Not true. The common thread is easy access to assault rifles and clips and mentally ill and depressed people.

It is not criminals that commit these mass shootings. It is mentally ill and depressed people.

If Lanza had walked into the school with a knife nobody would have died.

What happened to the 'talk' that was going on that this was not going to simply be about gun control? That the mental health issues needed to be addressed as well? Was that simply more BS being handed out? WTF!

Allen, with nearly all of the Republican and probably half of the Democratic members of Congress (including, apparently, Harry Reid) on their active payroll, I'm surprised they didn't ask the WH to send a representative to them, instead. This is what happens when a trade lobby - any trade lobby - gets too powerful.

Elliot, sounds fuel inefficient. I doubt my homeowners' association would appreciate it either ;P

Back East

I hope your competence with a gun is matched by your ability to keep it away from other hands as in locked away and accessible by dynamite alone.

markinbecker

It is not criminals that commit these mass shootings. It is mentally ill and depressed people.

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

In my opinion this presentation is a little thin. A) the appropriate definitions of mentally ill and/or depressed people. (I know plenty of people "depressed" who haven't taken to guns and killing masses of people as an outlet) So I personally, need a little more context than just mentally ill and depressed. B) making a better distinction between the USE of these conditions as a means of a defense strategy vs the reality of whether or not these people were truly not able to determine right from wrong...even though from my perspective 10 out of 10 times, these sob's didn't go a shooting rampage buck naked. No...they went packing heavy heat...geared up themselves at least acknowledging their own need for physical protection and oft times with the 'know how' that killing themselves would prevent them from legally dealing with what they had done.

Point being, their "illness" has a remarkable ability to move in and out of understanding.

If the NRA wants armed guards in every school, then they can pay for them and not require Fed/state govt to pay for that.

Missoulasue, t totally agree; and I can't believe the writers of Constitution had any intention of avg citizen owning such weapons.

Since all of us lefties according to the Albanian . . .

Lefty liberals need not waste their time getting their panties all twisted up in knots over this meeting

I'd suggest all of you righties in your tighties start embracing the ACA so we can all become a Prozac nation as that seems to be your solution . . .

markinbecker

It is not criminals that commit these mass shootings. It is mentally ill and depressed people.

Damn! There goes my theory that criminals commit crimes! WTF was I thinking?

Allen - They have no intention of actually working on the problem. Look at how well these incidents work for them. Twelve people in a theater are killed and gun sales go up. Someone shoots people at a temple, gun sales go up. Twenty-six innocent people are killed at a school, gun sales go up. Someone kills two firemen and - your guessed it - gun sales go up. The list just goes on and on. A friend of mine was recently shaking his head because he knew someone who took the money they'd been saving for a major purpose.... And used ALL the money to buy guns and ammo because his NRA buddies convinced him Obama was going to ban guns, The NRA and the gun manufacturers have people so scared they're spending money they don't have to buy guns. Why would they want to stop this? The worse it gets the more they sell! And the callousness of the people doing the selling! They asked one seller at a gun show if he didn't feel the slightest bit strange because he was selling semi-automatic guns so close to the time of the burials of the Newtown victims. His response? "I gotta make money." What a sweetheart!

As for "It ain't the guns" let's get serious. Let's say you want to build a house. You have two choices on how to drive in a nail - a rock or a hammer. What are you going to use? Let's say you are now presented with a third option - a nail gun. Of course they now call them pneumatic nailers because calling them guns put them in a bad light but you get the idea. It's a gun that shoots nails into wood. Press the gun against the wood, pull the trigger and in less time or effort than it would take to pick up your rock or hammer 4 inches of steel is deeply embedded in the wood. Move the head slightly and pull the trigger again and BAM! another steel nail into the wood. You didn't even have to slow down to pick up another nail. Rock, hammer or nailer? Which one do you think is going to get the most steel into the most wood in the shortest amount of time? And of the three choices of a rock, a single shot rifle or an AR-15 with a 30 round or larger capacity which do you think is going to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time? Saying that it wasn't the gun that killed the people is kind of like saying the nailer didn't build the house. There may be other ways to do it but a nailer makes it a lot simpler to build a house just like an AR-15 makes it stupidly simple to kill large numbers of people.

INteresting, the NRA blaming video games and movies. Then VP Biden invites, among the "many" groups, heads of video game and entertainment industries.

Be ready to give blood tests for Call of Duty Black Ops III.

Ed, exactly my feeling. We should take LaPierre up on his offer and say, "Thank you, NRA, for your generous offer to provide security in all of our nation's schools. We await your business plan for charging about $500 on each gun sale - roughly what will be needed to pay for security guards for every school in the land."

Layton, speaking about the ACA, there's a curious NRA-written provision in it (and I point this out as a Dem), barring doctors from collecting and reporting information on gun-related injuries and threats to children. That bizarre provision was hidden in a dark corner of the bill purely through the devices of one Harry Reid (D-NV), under direct request from the NRA (and, in return for which, Reid won an NRA endorsement). Like it or not, NRA's outright purchase of legislators cuts across both sides of the aisle. Republicans need to realize this as well.. this isn't just a partisan issue. It may be that this one group has just gotten too big for its britches, able to manipulate the entire political process.. not just one party.

Everyone has the right to state their opinion if they want to. Yours is NOT better than anyone else unless you are of the 'Holier Than Thou' mindframe. If you don't like it, then do not read it. Simple as that. *smiles*

The supreme court would disagree with you on your interpretation of the constitution.

Before it was even written, "the people" had arms. After it was written, "the people" still had arms.

That is the most straight forward interpretation of the second amendment you will ever see. There is no way to see that in any other way than that the second amendment was meant to protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.

For those contributors to this forum for whom reality is merely an abstract concept and not a feature of their everyday lives, let me assure you that a complete reinterpretation of the Second Amendment is only a Supreme Court decision away. Stay tuned!

Will Biden have his armed guards present?

The fact remains that if he would have had smaller clips he would have had to taken a 2 second pause to reload. During that time, one of those 6 year olds could have tackled and restrained him and prevented the loss of more life.

I wonder if there were 20 kids killed by a drone, would the Government move to ban drones?

Yeah Screminmimi, he has to protect that million dollar smile.

I wonder if there were 20 kids killed by a drone, would the Government move to ban drones?

If tens of thousands of Americans were being killed and wounded every year by drones as they are by gun violence, then your asinine remark wouldn't be so pointless and irrelevant.

I am at a loss to understand how formally bringing the NRA and gun industry advocates into this discussion is a bad thing?

What better way to find some manner of consensus and common ground to begin to address this issue, and begin to turn adversaries into advocates for sensible change, than to sit down together and discuss reasonable options and alternatives?

Can some of you please clarify why exactly you are opposed to people of different points of view and different interests talking about social issues is a bad thing?

Gosh, haven't we already seen enough 1-sided approaches to the plethora of problems and pressing issues in America over the past decade or two, ...none of which actually have been addressed in the end because all sides were not at the table, to have learned the obvious lesson?

Why, if we actually wish to address our social issues, would we continue the behavior of talking PAST each other rather than talking TO each other?

Albert Einstein addressed that dynamic when he pointed out an obvious axiom:

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Truly sad to see how ignorant posters are that comment on the Second Amendment being only for militia/military purposes. GO educate yourselves on the history behind the development of the Second Amendment by the Founding Fathers of the Country. It wasn't totally about the militia, or hunting, or 'assault weapons' (which the lame-stream media is doing a wonderful job on in creating more fear & hysteria in Liberals through the use of the words...) - it was about personal defense & the ability for citizens to remove oppressive government.

It amazes me how effing stupid the Left is to history. I'm Conservative, politically Independent of party, own legal firearms, and know how to utilize them.

Educate yourselves as well on facts: while the numbers of firearms produced & sold in the last 20 years has increased, the numbers of violent crimes have DECREASED by 50% (look at the FBI statistics).

Meanwhile - violent crimes in other countries that DO NOT allow civilian firearm ownership have INCREASED. It's the criminals & head-cases that are causing the crimes folks, NOT the typical Democrat or Republican, law-abiding, legal firearm owner.

The NRA has bullied politicians and gun law advocates for decades, attempting to stifle any vocal resistance to its reign of power. Anytime anyone tried to speak out in favor of stricter gun laws, they have been shouted down, harrassed, or bribed by the NRA and its most fanatic supporters. What about our First Amendment right of Free Speech?

The NRA is not opposed to gun control..... WE THE PEOPLE are opposed to gun control.....

When WE THE PEOPLE head to Washington, it will be to clean house........

They should invite experts from Australia to teach us how they dramatically lowered their gun violence in a very short time.

Ricardo, Gun violence, robbery, murder, home invasions and burglary went up almost immediately once Australia took away the citizens guns.

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

I own several weapons and am not about to give them up.

That said, we don't need every man/woman/child walking around with M16s. There has to be some reasonable discussion, which will certainly not come from the NRA if their suggestion of arming teachers is any indication.

NRA atteding White House event?

Then NRA should have a separate room all to itself. It deserves some privileges, otherwise its members might stick something to your head, calling that as exercising their constitutional right.

Markinbeker, so you believe that people who are diagnosed as depressed should not be allowed to own a gun?

Do you know how many people in this country are diagnosed every year as having some form of depression? It could be from losing their job or their home. It could be from a divorce, or having a family member die?

While I agree that more needs to be done to help the mentally ill, you cannot catagorize all depressed/mentally ill people as potential murderers.

FlaNative (and why am I NOT surprised you're from Florida) - try to buy a drone. They are already illegal to own idiot!

eliot, you're a first class nitwit. homie, as opposed to the lame stream media, we have the lame-a$$ gun nuts, who, by favoring the lack of gun laws and the status quo mass, always available all the time gun distribution system - which is where criminals get their guns - are in favor of unnecessary death. And, in case you didn't know, which goes without saying, the incidence of "violent crime" is most closely tied to variations in age demographics.

It is amazing to me what effing morons the reactionary right is, not just in history (2nd amendment mostly to help provide people with guns and ammo to army in case the brits came back) but in absolutely everything. You lame-azz schmucks prove over and over that you don't even understand the basic fact that you live in a country, not in a village in called Survivalistville.

In all the forums I have read since the Newtown massacre, I have not read one single post that suggested we ban all guns in America. Only assault weapons and accessories like magazine clips, etc. that can kill many people in a short amount of time having been mentioned.

The only people who don't like this idea of restrictions on assault weapons are those who fear the government, or are paranoid about invasion by hostile foreigners. Oh yes ... and the ones who dislike have any gun laws the most are the big corporate honchos of the NRA who have lined their pockets with gold for years selling millions of assault weapons to people who have no real need for such weaponry or should not have them in the first place.

I think that's fine, this is America and everyone has a right to be at the table.

Here's my recommendation: (Please note, all these recommendations exclude the military and law enforcement)

1. Ban all assault weapons. Give current owners two years to turn their assault weapons in and get a tax credit. After the moratorium possession of an assault weapon is a felony.

2. Ban all hi-cap magazines. Standard magazine to be 6 rounds. Same as above. All illegal hi-cap mags to be turned in during the moratorium and afterwards possession is a felony.

3. Limit the number of firearms an individual may legally own. I suggest four.

4. Require each and every gun owner to undergo proper training and get certified. Training to include gun safety, marksmanship and cleaning and care of a firearm. Upon completion of the course they will receive a license to own a firearm. No license, no firearm. First offense is a Misdemeanor, second offense is a felony.

5. ATF handles all gun registrations and keeps a nationwide registry of gun owners.

6. Background checks on EVERY GUN SALE. Period. ATF to handle the background checks.

7. Sales between individuals are to be reported to the ATF. If caught with a firearm not registered to you, it's a felony.

But that's only part of the problem. We also need to address the status of Mental Health care in this country. We need to improve our monitoring and care of individuals diagnosed with severe mental illness. This might be defined as unable to work, receives Medicaid, they go into a national database used when background checks are run on gun purchases.

We also need to address the gun culture in this country. Part myth and part advertising slogans we are absolutely crazy about guns. We write laws to protect them, we enact laws to allow you to carry them openly.

We've also got to have a dialogue about violence in entertainment. You know, I remember a time when movies could depict violent acts without the camera actually being splattered with blood.

Finally, we need to learn how to speak to one another in a civil manner and deal with our issues and problems in a mature fashion and not with childish insults and boorish behavior.

That's it. Make it so.

None of killers are NRA Member or Register gunowner. This is the insanity of the liberals , blame NRA.

Hiya, skip! Happy New Year!

Missoulasue

Like most posting, you are misinformed. In point of fact, an AR-15, like it's military counterpart the M-16A1/2 is a 22. caliber firearm. They both take the 5.56mm or .223 caliber bullet.

And as far as this is concerned;

I am allowed to own a Chevy, but not a tank.

You can in fact own some tanks. Obviously, not what is currently in operations, but there are many "tanks" in personal collections around the country. Of course, owing and maintaining one is a very expensive proposition and not one which the average firearms owner has the ability to take advantage of.

The NRA has bullied politicians and gun law advocates for decades, attempting to stifle any vocal resistance to its reign of power. Anytime anyone tried to speak out in favor of stricter gun laws, they have been shouted down, harrassed, or bribed by the NRA and its most fanatic supporters. What about our First Amendment right of Free Speech?

If your elected representatives are such ineffective pansies as to be bullied by anyone, you elected the wrong guys/gals. That's YOUR problem. If they were bought off by the NRA, that's still YOUR problem. Your are complaining to the wrong forum.

You need to get your pansy ass politicians, or your bribe taking politicians, and kick them out. Get some who will do as you tell them. Now STFU about OUR politicians who have done as WE asked them to and kept the Second Amendment as it was written.

"I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me," Obama said. "I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools."

Obama once again demonstrates irrational logic. Both he and the rest of the gun grabber bunch always defy logic by insisting on gun free zones thereby creating fertile hunting zones. A crazy shoots up a school or theatre and their knee jerk reaction play on emotion and take somebody else's gun. It doesn't get more irrational than that.

Regarding the schools, all that's needed is for a few teachers or other school employees that already have concealed carry permits to be allowed to carry on school property.

In Israel the school teachers are regularly armed and this works out very well.

The primary reason for the anti-gun bunch rejecting such logic is that their agenda is less about protecting schools and more about disarming the American people. Ever notice that it's always the socialists that want to ban guns?

The National Rifle Association

has a BAD IMAGE

no thanks

to their Spokesman.

So by being surly, obstinate, belligerent and stubborn

is just stupid.

.

.

Sooo...will they continue with the immature excuse making

or

will they come up with constructive changes to their agenda?

And to the incredibly stupid schmucks who have picked up on the Never Rational Association's red herring about mental health, please note that it is people like you and the party you favor that have been gutting the mental health services system for the last 30 years.

And the argument is completely irrelevant. Do you favor quick visits to a head doctor while applying for a gun license? Who makes the diagnosis? Half of you all are paranoid to a degree that approaches the realm of schizophrenic hallucination. Yet you're convinced you deserve to have all the guns of any kind that your obsessive little fetish requires. The argument has the same logical standing as the whining about "law abiding gun owners." Everyone is law abiding till they're not. Everyone is sane until they snap and demonstrate that they're not. Your arguments are pure drivel. The same illogical tropes repeated over and over to justify an irrational fetish.

And to try to head off another of your illogical tropes, the one about scairdy-cat liberal afraid of guns, I've owned a gun for fifty years.

Very good post, skipNicholson.

I think the majority of American citizens are on the same page with you.

Go ahead and send that list to White House and to Gabby Giffords' new website. Seriously.

There are millions of us who want to help bring about this change.

silverton-2953905

In all the forums I have read since the Newtown massacre, I have not read one single post that suggested we ban all guns in America.

You have posted this before, and I have answered you before.

Yes, there have been people who have commented that all guns should be confiscated from owners. They should be rounded up and not one handgun left in the hands of anyone other than law enforcement officers.

You need to stop posting this comment because it is untrue.

@elliot-3020456: Years ago, now and then, several young ladies and myself had sex in the back seat of my parents car, then later my car. It was really quite enjoyable. Are you telling me it would have been better if I had held a gun on any one of them?, or, any one of them had held a gun on me? Contemplating such gives me the wooleys! Think we would have all come off as bad performers.

If the purpose of this anti-gun effort is based on saving lives, how many citizens would have benefitted from our government enforcing our immigration laws?

.

Illegal immigrants kill thousands of Americans through their violent crimes and DUI's each year but no one is stopping it. And the illegals molest and rape far more than the 20 children that were killed at Sandy Hook.

This will end up being a lot of pandering, more crony capitalism much like ObamaCare was to big pharma in order to gain support. They will ban assault weapons, large magazines, and put an end to individuals being able to sell their own guns because of new background check requirements and government registration. In the end it will have little to no impact on gun violence or the occasional massacre. Liberals will complain it does not go far enough, and conservatives will claim it infringes on individual freedoms. Both will in essence be correct. Liberals will be right that the new gun laws do not go far enough, since they will go in a direction that will have little to no impact on gun violence. Conservatives will be correct, in that individual freedoms will be infringed upon by denying people the right to sell their own property or buy guns they may want to own. But corporate interests will be well served and that is where the support will come from.

At a park outside Mexico City, four people were killed by a pack of wild dogs.

One of the people was a two year old child, one of them was a sixteen year old girl, killed while on the phone with her sister, crying frantically for help. By the time the police arrived and found the bodies, the two year old little boy was already half eaten.

I was riding in the woods and ran across a small pack of wild dogs. I always carry a rifle, but almost didn't get it out of the scabbard in time to fire and run them off. I'm looking for a handgun now, and guess what? Three weeks ago I would have purchased one from a registered dealer. Today, I'm buying one from a private sale. It WILL NOT be registered.

That, you anti gun freaks, is what you are doing with your hysteria. You are driving people like me underground.

sorry another gun nut here. i own 6 currently all except one for the purpose of hunting. yes there are calls to ban all guns. state of illinois is trying to ban all guns.

skip - in your proposal do you have the current gangs in chicago and detroit on board with your proposal or just the law biding citizens such as myself? we currently have laws of that nature that are being ignored.

second i believe all the guns that have been used were legal except one. you say ban the assault rifle. do you have a definition. i can go by an airsoft gun that looks just like that bushmaster, except oh yeah its not lethal. you say no magazine can carry more than 6 rounds. that will elminate everything down to your average 22 which has a magazine capable of holding 10, mine currently hold 22 of them. i am trained to handle a gun been training on it since i was 8. i can handle a gun better than most in our military. i can clean, maintain and shoot all of mine safely. i have been in the field hunting since i was 8 as well. i have never shot anyone in my 25 years of owning a gun. i have never had anyone in my family injured by a family gun. you all say that they aren't calling to ban all guns and you are right, at this time. when they start and we still have problems what do you think the next step is? today its the assault rifle tomorrow my pump shotgun and soon we live in england were 200 years of fathers and sons hunting together go by the way side. we gun owners are called gun nuts or just flat unfeeling people who only care is to keep our guns. wrong again, when you anti gun people will come forward and say that you guarantee we won't have another person killed on this planet by a gun i will gladly give mine up. are you ready to make that quarantee? i propose that when we ban all guns that when one is used in addition to the one that used it being placed in prison one of these anti gun people be placed in the prison for the same amount of time. hows that since i am lumped in with the criminals that do these things. iam all for gun bans when the anti gun people are willing to put their necks out and back that fantasy they all live in where there won't be any guns to be violent with, because once we ban them they will all disappear from the world we live in.

Lunkystraydog

I hope you anti gun nuts are the first ones to be put in the ovens.

How did eventually being armed to the teeth work out for Native Americans? Admittedly they kicked the @!$%# out of Custer but he was an idiot and incompetent and after that it was all downhill.

Mac Forrester, take your perverted rape fantasies somewhere else. Or is this an admission of guilt from you? Are you a rapist? Is this your cry for help to stop yourself from reoffending?

Homie D Clown is the right when he says countries without private gun ownership has gone up. You might want look at the HUGE increase in violent crime in the U.K. since they banned all private ownership of firearms.

Educate yourselves as well on facts: while the numbers of firearms produced & sold in the last 20 years has increased, the numbers of violent crimes have DECREASED by 50% (look at the FBI statistics).

Meanwhile - violent crimes in other countries that DO NOT allow civilian firearm ownership have INCREASED.

Sailcat...you are right the Supreme court interpets the constitiuion. NO one will be able to recognize it when Obama gets done appointing federal judges and Supreme court judges in the next 4 years.

Lets see our education system is way below average, our children are not protected and placed in a school building that traps it's students in one door class rooms, and we have a huge bullying problem.

I think the real opportunity for change is being squandered by ones distrust dislike of a particular tool.

However I do think gun control should be on the table, but it isn't the top priority in my humble opinion.

Lets change the equation replace mass shooting at "school" with "white house".

"Twenty-sex people were killed...." LOL. Maybe the bully should use his bully pulpit for how bad reporting is dragging down our educational system.

Yeah, let's put armed guards in every school. Nice lesson to teach our kids; "Laws don't matter, your only defense is to be armed".

And you gotta love the selective statistics the gun nuts always bring up. Elliot, about 2/3 of all HOMICIDES in the US are from guns. The remaining 1/3 are all other weapons/methods, roughly divided between them. And bringing up cars is another misleading diversion. Tell you what, let's license gun owners like we do drivers; take a test to prove you know safe handling and operation, are aware of the laws governing them, and carry insurance.

And I have yet to get an explanation from any '2nd amendment defender' as to just how 'criminals' get their guns. They all start out legal (as our 'restrictive' gun laws that the NRA claims are more than adequate makes possible), yet 'criminals' still manage to get them. The only possible explanation is they're getting them from 'responsible gun owners' that are either stupid or dishonest. That there's inadequate controls on guns is obvious to everyone except the NRA.

I will agree that any 'bans' are foolish; that ship is long sailed. As we speak, the various manufacturers are working overtime to churn out yet more of these high-capacity weapons, and no doubt all will be sold before any ban goes into effect.

As the NRA is so quick to point out, "guns don't kill people, people kill people'. I agree with that also. So the 'gun control' issue isn't about guns, it's about 'gun owner control'. Let's see a nation-wide license requirement to own any firearm. If you're a truly 'responsible gun owner', you should welcome that.

I am a gun owner, and would be behind something like this 100%. We license many other activities that affect public safety, why not this.

The Second Amendment was signed into law on December 15 1791. The weapon of choice at that time was the Flintlock. Average Re-loading time 20 to 30 seconds, with each reload time increased because of fowling from Black Powder.

The first words of the Second Amendment "A Well Regulated Militia". In 1903 the Militia Act established the National Guard. The Dick act as it was known in essence eliminated the need of Private militias. Private Citizens were and still are allowed to own and carry guns. The Founders of these laws had no idea or vision to know how powerful hand guns and rifles would become. Should all guns be banned? NO! NO! NO! and again NO! Do we need to restrict High capacity magazines and Military weapons? Yes!

According to one Supreme Court Justice, any weapon a person can carry should be legal for a US Citizen to own and use. This would include RPGs. LAWs rockets and Grenade Launchers. Just the type of weapons every deer hunter needs. We all know the need for a shoulder fired rocket to fend off Russian Migs from our homes.

I wont give up my guns but I know there has to be a limit to Capacity and Function. No gun should be sold or exchanged without a background check and transfer of ownership papers. Registration of a gun should be no different than a car.

How did eventually being armed to the teeth work out for Native Americans?

First, there's that word "eventually." And what Native Americans were first given were the older guns and not the fast repeaters being used by the US government.

Second, it took a while for many of the Nations to start using the guns. They felt there was no honor or skill in the "firesticks" and disdained them.

Third, as was usual in the white man's dealings with Native Americans, many times when the guns were sold to the them, they were defective.

Fourth, Native Americans did not come together as one united group, but fought as separate Nations. They were fragmented. Sitting Bull was the only one ever to pull together different Nations to fight against the Europeans, and that was against Custer. Had the Native Americans done this in the beginning, they could have wiped out the Europeans in the beginning, but it was like getting the US, Russia, Iran, Israel, Egypt, China, N. Korea, S. Korea, etc., to pick one leader to spearhead a fight against an alien invasion from Mars.

But I assure you, if the need arises, we won't have that problem again.

I hope you anti gun nuts are the first ones to be put in the ovens.

And I hope you are among the first to be committed to a mental hospital. It will be for your own good, you know.

joethelib

The Second Amendment was signed into law on December 15 1791. The weapon of choice at that time was the Flintlock. Average Re-loading time 20 to 30 seconds, with each reload time increased because of fowling from Black Powder.

The Second Amendment makes no mention of which guns it applies to.

The first words of the Second Amendment "A Well Regulated Militia". In 1903 the Militia Act established the National Guard.

At the time "well regulated" meant well trained. See Federalist Paper #29.

Should all guns be banned? NO! NO! NO! and again NO! Do we need to restrict High capacity magazines and Military weapons? Yes!

And that is the logical error in the arguments to arbitrarily ban certain guns which are used in fewer than 350 deaths a year.

It's time for gun grabbers to put up or shut up. The 2nd Amendment is very clear. Either go through the process to amend the constitution or drop it.

The NRA proposed that the government pay for putting an armed guard in every school in America, an idea President Obama did not greet warmly on Meet the Press Dec. 30^th.

Yes, and the cost should be paid for with a tax on guns and ammunition. If cigarettes can be taxed heavily because they are a menace to public health, so can these weapons of mass destruction that the NRA perceives some "right" for people to own.

skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City - Post1.56

Best post on this thread.

NRA to attend White House

Hows that going to work when the GOP are gun lobbyist for the NRA ?

DingleB

The Second Amendment makes no mention of which guns it applies to.

The Second Amendment makes no mention of GUNS. It uses the term "arms" which applies equally to surface-to-air missile launchers, RPGs, and most other weapons of war. So what you're saying is the Constitution gives people a right to all of those weapons and more. That's totally insane.

World Idiocracy on the Rise

skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City - Post1.56

Best post on this thread.

Nah. It's far too radical in that it's totally reasonable. Gun violence cannot be addressed with too much sanity if it cuts into the gun industry's profits, which Skip's proposals would.

Houston! - Lol, you're probably right, unfortunately. When corporate earnings get in the way, greed wins and screw anything and everyone else.

The common thread is easy access to assault rifles and clips

Since when have we defined easy access as shooting one's mother in the face?

However, there's a big difference between a single shot gun and an AR-15 and I think most of us Left Wing Nutjobs are looking for restriction on these rapid fire guns and big magazines, not a .22.

I getting tired of people confusing the 2nd Admendment with a Hunter's Rights Bill. The 2nd Admendment has nothing to do with hunting. So the argument that hunters should be able to keep bolt action rifles under the 2nd Admenment but that scary looking rifles should be banned is just as silly as the car comparison. I would however, argue that while guns are designed to kill, or injure, people they are a pretty damn effective deterent even in their passive state.

Sorry, Screminimi, but you said I had posted before that I have never seen any post saying we should ban all guns.

Then you said you had answered me before.

But, NOWHERE IN ANY OF MY PREVIOUS POSTS HAVE I EVER SAID THIS OR YOU HAVE RESPONDED.

Please wake up and try to stay current.

I accept your apology in advance.

And btw, go ahead, stockpile and go underground if you are truly that fearful and paranoid.

New gun laws are coming. :)

And that is the logical error in the arguments to arbitrarily ban certain guns which are used in fewer than 350 deaths a year.

It's time for gun grabbers to put up or shut up. The 2nd Amendment is very clear. Either go through the process to amend the constitution or drop it.

Thank gawd- for us who are sane - there's this pesky little document; you know, that "inconvenient" piece of paper called the Contsitution, eh? Lolz! It's the one thing standing between us and the anti-gun loons who, ironically, would prefer to resort to criminal underhanded tactics to take them away.

Nancy's Red Diaper Doper Baby

I getting tired of people confusing the 2nd Admendment with a Hunter's Rights Bill. The 2nd Admendment has nothing to do with hunting. So the argument that hunters should be able to keep bolt action rifles under the 2nd Admenment but that scary looking rifles should be banned is just as silly as the car comparison.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to support "well-regulated" state militias, not unregulated nut cakes arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction. A weapon that can fire 30 rounds without reloading doesn't just look "scary." It IS scary because it was designed strictly to kill large numbers of people quickly and efficiently, without even having too aim accurately.

I'd like to think this is a big step in the right direction. But, knowing of Wayne LaJerk-off's past performances I'm incline to agree with those who say the NRA will only be at the White House to learn more about how they can obstruct any positive changes to the present gun laws we have in this country.

Your right to own a gun, should not super-cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's time for common sense gun control laws that keep guns out of the hands of people like the animal up in Newtown, and the jack ass out in Colorado.

ENOUGH is ENOUGH!

"I can also show you a police locker room with 7 bullet holes made over a short amount of time.."

Don't tell the bleeding hearts that, they'll be screaming to disarm the police too.

The NRA has tried to deny millions of American citizens their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH for decades by bullying politicans or anyone who ever tried to vocalize support of stricter gun laws.

Anytime anybody ever tries to speak up for more gun laws, they are shouted down, bullied, trivialized, mocked, and even bribed by the NRA and its fanatic supporters to keep them quiet.

Thank goodness new gun laws are on the way and the NRA cannot bully us anymore.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

• Heart disease: 599,413
• Cancer: 567,628
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
• Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
• Diabetes: 68,705
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Odd. I just pulled these stats off of a government site, and didn't see any entry, other than "Intentional self-harm", to be even remotely gun related. If you bleeding heart liberals REALLY cared about the health, and well being of your fellow Americans, I would think you would ban the one thing that kills more people than anything on earth, and that would be cigarettes. Cigarettes are easily obtained, and are among the most damaging things ever created. But alas, I guess I'll just have to endure more of the faux outrage posted by those on the left. Hypocrites, each and every damn one of you. Especially you skip.

NPCDan

Odd. I just pulled these stats off of a government site, and didn't see any entry, other than "Intentional self-harm", to be even remotely gun related.

So what? Everyone EVENTUALLY dies of something. But that doesn't mean that 6-year old children should die as the price society must pay for your so-called right to own the type of weapon of mass destruction that killed them.

Where is the outrage when an organization kills a life every 94 seconds?? @Houston -- does that mean the unborn must die because of choice?

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/planned-parenthoods-new-annual-report-we-did-333964-abortions-1-every-94-seconds

No easy solution, but I think that a lot of people are having a hard time keeping things in perspective

1. In general, gun violence is down across the US, with only a few key areas like Chicago that trended the opposite direction
2. Most gun-related violence occurs with illegally obtained firearms
3. Most gun-related violence is gang-related

Now, for the occasional mass shooting, that's a different story:

1. Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US in the last 30 years, five have happened from 2007 onward
2. Most mass shootings are carried out with legally obtained firearms

Honestly, 2 things need to happen

First, we need to put greater resources and attention into identifying, treating and monitoring (and committing when necessary) people who are mentally ill.

Next, we need to establish a comprehensive national database for conducting background checks and revise HIPAA regulations so that those who have been or are being treated for serious mental illness(es) and or have been declared mentally deficient by a court should be barred from owning or possessing firearms (would have prevented Virginia Tech shooting and at least stifled the Aurora shooter's ability to get firearms...but not his bombs/armor). I think that this should also be extended where such a person cannot take up residence with a registered gun owner. Just as importantly, registered gun owners that do not take adequate precautions to prevent such an unqualifiable person from obtaining their firearms shall be charged as an accessory to any crimes that are committed with the firearm (this would have prevented the Tucson and possibly Newtown shootings as both shooters obtained their parents' weapons). In fact, I'd go the extra step and have acting as a straw buyer a capital offense and those that illegally sell (or fail to report the theft of) their firearms should be held strictly and severally liable for the crime(s) committed with the weapon.

I am personally pro-2nd amendment, I feel that responsible people should be allowed to own most any type of weapon (with obvious exceptions), but that such ownership should also require strict compliance with safety and regulations and a thorough knowledge of their state's laws about when and where it is appropriate for them to use their weapon(s).

Lastly, as for paranoia about protecting yourself against a US government totalitarian takeover...yeah...it's not going to end well...they have well-trained armies, infrastructure, reconnaissance, and seriously advanced technology and weapons. The only thing your resistance will cause in the event that marshal-law is declared is to ruin the day of 1 or 2 soldiers before you and your house (i.e. trailer) are riddled with bullets and all of your Dale Earnhardt commemorative dinnerware lay shattered on the floor.

In the end a wide sweeping gun control bill ( probably spearheaded by Diane Feinstein from California) will be defeated in the house. Look for Obama to use his excutive powers to get around this and make it into law. Abusive power to get what he wants is what I fear will happen. If this happens, then what little faith I have in our democracy will be completely gone.

Houston: The AR-15 was designed and offered to citizens as a hunting rifle BEFORE the military go hold of it and modified it to the M-16 family of guns, so it was NOT designed to kill a bunch of people it was designed to hunt with. I would also suggest you read the Founding Fathers notes, letters and journals to actually understand what they meant when writing the Second Amendment which is in fact that everyone be armed.

Also the Supreme Court has already back up that the Second Amendment does in fact protect peoples rights to own guns and they have also said it applies to the common guns of the time i.e. time being current. They have also ruled that a persons right to defend themselves, family and property does not stop at ones front door.

Also what all the anti-gunner's fail to realize is any law enacted will not affect 1 single gun owned prior to any possible law taking effect. The Constitution bans "retro-active" laws unless it's to clarify a law already in affect. What the means is of the 2.5 million AR-15's (as a example) out there ever one of them will still be fully legal to own and sell regardless of what the knee jerk reaction is in Washington or what the anti-gunners/anti-constitution people want.

Skip Nicholson: you forgot 1 more law: Make every citizen wear tee shirts that read "Owned and controlled by the United States Government".

Ben-636050

Where is the outrage when an organization kills a life every 94 seconds?? @Houston -- does that mean the unborn must die because of choice?

I always find it disgusting that people equate fertilized eggs and mindless fetuses with real live human beings with functioning minds.

I just recently read in the L.A. Times that during the Ontario Gun Show, they sold out quickly....lines were 4 hours long to get in. In December alone, there were over 900,000 applications received. Boy, that sure makes me feel really secure!!!

I don't know about anyone else, but I have a big baseball bat next to my bed. Trust me, I can grab that at a moment's notice.....not so much for getting my little Raven out of my nightstand drawer, rounding up the magazine from the bottom drawer, shoving the magazine into the pistol, taking the safety off, and then shooting it! I think I'll stick with the bat --- much faster and probably a lot less invasive, but it'll do the job if you hit in the right place!! And, while the so-called crook is down, I have zip ties in my nightstand....how fast can I whip a zip tie around his wrists? Besides, I might actually shoot my husband by accident.....that would not be a good thing!

As for everyone's comments about mentally ill people being the main group who use guns illegally....do you consider gang members as being mentally ill? Here in California, we have more problems with gang shootings; i.e., drive-bys, than anything else! These are kids who seem to think that it's "macho" to go out and shoot someone from a car. As far as I'm concerned, it's downright cowardly......it would be more "macho" to get out of the car and have a fist fight! Shooting someone who is most probably unarmed (especially small babies) seems a little ridiculous to me....not sure where that makes anyone "macho." Additionally, how can you outwardly tell if someone is mentally ill? There are people out there who are walking around looking perfectly sane; then "SNAP," they go off the deep end with absolutely NO provocation whatsoever. Who's going to be able to tell if someone has a mental problem when they purchase a gun......what kind of application would you have them complete?

As for the Newtown killings......incredibly sad; however, I have to put the blame on Lantz's mother. She had the guns in the home, unlocked, and then went on a vacation and left her mentally unstable son alone with them. This is the SAME mother who told the babysitter to not take his eyes off her young son when he was a small child! What happened to that same thought when she went off on vacation? Unfortunately, she paid with her life. It just seems a little weird to me that you would take your apparently mentally ill son out to a gun range to teach him how to shoot!!! Anyone but me think that's a bit much?

I have to agree.....assault rifles and 100+ round magazines are NOT necessary! If you're an avid hunter and you're using these types of weapons to kill your prey.....you aren't really a hunter! Even tho' I'm a retired Army officer.....I still don't see ANY reason why the average person needs to have rifles that fire 2-3+ or more rounds at one shot.....totally not necessary even for protection!

Anyway, not sure what the answer is here, but I have to agree with some of the posters on this vine....the Founding Fathers had absolutely NO idea what kind of weapons we would have 200 years later. I'm sure, had they known or had an inkling, the Constitution would have been much different. I guess it's all a matter of how you interpret their meaning; however, for me.....it meant that people would have the right to bear arms to form a militia......we don't need an armed militia any longer as we have the National Guard, we have armed police, etc. The types of weapons that some people are purchasing now are totally unnecessary! Just my opinion......

Take them out as soon as they see them!

T_Bird69

Houston: The AR-15 was designed and offered to citizens as a hunting rifle BEFORE the military go hold of it and modified it to the M-16 family of guns, so it was NOT designed to kill a bunch of people it was designed to hunt with.

What was it designed to hunt? Herds of buffalo?

I would also suggest you read the Founding Fathers notes, letters and journals to actually understand what they meant when writing the Second Amendment which is in fact that everyone be armed.

I read the Federalist Papers years ago in poli-sci. I don't recall any such intent being expressed. Please cite the specific reference to support your claim.

Also the Supreme Court has already back up that the Second Amendment does in fact protect peoples rights to own guns and they have also said it applies to the common guns of the time i.e. time being current.

Bringing up the Supreme Court, you lose. Antonin Scalia, the most conservative Justice on the Supreme Court wrote in his opinion overturning the D.C. gun law that that laws placing reasonable restrictions on the types of weapons people could own were constitutional.

"For a Militia" I believe is how the 2nd Amendment starts! We have the National Guard a militia and we don't need all the D guns. Change the 2nd Amendment it is outdated after 230 years.

Didi:

I guess it's all a matter of how you interpret their meaning; however, for me.....it meant that people would have the right to bear arms to form a militia.....

The gun zealots seem to think the clause about the well-regulated militia was just put there to fill up some empty space.

Libs really need to grow up, their fantasies will not come true.

First, the 2nd amendment is quite clear in it's meaning if you bother to study the writings of the founding fathers. All able bodied men were considered part of the militia, it was NOT part of the military establishment. It was written to afford men protection from any threat including the tyranny of government.

Second, democrats have a real bad history with gun bans. The last time, they lost the entire congress for a dozen years. With already losing the house and not too far from losing the senate there is no way they will press anything major, including assault weapons or high capacity magazines, the very things that cost them so dearly last time.

Third, the people are NOT with them, that is their biggest fantasy. Guns are not less popular and prevalent, they are more popular and prevalent, particularly with women.

As mentioned earlier, every incident causes even more people to arm themselves. According to the FBI, 2.1 million background checks were executed in Nov and a record 2.78 million in Dec. That's nearly five million more armed citizens in just two months. In addition, Brownells had sold a 3.5 year supply of AR-15 magazines in just 72 hours and news channels have reported gun shops being emptied of AR-15's and associated weapons.

Faced with these facts, it is patently absurd to talk about ANY confiscation or registration. Even a gun ban would be a joke with literally millions of "assault weapons", (a totally made up term), already out there. As the last ban proved, there was zero difference, it had absolutly no effect whatsoever.

Libs are way to focused on what feels good at the expense of what actually makes a difference. Wishing a ban would make a difference will not make it so, ignoring the complete failure of the last one will not erase that fact.

Hello folks, let me preface my comments by saying I’m a political atheist, I don’t care what political religion one wants to attach themselves to. I have friends on both sides of the fence of the gun debate and I'm here to tell you that not all progressives are for banning guns and not all conservatives are for not banning guns. I personally think that if we give an inch to the government they will take a mile.

According to FBI.gov statistics not those from a lobbying group who advocate policy.

Since 1992 Violent crime is down 50% the Murder rate is down 54%.

Violent crime rate - In 1992 = 757 per 100,000, Murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000.

Let’s see which direction we’re going in!

Violent crime rate - In 2011 = 386 per 100,000 a 50% reduction.

Murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000 a 54% reduction.

Why isn’t the Media reporting the considerable improvement in violent crime?

The key to improving these numbers further is to isolate where the violent crime is being committed.

In Metropolitan US areas where the population is more than 250,000 the violent crime rate is double. The murder rate is double the national average. You can dissect the information down to the neighborhoods. In other words if our government wants to target violent crime and murder they know exactly where the majority of the violent crime is occurring. Instead of spreading fear, they can put action plans into place to reduce violent crime.

According to the Home Office Statistical Bulletin (England’s and Wales version of the FBI) where gun ownership is tightly controlled by law, have put out the enclosed statistics.

England and Wales population is 56 million.

Violent crime = 762,515

Violent crime ratio per 100,000 = 1,361. This is 3 and half times that of the US. Therefore, fewer guns don’t equal less violent crime.

In the US we have 186 metropolitan areas with a population of 250K and England has 32 metropolitan areas with 250K. We have 6 times more metropolitan areas then England and less violent crime.

In 2011 of all the homicides committed by firearms, only 3.5% were committed with rifles and the AR15 is only a subset of the rifle group.

We know where the violent crime is being committed and it is in the urban impoverished areas. If we truly want to address the violent crime issues we need to go into these areas and provide more jobs and a better educational system.

A well armed society can protect itself from an oppressive government. Our founding fathers never said that there wouldn't be a cost associated. And they were a lot smarter than the politicians we have today!!

What I see here is:

"Our government wants to protect us from the guns that protect us from our government"

The invite for all the groups is just a smoke screen: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND WHAT IT WILL RAILROAD THROUGH. The legislation is already written. (Wanna bet?)

One note: the owners of 300 million guns VOTE.

Cut the $hit, put some security in schools to protect our children, quit using our children to further the gun control agenda. Drink the koolaid libtards.

Don't like guns? Move to Mexico! You can use a pichfork against the drug loards.

ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAWS

I read and find everyday how many people in America can be so blind to facts.Laws no matter what they were made to be broken in this world. Adam and Eve broke God's law right off in the Garden Of Eden. If everyone obeyed the laws we already have concerning murders,robberies,domestic violence,whether done with guns,knives hammers,panthose,or anything else,then there would be no problem.If everyone obeyed all the traffic laws there would be fewer deaths on the roads. Everyone knows that murder is against Gods law written by his own hand and is also mans law. Does that stop shooting,stabbings,stranglelations,robberies.or anything else,NO Wake up people,these sicko's is not going to obey any law you make. They have to be met head on gun against gun,knife to knife,sword to sword,an eye for an eye. Thats all they know. Ive seen murderers get as little as 6 years time they reduce the sentence and all. the criminals get all the breaks,while your loved ones are still dead. get this kind of scum off the streets. Just because you change laws is not going to change something that has been on this earth many years before any of us were here.

#1- the people in this country have a constitutional right- dont like it ? too bad.

#2- the areas and states with the TOUGHEST gun control laws have THE HIGHEST murder and violent offense rate. You know, Caifornia, Chicago, Detroit, DC, Newyork. Proving the age old theory, if a criminal wants to commit a crime, they will.

#3- how many of these crimes are committed by convicted felons who are not allowed to possess firearms?

So, if we are going to scrap the 2nd ammendment, then I guess we can scrap the 1st, then the rest of it, then some states can secede from the union lawfully, and start to provide a "normal" place to live where laws exist, and are enforced, and freedom and responsibility are understood. It really is not that difficult.

Amendment II. "A well regulated Malitia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now for all of you who think they know what it says or interpret it in your own way not knowing what it says, There it is, Verbatum. Dont believe me look it up. Read it and read it well.

Also the National gaurd was created by the government, just like sadam had his own own little army.

They are the only branch of the military that can act against the citizens of the U.S.A.

Just remember, "Its better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it up and remove all doubt.

Why did Obama let funding for school security lapse by refusing to sign it when it came over his desk??? Yet he managed to work up a tear!

I think we can all agree that we will never be able to get rid of guns and that if someone wants to kill another human being, they will find a way to do it. What I find most amazing in reading posts on here is when gun advocates compare guns to cars as lethal weapons. Unless I am totally missing the point of this crazy argument, weren't guns made to kill something? Don't you have to be licensed, photographed, entered into a national register and pass a test to operate a car? If the gun advocates insist on this comparison, certainly they would agree that the same type of care and record keeping would/should be in order when you purchase a gun.

Elliot said:

Unfortunately for you the constitution recognizes our right to arm ourselves with weapons solely designed for protection from others.

I think that is a sad and unfortunate thing to have to worry about but I guess I am very fortunate to live in a pretty safe place. I don't know where you live but when people come to my house, they usually bring a bottle of wine or a cake. That being said, why do you need an assault weapon normally used by soldiers and police to protect yourself?

If Lanza had walked into the school with a knife nobody would have died.

I see silly stuff like this from the left all the time.

Here's what researching before you speak will show people.

In China in 2012, there was mentally ill person who slashed 22 kids. Yes, none did die, but in 2010 in a series of knife attacks in China 20 were killed and 50 wounded.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite

forget a GUN BAN , just have a "SCUM BAN" and ban all scumbags ,psychos ,crazies and criminals,throw in the crooked scumbag politicians who want to violate our rights too ,instead of the guilty party

skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City

"I think that's fine, this is America and everyone has a right to be at the table...."

"....Finally, we need to learn how to speak to one another in a civil manner and deal with our issues and problems in a mature fashion and not with childish insults and boorish behavior...."

Well stated, Skip. Your Oklahoman pragmatism, and common sense are showing again (Would it be ok if we cloned you? Newsvine could really use a few thousand Skip Nicholsons)

;-)

Silverton

There is no defined "Assault Rifle". That from a Phd in Law (not me). Assault Rifle is a left Wing definition that has no real definition other than to invoke fear in the uniformed and underinformed. In legal terms anything used in an assault is an assault weapon.

Yes, plastic cutlery can be an assault weapon.

You can ban any weapon you want, and people who want to do damage will find another convenient way to do so.

BTW. The army does have a true assault weapon. It fires charged shells at targets.

"Despite the fact that my loved one was killed by an assault weapon, I still believe Americans have the right to own them" Ever seen that statement anywhere after a mass shooting? How many of the Newtown, Columbine, etc. parents were NRA members? Shouldn't they have supported the cause and publically spoke out on it when the calls for bans started? Guess it's an easy to be principled until it becomes personal.

@Black cat.... I have a rapid fire revolver... also I can swap out a magazine in under a second while still shooting... called a tactical reload.. I've competed against police in many events and beat them hands down...

And to people who think that average police officers are proficient with firearms I can also show you a police locker room with 7 bullet holes made over a short amount of time..

I don't doubt this one bit. I have shot against many LE officers and most of them are terrible shots. My close friend is a Sheriff and we would shoot often. He had invited several other officers to one of our shoots. No I shot against them with a weapon I used for a first time that day and beat all of them hands down. Beat them so bad it was a joke and I don't even shoot al that often. One shoot we did wasa timed event moving and shooting at several targets. Severeal of them completely missed their targets. One had an excuse " well it's different when you have someone else shooting at you". I aske had he even been shot at his answer was no, so it had no relevance to what we were doing. In fact if someone else was shooting I feel sory for any bystanders like the ones in NYC shot by the cops.

You libs want to rely on the cops which can take 10 minutes or more(if a call is even made) to get to you and then spend 5+ min more figuring out what to do. I can see it now you libs we end up like the ones in CT yrs ago when 2 felons did a home invasion and tied up the family as the father was against guns and could not defend himself or family. In fact while these thugs raped his wife and 2 daughters he did nothing...well kinda. When he had the chance while the thugs were lighting his family on fire he ran away instead of helping them. By the time the cops got there the house was engulfed and thugs were gone. Just like a typical sissy-afraid of guns lib. I would give my life to protect my family with a gun or not. but since I have guns/weapons strategically placed in case something bad ever happens. I know you folks will call me crazy or a nut-what are the chances of anything happening well you can try and tell that to my wldery neighbor who was murdered at home for no apparent reason, the first one in our town.

I could tell you some other things but it would be a waste of my breath because there is no reasoning with you libs. You libs want to rely on cops like Jose Santiago, Manuel Ramos, Jay Cicinelli or the thousands of other murdering, pedophilic, abusing, etc cops out there

Jim,

They have a right to a Militia with arms. The 2nd Amendment begins with to form a militia and that is who should have guns.

According to the CDC, Homicide is in the top 5 of leading causes of death in Americans under the age of 25. In the overall Homicide category the leading cause is firearm related murders. Additionally, the number 1 cause of death in Americans under the age of 25 is classified under, Unintentional Injury deaths. A breakdown of this category shows firearm related homicides are in the top 3 or 4 listed causes. Additionally, firearm related suicides are also in the top 4 or 5, causes of death in all age groups. Now it's arguable the someone wishing to suicide will find some way to do so. But, it's clear that the firearms are a very common solution...

As a society, it is simply amazing that we tolerate this level of violence. It's a fact that the the way we've interpreted the 'right's of gun owners has simply trumped the constitutional rights of many thousands of Americans and their families. It is really time to fix this!

Jim,

They have a right to a Militia with arms. The 2nd Amendment begins with to form a militia and that is who should have guns

CLWYD

the Militia that they speak of are the people/citizens not the Army or what have you. A little lesson for you. If you are going to speak about history (2nd amendment) then why don't you start with history.

From the Deceleration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

Now you see, the long chain of abuses the founding fathers had just suffered were caused by the rightful king of England. They wrote the declaration of independence to explain to all mankind why they were declaring Independence.

They wrote the Bill of rights (the key 10 rights we all share) to set a basis of the constitution and lock the major rights in place so all understood.

Now the constitution was written at a time where people knew and understood a lot better then we do what a government is capable of in terms of causing harm to The People. And the Founders knew that there was no way in heck the revolution would have been possible without an armed populace.

Right in the middle of the Declaration they specifically state "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That is the Founders outright saying that NO Government can be trusted to always put the people first, they believe that sooner or later the revolution may need to be repeated. They specifically placed the second amendment into the Bill of Rights to ENSURE it would be safe FROM Government.

If we are going to do history lessons let's really get in there(history).

STFU elliot-3020456 you are a stupid @!$%#ing douchebag who deserves to be kicked in your tiny nuts. Putz!

If the "gun control" answer were used to deal with other issues......

Bottles & cans would be banned to solve alcoholism

Motel rooms & the backseat of cars would be banned to solve teenage pregnancy

Tires would be banned to solve automobile accidents

Borders would be banned to eliminate illegal immigration

Suspenders would be banned to solve obesity

Banning firearms can ONLY take away from the law-abiding.... by definition, criminals DO NOT follow the law

@ Trust Verify:

I don't care what political religion one wants to attach themselves to. I have friends on both sides of the fence of the gun debate and I'm here to tell you that not all progressives are for banning guns and not all conservatives are for not banning guns.

According to FBI.gov statistics not those from a lobbying group who advocate policy.

Since 1992 Violent crime is down 50% the Murder rate is down 54%.

Violent crime rate - In 1992 = 757 per 100,000, Murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000.

Let's see which direction we're going in!

Violent crime rate - In 2011 = 386 per 100,000 a 50% reduction.

Murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000 a 54% reduction.

Why isn't the Media reporting the considerable improvement in violent crime?

Excellent post as usual, Trust. Spot on.

Why isn't the media reporting the drop in crime rate? Simple: they are anti-Second Amendment and pro-Nazi.

I personally think that if we give an inch to the government they will take a mile.

Yep. We already have TWENTY THOUSAND PLUS gun laws on the books. We don't need more, and our Constitutional rights have been trampled on enough. I'm not giving up any more.

I imagine who ever goes will want to know the answer to just ONE question: Does the Secret Service give you the option of KY Jelly or Vasoline when they do their search for concealed weapons?

Like having the kkk attend a civil rights meeting....suuuurrre.

I'm a gun owning moderate. I have very mixed feeling about gun-control. One thing I'm absolutely sure of is high capasity mags should NOT be banned. For anyone that has never owned one, it would only save lives in these mass shootings. As indicated by the aurora shooters 100 round mag jamming. I own 2 40-round clips for my rifle(different manufacturers) and if I load more than 15-20 shots, it jams every single time. Unless you can get your hands on military grade clips(difficult to say the least), it only serves as a preventer in these situations.

Now that I have that out of the way I do believe we need to address gun violence in this country, but the new assault weapons ban(as it is currently worded[yes I've read it unlike many of the gun owning crazies getting their news from Rush and other conservative asshats.]) Read it, and tell me what it will do to ensure that a gun doesn't end up in the wrong hands? By feinsteins own admission on her website, the previous assault weapons ban made a 6% dent in shootings. So we'll still have another Sandy Hook, and another Columbine, but we might not have another aurora shooter.....Big impact! We need a comprehensive approach, and while I don't think this meeting is going to produce it, it is a step in the right direction. All parties concerned need to have serious discussion and come up with what's best for the American people, and not just special interests. Unfortunately like everything in politics these days, nothing good will come of it, and we'll just end up with some meaningless legislation that fails to address the full scope of the problem! (From a libertarian gun owning Non-NRA member)

Fishman.

I taught it for 34 years and totally disagree with much of your reasoning as to some of the out dated events you describe. We don't need a militia, we don't need more guns in school, I would hope all teachers would realize that when a person is downing you don't pour more water on them. Just like you dump more guns into our mess of murders . The past three days headlines.

1.1/5/2013 New York man kills mother over TV show argument.

2.1/6/2013 Aurora, Colorado: 4 dead including suspect found in house.

3.1/7/2013 4 women fatally shot in Tulsa, Oklahoma apartment.

I've read not one story about anyone saving a life and if you add the 11,000-12,0000 killings of neighbors, family members, in Mall, on college campuses etc. it is something that needs to be stopped and so do guns!

fishman, Our Founding Fathers were talking about the British. they are not a threat after 230 years, but are our allies. "to form a Militia" was to protect us from them or any other intruder or to be used against ourselves. 230 some years changes things and the meaning of history. At least for intelligent people!

clwyd-2621393: 1-5-2013 An Atlanta mom took matters into her own hands on Friday when confronting an intruder. The unidentified woman hid with her 9-year-old twins in a crawlspace as a man broke into her house and began rummaging through it. The alleged burglar, Paul Ali Slater, eventually found the family’s hiding space, but not before finding himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver. The woman fired six shots, five of which hit Slater in the face and neck, but he managed to flee after the family ran to a neighbor’s house. Slater is expected to survive.

8-10-2012 Early, Texas A Good Samaritan with a good aim is credited with saving the life of a small-town cop who was under fire when he shoots the man that has the cop pinned down.

I could post a lot more stories like this because there is plenty of them out there about armed citizens saving lives, but guess what you very seldom hear about them because it doesn't further the anti-gunners agenda.

Most realistic/reasonable new legislation:

1. Background checks mandatory for firearms purchases

2. Closing loopholes for gunshows (primarily background checks)

3. No person-to-person firearms sales- Transfer only through FFLs (will cost more to buy, but most of us do it like this anyways)

New gun laws only apply to the law abiding citizen whom already follows them to the tee and fears any mistakes will cause them to loose their rights for good. Criminals will continue to get them and do as they will. For those saying that all it takes is new "common sense laws", clearly if that's all it takes then please feel free to explain why we have drug problems in our country when meth, coke, heroin, pcp, etc. are illegal? I thought laws cleaned things up, whereas these drugs impact our law enforcement and judicial systems, our medical system, education system, etc. etc. to the cost of billions per year. You can see that restrictions only apply to those willing to be restricted.

Elliot-To disregard the second amendment is tyranny. The second amendment is is there to stop tyranny. Choose your battles wisely.

It never ceases to amaze me,that right-wing crazies think they could stand-up to the government if they really came for them. Ruby Ridge,and Waco,among other cases show you the ultimate result of that thinking.

Countries like Australia,New Zealand,Canada,the UK,Germany,France,Netherlands,Sweden,Denmark,etc. All countries that are firm democratic societies,and have sensible gun controls.Even Switzerland has more gun controls that we do. And they are the one western country that right-wingers use as an example for guns not being a problem. The countries which we most resemble with our level of gun violence,are more the Syria's,Irag's,Pakistan's,Afghanistan's and Somalia's of this world than any western democracy.

We need to have a serious national discussion as to which type of society we want to be.Before its too late,and our level of violence is so much that the choice is gone.

@UncleBob

While I am a gun owner, I'm not one of the crazies stockpiling to overthrow the government. There is a hole in your logic about Waco. You are correct, one group of gun owning crazies can't overthrow the government. But if the government tried(never going to happen) to confiscate all guns, our society would be over. Most of the military and police would defect rather than confiscate weapons. The government would overthrow itself simply by enacting something like this, since their wouldn't be any muscle left on their side!

Just givin ya the facts man!

elliot-3020456

It would be more helpful if they invited some mental health experts.

This was one of my thoughts after reading the article. Why no health specialists? Why no psychiatrists and/or psychologists? Why is this issue not addressed? So many people who suffer a mental illness and/or psychological issues, are not medicated properly, even when they are a danger to themselves and to others. Some parents have a child who has a violent behavior, and they can't find help anywhere. Why was a man, who pbviously had psychological issues, and had murdered his grandmother, released from prison? In this case another person bought the guns for him, so a background check wouldn't have made any difference. I don't think we should return to the exact same institutions system as before, but this needs to be addressed.

Recently a woman shot a man (who broke into her house) in the face 5 times and the man was still alive and able to get out of the house and drive his car (just for a short time), as far as I know she unloaded her gun on him completely, what would have happened to her if the man hadn't been alone? She needed either a bigger caliber or a semi-automatic with more bullets.

More gun control will work only with law abiding citizens, who are the ones who will be left defenseless, while criminals will still get guns, any type of guns, whenever they want. A good example of that is Mexico and the drug cartels.

Instead of asking the government to take away more freedom from law abiding citizens, why not take personal responsibility, and report someone whom you believe may be a danger to others? whether this person owns guns or not. But then again as long as the mental illness issue is not addressed, there will still be plenty of disturbed people who are a danger to others, and to themselves, roaming around, and they will still continue killing either with guns, knives, or even no weapon at all ... while the law abiding citizen, who will have been disarmed, will be in even more danger due to sick jerks like Holmes, Lanza, and Spengler.

markinbecker

If Lanza had walked into the school with a knife nobody would have died.

How can you assume this? In China (and everywhere else in the world) people get stabbed, and die, very often. Are you some kind of martial arts expert? because stopping a crazy man with a machete might not be as easy as you seem to believe.

Personally I think the only ones who would have stopped him would have been the cops with their guns, just the same as what happened.

AnaBanana-1782128

My husband denounced and left the NRA years ago. He is still a conservative gun owner.

If it wasn't of the NRA your husband probably wouldn't be a gun owner anymore, they may not be perfect, but they stand between politicians, who would like to disarm citizens, and gun owners.

sullyness

That explain why we have so many more gun homicides, and just plain homicides than the rest of the 1st-world nations?

Wrong. Many countries have a murder rate higher then ours. Russia for example, where the gun laws are more severe then ours (in general), have a murder rate that is twice ours.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

elliot,
IMO the intent of the 2nd amendment was/is to allow us to have an armed militia … not to arm every citizen

The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to have the right to bear arms to protect themselves as well. Let me post a few quotes:

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self defence.”

Thomas Paine: “…arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Two words of advice to the Secret Service regarding the NRA "representative" visiting the White House:

CAVITY SEARCH!

The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart had an excellent show about gun control tonight. Most of the asinine pro gun arguments presented in this very thread were shredded inside 20 minutes. His guest, Gen. Stanley McChrystall, even chimed in on the subject.

I recommend y'all watch it when it becomes available.

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/Shows/TheDailyShow

And guess what people... the lawyer for the sole survivor in the Newtown classroom wants to sue for 100 million... Saying that the school and state should have protected them... that means having an armed guard there at the school...

T-bird,

Wow , you found one against the many I had listed and the mass murders I didn't list ! Congratualtions, but small reason to have more guns over the overwhelming proof we should lock them up!

Houston 1.107

It seems your ideology is showing since you see and hear only that which conforms to your twisted beliefs. Your comment about the AR-15 demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of that particular platform which is that while it's well suited for hunting, that isn't the point at all. Read on.

You claim to have read the Federalist Papers, eh? Did you ever read the militia act of 1791? If you did you would know that there was a requirement that every male between certain specific ages be required to possess a gun equivalent to the military grade guns (not hunting guns) of the time and have ammunition for it.

Did you ever read the U.S. Code where the makeup of the militia is defined as ordinary citizens? I threw this bit of information in just in case you're one of those that thinks the militia is the National Guard.

Your argument claiming the Supreme Court supports you by citing one justice's casual reference but omits an actual decision. For that decision, refer to "U.S. vs Miller (1939)" where in handing down their decision on what the 2nd amendment protects, they said: "military style weapons were the most protected of all".

This is the reason for the 2nd amendment and if you don't like it, get it changed or removed from the Constitution. Be sure to let me know how that works out for you.

RTypo, John Stewart is the Liberal hack version of FOX's Bill O'reilly's conservative hack version. They are both extreme. You know what happens when you go too far to the left or too far to the right? That's correct, you have gone too far!

The 2nd Amendment is a right not a privilege. I agree with Wet Willy, if you don't like it change the constitution, good luck with that. I'm a political atheist but if Obama tries to sign an Executive Order to challenge our 2nd Amendment right we will do whatever we can to impeach him. He's already proven to be a traitor by eliminating many of our civil liberties.

We have lost most of our civil liberties through the passage of the Patriot Act, Foreign Investigation and Surveillance Act (FISA) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the new National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP)! They have authorized the use of spy drones in American skies! You can be surveilled by any number of Federal agencies, have your phone and computer tapped, bank, medical, and private records accessed! You can be arrested without gaining access to an attorney or a trial. We are molested at the airports or radiated for “security”. And just recently added National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) which comes on the heels of NDAA. This Executive Order allows the government to take pretty much whatever it wants including crops, farm equipment, vehicles, boats, aircraft and fuel to “prepare” for the national defense. This includes making people work for free. You think I’m kidding about the free labor? Here’s a line straight from the EO that says, “. . . to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation. . .” This is authorized even in peace time!

I think perhaps your problem is you look to John Stewart and Bill O'Rielly for information. Would you include Oprah too? I'd like to hear from some of our military folks out there. I'd like to know their thoughts on the 2nd ammendment, making our schools safer/harder tagets, and if they believe the law/government can keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill. I believe our military has a much better idea of the real world. More so than those 2 actors.

But the school children did not die. All of the Newtown children died, every single one. You don't see a difference?

The point is there are sick and deranged people all over the world...guns don't kill people, people kill people.

So the way to stop people from killing people is to take assault rifles off the streets.

But deranged people with guns do kill people. We have to figure out a better way to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. More gun legislation won't keep guns out of the wrong hands, since the mentally ill don't pay attention to the laws we have. After all they are MENTALLY ILL which is why they don't obey the laws we have.

JFK, when a crazy has a knife, he can try to kill someone. When a crazy has the capacity to shoot 26 people in 10 minutes, you've got an entirely different problem.

Gun legislation will indeed keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. If you don't believe me try to buy an automatic weapon. You won't get one, they are banned without a special permit.

So the way to stop people from killing people is to take assault rifles off the streets.

Then they will use what ever they can get to commit mass murder, knifes, bombs what have you. Taking away guns will not stop a crimminal from be a, well crimminal.

They aren't criminals, they are mentally ill or depressed. How is anybody going to commit a mass killing with a knife? Where are they going to get a bomb, at Cabellas. Nope.

jfk

a man in china stabbed 22 school children...are we going to ban knives also?

How many died? ZERO!

The point is there are sick and deranged people all over the world...guns don't kill people, people kill people.

JFK, if you somehow feel that rapid fire weapons with large, rapidly replaceable magazines do not increase the killing efficiency of an individual then you are at odds with every police and military organization in the world. If a madman with a knife equals a madman with a club then I guess you don't need a gun to defend your home either. Surely a club or knife would do just as well.

JFK...

So do nothing?

There are lot of things that could be done without stepping on the 2nd Amendment.

We have to rid the world of rapid fire weapons, oh my. So tell me, you rapid fire weapons experts. What is a rapid fire weapon? I can change the brass out of my 6 shooter and load it in less than 3 seconds. You people are complete idiots!!!!!!!!!

There are no 'assault rifles' or 'assault weapons', meaning fully automatic rifles, used in these crimes.

The media circus is misleading you. And you - the sheep - are being mislead by the hype.

There are some common sense things that can be done immediately. John Q Public does not need military style weapons, ammo, or arsenal. They do not need smoke canisters, tear gas, or 140 round ammunition belts. Those can be eliminated from public purchase and deemed a crime if owned by someone outside of military, police, or high level security.

Register all guns. What is the issue with registering guns? OHHHHHHHHHHHH they want to take our guns a way, BS!

If they try to take my guns away I am going kill the people who want to take my guns away! Just the reason why you should not possess guns.

Seriously, these types of individuals need to start thinking for themselves instead of spewing NRA lunacy.

Flnobody #2.9

How about these?

Zheng Minsheng killed eight children with a knife at an elementary school in China on March 23 2010:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35995544/ns/world_news-asiapacific/#.UOyDQG88CSo

Wu Huanming killed seven children and two adults with a meat cleaver at a school in China on May 12 2010:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/11/china.school.attack/index.html

Sometimes people, including kids do die in knife attacks!

Gun regulations cant keep guns away from nutcases until we have a secure national ID card so we can "mark them" and we wont get an ID card cuz nobody trusts the govt with that much sensitive info. They cant even secure what they have now.

I say if we dont arm schools then we dont have armed secret service protecting our President and all federal buldings need to be unarmed. If we cant protect our kids why should we protect adults? If somebody walks into the school with a bomb straped on him aint a damn thing anybody can do about it. He cold coulld even wait until they were on the playground and run them over with his car. We allow people to legaly own guns in this country and I think it will be very difficult to take peoples guns from them.

scott

Sometimes people, including kids do die in knife attacks!

WOW, you are real smart! I bet you can pick your nose with both hands at the same time too, right?

But what does your post have to do with my post? Did I say no one has been killed with a knife? Why not point out a plane crash has killed people? It would have just as much relevance.

Go read jfk post #2 and try again.

Liberals are nothing if not stupid. Assault weapons account for less than 2% of deaths, the vast majority of gun deaths are with standard hand guns. So, banning assault weapons will NOT reduce the deaths even by that 2%, if none were available the perps would have just used a hand gun instead.

As mentioned earlier, with only a little practice you can reload as fast as you can shoot. This is done in competition all the time. Banning large capacity magazines is an inconvenience, not a deterrent.

Finally, it's the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.

Somebody DEFINE- ASSAULT RIFLE:...........for markinbecker or any other idiot that knows nothing about firearms. Please.....define it. This is what makes their whole argument paper thin, ANY rifle from a tube feed .22 (hell, a single shot .22) to over and under shotgun is an "ASSAULT RIFLE" in the hands of someone who wants to use it as such.

....so where does one draw their line- Hmmm makes you wonder what the progressive liberal agenda really is about. by the way, good job to the gal in Atlanta defending her children and using .38 caliber "Assault pistol", I mean, "revolver".......sometimes freedom is a good thing.

...and vincent black shadow- heres to you,

ANY firearm you purchase, and I mean ANY, since 1990 is REGISTERED with the Federal Govt.. If you knew anything about firearms, you would know that, instead you spew regurgitated horse crap feed to you progressive asses. The NRA lunacy you talk about consists of over 4 million people and growing by 8000 a day. These are people who know why the radical document called the CONSTITUTION was written.

You are un- or ill informed at best- good luck finding your eutopia, you should move to the places in this country where they have the TOUGHEST gun laws, and then tell me how that government excersize is working for you.

VincentBlackShadow: Need to keep in mind that any law enacted will not and can not be retro-active as the Constitution itself ban's retro-active laws.

Markenbaker: You can build a bomb out of the very things in your home it's so freaking simple kids can do it. Oh wait they have, Columbine killers 99 bombs made, last week kid arrested after his journal was found and read by a teacher, police got a search warrant searched his home and found upwards of 40 homemade bombs basically hand grenades just waiting for the fuses to be inserted. Don't forget the Oklahoma City bombing with fertilizer and diesel fuel. Take one thing away and they will move on to something else accept the next time it could be a lot more powerful.

T-Bird

Taxes are often still retroactive, though not called retroactive. The Clinton Tax increase in late 1993, raised the tax table amounts for the "Rich" people, making them pay the higher rate for all of 1994. In 1995, Republicans restored the tax bracket indexing for inflation. That was applied to the 1995 tax table making it effective for the entire year.

Also for the misinformed left. You are misinformed because you take people's writings at face value and accept the oppinions simply because they agree with you.

In 2010 China experienced a series of knife attacks in schools. 20 kids and adults died and 50 were wounded.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15901085-villager-slashes-22-kids-with-knife-at-elementary-school-gates-in-china?lite

The only thing that effectively stops a gun attack is another gun to oppose it.

jim

ANY firearm you purchase, and I mean ANY, since 1990 is REGISTERED with the Federal Govt.. If you knew anything about firearms, you would know that, instead you spew regurgitated horse crap feed to you progressive asses.

Your ignorance is showing through. You can go to a Virginia (for example) gun show. Walk in with no ID and a pocket full of cash. And walk out with an arm full of guns, no paper work or anything.

jim

(hell, a single shot .22) to over and under shotgun is an "ASSAULT RIFLE" in the hands of someone who wants to use it as such.

Wrong again. 1st, it needs a detachable magazine. A over and under shotgun does not have one.

using .38 caliber "Assault pistol", I mean, "revolver".

Again, no detachable magazine.

All killers are, to a greater or lesser degree, mentally insane. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the insane.

Anyone who obtains a gun has already made the determination that they WILL KILL.

They already have the means and the motive, all they are waiting for is the opportunity to KILL.

Those who want to kill are, by definition, insane.

Therefore, we need to remove all the guns from everyone.

See how simple it is to solve that problem.

The point he is trying to make flnobody is any gun can be considered an assault weapon if it is used to assault someone. A true assault weapon is a select fire (semi auto or full auto with a flip of a switch) military rifle. The average law abiding citizen has not been able to purchase a select fire or full auto rifle since 1934. Amost all semi auto military style rifles are virtually impossible to modify to full auto unless you employ a quality machinist to do the work seeing how as the actions( the part of the rifle or hangun that does the work) are different. Now to the rest of you know nothing anti gunners out there: The M16 military version/ ar15 cvilian version was designed in the sixties as a hunting rifle. The military adopted it to phase out the M14.

Although there are many varients and calibers today, the m16/ar15 is designed aroiund the .223 or the military 5.56 which is the same round. The .223 is essentually a varmint round but also used to take deer to praire dogs. It is also chambered in single shot handguns, single shot rifles, and bolt action rifles. Movie myth here, when it is chambered in select fire military rifles or semi auto civilian models, it is not the equivalent of a howitzer as the movies would want you to believe.

Because of their light weight and accuracy, ARs and their varients are used for hunting. They are also used for competion and general plinkin in the back40 or at the range.

A detatchable box magazine does not make any weapon more or less powerful. The magazine only stores the bullets.

Now on to handguns.

Contrary to common belief handguns can be and are used for hunting. The state that I live in prohibits use of any semi auto rifle or hundgun for hunting but we can use revolvers and single shots.

The semi auto rounds, .380, 9mm, 10mm, .40 cal, .45 ACP for example are not the howitzers that the media and the movies make these rounds out to be. Yes they are all excellent defencive rounds bit again not howitzers.

The popular revolver rounds, .38spl, .357mag, .44mag although more powerful than the semiauto rounds still dont have the power that the myths, movies, and media will have you believe. Although much more suitable for hunting rounds over the semi auto rounds, not one of these will shoot through an engine block

Any round shot out of any manufacturers handgun has the same "power". Meaning a 9mm round shot out of a Glock has the same power as a 9mm shot out of a Sig, Smith and Wesson, Ruger, or Colt etc.

In Pa. all rifles, shotguns, and handguns purchased from properly ATF licensed dealers are registed and we pay extra to have them registered.

sonmanvb-Then they will use what ever they can get to commit mass murder, knifes, bombs what have you. Taking away guns will not stop a crimminal from be a, well crimminal.

The problem with this argument (one I see all the time),is that most of these mass murderers aren't traditional "criminals". True of course,bad people doing unlawful acts become criminals by those acts. But most criminals are people committing crimes for profit. Guy's robbing stores,banks,other people.Stealing from houses,cars,etc,do it for profit. They may or may not be armed to help them force people to give them the goods they want.And for protection against the police,or other people not wanting to give up their goods. But the mass murderers and rapist types,are usually a separate animal. They aren't after your money or goods,they want to hurt or kill you. Gun control laws may not cut out criminals getting some guns. But as in most countries,it slows mass murderers from having it easy to get guns to kill people.

markinbecker

But the school children did not die.

You are right about this specific case, however there has been many other attacks with knives, and many children, and adults, did die.

Who knows what happened in this case, maybe the man didn't actually want to kill them, or was too confused to know what he was doing, maybe he would have missed even if he had been armed with a gun.

Sometimes people, including kids do die in knife attacks!

Are you trying to compare mortality rates between knife attacks and firearms attacks? Seriously?

It's not that people don't die in knife attacks, of course they do. But MORE people die in firearms attacks than knife attacks. A lot more.

Then they will use what ever they can get to commit mass murder, knifes, bombs what have you. Taking away guns will not stop a crimminal from be a, well crimminal.

Because they're super-human? Because criminals are generally smarter than the average citizen? Of course not. This is a silly argument.

The purpose is not to stop criminals from being criminals or to stop crazy people from being crazy or to stop violent people from being violent. The purpose is to reduce gun violence but reducing access to guns by criminals, crazies and violent people, wherever possible. Because right now we don't do that, at least not very well.

In 2010 China experienced a series of knife attacks in schools. 20 kids and adults died and 50 were wounded.

That's terrible but, on average, more people than that in the U.S. were killed by firearms just last week. And the week before that. And the week before that. And every week for the past twenty or more years.

How many people in China were killed in knife attacks last week? How about last year?

Comparing knife attacks, and especially the mortality rate thereof, to firearms violence is a waste of time and pointless. Guns kill far more effectively and efficiently, because they're designed to do exactly that.

Sorry, BCWC---the NRA doesn't fear the gun owners. It fears losing the financial support of the gun manufacturers--the corporations it really represents.

Sorry Steeler, that financial support will shift to the GOA if the NRA backs down even slightly.

Last I read the NRA was adding something like 8,000 members a day right now. They have well over 4,000,000 members and growing.

Last I read the NRA was adding something like 8,000 members a day right now. They have well over 4,000,000 members and growing.

They've been losing quite a few too, especially since LaPierre's little show last month. Still, the vast majority of their funding comes from firearms manufacturers, not their membership.

Pedophiles are felons thus can't be unleashed and armed on the school system. But now at least you are thinking outside the box, RedDev;)

So - as a pedophile yourself RDPS - will you be an offended perv when you can't get a gun to defend yourself?

Reddev: this is what passes for intelligent discourse amongst the intellectually challenged gun nuts.

Poor Homie, been "special" and in the Explorer class his whole life.

NewDay---I stupidly hoped that the long silence by the NRA after the events in Ct. meant that they were taking a serious look at their positions and coming up with some place where they would compromise in the interest of protecting the innocent. Of course I was wrong, as we learned from Mr. LaPierre's defiance. So let them come to the White House, send some underling with no authority except to be obstructionist. The nation is moving on. I don't know if anything will come from this tragedy but I know there will be another and some day enough people will stand up and say "enough". You would think the NRA would want to be on the inside of the process---but maybe they think they are through the Congress people they own.

They stayed silent, hoping people would move on. Someday, people will look back at the NRA and wonder why they even existed. They are a blight on America.

And NewDay continues to IGNORANTLY assume that crime will decline with guns out of the hands of law-abiding civilians. Still consuming from the Fountain of Stupid, I see...

Why don't you check out Australia's stats and get back to me on that Homie?

Why dont you check out the Australian PEOPLE. They dont fear their govt. Our country was designed out of fear of govt and the trend is not going in a good direction.

newday you need to cheak on the increase of overall Aussie violent crime.

I did check the Australian stats, and one fact that is/was telling was the increase in violence against women, especially rape.

Dan. Quit googling "Australian Gun Control Ban." All the stuff that pops up are discredited statistics from the Australian Gun Control Lobby and even the NRA. Sure violence and crimes go up or down for various reasons but with regards to actual firearm use related statistics murder, suicide, etc. the ban has been effective. You won't agree and you do not want to hear it but you could always do something "revolutionary" like go to the Australian Governments offical website to get your answers.

@RandogM ,the australian taxes and total control went thru the roof after gun control ,everything is mad expensive there as the gov't now has full control $4.00 for a 12oz 355 mm coke and $8-9 for a gal of gas,they even make you pay a "carbon tax" on almost everything made or sold,yeah sounds like gun control worked as in controlling the masses of"subjects" as they are not civilians anymore,p.s. most factories closed down in australia because of the massive taxes and lack of competivness,crime went thru the roof too

So Randog you actually believe what the Govt says?

newday you need to cheak on the increase of overall Aussie violent crime.

This is not about overall violent crime, it's about gun violence. Firearms homicide rates in the U.S. are 41 times the rate in Australia, per 100,000 population.

It's not even close. In fact, the same thing is true for every industrialized country in the world: the U.S. is not even close.

fubarak

The NRA are the only ones smart enough, to point out that the type of security that officials use, works

Yea, it work real well at Columbine didn't it?

Except people like you won't want to pay for the security and their training..oh wait you think you can make it up by cutting the food stamp budget...lmao

Yeah, and so did your gun ban. It was still in effect then.

Actually, Security Guards typically pay out of pocket for their training and their checks are garnished slightly.

WHOOPS.

...and the FBI statistics show that violent crimes involving guns have DECREASED by 50% in America since 1992. But the Lefties won't point that out, as the Truth defeats their arguments that guns cause more crime & deaths.

Hmm...

Had the security resources at Columbine not been PREVENTED from acting and told to call 911 and await help, they probably would have reduced the severity of that sad event.

BTW, since Columbine the protocols for these security resources have been revised. They no longer are prevented from acting.

homie

..and the FBI statistics show that violent crimes involving guns have DECREASED by 50% in America since 1992. But the Lefties won't point that out

And 10 years of that included the assault weapons ban. But you righties won't point that out.

homie

.and the FBI statistics show that violent crimes involving guns have DECREASED by 50% in America since 1992

Like the homicide rate generally, gun-involved incidents increased sharply in the late 1980's and early 1990's before falling to a low in 1999. The number of gun-involved homicides increased thereafter to levels experienced in the mid 1980's.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

Well I guess that violent crimes and murder with a gun is different.

...and the FBI statistics show that violent crimes involving guns have DECREASED by 50% in America since 1992

ALL violent crimes have decreased since 1992, but in the U.S. the firearms violence rate (which is not the same as overall violent crime rate) is measured in multiples of the rates for every other industrialized country in the world.

It's not even close.

Ever heard of sales tax? Property tax? Next there are public schools that already have armed guards.

Local tax dollars support the local schools.

Like Columbine but it did not stop the slaughter.

"The NRA are the only ones smart enough....."

See what I mean, endless source of humor from the NRA thugs.

Let me think, who would be the least likely to come up with a solution to out of control guns in America then an organization whose sole raison d'etre is to what?

Sell more guns!

Yepppers, that's it. Let's listen to the NRA thug gun lobby. Then ALL of America can live in armed bunkers, which is where all of this is heading.

Pat - I want the President of the NRA at the next shooting site - armed with a handgun. Let's see how he does - if we have to bury him, he was wrong. If he can stop the killer with the assault weapon, we'll listen to what he has to say!

Rapid fire guns with high capacity magazines are the only product I can think of that, when properly maintained and "used as directed", kills people. Sure seems like a direct tax on them to clean up the mess they cause would be a sensible step.

Well at least give him an semi automatic weapon instead of the handgun so that he is evenly matched!

SeekingINSanity, That would mean that you know when the next one is going to happen so I would suggest that you inform local law enforncement rather that waste your time getting the President of the NRA to be there.

sonmanvb - nope - just wishing he and his family were at the next shooting. He has no problem with them or the deaths that occur so let him be there to work his magic. Bet he can't hit the side of a barn!

sam4ever- nope - a handgun!

Lets ban forks..........they made Rosie Odonald fat

I'll take that challange, just let me know when you intend on making your assault on the next school.

You are a bunch of imbeciles. Yes the NRA is supported by many gun and ammo manufacturers. It is also supported by over 4 million individual law abiding citizens. It is also supported by most if not all law enforcement agencies. It is also supported by many other businesses that do not manufacture or sell firearms.

Much like your President has been supported by about every facet of finance this country has even though he is against everything they stand for. He should have been impeached a long time ago for disregarding his oath of office and violationg his sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution. I am hopeful that our Congress will grow the stones to actually push for that, but then again I am hopeful that stupidity would be cured. Not going to happen.

What made her ugly? let's ban that also

N Laruino - okay, idiot. Tell us, when did the President disregard his oath of office and violate his duty to protect the Constution? NEVER Why doesn't it surprise me you're an avid gun fan???

Seeking Sanity,

I wear the terms gun nut and gun fan as a badge of honor. Not every gun nut sees conspiracy theory and impeachment doings in every move that Obama makes. We don't all continue to spew glum and doom about every move Obama makes and think that the sky is falling. There are differences between a gun nut and a nut.

It is good that the NRA has been invited to the meeting since nothing will pass without the blessing of their membership. Nothing will come of this meeting, the NRA will not agree to any changes. At least half the membership will be in agreement with them. If magazine size is limited and “assault” (mean-looking, ugly, scary to the uninformed) semi automatics are banned what happens when that doesn’t solve anything? Do we then ban all semi automatics and all magazines? Do you go after bolt action high power rifles, handguns, 22 rifles, shotguns, then bb guns and air rifles? How does making more laws help save lives when the laws we already have on the books were ignored in the first place? I'm all for a few restrictions if someone can explain to me just how they will change the outcome. Republicans has said that until the fiscal cliff mess is solved, they don't want to hear about this issue. So it has been thrown back into the Democrats lap. If they want any chance of some changes being made, they need to deal with the economy first so that some Republicans will be on board with them in their quest for more meaningless laws.

The US Government could VERY easily pay to have an Armed Guard in Every single school in this country if they stopped sending BILLIONS over seas to nations that hate America, nations that support terrorist organizations ie:Pakistan and various nations within Africa. Our Government needs to stop acting as if they are the worlds Police and start worrying about what is happening here at home.. If they stopped sending these BILLIONS of $$$'s over seas they would be able to start paying down our National Debt, Strengthen our Economy, AND Provide proper Security for our Nations most valuable resource-- Our Children! Why is it that Armed Security is good enough to Protect the Idiot in the white house, Federal buildings, Politicians amongst many other places/people, but it isnt good enough for our children? Armed Security at school's would NOT tell children that the law doesnt matter. I personally grew up in the Inner City in CT (New Haven) where Police Officers were assigned to EVERY school in the City. This in turn taught me to respect Law Enforcement, strengthened the Law Enforcement/Community bonds/relationship.

how about just taxing the parents of the kids in the schools! why should non parent adults pay for your brats and their education &safety ,make a "kiddie tax" and charge according to the amount of kids that they churn out !!! bet they would be alot less kids around if you had to pay for your own "mistakes"

Mark, First off we don't consider these kids"mistakes" just cause your Mama knew you were one. These children are our future and will one day pick your nursing home or at the very least be working so that you can become an even more cranky old man in a nursing home . Hopefully they will pick a nurse Ratchet type for your care.

All over the reset of the industrialized world, statistics clearly show that more access to guns means more gun violence. Contrary to the NRA's policy, the solution to gun violence is not more guns.

It's not that complicated.

Sounds like another Tipper Gore moment about to happen.

Did he include himself on that "mentally ill" list?

No not at all. He is a graduate of Harvard and very brilliant and very talented. He is doing the right thing and yet you criticize him. Your are a real hater.

Now that is an oxymoron. Using Al Franken and brilliant is the same sentence.

You're just jealous that a guy who started off as a comedian became a senator.

And he's obviously pretty good at it, since they keep voting for him.

snowfi6916

You're just jealous that a guy who started off as a comedian became a senator.

And he's obviously pretty good at it, since they keep voting for him.

Just shows the high level of ignorance on the left. Not really something to be proud of!

Being a graduate of Harvard doesn't mean crap. Anyone can attend there and graduate, with sh*t grades. Doesn't make them smart. Or effective in their calling.

Homie - bet you couldn't!!!!

Franken "good at it"???? HAHAHA, He's from Minnesota. Jessie Ventura, Backman, etc. Its a low bar up there.

Although I guess he's a good one to find the mentally ill. I hear they're good at spotting their own kind. ;)

there it is.....

don't ban guns, its a mental health problem....

someone's working on that issue......

he's an idiot........

great argument, I see the republican debate team is here

Al Franken is extremely intelligent. In fact, most funny people are. It's not a coincidence.

yeah, I liken that to inviting planned parenthood to a meeting on breast cancer research.

Gun control is like posting a sign on your cheese that says, "DO NOT EAT".

If that is so then why is the SEIU union at the whitehouse on a weekly basis....................Oh wait they bought the President!!!!!!!

Because the NRA has several million members and they are the gun experts. Most Liberals politicians are 'Gun-Dumb' and will need to consult with other gun experts to learn what they don't know about guns.

right to petition? Just saying..

Banning of high capacity magazines won't do any thing. Guess what we did in the nam with 10 tound mags we were given. We taped them together to make a 20 round mag. So we would also have to band tape. Ignorant libtards.

So we would also have to band tape.

Agreed. Asking to ban magazines just shows how Liberals just don't get it, specially when most of them have never even seen or fired a real gun. They don't even understand the proper operation and safety.

I saw a liberal with a squirt gun the other day. Iasked if it had a water leak. He said No I am so afraid of this gun I pissed myself!

Err on the side of caution.

How will we define a mental illness that precludes the person from having access to fire arms?

That's a slippery slope for sure...I don't trust our government to limit themselves. I think it could be along the lines of inpatient level mental disorders such as having Bi-polar, Personality Disorders, Autism, and the like.

Things like ADHD and various forms of depression that we experience during life should not be dis-qualifiers.

Those decisions are above our pay grade. Let the doctors make that call.

Instead of worrying about the mentally ill in terms of guns, why don't you show some concern by making sure that folks can access treatment and follow up?

If you TREAT the illness, it may alleviate the concern.

Right on NDD! That is exactly what needs to happen. Unfortunately, for many years now, treatment for mental illness has been cut and the patients now have nowhere to go but out into the streets--has been happening since Reagan was president. The "conservatives" do not believe in mental illness--afterall, "you are lazy and have no gumption--pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and stop whining. Don't spend OUR tax dollars on those people." This attitude needs to change. I agree--treatment and follow-up can go a long way to help this situation!

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

nurse: part of this problem was created by St. Ronnie, who cut funding to any mental health service he could, especially community services.

Mental health treatment should be accessible to all who need it.

That's it Truth. We all have times in our lives when we are depressed. Our parents die, we get a divorce. We lose our jobs. Many things can depress us for a while. Those things should not be counted when it comes to determining whether we should or should be allowed to have a firearm.

And those of you who want to have a gun owner be liable if someone steals their guns and shoots someone. What if someone stole your car and killed someone with it. Would you be liable for that death? Of course not. If I have a gun in my drawer for protection, and someone breaks into my home while I'm not there and steals it and shoots someone else, am I responsible? WHY would I be?

Nurse, it was back in the 70's, before Reagan, that the mental health hospitals started letting people out. It was the Civil liberties groups who said that with the right medications they would fine in public. Which was all well and good, until they stopped taking their meds.

And then... burned at the stake. Where have I seen this story before ?

Janine: The large institutions were a nightmare where no treatment took place, people were abused, sexually and physically and an awful lot of folks died.

That they closed the institutions is not the problem. The problem was that promised funding for community services did not materialize, because St. Ronnie loved him some guns.

Those are the facts.

ACLU sued to have the nut houses shutdown--not reformed, shutdown. The liberal run congress refused to fund the community treatment centers. I guess you're not old enough to remember the details not filtered through your leftie talking points.

Peanut: first rule, know to whom you speak. I worked in mental health services in those days and I know exactly what happened because I was part of the fight to get adequate services for the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled.

And you are wrong.

St. Ronnie gutted funds from the federal government to the states for community services in those disciplines. There was a subsequent rise in homelessness amongst the mentally ill as a direct result.

As to the rest of it, grow up. "nut houses" really? I would expect better of anyone posting. Research Willowbrook and you might learn why the large institutions were closed.

Lilrocks, there is just no ONE answer to the issue. While I might agree that assault rifles should not be allowed, assault rifles had nothing to do with the attack in CT.

If our children don't understand the moral standards on violence we have only ourselves to blame for not teaching them.

The NRA wants guns everywhere, schools, courts, airports, sports stadiums, malls, daycare centers, everywhere.

They are trying to force business owners in NC to let anyone tote a weapon into my privately owned business...talk about jackbooted nazis

They are trying to force business owners in NC to let anyone tote a weapon into my privately owned business.

Rickintheforest - If I were you I would welcome armed citizens...it is free protection of your business! Business owners have the right to put up a sign that says "No Weapons Permitted." Most Legal gun owners will respect it and either not go in your store or leave their gun in the car. However, gun free zones like your business can become easy targets for criminals who don't care about your gun signs.

no one is carrying a gun into my business, and I love guns. Just not dummies who need a gun on their hip in a town of 12,000. No one can force you to allow anyone onto "your" private property

and if she were CEO of Teachers Inc, she'd make millions

No you won't be disarmed, you will just be denied assault weapons. So that is a win win.

"We will not be disarmed, got it?"

This is the exact paranoid mentality that the NRA gun lobby thugs encourage amongst those that are intellectually challenged.

Guess what, Frank...you will live within the laws of this nation and if that means you can't prove you have a, well you know, by buying a certain kind of gun,

TOUGH!

A Liberal politician's definition of "assault weapons" would include anything that is semi-auto. That would include handguns too, and that would never pass.

Frank lets face it, if the NRA requested to participate and were refused you'd be crapping all over that too.

This administration is in a no-win situation with those attitudes. That puts the country in a no-win situation.

Guess what, Frank...you will live within the laws of this nation and if that means you can't prove you have a, well you know, by buying a certain kind of gun,

Sooooooooooo, you will tell me that I WILL live within the laws of this nation while at the same time ignore the nations laws of the Constitution. ID10T!

'No you won't be disarmed, you will just be denied assault weapons. So that is a win win.'

So are you going to come and get my so called 'assualt weapons'? If someone already owns one what do you propose? I will never give them to you willingly. And don't even try the 'registering' bit with me either. That is never going to happen.

So what now? Are you going to join up for the 'confiscation force'? No one in there right mind would try to disarm over 60 million law abiding citizens. Of course most here are not in their 'right mind'

Guess what sonmanvb:

The Founders allowed the mechanism of amending the Constitution so that it always meets America's needs. The Second Amendment is not immune to that, reasonable restrictions being placed on other Amendments such as the First.

So, IDIOT right back at ya.

Learn about your country.

ndd...r: YOU still don't get it, obviously. You should learn about the Constitution. And principally, the 1st/2nd/9th/14th Amendments.

You cannot pick and choose what you want in the Amendments to be kept or tossed.

Learn about the country.

"you cannot pick and choose what you want in the Amendments to be kept or tossed..."

Poor Homie, having a bad day?

Article V.

No Amendment is absolute. Restrictions on the First ( because for some reason, this one is the the simplest for the challenged to understand) including civil liability for slander or liable and that old saw "can't yell fire in the theater."

The Second Amendment has reasonable restrictions too. That is, I do think it would be almost impossible for anyone to own a nuclear armament.

Quit pretending to knowledge you don't have. And if you think it is so easy to get into Harvard, apply there.

Admissions could use the laugh.

hmm, banning assault weapons:

1. people buy/have bought them out of fear of a ban.

2. they're banned.

3. jackbooted thugs start going through neighborhoods to take the guns already out there.

4. gun nut paranoia seems fulfilled.

5. lots of barricade shootouts on the news every night.

6. burglars keep track of which neighborhoods have been "cleansed".

[We will not be disarmed, got it?]

Frank, quit thumping your chest. If you think, even for one nanosecond, that if the United States Government wanted to "come and take your guns", that it wouldn't be able to, you are sorely mistaken...

...but by all means, you go right on thinking that, as Alex Jones would be proud of you.

Hi, Mickey! Happy New Year. Hope all is well with you!

All you people calling for a so called "Assault Weapons" Ban realized that the State of CT has had an ACTIVE Assault Weapons ban since 1994. What do you know, we can still purchase an AR-15, Why? Because it is NOT an Assault Weapon!!! For those that will turn around and call me a NRA Gun Freak, or a Republican Right Wing idiot, I am not a member of the NRA, nor will I ever be. I am registered as an Independent, not Republican or Democrat. I do have my Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers in Connecticut, I am a Combat Veteran having Served 8 Honorable years in the US Army beginning at age 17, and Currently am employed as an Armed Security Officer for the last 5 years. I am highly educated and trained on firearms. I do not believe that any further "Gun Control" laws need to be enacted. What we do need to do is simply Enforce the over 20,000 Current Gun Control laws that are currently on the books in this nation. Enacting more laws will simply restrict those of us who obey the law. Look at the City of Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, 3 Major cities within our nation with some of the Strictest gun control laws on the books in regards to Civilians owning Personal weapons, Chicago hit 500 murders in 2012 while your average citizen can NOT legally own a firearm. The major issue is not gun control, the issue is 1-Proper Mental Health care, and the accessibility of it, 2-Early Release Programs that are currently ongoing within our Prison System, 3-Violent Offenders receiving lax penalties for thier crimes.. Enacting further Gun Control will NOT prevent a criminal from committing the crime they wish to enact, they will ALWAYS find a way to do so..

Hi there Newday! Hope your New Year is a safe and healthy one. All is well here, thanks!

Registered gun dealers aren't the ones the 'loophole' benefits. They do the background check (even at gunshows). The undocumented sales are only the ones that happen out in the parking lot between individuals, no dealer sells without a check.

Putting lots of small businesses out of business. Now theres a great idea.

By the way, registered gun dealers have to perform background checks at gun shows. Helps to know you facts.

Helps to know the facts as well that most states require hand gun permits to be purchased in order to buy a hand gun, even at gun shows. Parking lot 'trunk sales' are a whole 'nuther game.

And NO LAW will stop illegal/improper gun sales. Nor will it prevent gun theft. Nor will it prevent sick people from doing illegal or evil things with ANYTHING that could be used as a weapon.

Smoke that in your pipe...

Even if all those laws were in place, without a secure ID card, we can never be sure of who's standing at the desk buying the gun. And nobody trusts the govt enough to allow national ID cards. Been there, done that, no t-shirt.

Absolutely, Groucho's Brother Sqid: That would go some distance in solving this problem.

NRA guys to show up for the meeting armed claiming that he had a right to pack heat around the president

No NRA guy would be that stupid...though you likely don't agree.

"Packing Heat" You sound VERY Uneducated...

More total rot from a gun nut.

Not total rot, just tongue and cheek do as I say, not as I do satire from Terry.

And Terry, I wouldn't be able to look the 20 parents in CT in the eye and tell them that it isn't the gun that commited the crime. What are your suggestions to keep our kids safe?

newday - no, more total rot from a total idiot! Clearly Terry IS from Texas and IS part of the problem. Talk about mentally ill!

Would any of you fellas care to explain how making it a point that only Politicians, the Wealthy, and the Powerful can afford Armed Security Services - who are all Armed with Semi-automatic / Automatic weapons ...?

And that it's a little ironic that Normal People should be deprived the the ability to have Semi-Automatic weapons while the people who make the POLICY to deprive given people of these weapons have 24/7 SECURITY by armed guards with Semi-Automatic weapons? ...

Which part of that concept is "rot?" Which part of that is "crazy?"

Or are you just too thick to get it?

So you would posit that no President of this country be given security?

Stick to the subject, the subject is gun control and the fun watching the NRA gun lobby thugs destroy the organization.

2blunt

Ok blunt. Treat the cause/disease and not the symptoms. Guns, violence, mental health, rage...all these are symptoms and have all increased the past 4 years as we have abandoned our world purpose and common interests as a Nation. FACT! You can treat symptoms until the end of time...they will re-occur to the end of time in varying degrees. They always have, they always will. All you can do is society is to treat the disease in find common goals, common base beliefs, commonality....unity. That is NOT going to even begin to happen for at least another 4 years in America. That is the blunt reality of where we are. The best we can expect is a tenuous lull from time to time. And in that there is only one way to tenuously protect out youths...it is an old military strategy. Meet force with equal or overwhelming force. Again the blunt reality of where we are. that is no drivel. There is one other drastic change, and the cure has to be drastic, we could make to turn it around but as a divided and warring nation (and we are at war-with each other-every component of devastating human conflict is in play in America right now), that will not be done peacefully.

bob, the bluntness of your brain makes you incapable of understanding any realty, whether the fantasy you call "blunt" or that which actually exists. Gun violence is a symptom of the fact that the US is the most vicious of the advanced western societies, not in movies or video games but in its structure. The incidence of gun violence is the result of the complete anarchy of our so-called "gun laws" where you can drive twenty minutes and buy three handguns and drive back to your house in the city where they're banned - or sell them to some guys on the street in a city where they're banned. And to the psychos who want to keep things as they are, or, like the Never Rational Association, keep them the same, only more, only worse.

Jim

I have been in 3 different countries and have seen first hand the decline and subsequent fall of the governments in those countries. I know and have been a part of what it took to regain something close to an organized society of it all. It is real and you in fact are living in some disillusioned fantasy world if you do not believe it could and is happening here. That is part of the deception we all are being fed through this biased and out of control media. I have seen this before too. There is a tipping point, I have seen that and know how it feels and what brought it on. The remnants and some of the worst elements of those societies are right here now, in this what you called the most vicious of the advanced western societies. The lid of this melting pot is about to blow off and it is NOT American Culture fueling the fire. This is much bigger than the 20 mile radius and 3 gun scenario you seem to be stuck on. And we will still have our guns because yes, that IS our culture. And yes we refuse to be shamed by our gun ownership-or the color of our skin. It will ultimately be American Culture that prevails in America. Count on it.

Jim, no one is condoning selling guns on the streets. We are talking about LEGAL gun sales and LEGAL gun owners. You may be able to buy a gun with a permit, but if you live in an area where that gun is not allowed, then YOU yourself own that gun illegally. I'm not even sure how that would work. I don't own a gun, never have, but it would seem to me that if you lived in someplace like NYC where guns are not allowed that you wouldn't get a permit to purchase one somewhere else in any case.

He's going to "listen to the NRA" just like he "listened to the GOP" on obamacare.

PeanutGallery, Dont worry Obamacare is ONLY good enough for use citizens, Congress, Senators and the President himself are exempt from it and dont need to follow that.. Why? Because it isnt good enough for anyone and they know it, so again, its a "Do as I say, not as I do" situation.. ANY law that is enacted within this nation needs to apply to EVERY citizen, to include the President/Politicians...