bass!

We should be using any resources available to target early detection and treatment of mental illness. This is just a phony attempt to bait the left and appear open for ideas. The GOP will use any gun issues as cannon fodder in the future. The GOP is baiting.

pro -- at least boehner says the house will consider; reid shuts everything down without a vote. one has to wonder whom or of what harry is so afraid? except for his occasional announcement that the senate won't do its job we don't hear or see much of him. is he in barry's doghouse for some reason?

TomasGrande

"Simply put, Semi-automatic weapons need to be made illegal for ordinary Americans to possess."

And just who decides who "ordinary Americans" are? No thanx mien fuehrer!

Simply put, semi-auto weapons have been around for decades and will stay around.

You cannot disarm the American public or curtail them to less powerful weapons than the government has (other than the military).

This goes against the constitution.

These tragedies begin at home and have little to do with the weapons themselves.

Mickey, MOORE? ask some of the survivors of Columbine that did his bowling movie what they think of Moore.

We can not tax our way out of everything.

How the heck do you solve the problem when we spend $10.5 bill per day, but only take in $5 bill? Not even raising taxes 100% on everyone would break even. We need to seriously cut spending, seems they don't want to do that.

Amen spider. I'm an independent and I see it too. They throw insults and jokes and then when you try to carry on a logical conversation for a solution, they either throw another insult or claim you are too obtuse to carry on a conversation with. I'm starting to lean to the right more and more because of the ignorance I see as a result of them using this and other media so poorly. (or well since it instills class warfare, ignorance, want, and hatred)

spider-737231

That's all they've got, billybob, that's all they've got. If you ever see one of them offering an original idea on this site, please let me know... because it will be a first. But I've been visiting here for a couple of years, and from the regulars it's either parroting the DNC talking points, or more often just inane juvenile name calling like the very clever Feisty's "Otis" crap.

If the guns are the problems why aren't there more mass shootings at a gun range??

Most of you don't know the difference between and assualt rifle and sling-shot! Just what you hear or see on tv.

As for these being military style weapons. Name me one weapon that hasn't been used by the military "military weapons"....from rocks to bows to black powder to bolt actions to automatic weapons.

By the way txhorseman, just cause you don't own one is the only reason you agree. What if it's all semi-autos, or anything other than single shot?

Seems like the last two deranged mass murder suicides came from wealthy, Hmm"

Da Noid

What crime is being committed?

Just because abortion is deemed legal by the law doesn't make it morally right. I know there will be those that throw out exceptions.

Just saying

Great post Viewer_Ready.

Freedom is not free deuch bag. Freedom have been costing lives for hundreds of years here and we are all proud of our battles. I say freedom to enjoy the second amendment is worth a few lives. If not than why have we been involved in so many wars? Was it not for freedom and a constitution? Biden says, if we can save one life than legislation will be worth it. What a Moron.

*simply laughs* Oh now here is yet another thread that focuses on gun control. No mention of the task force or special appropriations to the mental instability that the killer obviously had. Do they NOT go hand in hand with this horrendous atrocity?

There would not have been such a hideous act without the other.

p.s.

It is appalling that the community even HAD to say something for any press to leave.

Have a nice day!

*smiles*

[Mickey, MOORE?]

Caesar, you stopped reading after "tweet"...

Look past the author. There is a message in there somewhere...look harder.

Gonna try something?

Give Chicago a try and let us know it works out.

obama should everything needed about Chicago.

lynyrd, trustverify, et al, you guys are seriously paranoid. Seek help.

LiberalsAreTheWorst

“We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

Ronald Reagan

“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”

ALSO Reagan

drpaul: Just because abortion is deemed legal by the law doesn't make it morally right.

I'll choose the law over your morals, thank you.

Practice your morals and religion however you like, but keep them to yourself. You do not judge me.

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

AGAIN Reagan

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”

Reagan as well

Fiesty,

I'm not going to ask if you were naughty or nice... lol

Maybe not, BUT you really do want to know........!!!!!! ; )

No Mickey it was a boneheaded comment. No one is saying owning guns is an end all to preventing violence, much like banning assualt rifles will end it. Think of the crap bag criminials in say LA that have AK - 47's, you think they own those legally? how about the MAC-10 which requires a Fed stamp and a class 3 dealer to sell? There are regulations and unfortunately and I mean sincerely unforunately there is not a simple way to address the mental health with purchasing weapons. patient doctor confidentiallity crap.

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

iowaretiree

Maybe NBC/MSNBC should send their reporters to abortion clinics and report on the millions of children being butchered in this country. They are sad about 20 and don't care about millions.

Millions? Millions? Where are you getting that from, your pea brain? I am opposed to abortion too but I am smart enough to know that there aren't millions of abortions taking place every year. What few there are are being done in well lit, clean environments by medically trained people and not in dark alleys or filthy rooms in some dingy tenament flat by some guy for a few bucks, or in a dark alley with a coat hanger which is what happens when it is illegal.

We had a president that boasted the he was "the decider". People gave him advice all the time. Cheney pulled the strings and threw his voice so "the decider" would pronounce his decisions. When it comes to advisors even Lincoln, Washington, FDR and TR had advisors. They all got the input from others before deciding. The president is not a dictator but one who merely presides over the nation. He executes laws and offers suggestions to Congress. Congress needs to do its job. Under Boehner the House has done less than any in decades.

The numbers in the document, by the way, are in thousands.

In it, you'll discover that the U.S. government has also purchased all the following ammunition in addition to the 450 million rounds of .40 hollow point "anti-personnel" ammo:

• Over one million rounds of hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
• Over half a million rounds of non-hollow-point .223 rifle ammo
• 220,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #7 ammo (target ammo)
• Over 200,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun #00 buckshot ammo (tactical anti-personnel ammo)
• 66,000 rounds of 12 gauge shotgun slugs (tactical anti-personnel, anti-vehicle rounds)
• Over two million rounds of hollow-point .357 Sig JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
• Over four million rounds of .40 S&W JPH (hollow-point) pistol ammo (anti-personnel)
• Over 60,000 rounds of .308 match grade anti-personnel sniper rounds (BTHP)
• Plus, hundreds of thousands of additional rounds of .38 special, .45 auto, 9mm, 7.62×39 (AK rifle) ammo, and others.

Still want to disarm the American people?

And the US military is supposed to fight our enemies with fists or swords?

The issue is not the 2nd Amendment although some folks want to think it is. No one is going to take away your hunting rifle, shot gun and hand gun. They are useful in defending yourself from intruders, would be terrorists, and bad guys in general as well as for sport and hunting. You DO NOT need assault rifles for hunting, target practice nor to defend yourself. We have a military and a police force (although smaller due to budget cuts) to protect us. For the most part they are doing a fine job. In a free society we cannot and will not control every movement of everyone in the county so incident will happen. We can lessen the impact of those incidents through common sense gun control. Banning the possession of assault weapons and clips of more than 10 rounds will help. I see some poor souls, scared of their own shadows, cowering with an arsenal of guns and ammo clinging to their bibles and wrapped in a flag. How pathetic they are.

Like anything else what is best is moderation, or a balanced approach to the problem. While we should never take away all fire arms so should we not allow anyone to have whatever they please no matter how deadly it is. Like with budget cliff talks we should offer up a balanced approach, the President has done so, where we have both spending cuts AND revenue increases not all cuts and no revenue or all revenue and no cuts.

17th Century philosopher Voltaire said, "Common sense is uncommon". It was true then and it is obviously still true.

G. Bud

We should be using any resources available to target early detection and treatment of mental illness. This is just a phony attempt to bait the left and appear open for ideas. The GOP will use any gun issues as cannon fodder in the future. The GOP is baiting.

Spot on Bud.

[No one is saying owning guns is an end all to preventing violence...]

Yet in the same post you quote Heinlein:

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

I'd say that's pretty damn close...

Heinlein was a writer of fiction, science fiction, and children's books, am I right? He was also an individualist, which is no surprise that you quoted him. While it sounds all noble and all, it does nothing to remedy the situation. There is no "magic bullet" here, but you have to start somewhere, and at least the dialogue has begun. It's a long time coming, if you ask me.

"Arming society" isn't the answer...it's just not. Another news story out of Florida has one man shooting another man after arguing in line at, of all places, a Little Ceasars pizza place, last Sunday. The shooter cited Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but was promptly arrested.

It's more than a little myopic to think that because we'll never eradicate ALL gun violence, we shouldn't try and diminish it as much as possible.

I hear all the time in these forums that nobody wants to take gun owners guns. But I've seen several people over the last several days that want to do exactly that. Not to mention the people that make ridiculous comments about "ban all semi-automatic weapons". You do realize that even the old six shooters from the Wild West are technically "semi-automatic" if they are double action. 1 pull of the trigger fires 1 bullet. You want to ban those too?

Also, you do realize that most of the "assault weapons" that you complain about are just sporting rifles that have had plastic parts added to them to make them look more military?

For those of you that say "nobody needs a semi-auto weapon or a large capacity magazine" how about we expand that a little bit. Nobody needs a military grade vehicle (the Hummer comes to mind). Nobody needs to drink alcoholic beverages. Nobody needs to smoke. Nobody needs to eat meat. These and many others are all wants not needs. When do we start limiting those? By a lot of the posters on this board, that is the rational for gun control ban.

seekingsanity......

30k gun deaths a year, more than half are suicides, so those aren't murders

over 50k Americans killed by illegals THAT WE KNOW OF, since 9/11. No agency keeps track of how many murders are caused by illegals cause the politicians don't want backlash against their cheap labor. Of course, these are just the illegals that got caught. We can't forget all the child molestation and rapes they are also involved in. Remember Jimmy Ryce?

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/11/06/today-is-national-remembrance-day-for-americans-killed-by-illegal-aliens/

Also keep in mind that many of those "gun murders" were CAUSED by the illegals.

Dump the illegals and keep the guns.

In a perfect world Tyranical Dictators, Child Molesters, Rapists, Mass Murderers, and the sick and twisted criminal element in every society would not exist, but utopia is just a dream and human nature is the reality. It is disgusting that so many scream out to eliminate the tool and not the perpetrator. Excessive gun control is naive at best and grossly stupid is more likely the correct descriptive term.

Thousands of years of the history of man have shown that murder happens no matter the weapon. Mass murder has happened without overt violence. The Jonestown massacre was mass murder. The Waco Texas debacle was legal mass murder. What do you people think is going to happen? Do you think that when they ban the guns that everything is going to just magically be all good? If you do, then you are unbelievably ignorant or naive.

While some form of regulation might provide all of you with the illusion of security, in reality it will do nothing to do so. It is nothing more than a political expedient to garnering more support from those who are gullible enough to suck up to their lies and B.S. Throughout history Governments have always parlayed fear and free stuff into totalitarian control. That is why we have the second amendment. Its intent was to provide us with the means of enforcing our rights against a overgrown and left leaning tyranical government in the making. It was the true and only intent of the forefathers when the 2nd amendment was written. Don't believe me then do a little research for yourself, rather than sitting around and sucking up every little bit of propaganda while daydreaming of the time when utopia finally arrives. We are all humans and unfortunately there are many of our species who want nothing more than to subjugate all of us, simply because they are deluded into thinking that they are the chosen ones to rule.

When the second amendment was written, it was with the intent that every citizen have the right to maintain and bear the same weapons available to the government. That was to keep everything on a level playing field, because a truly benevolent government is one that derives its power from the citizens it governs. WE are the power behind the presidency and congress. They are only granted this power by us. It is not theirs by right. The 2nd amendment is in place to enforce that. It was not written to provide for sportsmen, or hunting, or crime, but rather to provide for our freedom. So why do any of you think it is OK to provide guns for hunting, but not for the strength of our freedom? The tyrannical British government attempted several times to confiscate our guns, because the King realized that they provided us with the means to fight back.

It is an absolute travesty what happened in Sandy Hook Elementary, and I am sickened every time I think about it. I have four children who I am so blessed that have been able to grow without tragedy, but I can't help but feel compelled to insist that had some of those who attempted to stop this mentally ill madman been armed with more than good intentions, that this would have turned out differently. Since 1950, EVERY single public mass murder (considered to be 3 or more victims) except one, has been in a gun free zone.

Did you know that the deranged man who shot up the theatre in Aurora Co. did not choose the theatre closest to his home? Nor did he choose the largest. He chose the ONLY one with signs posted as a weapon free zone. I can't help but wonder if it might have been different.

Just imagine what it will be like when the government turns rogue and we have to try to defend ourselves with nothing but good intentions. If You don't think it can happen anymore, or that it can't happen here, then you had better learn a little bit more about human nature and the history of man, because we are the species we were 200, 1,000 hell 10,000 years ago. Nothing has changed to justifyably give anyone a sense that we have changed in any way. There are still those who would subjugate you in a New York second if you give them half a chance.

The problem is multi-faceted like a diamond, and requires a multi-faceted approach to find a solution, and the first place we need to look at is our society and our aversion to dealing with unpleasant issues like the state of our mental health services. Why are so many of you so resistant to discussing the motivation behind these heinous acts. Why is the cause so repugnant, and why does it make everyone so uncomfortable that we have to exchange a real solution for our rights?

Trust me people, gun control laws will not make you safer or more free. It will only give you the illusion, and the reality will be eventual loss of freedom.

And life without freedom is worth nothing.

So we have armed guards at banks but not schools, therefore we care more for our money than our children’s lives. Are armed guards effective? When was the last mass murder at a bank? Going postal: the term came from an UNARMED group. I noticed that they didn’t call it going bankal!!! And I bet there are plenty of people who would like to go bankal. Therefore being armed is both a deterrent and a safety edge. The term over educated idiots comes to mind when I think of our schools.

NOTE TO POLITICIANS: If you pass a law that makes my new $1500 assault rifle illegal I will make a note of your name and vote for anybody else in November. Also note, there are 300 million guns in the US; that is a lot of votes. The term political suicide comes to mind.

Because our government refuses to protect our children I can’t help but get the feeling that they are using our feelings for our children’s safety to get us to give up our 2^nd amendment rights???

Gun laws are effective?? Look at Canada: In America 80% of the prison population is black, and about the rest are Hispanic. I don’t see blacks and Hispanics in Canada, so I expect that they would have a lower crime rate. Apples and oranges comparison. Look at Mexico: Hispanic population, whole towns getting wiped out by illegal gun toting gangs. Their government threw the population to the wolves with gun control.

Why is our government loading up on ammunition while at the same time trying to pass gun laws??

Why Does The U.S. Government Need So Much Ammunition?

In my previous article, I also noted that the U.S. government appears to be very rapidly making preparations for something really big.

This week, it was revealed that the Social Security Administration plans to buy 174,000 hollow point bullets which will be delivered to 41 different locations all over America.

Now why in the world does the Social Security Administration need 174,000 bullets?

And why do they need hollow point bullets? Those bullets are designed to cause as much damage to internal organs as possible.

But of course this is only the latest in a series of very large purchases of ammunition by U.S. government agencies. The following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson....

Back in March, Homeland Security purchased 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage, prompting questions as to why the DHS needed such a large amount of powerful bullets merely for training purposes.

This was followed by another DHS solicitation asking for a further 750 million rounds of assorted bullets, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls.

Now why in the world would the government need over a billion rounds of ammunition?

If it was the U.S. military I could understand this. You can burn through a whole lot of ammunition fighting wars.

But this makes no sense - unless they believe that big trouble is coming.

George Soros:

Perhaps even more disturbing is what he believes is coming after the financial collapse....

As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”

You go ahead and "consider" Mr Boehner.... we will stand by the 2nd Amendment & our gun rights......... good luck in the next election.... or maybe the re-call petition will catch up with you first......

The Swiss have had laws requiring every able bodied adult male to own and maintain a weapon, and a level of proficiency with that weapon since they fought for their independence from Austria in the year 1208 A.D. As the centuries passed, and weapons technology progressed, the requirement also progressed to keep pace. It went from swords to muskets, to fully automatic military grade firearms. Every single able bodied male is required to serve in the national militia from age 20 until 50. They are trained to use their issued weapon and are required to maintain proficiency with it as well. These weapons are issued so as to be taken home with them. They keep them in their homes! They have no national army, they have nothing but a national militia. They are allowed to have cannons, and tanks, and even planes if they can afford them. One of their national past times is take the family to the local gun range and practice shooting.

Now here's the kicker. After all of that, they have a violent crime rate that is one of the lowest in the world, and their gun crime rate is virtually non existent.Why is that? Could be because their society has healthier understanding of guns, and a healthier society in general?

Again, the issue isn't guns it is the health of our society. Fix that and then we will have fixed the problem.

I suppose it's probably just too hard for any of you self serving whiners to do so though. You would rather trade your freedom for your illusion of safety wouldn't you. I say illusion, because that is all it will ever be. None of us is ever truly safe and to trade your freedom for that unatainable dream is despicable and unforgiveable.

If you think that your children will be safe under the rule of a totalitarian regime, then you are sorely mistaken. And trust me history proves it out again and again.

SeekingSanity

geo - no, President Obama would be the sheriff - you know, the smart one in the bunch!

More Kool Aid???

I have a possible solution that would make people happy on both sides (I think). Make every semi automatic rifle that can accept a magazine a Title II firearm. This way, they're regulated in the same way as machine guns, silencers, and short barrelled rifles/shotguns. The plus side for gun owners is that they can still get anything and everything they want (because there would be no manufacturing ban). The plus side for anti-gunners is that there will be heavy regulation and registration requirements, along with longer background checks (as in, 6 months +, which is what it currently is right now). It would also, by default, cause all transfers and sales to be done through an FFL and the ATF, and there had to be prior notice before moving over state lines, as well as mandatory updates of addresses and a time period in which to report a stolen firearm. The plus side for everyone is that it will add tax revenue for each transfer, and almost certainly destroy the idea of a straw purchase. These aren't new regulations, just the regulations associated with Title II firearms. What do you guys think?

By the way, in full disclosure, I'm a gun owner, and I also own firearms that Dianne Feinstein would call "assault weapons". I would just rather see heavier regulation, and still be able to enjoy the freedom to purchase what I want, rather than "lighter" regulation that takes all future purchases away for the rest of time.

Even with every law that you can imagine, we will still have public mass killings. I guarantee it!

Otis also had a Brother (played by George Savalas) - as we all do, figuratively speaking. I'm glad Speaker Boehner will join gun rights advocates like Joe Manchin (and Scarborough) to get some common sense agreement on paper. I think this event will result in legislation which, even staunch NRA members will understand, has teeth of funding and intent.

A Mathematical Approach to What Causes Gun Murder in America

Mass murder shootings happen 20 times a year in the USA on average...but that is less than 2% of all gun murders. It isn't the big threat in terms of annual gun murders. It is also one of the least preventable causes (because crazy people use cars, knives, rope, fire, fists, bombs, etc., to murder people). So what are the causes of the vast majority of gun murders (which would matter to those interested in actually reducing gun murder)?

Some wish to have gun control and gun bans in the wake of our last few mass shooting tragedies.

At what cost? Childproof society because a SMALL number (per capita) abuse the right? There are 200,000,000 guns in the USA, and 40-60 million people own those guns. Until this last year, which the FBI will have no official stats for until 2 years from now BTW, the crime rates, including violent crime and gun crime, had been falling for 30-50 years (moreso in the last 30). And this year there was only a slight uptick (several years into a recession no less, where people turn to drug "crime" for supplemental income). The population growth and guns in circulation, not to mention legal permits to carry guns, over that 30 years has far outpaced the gun murder growth. So even though the total gun murders probably went up this year, we still have a declining rate overall in the last 3 decades. I'll overestimate and say we had 13,000 gun murders, and do a little math for you.

Let's say the 40-60 million gun owners are 50 million owners...right in the middle (the average estimate).

200 million guns / 50 million = 4 guns per owner on average.

200 million guns / 13,000 gun murders = 15,384.62 guns per murder (that's a lot of guns not killing people)

Percentage chance a gun in the USA will murder = .0065% (or 6.5 in every 1000 guns...that's 993.5 guns in every 1000 guns not murdering people)

50 million gun owners / 13,000 gun murders = 3,846.15 gun owners not murdering for every 1 gun murder (that's a lot of gun owners not murdering anyone)

Percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun = .026% (or 26 in every 1,000...that's 974 gun owners in every 1,000 not murdering anyone)

315,000,000 American people / 13,000 gun murders = 24,230.77 Americans per 1 gun murder victim

Percentage chance you as an American will be murdered by a gun = .0041% (that's 4.1 in every 1,000...or a tiny threat for the mathematically challenged. You have a better chance at dying of the flu - 33,000 flu deaths per year in the USA)

Permits to carry guns and total guns in circulation in the USA has never been higher (which is not the same as ownership rate, which is actually down)...and yet the threat is very, very low. Still think all those other people should give up their rights for a threat less than the flu? Please recall that almost 70% of gun murders are commited by criminals, not law abiding citizens. No gun ban or gun control logically affects them, as they already don't abide laws, and we aren't on an island where getting guns is hard when they are banned (it's easier in say England or Australia, because of geography, to ban guns).

Now let's compare to the Holy Grail of gun control advocates (Canada and England) who value freedom so low as to want "to purchase temporary safety at the expense of liberty", as Ben Franklin put it (he said you will "deserve neither" when you do that, and I'll add "you'll get neither"). BTW, I'd point out Canada didn't outlaw guns at all in reality :

Canada's population 35.5 million / 126 gun murders = 281,746 citizens per gun murder

Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun as a Canadian = .0004% (4 in every 10,000)

Gun owners in Canada is 10.934 million / 126 gun murders = 86,777.78 gun owners per gun murder

Percentage chance a gun owner in Canada murders you with a gun = .0012% (1.2 in every 1,000)

Now let's look at England's gun ban paradise:

England's population 53 million / 39 gun murders = 1,358,974 citizens per gun murder

Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun in England = .0001% (or 1 in 10,000)

Gun owners in England 1.8 million / 39 gun murders = 46,153.85 gun owners per 1 murder by gun

Percentage chance a English gun owner murders you with a gun = .0022% (2.2 in every 1,000)

I'd point out gun CRIMES (not just murders) in England have soared upward 35% since the gun bans. Criminals used handguns in 46% more crimes, and it was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise...there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year, the most since the previous peak in 1993.

Stats show the number of crimes involving handguns have more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre, which brought about the ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Quote:Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.

"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either."

So England's gun bans may have lowered total murders, and even the rate of murders, but the violent crime rates are soaring. Guns are a game theory mathematical deterent to crime, especially violent crime, believe it or not.

So what can we get from all these stats?

Population matters, as does other factors besides guns themselves:

The whole story is told in the percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun - USA is .026%, Canada is .0012%, and England's is .0022%.

As you can see, Canada has a higher rate of ownership of guns and more total guns than England, and yet has a LOWER gun owner murder rate than England! That means it isn't guns that are the factor making England murder more. So why is Canada so low, while England is nearly double that? Why is the USA more than 10 times higher than England? All of this is adjusted for population and total guns in society...so what is the factor making us so much more prone to murder (even if it is a tiny threat overall to life) here in the USA?

THE DRUG WAR.

In England they have a drug war, but they do not focus on possession. Meanwhile we lock up nonviolent criminals at the almost the exact same rate as violent ones in America. Canada has legal marijuana in some areas, and has for years, and takes a very relaxed attitude toward drug use in general (although they have laws which are largely unenforced).

Just like during the Prohibition of alcohol, murder rates have soared under the Drug War. So has our incarcerations and incarceration rates...we now lock up more people in total than any other country in the world (yes, even the vastly more populated China and India)! That's total and per capita! "Land of the Free"? Think again. "Land of the prisoner" is more accurate. We arrested more than 750,000 people last year for just marijuana! 86% of those arrests were for small amounts; simple possession charges. It's not only tyrannical, it's a waste of resources which fuels a black market run by criminal sociopaths, and takes resources away from fighting actual violent crime like theft, property damage, assault, rape, child abuse, and murder.

This War on Drugs (and personal adult freedom) has given us the street gang phenomenon on the scales we see today. Chicago alone has dozens of separate drug gangs. They also have a high murder rate to go along with super-strict gun control in comparison to other cities...because guns aren't the problem, the Drug War is. Many of their gangs can trace their roots to either the beginning of Prohibition, or the beginning of the modern Drug War.

In Honduras where gun murders are most common and horribly frequent, they have gun rights...but they also have a country which is a main thoroughfaire for the illegal drug trade. By comparison, Uruguay has almost the same gun ownership rates as the USA and the same gun rights as well, yet they have a lower gun murder rate because they have no war on drugs. In fact, their govt is seriously considering selling marijuana to its citizens to get the drug trade completely above-board!

If you want our rate of murder to decrease via guns you don't take away guns, you end the Drug War. If you have any doubts about this go look at the murder rates after alcohol Prohibition began, and then after it ended. Also look at countries that have already ended their Drug Wars.

Crime rates in Prohibition rose immediately 78%, 24% in just one year from 1920-1921 (the first year)

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/0049...e_Rate.htm

The murder rate was cut in nearly half (40% decline), from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 when Prohibition ended. This was directly caused by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-...as-failure

If we want to half our gun murders, legalize drugs. If you want to further bring it down address the next major cause; domestic violence. Spanking children leads to many issues surrounding violence, but especially domestic violence. If domestic violence is how you raise children, then expect them to use it themselves as adults. A small number of those people will kill a domestic relative or partner. The gun simply facilitates it.

The final point I'll make is that if only .026% of gun owners murder someone with a gun, then 99.974% of gun owners don't kill someone with a gun. It's hard to argue we need to punish the 99.974% for what the .026% do. That kind of illogic is used in schools to punish classrooms full of kids for what one anonymous child has done...and it leads to bullying, because children then ostracize their peers who are guilty (and they don't know how to ostracize responsibly, so it ends up in bullying). We should use a more logical approach on adults. In a nation of 315 million people, with a Drug War raging and domestic violence against kids being the norm, a 99.974% responsible gun owner rate is unbelievably good. Perspective, instead of irrational fear and knee-jerk reaction, is what helps here.

ADDED:

Someone said they thought we could half gun murder by ending the drug war, but the we'd double the drunk/drugged driving deaths...but that is illogical. No one has any problem getting drugs now, and they already drive on them now. Also, when drugs were legalized across the board in other nations the usage only went up slightly, and in some nations actually decreased. Plus, when we re-legalized alcohol the usage here only went up slightly, while alcoholism went down (especially among minors), and the murder rate fell in that first year (1933) 40%. THINK through why your criticisms might not be logical...and Bing or Google them to see people have already answered these illogical and/or irrational reservations.

Lastly, someone else said they would never change their mind about being anti-gun no matter the evidence...but again, that is irrational. There are irrational people who won't fly even though they ADMIT cars are more likely to kill them. They drive but won't fly...that is irrational. Guns are less likely to kill a kid than swimming pools. How afraid are you of swimming pools? Cars kill more people than guns...how afraid are you of cars? Gun murder is almost 3 times less likely to kill you than the normal flu virus...how afraid are you of guns vs the flu? Being rational means fearing things based on thr actual RATIONAL chance they have to kill you, not the IRRATIONAL fear of HOW it might kill you. Guns are not nearly as dangerous as the media and most anti-gun people think they are.

In fact, more lives are saved in the USA every year than are taken by guns every year. They are in reality, indisputably, a NET GAIN of life. If only 2% of the 750,000 crimes prevented by private guns (FBI stat) save one life (or 1% saves 2 lives, etc.), then more lives are saved than taken. BTW...sutdies show many more than that are saved by guns...the estimate by Clinton Administration study was 2 million lives per year...which might be high...and other more intensive studies show the number to be in the tens of thousands, up to 200,000, per year. But EVEN IF the number was only 15,000 as I suggested with my 2% number, we're still looking at more lives saved than murdered.

FURTHER ADDED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs...online.pdf

STILL FURTHER ADDED:

It appears there is also NO correlation between single parenthood, violent video games, movies, TV shows, music, one religion or another (or lack thereof), etc.

Like guns, those are just NOT causal to high gun murder rates, despite the illogic used to say they are. (To be clear, it is intuitive to think guns and these other things cause the problem...but there is NO factual basis for it, and the factual nature of things is often deductively logical, and counter-intuitive.)

ADDED:

Paul Harvey on Guns

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

Consider:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

Me: And That's The Rest of the Story!

ADDED:

For those who ask "what 'tyranny' has the USA experienced to warrant the right to keep and bear arms", as if we as Americans are immune to having a government that can turn tyrannical, I give you the following list of tyranny's methodology, and the list of things our government has already done to meet this definition:

The methodology of tyranny:

The methods used to overthrow a constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else.

Control of public information and opinion: It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it "public information" or "marketing".

Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers: It doesn't matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.

Undue official influence on trials and juries: Nonrandom selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.

Usurpation of undelegated powers: This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.

Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force: The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of "protecting" the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.

Militarization of law enforcement: Declaring a "war on crime" that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.

Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform: Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.

Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers: When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny.

Use of the law for competition suppression: It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters' competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.

Subversion of internal checks and balances: This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.

Creation of a class of officials who are above the law: This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are "following orders".

Increasing dependency of the people on government: The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.

Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them: When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

Use of staged events to produce popular support: Acts of terrorism OR WAR, blamed on political opponents OR FOREIGN NATIONS, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a Reichstag plot.

Conversion of rights into privileges: Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.

Political correctness: Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.

(The italicized and capitalized parts are my additions, and the rest is found here originally):

http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

List of our government's transgressions into tyranny:

☑ DRONES
☑ OBAMACARE
☑ NDAA
☑ PATRIOT ACT
☑ WAR IN LIBYA
☑ WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
☑ WAR IN PAKISTAN
☑ DID I MENTION DRONES?
☑ GOLDMAN SACHS
☑ MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
☑ GUANTANAMO
☑ ASSASSINATING U.S. CITIZENS
☑ WAR ON DRUGS
☑ BAILOUTS
☑ AND EVERYTHING ELSE!

Under "everything else" I'll list the following:

1. The use of "national security" to keep secret things that are not apart of security matters, but instead shield the state from scandal.

2. Voter fraud AND suppression, plus the laws that restrict competition with the 2 Parties that control the political landscape. The includes the debates that are televised (which are run by the 2 Parties, but weren't always).

3. Loading juries with people who are bias, and the Supreme Court's purposeful change to our law that used to allow people to be instructed by the defense as to their right of jury nullification (the ability to vote "not guilty' because you disagree with the law itself), and limiting the defense from arguing whether the law is unjust or not. They also exclude anyone who says they know about that jury nullification right (which is a legal right) from jury service.

4. The tremendous list of things the state does that are neither enumerated in the Constitution nor listed in the Amendments (which are the only 2 places the state can derive their powers from), and the complicity of the Supreme Court in subverting the Amendment process that is supposed to be used to change, add or delete, those powers, by simply declaring things not in the enumerated powers or Amendments as "Constitutional".

5. The inability of private firms to be hired to compete with the monopolization on policing, thereby rendering their costs higher, quality of service lower, and accountability being non-existent (like it does with all coerced monopolies). Some places like San Francisco do have private police that are allowed limited competition with the state's force, but only because it PREDATES the state police force. In other words you don't require state police to have police, because they originated in the private sector and are to this day ranked as a better service by customers (citizens). They are also much less likely to beat and kill people (let alone talk to them like chldren).

6. The constant militarization of police should be obvious. I mean drones and camouflage? What do they need jungle print camo for in the city and towns of America? It is a pure intimidation tactic.

7. The state constantly infiltrates and subverts those groups that wish to stand up to its power peacefully. "Agent Provocateurs" are a fact of life in America. They infiltrate every major peaceful protest.

8. Whistleblowers can face the death penalty, especially if they release proof of war crimes or the like. This relates directly to using the guise of "national security" to promote secrecy about things that are not about security, but instead are about hiding scandal and sickening psychopathic behavior on the part of the collective institution, or individual in it, or both.

9. As I mentioned, using laws to not only limit competition with the 2 Parties, but with police, fire service, military, road management and production/ownership, welfare, money, interest rates, and a huge list of things I'm not go to mention are fact of life. All of these things predate the state, and used to function without a state coerced monopoly on them. If they allowed competition they'd actually have to prove they provide the better service...not something they (or the public sector union heads in bed with them - not to be confused with rank and file union members) want to do.

10. Checks and balances, like courts reviewing the assassination of U.S. citizens and warrentless wiretaps and searches, have continuously been undermined.

11. The government is above the law. Everyone knows we'd go to prison or be HEAVILY fined if we did many of the things they simply lose their jobs over (if that). Cheating on their taxes, sexually harassing people, scandals involving stolen and embezzled funds, etc., etc. And their cronies in the private sector get away with it along with them. The Pardoning of terrible criminal acts upon their cronies happens every time a President or Governor leaves Office.

12. Dependancy on government has risen, whether it's welfare, medical, housing, retiremet, PHONES, REFRIGERATORS, etc.

13. People avoid voting like the plague, which isn't altogether bad or wrong thing...but they even avoid voting for people they KNOW are right and instead vote for who they THINK will win. That's a personal form of selling out, and it's a collective form of endorsing unethical things because you want to treat politics like a team sport where rooting for the winning team is better for self satisfaction than rooting for the team that doesn't cheat to win. This also shows up in avoidance of jury duty (which could be made voluntary if they allowed jurors to be professionals just like judges and lawyers - which would undermine their attempts to keep jurors ignorant of the laws and jury nullification), which could stop untold numbers of people from going to prison over bad laws. Again, jury nullification is important to a free society...and we are kept ignorant of that right BY LAW.

14. Staged events or outright lies have started more wars than actual attacks or credible threats against us. Vietnam via the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the WMDs in Iraq, the Lusitania being an innocent passenger ship with no arms smuggling purposes, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

15. The conversion of rights into privileges, like search and seizure protections, the right to keep and bear arms, the universal freedom of speech where it does not cause DIRECT physical harm (it is legal, or used to be, to say things that you do not believe will cause actual violence, or things you do believe will cause violence but do not have a likelihood to actually cause harm despite your notions), the right to trial (that all depends, now), the right to life not being deprived without jury trial (they now assasinate USA citizens without even proving to a judge it is justified...so they can effectively kill any of us at any time if they wish to), etc.,etc.,etc.

16. Political correctness is used to stifle dissent. For example, just one way is to call anyone you disagree with racist no matter how unrelated to racism it actually is. Another way is to insist of using certain semantics and lingusitics to limit the expression of unpopular but logical ideas. The idea that words are cause for violence legally, or that words are equivalent to violence. This shows up in everyday life, but is reflective of how politicians are treated by the media...where they say things that are obviously not meant the way the media spins it. The public simply follows suit on the trend.

ADDED:

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm individual citizens, not just members of militias, so they could overthrow a tyrannical government. Every Founder said this and only this, except Adams (who still wanted individuals armed, but only for self defense, and he thought militias must follow the orders of tyrants regardless because he was a law fetishist as opposed to someone more agianst tyranny and for liberty even if it meant breaking tyrannical laws). Some people have suggested to me other false revisionist history nonsense, and so I leave this link full of other links and facts to prove the case. If further necessary I will start quoting the Founders and challenging them to match me quote for quote (which they can't).

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

The most important links on that site are these ones:

"Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

"Quotes from the Founding Fathers and Their Contemporaries"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Good luck defeating that with some semantical trick about the wording or puncuation of the 2nd Amendment. They mispelled words in the Constitution too...I suppose next you'll argue we have somehow mistakenly mispelled words all these years and the Constitution had them right all these years? Enough with the illogic and irrationale...non sequiturs are not logical arguments.

Over 2,400,000 Americans purchased an AR15 since 2010. It's a gas recoil rifle that's been available nearly half a century. The Lanza boy used one of them irresponsibly, a trajedy.

Now we hear Lanza was a video game addict. Some of those games probably desensitize vulnerable people to realities of gun violence. I am disturbed by TV ads for some of the video games. I prefer that violent toy ads not aire in front of my children. I believe our children would be better off without such "toys".

I believe Sandy Hook is about failed nurturing.

You didn't read my post. Video games are not corollary in enough gun murders to be considered causal (and either is mental illness). It's yet another myth, like lack of religion, single parenthood, gun ownership rates, permits to carry, TV, movies, etc.

I wish people would read more, and form opinions in ignorance less...ugh.

He was a video game addict because as a person with Autism Spectrum Disorder and on anti-psychotic drugs he was ALREADY incapable of forming normal relationships...the video games weren't the cause, his addiction to them were CAUSED BY him being messed up already.

If you want your kids to not see violence on TV then be a parent and ban them from watching TV (most TVs have censoring functions as well), or join with parent groups who protest and boycott TV networks who promote violence on children's television programming. Don't just sit there and claim an entitlement to violent-free programming and commercials.

Sandy Hook is about mental illness...but that only causes less than 2% of gun murders. The vast majority are caused by the War on Drugs.

Z from AZ

I like your proposal. Most gun owners would rather have regulation than removal. It's getting to be like our fiscal system...you never know which way our politicians will blow. And they all blow.

I could live with legislation limiting/banning assault weapons, extended clips, and special rounds from the general population, no problem. We still have an effective militia and people still own a huge variety for sport and home defense even with registration and licensing/training.

I agree that the gamer/movie fan sub-culture that find grotesque and absurd violence humorous is not causative, deranged individuals gravitate in that direction without the ability to distinguish illusion from reality. They blend in to some small degree, but there's a huge difference.

Let's get at least one thing straight: "Fast and Furious" was a program that was started by the Bush Administration, and reared its ugly head in the Obama Administration when it went horribly wrong. Then all the Republicans blamed Pres. Obama for it, because they assumed that he must have been the one who started it.

I have trouble with lack of Due Process these days; being able to face one's accuser was always part of law (see the Bible in the Book of Acts 25:16 for the explanation from Roman times). Parts of the Patriot Act, drones, Gitmo, etc. are all a huge problem. But gun control could cut out a lot of that mess; laws become unfavorable to citizens when the citizens become reckless beyond any reason. I think that Pres. Obama has done too little to protect the U.S. Constitution from erosion, but I'm not worried about the 2nd Amendment, only the other Amendments. I am a Democrat, and I would like more Democrat agendas coming out of the Whitehouse, not the half-way compromises we've seen.

With weapons everywhere the violence is simply spiraling out of control. What about all the poor people who do not have weapons? What about people who try to defend themselves from a weapon only to be accused of assault? What about the person who has their guns taken by a family member?

Illiterate America being worked... Bunch of suckers... Enjoy your "bliss" for it holds a high price..

Maybe NBC/MSNBC should send their reporters to abortion clinics and report on the millions of children being butchered in this country. They are sad about 20 and don't care about millions.

I am just waiting for the day when you morons haul God into court for all miscarriages that occur.

"House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, wouldn’t shut the door on bringing up recommendations from Vice President Biden’s commission on gun violence in the House next year."

That is mighty big of you, Boehner.