E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
As the White House considers proposals to curb gun violence, a potential re-upping of the 1990s ban on assault weapons has emerged as the most politically difficult measure for activists hoping to keep the most dangerous weapons out of criminal hands.
But, after pro-gun groups met with Vice President Joe Biden's task force on violence prevention yesterday, at least one participant came away believing that it's a fight that President Barack Obama is willing to try.
Richard Feldman, the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association said that Biden left the group with the “clear implication” that the president would pursue an assault weapons ban in addition to other regulatory measures.
In naming possible new regulations this week, Biden mentioned universal background checks and restrictions on high-capacity magazines but did not refer specifically to an assault weapon moratorium. The president and his spokespeople have said repeatedly that the administration is in favor of an assault weapons ban.
White House officials say Vice President Joe Biden has offered to speak with families impacted by the Newtown tragedy for their input as he negotiates solutions to gun violence in the U.S. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.
Feldman told NBC News said the conversation in the closed-door meeting with gun rights groups was “wide ranging."
“We certainly talked rather extensively about civil commitment laws," he said. "The Attorney General was in the meeting. We talked about enforcement procedures against violations.”
Feldman’s take on the session seemed to be different than the National Rifle Association’s, which came out with a fairly combative statement late in the day indicating that the White House was not open to hearing the concerns of Second Amendment proponents.
“I think that it was a conversation and it wasn't a lecture,” Feldman countered.
When asked about the NRA’s characterization of the meeting, Feldman praised NRA advocate Jim Baker for forcefully voicing the concerns of the nation's most powerful gun group.
"I think the vice president, who knows Jim, listened to them," he added. "But you know, we come at this from different positions.”
The NRA has stated that they’re going to take their argument up to Capitol Hill, something that some experts say could be part of a two-path approach for the gun rights group.
“My guess is what we're going to see is a kind of two-layer game," said Don Kettl, dean of the Public Policy School at the University of Maryland. "For the NRA itself, they've made very clear so far that they're just not interested in anything that remotely involves any effort to try to reduce the availability of guns, or ammunition or any of the other pieces or anything that would restrict the ownership of guns. But behind the scenes I suspect they and some of their lobbyists are going to be working very carefully to try to find ways of at least minimizing, from their point of view, the damage.”
Kettl thinks this could be a defining moment for the group, “Deep down this is one of those line-in-the-sand kind of issues that will be the make or break for the NRA's power. And I suspect we are in the middle of a defining debate in the pubic right now about the role of guns in American society.”
Leave a Comment:
When will the N.R.A. admit that assault weapons are built to kill people?
They are extremists. There is nothing reasonable about it - and their 'favorability polling' is dropping.
N.R.A. reps are effectively lobbyists out to make money for the gun corporations. Not at all about saving lives - they're out to maximise profits regardless of the consequences.
Backhouse you nailed it. "N.R.A. reps are effectively lobbyists out to make money for the gun corporations. Not at all about saving lives - they're out to maximise profits regardless of the consequences."
The could give a rip about anything but selling guns. Gun rights my big hairy tush. The 2nd amendment is just another selling tool and they use fear to sell guns. They said this shooting brought them 100000 new members, doesn't say much for America and Americans does it. But trying to tell that stuff to Bubba is like explaining it to any other moron. I often wondered if the same school shooting were to happen in Alabama or Tennessee and it was some of their kids that were massacred if that would hold true. Not that we don't have Bubba's in the north because we do.
Johntho, discussions involving Ethics will carry no weight with the N.R.A. leadership.
Violent death from gunshots is seen by the gun lobby as the Cost of Doing Business.
Let's first acknowledge that the N.R.A. will take NO responsibility for the violence they create:
And then make ALL the gun violence prevention legislation we need to live our lives not as gun prey, but with human dignity.
La Pierre reminds of the guy in the old western movies that would incite a war between the Indians and settlers, and then sit back, and sell guns to both sides... The NRA are nothing more than a bunch of profit whores that spread fear among their toothless and ignorant followers...........
Yes, they are, but they sell memberships that make minute-men (and women) feel more potent even though they have no idea what their club is actually about... Lobbyists for corporations hiding behind the apron strings of those they successfully instill fear in (in exchange for money of course).
At least the Elks and the Eagles know theirs is about drinking, socializing, and doing some good works for the community in exchange for the cheap liquor!
You got it GT.....It's all about the benjamins for the NRA!
More garbage from the left. Guns are made to kill. What a freaking genius. Did MSNBC tell you that? And of course companies want to make money. Well, big freaking DUH. You morons on the left need to pull your heads out of your asses if you just now figured out companies are built to make money. No wonder the country is headed down the toilet with mentally handicapped nimrods like you running around.
As soon as our POTUS releases all of the documents regarding our government giving the Mexicans a couple thousand "assault rifles" we can discuss what to do with our legal ones. I'll bet the law abiding Mexican citizens wish they had acces to the same weapons we supplied to their criminals. What if the Mexican government decided to supply "assault rifles" to our criminals? Would you libbies want some law abiding American citizens to have the same weapons, or would you just sit back and watch the murdering?
And you stinking child killers on the right need to pull the guns out of your ass and STFU.. Guns are guns, made for sport and yes they do kill human beings, the difference is how many humans before they can be stopped. Stupd conservative fascist pigs like you are the problem, not the cure.
Name one other industry where all attempts to promote product safety are ignored and even argued against.
A gun ban will have merit and be effective only when we figure out how to keep every other kind of cause of death with higher mortality rates from happening.
If the purpose of our govt is to save American's lives, why don't they work on enforcing our immigration laws?
.
Illegal immigrants kill FAR more Americans than assault rifles do. Enforcement would help eliminate the illegal's crimes, DUI's, etc. that harm thousands of Americans a year, not to mention the costs involved.
I'm less concerned about what weapons are regulated than regulating the owners. I think all potential gun owners should have to go through a safety course and a mental evaluation and their weapons be registered. This probably violates the Second Amendment as it's currently written so perhaps it's time to revise it. Other western nations manage to maintain their democracies without arming themselves to the teeth; why can't we?
(I wonder how fast this post will be collapsed?)
Johntho,
I'm definitely not conservative (except on taxes), but I disagree with your assessment of gun owner motives. I realize there have been truly horrible acts done by people with guns, but there have also been truly horrible acts done by people without guns. To me, the bottom line is some people in life are just wired wrong, and they will find ways to harm others. If they are smart and wired wrong, they will find ways to hurt a lot of other people.
I don't think taking guns away from the 99.99999% of the population that is not wired wrong is going to stop the crazies from doing despicable acts. If they can't get guns, they will do things like homemade bombs, or locking people in a burning building (or crashing a plane into a skyscraper). As we've seen in China, they can also slaughter kids with knives.
I do think background checks are a good idea, and I'm fine with banning certain types of weapons (ex: grenades, rockets, some assault weapons, etc.), I'm not comfortable with the level of bans I've heard from many people recently.
The flip side on the bans is, there have also been potentially horrific acts stopped by everyday people with guns. I think there is some truth to the saying that "if you ban guns, the only people with guns will be the criminals".
FBI statistics state 400 people died from "assault rifles" last year. This is less than physical violence without weapon and nearly half of death from beating with blunt objects.
Liberals are attacking a problem that is statistically not a problem. 95% of all gun murders are from hand guns. Why are you not going after those if you are truly trying to be noble?
Pools kill more children than guns.
Obesity kills more Americans than guns.
You are attacking a problem that isn't a problem. You are appealing to emotions. Grow up.
AG99 - you must not get out very often. No other nation on earth has the prosperity and freedom that we have in the USA. Why is that? It's not because our government gave us our freedom, they only help protect freedom. It's up to civilians to keep it and enforce it.
A gun ban will have merit and be effective only when we figure out how to keep every other kind of cause of death with higher mortality rates from happening
Truth_Hurts: Pay attention. I didn't call for banning guns, but making sure the owners are fit to have them. Most developed nations have as much freedom as we do, some of them even more. The US is not the freest nation on Earth and hasn't been for a while. And our prosperity has more to do with capitalism than guns.
Jesse-Az
That's fairly common, absent a logical, rational argument. The question then is, without a reasonable argument, what is the motivation? Paranoia? Or is it something more?
Any gun grabbers care to respond to Jesse-Az's points?
Our prosperity lies in 2% of the people, we need to face the fact we are no longer the greatest nation nor the freest nation in the world, nor are we even in the top ten in most statistic's. Name one, education, health care, just name one category we lead in? I can name one. Our health care is the costliest in the world. The fact is these guns that we are talking about are not the shot guns or even rifles that we take hunting. These guns have only one purpose and that is to kill the enemy. Like 6 year old kids. Ban them, once gone we won't miss them. You stinking conservative fascist will always find another way to send yourselves to hell.
What points dingle? How about this 20 first graders, that should be enough said but it isn't for you gun clutching fascist. By the way paranoia is how these guns are being sold. Fear is the very thing the NRA uses to sell guns. So don't cry a river when I stand up to this organization that produces mass murder as collateral damage.
So Dingle you refuse to see the logic behind a ban due to a lack of need of the assault weapon ie. ability to kill, maim, discharge dozens of bullets quickly. You have repeatably refused this argument. Ok, your perogative.
Would you accept that assault rifles need to be banned because Police officers, departments and chiefs want them banned (you know those regulated milita types). If the ban could help limit the type of slaughter we saw at Sandy Hook or Aurora, or yesterday or tomorrow or next week. It could be part of a multi pronged approach.
Paronia is an afflection certain gun owners have when they refuse to see that this is not a grand plan to go after the 2nd amendment and or confiscation. Apathy is the afflection others have who chose to shrug their shoulders and do nothing.
____________
Chicago sun times *
* (Ok cue the guy that will sneer and mock me about Chicago gun violence. Also cue the other guy that will somehow diminish their deaths as all being gang bangers)
Miami Police Chief John Timoney (pictured in 2007) says assault weapons were used in about 4 percent of all homicides in 2004 in Miami as the ban expired. Now, Timoney says, the number is about 21 percent. | AP file photo
storyidforme: 34432600
tmspicid: 12615253
fileheaderid: 5762584
Updated: September 2, 2012 6:14AM
‘We’re talking about weapons that are made for war,” said Detroit Police Chief Ralph Godbee. “An AK-47 is a Russian-made weapon that is made for war. An AR-15, which is an answer to the AK-47 . . . these high-capacity [guns] . . . you can shoot 50 to 60 rounds within a minute. Within a minute you can literally shoot through brick, shoot through steel.”
There is some pretty disgusting language up above. I see JohnTho is basically a vile human being, saying that the rest of gun owning America is somehow responsible for the actions of psychotic spree killers. Nobody with a brain is getting on your bandwagon John. Too bad you can't understand that suicidal killers who are trying to rack up high death tolls can only be stopped by force. You are smart enough to know that you cannot reason with this type of killer. Therefore, you should be smart enough to understand that a crazed killer who enters a school to kill defenseless children must immediately be confronted by deadly force aimed at him/her. Ps.....let us thank the federal gov for mandating that our children be defenseless.
Johntho: You're not helping your cause with name-calling. America has many perfectly legitimate and rational gun owners. The problem is how do we maintain their rights while keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and nutcases? It can be done, but not with our current NRA-supported, anything-goes attitudes.
Here is the open secrets docs on the NRA: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082
They are heavily supported by the gun makers...don't let them fool you.
They can ban guns all they want. I just really want to know who is bold enough to remove guns from 100,000,000 people without the use of a gun? Do you think the military wants to fight that militia? My guess is the military will be with the gun owners.
Probably time to think of a solution that doesn't require you to physically remove something that "kills so many people" every year. I currently own about 17 semi automatic rifles and pistols but yet none of them have killed anyone. I hunt with several of them every year including a semi automatic shotgun. Do we really need to take away guns from honest people or do we need to control how the guns are transferred? Best thing to do is regulate the sale and increase the mental health efforts in the US.
Anytime the EAST wants to take away the rights of the WEST just come on out here and see what you are up against. Call them rednecks, bubbas, whatever you want but my thoughts are you won't stand a chance at removing a firearm from someone's possession without a fight.
I'm so sick of people blaming guns for death in the US. Alcohol kills more people a year than guns do. Thousands of people die every year by drunk drivers but yet you want to keep your alcohol. Well I propose that I will give up my guns when you give up your libations.
AG99 - Name some nations with more freedom and prosperity than America per person. There are extremely few. Even our poorest Americans on Welfare and food stamps have better lives that the average 'rich' person in most countries. Please keep in mind I travel the world for business and pleasure and have set foot on nearly every continent.
Johntho - That is complete BS...
Truth_Hurts: This article concentrates more on economic freedom, but I would call the criteria they used as indicative of more generalized freedoms, particularly the corruption criterion: http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2012/03/u-s-drops-to-the-tenth-freest-nation-on-earth-now-listed-as-mostly-free
Or here's a different look at trying to measure freedom: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/04/let_x_units_of_freedom_ring.html
In any event, we are not the beacon of freedom we think we are.
17 rifles....are you a collector? Why so many?
Most likely, from several shows on this issue, the government will "become interested" in anyone with 1000 rounds of ammo or more. I'm all for people having weapons if they are safe to do so.
I believe people owning weapons should pass a yearly mental health screening to be able to keep their weapons.
@Ag99
I, and probably most reasonable gun owners, will never submit to this...ever.
Your ignorance of the National Rifle Association is astounding. MANY law enforement agencies and even military rely on the NRA for training. If you received safety training on a firearm, likely it came via tghe NRA. Lobbying is but one aspect of the NRA. They do alot of hunter education, lab tests of equipment, safety development, provide insurance for members, and even discounts on goods for members. Certainly gun makers would support them. They would be stupid NOT to. The NRA supports gun owners, not the other way around.
I have received safety training from the NRA. I received training to become a pistol instrutor through the NRA. I'm a corporate executive, well educated, and a life member of the NRA. I love the United States of America. I support the U.S Constitution. I'm a God fearing, Bible believing Christian. I'm a devoted husband and father. I pay taxes. I value families. I believe in absolute right and wrong. Most importantly, I have three outstanding sons who are living up to these values.
That should make me an extremist?
Eric,
They are heavily supported by the gun makers...don't let them fool you.
Is anyone disputing this?
Everyone who actually knows anything about the NRA not just the conspiracy stuff they make up because they have some mental issue.
********************They are ATTRACTED To Guns as their way of EXPRESSION**************
THE PROBLEM????? Big Pharma making our leg humping "legislators" on crapital hill close down ALL of our Federal and State mental Hospitals So they, Big Pharma, can peddle their WORTHLESS Pills called "Psychiatric Medication". That Fraud on America Instead of Clinical Incarceration WHERE the NutJobs will reside peacefully, unable To GET THEIR HANDS ON WEAPONS to kill people by the Bushel. Gun Ban??? and What about ALL Of the weapons manufacturers around the Planet Just waiting for American Gun Prohibition, Like there was Alcohol prohibition, A Lead Ballon of a law. The Finest AK-47s come from Russia, Rumania and China, and Lot's of them HERE LEGALLY.
We Need, Must Have, An American National HealthCare System Just Like OUR SANE ALLYS Have With Fully Staffed Psychiatric OutPatient Teams with Examine and Retain Authority. America is Flea infested with Mentally Deranged an VERY Dangerous men, and women, running On The Loose Victimizing innocent people. In addition, If that Mother in Georgia Did NOT have that .38special, She would NOT have been able to save Her Family and Herself. The burglar went After THEM when he knew the boy ID him; He would have killed them all with the crowbar. When owned by sane law abiding Citizens, Guns Save Lives. When guns are in the hands of the Many, Many, Many, Many, Many NutCases running loose in America?? Well, We Have What We Have. the NRA?? IN IT for The Money Only, they want the nuts running loose to buy the weapons. Down with the nra, they are an ally of big pharma.
And that's part of the problem. How can we keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them any other way? Do you object to safety training? A mental evaluation (especially given the number of nutcases shooting up schools, malls, and theaters lately)? Letting authorities know if you have an arsenal or not?
Until we can even acknowledge the need to regulate who has guns and who doesn't, we'll never solve the gun violence issue in our society. There's nothing reasonable about wanting to keep your guns secret or refusing to prove you're fit to own them.
Truth Hurts -
So by your logic we don't try and cure Cancer because more people die by heart attacks? Not a very valid argument. No one came into a school and gave our children a sudden case of Cancer or Heart Disease.
I also see the other normal "straw man" argument comparing gun control to driving a car.
In order to own a car you must have valid title, and in order to sell or buy a car the government must be involved in the transfer of title. In order to drive a car you must have a valid registration and a driver's license. In order to get a driver's license you haveto undergo some form of competency testing to make sure you can operate a vehicle and that you understand traffic laws. The license and registration must be renewed every few years.
Cars must be manufactured to conform to all applicable safety regulations such as seat belts, brakes, horns, and air bags. There are limits on things like horsepower and top speeds.
Traffic regulations are numerous. Speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, yield signs, etc. al must be obeyed. You can get pulled over for a DUI even if you don't have an accident or kill someone.
I would be fine with similar regulations in regards to guns: if you want to buy one, register it. If you want to shoot one, pass a safety course and be certified. You want to sell one, go to a government agency and transfer the title.
Then you are not truly a reaonable gun owner. You have the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms", which I strongly support, but with certain rights come responsibilities.
AG99 - how is safety training going to keep a nut job from shooting someone outside the 7-11? Murders aren't accidents!
Most states, as a requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed handgun, require a safety course. Virginia does.
More people are killed with hammers than assault rifles. Should we have hammer safety training for carpenters?
No doubt, Newtown was an atrocity. But just today, more children were murdered than in newtown. Yet you aren't screaming for abortion controls.
Evidence please. Where did you get that idea from Rush or another such fool? Immigrants usually try and keep a low profile so as to be allowed to stay. Most are law abiding and are only trying to improve their lives. Do you have something against people improving their lives. Besides, if you check you will find out, that the Obama Administration has continued to beef up the border and illegal immigration has slowed greatly. Deportation is up as well.
When you talk about illegals being here remember it was Saint Ronny Reagan that gave millions of illegals amnesty signalling that it is okay to come here. If illegal now someone will eventually pardon you and you will get to stay.
XD: It isn't, obviously, but it will help keep parents from unintentionally giving their children access to guns or prevent them from accidentally shooting them. Not all gun violence is on purpose. Some of it is by incredibly stupid or careless people who could certainly benefit from a safety course. Remember the guy who shot his kid getting into his truck outside a pawn shop? If he'd followed even basic safety rules, it wouldn't have happened.
And let's leave the abortion debate out of this. It's a completely separate issue that has little bearing on school shootings. Some people support abortion rights; no one supports being shot.
This is a sick society
Saw this and it sums it up nicley
What has happened to our society? I remember when "Leave It To Beaver" was the norm. Now it's "Honey Boo Boo", "Jersey Shore" & "16 & Pregnant". Sad how much our society is declining. I miss the good ole days.... Anyone else with me?
XD Shooter-
What an insane and irrelevant comment. How many multiple death hammer incidents are there? Which would you rather avoid, a hammer or a bullet? How many hammers can you throw in a few seconds?
actually you don't need valid license or registration to drive a car. many vehicles are operated by unlicensed,suspended or revoked drivers who regularly commit carnage on our highways killing many innocents
Yes, guns are meant to hunt and kill. That being said, I spend hours at the gun range every month practicing for when I may need to defend my family, my friends, my property or myself. I am a 5'3" female and believe in the 2nd amendment. Even though the 2nd amendment does not specifically spell out self protection, I believe that is a God given right (or just the right to live for non-believers).
I am now learning to hunt for food as well. I am tired of the stores with meat that may have been flash frozen and stored for up to a year or more. I also plant my own garden with natural seeds instead of the GMO seeds that produce most vegetables at the stores. I do like my freedom and independence.
Owning a gun is a great responsibility. There are several within easy reach most of the time. Some do have high capacity magazines. I have NEVER pointed a gun at a human. I have had someone taking pot shots around me, but even after getting a restraining order for him to stay away, he kept it up. The sheriff was usually at least 15 minutes away (this was a rural area). The sheriff had me get and carry a gun. One day, that drunk came up wanting to be friendly. He touched my shoulder and felt my bra strap and the heavier leather strap of my gun holster. He saw the bulge of the gun and had a heart attack. He lived and never presented a problem again. I have always carried a gun ever since that time.
Needless to say, I am a gun advocate. There are too many insane idiots and criminals with guns. I do keep the weapons securely locked except for what I am carrying. As I said, I have NEVER pointed a gun at a person. I hopefully never will have to. A gun is like insurance, it is something that may never be needed, but you have it just in case. My neighbors do NOT like or own guns, but they are glad I have guns and watch over them, their families and their property.
I do wish there was a way to keep guns away from the criminals and the mentally unstable. Anyone around unstable people should either keep their guns double locked up or stored at a different safe location where there is no chance the unstable can get access to them. The inability to keep guns away from the unstable and criminals does worry me. That should probably be the top item to be addressed instead of bans.
One more thing. Living out in the country taught me that high capacity magazines do have a legitimate place and should be available. I managed to get into my truck, but I was attacked by a pack of wild hogs, which could have killed me. They finally left after denting up my truck. I was lucky I was close enough to the truck to get into it.
Fix the system to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable and the criminals. Make the penalties harsher. Please report to an adult any youth or adult that may fantasize about killing people. Watch the mentally unstable that you know and try to get to know them. People need guidance and to be shown killing is not the way to solve problems. Get involved within your community and neighborhood. Have block parties with movies, barbecue, card games and dominoes.
Guns are a tool of last resort. Legal gun owners know that and you will never see them with a gun except at the range where they practice.
***END of RANT***
Actually, they have a lot of relevance. Guns are tools to kill. Abortion is a tool to kill. If the government was truly wanting to ban certain weapons for the "safety of the children", then why aren't they protecting the ones who have absolutely no defense to a mother wanting to abort them? It simply proves that the government is not doing this for safety, it's about stripping our constitutional rights to implement control over the nation. A nation that cannot defend themselves from the government has no choice other than to comply. It's just that simple.
Most weapons are designed to kill.
And most of the people on this forum do not know an assault weapon from a slingshot.
The trick is to keep them out of the hands of the nutcases and the criminals.
With that, you will have limited luck.
The best you can do is to arm yourself under the Second Amendment and train to shoot safely.
Keep an eye out for people who act and look irrational and make sure THEY do not get their hands on guns.
But. a crazy person will find something else to kill with, no matter what.
20 slaughtered 5 & 6 year olds (plus many, many 1,000's of other innocents over the years) vs the NRA's fanatical "anything goes" gun policy... The clock is ticking.
“When governments fear people, there is
liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” - Thomas
Jefferson
TM: Needless to say, I disagree. Your argument hinges on the assumption a fetus is a person. That's fine; everyone has their own opinion, but I'm not going to get drawn into an abortion debate because it would be pointless and has nothing to do with guns.
Well, I think I've plastered my opinion over this thread enough. I'm taking the dog to the park so I'm done.
To add to this, look at the number of deaths in these mass shootings, versus the number of abortions performed. Are you saying that 20 children killed at once is worse than thousands killed, one by one, throughout the year? What makes the individual loss of life any less significant than a group of lives lost at once? I'll answer it for you, it's not less significant, it's equally tragic. So why does the government side with one way of killing over another? That doesn't make any sense at all, UNLESS, they have other reasons for it, and those other reasons are why the American people should be alarmed.
It is stunning to see the lack of compassion for the mentally ill. Instead of institutionalizing them and stigmatizing them, why can't we HELP them?
Millions die from cigarettes each year, but I don't see anyone stopping those murderous, sane CEO's.
I'm not trying to say a fetus is a person, I'm implying it's a live being, just as a 5 year old child is a living being. Both "tools" end lives. If you break it down to the simplest form, the picture is clear. This is not about safety, it's about stripping our constitutional rights to implement control over our citizens. Diane Feinstein has admitted the only reason she did not try to ban ALL guns in the past, was because there wasn't enough votes in congress to do it. People keep saying "no one wants to take all your guns", but she is on camera saying she wanted to....please open your mind up a little bit and realize the reality behind this issue. The gun grabbers know they have a president that might have the courage to try, so they are...
Well in the good old days during gangstar wars they had machine guns - oh wait they are banned. How about hand grenades - oh wait they are illegal. So people are telling me that banning assault weapons that were meant for the military should not be banned because of their second ammendment. But somehow banning the first two did not effect their guns. And wow you do need those high capacity magazines for hunting don't you? Of course if you did you are probably a lousy shot.
Most of us use the high capacity mags to sight guns and for ease of target practice.
And hunting with anything more than a set amount or shells in a gun is illegal.
That and we have good legal fun with them and hurt no one.
If need be, though we have a great way to protect ourselves and our families.
When will the anti-gun freaks admit that banning these weapons won't do a God damned thing to improve the situation? All banning these weapons will do is punish the millions of law abiding gun owners out there for the misdeeds of a very few people. Oh and of course make some of Obama's anti-gun cronies insufferable. It wont make a dent in the violence, will divide the country even more and maybe give people a false sense of safety, but at best it will be a simple illusion. That's the best you can hope for.
But let's face it. The ddecisionfor this was made weeks ago. Joe's putting on a sham of talks. He is dishonorable. We can see it. We will remember it. It will be costly.
Straw-man. None of these 20 were killed by an assault weapon. This is why gun owners have no desire to discuss gun control with you. You are blind to the truth and don't care. It makes no sense for us to. You could have you life saved by someone holding a gun and you would lash out at your savior as a gun freak and commiserate with your attacker as the victim.
Banning "assault rifles" and large capacity magazines would do as much to stop these horrible killings as banning tequila and 24 can cases of beer would do to prevent drunk driving accidents.
It is either an irrational knee jerk response meant to make a certain self deluded group feel better, or part of a long campaign designed to ban private ownership of firearms altogether.
The preference isz obviously to help them, but some can't be helped and will always be a danger to society.
Oil.. gas... food... chemicals... drugs... toys... playground equipment.... automobiles... planes.... trains.... homes... buildings.... furniture.... medical equipment...
The list is endless. Are you nuts?
Scratch that question. Yes, you are, as your statement outlines the problem in a nutshell. You are talking about the "product".... the GUN... when the problem is the PEOPLE who use it and the lack of enforcement of the LAWS already on the books relating to those people.
There are so many assault weapons in the hands of responsible gun owners that don't kill people. This tells me that people need to be scrutinized, not the actual weapon.
Johntho
And you stinking child killers on the right need to pull the guns out of your ass and STFU.. Guns are guns, made for sport and yes they do kill human beings, the difference is how many humans before they can be stopped. Stupd conservative fascist pigs like you are the problem, not the cure.
Seriously Johntho???? you are like a child yourself I see. So anti second amendment nuts are 'thinking of the children' and Constitutional supporters are Child killers?? Only from the mind of a child is everything so black and white.
Any idea what happened to Mental Health is this whole discussion??? It seems the most imbalanced folks are on the ban it all side of things.... Might this be because you know you can not be trusted with a gun so you do not want anyone to have one as you believe everyone is as damaged as you are??
A mentally healthy person can watch violent movies, play violent video games and own a gun without ever shooting anyone. Where as a Mentally ill person may go on a killing spree with a fork because a restaurant runs out of coffee.
The Tool you choose is one thing, the actual problem is the state of mind that says "yea walk into an elementary school and start shooting, sounds like a smart idea"....
Chris -
I'm with you 100%.
Johntho's rant and his ugly name calling indicate the disturbed mind of someone who, even without access to a gun, would resort to something like the guy who threw gasoline on his girlfriend and set her on fire because she asked him to carry the dirty laundry to the laundromat.
With people who go off on rants like that, you never know when they will just blow up and do something totally off the wall. Totally incapable of having a rational discussion. They're okay until their opponent counters with a logical point they can't refute, then it's the vile names and the STFU.
AG99
I'm less concerned about what weapons are regulated than regulating the owners. I think all potential gun owners should have to go through a safety course and a mental evaluation and their weapons be registered. This probably violates the Second Amendment as it's currently written so perhaps it's time to revise it. Other western nations manage to maintain their democracies without arming themselves to the teeth; why can't we?
(I wonder how fast this post will be collapsed?)
Hey AG99,
I hope your post is not collapsed. I do not own a gun but I support the 2nd amendment as I know what it was. Although England banned guns and has not collapsed they are a fully camera monitored police state with privacy issues. I think I would rather chance the violence then have big brother up my nose. You are correct in the point that IT IS NOT THE GUNS but the people who wield them.
However where your would seem to blame (that may be too strong a word) the owners, Legal gun owners are not the problem, except in cases where the gun is not properly secured. Let us not forget the Sandy hook shooter did not own any and was even refused a sale at Dick's sporting goods.
This kid murdered his mother and stole her guns to get the guns he used at the school. Right off the bat this kid was a bad guy, murder and robbery in an attempt to go on a murder spree.
No the problem is mental health, banning guns may make us all feel a little false sense of security right up until the next wacko goes on a killing spree with some other tool or makes a bomb. Until we deal with the mental health nothing will prevent someone willing to die from killing others, aside from having someone around to put him down first.
Actually, nothing will prevent someone willing to die from killing others ever except having someone around to put them down.....
Eric,
You think we need to be worried about people with a 1000 rounds of more of ammo? Do you really understand what you are saying? When was the last time a spree killer fired more than 100 rounds or maybe 200? Handgun ammo is sold in stores in 20, 50, 100, and large batches.
I know reloaders who have enough components on hand to made 10s or even 100s of thousands of rounds. They are great shots because they practice and have never harmed a fly.
With all the amazing things that modern technology is achieving in our daily lives, I would expect these industries to marry into the NRA family of manufacturers. We all like guns but nobody wants them fired off in a courthouse, a classroom, or any other public gathering. Basically nowhere in the cities.
Where I come from, Alaska, guns are what put dinner on the table. They're a tool. In the cities, they also function to give city dwellers piece of mind. We need them, and they will likely remain available to citizens regardless of mental competency, IQ, or other determining factors.
The NRA is fighting to keep manufacturers profitable, whelp, me too. However I endorse building a new safety standard and implement that nationwide. Guns need to have an OFF button, a radio signal, a microwave, magnetics, (take your pick) and the ammo needs an OFF button too, for those unlikely occasions when psychosis sets into an individual. (Think:alcohol, drugs, endorphins, etc). Two things. Government mandates the safety standard. Manufacturers honor the mandate.
What comes from this? Everybody wins, guns are safer, sales are up. Responsible owners comply with pride, as they are part of the solution. Outdated or international offerings become rarer than hens teeth, illegal as they do not comply with the American Standard.
Again, it's all about Standards. We need to be able to deactivate ammo and guns, with radio signals, microwaves, magnetic sensors, thermal, image, the options are many. You cannot deny that technology has exceeded everybody's expectations. It has been ignored by the gun manufacturer. It's a stone age tool, ancient in design. Revision 2.0 should be safer.
You have a cell phone, there is technology in your hands. It knows where you are, it's listening, it's watching, at all times. You have already forfeited so many privacy rights in just that one device alone.
Time will be the factor, wasting time manufacturing current style guns will only prolong the safety we require. If Lanza's Mom were down at the gun store and interested in guns, the new standard gun would have prevented it from firing, it would have been Lanza's only option, it would be the only gun available to him. Start now, don't F around.
Emerging industry-$.
~.02
Go ahead and outlaw them. Makes my collection of rifles and magazines much more valuable. And I will certainly keep a few for when the liberals bankrupt this country and the government collapses. I'll need them to fend off those who were dependent on the government for their existence.
Thats just your sick little masturbatory fantasy... You would LOVE it if it all goes to hell and you get to do what you want with your guns... but it never will happen, all that will happen is you will talk big, and clean your guns fantasizing about what it will be like when YOU make the rules cuz you gots the guns...
MEANWHILE- innocent people die daily all so you can have your childish sick fantasy...
I would like to see gun deaths in Chicago go down from 500 a year to 250 a year, and see what policies, laws, and other regulations were in acted to achieve this decline, BEFORE any national regulations are put on the books. Use Chicago as a test. There's plenty of gun violence, plenty of mental health issues, plenty of crime and gang violence, plenty of corruption, schools in need of improvement, employment opportunity needing enhancement. If the country needs to change the thinking from, " A culture of guns ", Chicago needs to change its thinking from, " A culture called Chicago ". If it works in Chicago, these regulatory practices can be employed in other major cities with high gun violence rates such as Detroit. When the airplane was invented, it only took one flight to demonstrate human flight machines were possible. When you can get the murder rate down in Chicago significantly, I'm sure the rest of the country will take notice.
In their desperate attempts to compare the genocide the US is experiencing at the hands of murderous"gun enthusiasts" and highway fatalities, these wannabe Rambos are only exposing their own ignorance. They are also unwittingly laying the foundation for similar rules to control and regulate the ownership of their deadly playthings.
Auto deaths have been dropping to the point that in 2010 they were the lowest since the 1940s. This sharp decline in highway fatalities is the direct result of legislating changes in the design of motor vehicles to make them safer and at the same time legislating proper rules of responsible automobile operation, particularly with respect to DUIs and road rage. If we apply the same principles to gun ownership (modified only slightly) we would see the same progress: Extensive training and testing procedures as a firm condition for the ownership of a firearm. Registration of all firearms and liability insurance on every weapon as a condition for ownership. Changes in weapon design to make them safer with requirements for modification on existing firearms to make them comply with current guidelines. Finally, strict laws with stiff penalties for violators for any and all violations. Sounds like a good plan, doesn't it?
Gun control now. It's the right thing to do.
DamnYou,
Well, you give gun owners a bad name, but do illustrate a point.
You said,
Well, obviously you don't know what you are talking about. The 5.56mm X 45mm NATO round used in the M-16 and M-4 is the .223. Although there are just a few very minor spec differences between the .223 Remington and the NATO 5.56mm, they are fundamentally the same cartridge. The US troops have been going into battle with the .223 for about 40 years now.
But the point you make is that not all gun people are experts in all weapon types. This has a lot to do with the lately misrepresented Frank Lutz survey of gun owners. So called assault weapons are not military weapons. Most anti-gun types think they are the same. And even some NRA member gun owners don't even know the difference. I think you will find that most NRA members will say that military weapons shouldn't be readily available to the general public. But that isn't the same thing as so-called assault weapons. The Frank Lutz survey is a sham. Lutz has a very good reputation for producing surveys with the desired results. It's all in how you frame the questions. Remember, the guys who commissioned the survey are an anti-gun group. He gave them what they asked for.
The previous assault weapons ban was a joke and all it did was boost sales of US made guns that got around the ban specifications. So called assault weapons are no different than many perfectly accepted hunting/sporting type weapons other than cosmetically. They look like a military weapon, but they are not. The AR-15 looks a lot like an M-16 or M-4 carbine variant from the outside. But inside they are completely different. They can fire the same round, but so can a lot of hunting sporting weapons. The round is a very good "varmint round" and in most states is not considered adequate for deer. (You are correct in that regard)
The 5.56 X45 NATO is in fact based on the .223 Remington which was designed as a civilian round and the concept round for the M-16 to replace the former 7.62mm X 51mm NATO round. (also know as the .308 Winchester in civilian circles) The whole concept of the 5.56 NATO was to create a smaller lighter standard round to be fired in an automatic weapon. The old 7.62 NATO/ .308 Winchester is a far more powerful and deadly round. There are many millions of hunting/sporting rifles chambered in this round and it has long been considered the "standard" center-fire deer cartridge right along with the ancient .30-06. In most respects, the .308 was just a modernized shortened .30-06. The 7.62 NATO was used in the M-14 military rifle. Funny thing though, even being more powerful and more deadly, most people looking at an M-14 would think it was a sporting gun rather than a military assault rifle. The main reason being a wood stock and a traditional appearance. The advent of the change to the smaller cartridge and the M-16 design was all about less weight and added ammo carrying capacity.
The whole assault weapons thing is about looking scary rather than effectiveness as a killing machine, but a lot of people, including some NRA members don't understand that.
As for high capacity magazines, the only advantage is carrying more rounds without having to carry spare magazines. But changing magazines takes but a second or two. That second or two can make a difference when someone is shooting back at you, but in these mass shooting situations it is virtually meaningless. And nobody in their right mind would use 100 round drum magazines. They are junk and don't work. The Colorado shooter used one, but then he isn't in his right mind. And the fact is, his use of that 100 round drum magazine saved live because it jammed making the weapon inoperable after just a handful or so of shots fired. He would have been far more "effective" had he used multiple smaller magazines.
The thing is that although the anti-gun crowd is getting fired up. the vast majority of gun owners who know better haven't changed their minds on the issue.
I am Progressive and a big Obama supporter, but he's wasting political capital on this issue and it is a stupid mistake. An assault weapons ban and probably even a magazine ban are going nowhere. It will not get out of the House.
A lot of my fellow lefties are all pumped up thinking public opinion is in their favor. It isn't. I'll just remind you the Tea Baggers thought the whole country was with them too. The thing is that when you get passionate about something that isn't based in logic or fact, you tend to make mistakes in judgement.
I would rather we focused on something to deal with the mentally ill folks who do these crimes. Maybe there is some room on the background check issue, but I would suggest it should be targeting the so-called gun show loophole. There's a lot of misinformation about this too. I see claims like 40% of sales at gun shows are using this "loophole". It is simply not credible and there would be no way to get that data as there are no records of private sales. So how do you get to 40% if there's no record of the sales???? I've been to a lot of gun shows. Private sales don't move many guns. I would wager that 95% of gun show sales are through licensed dealers with background checks conducted as required by law. The reason for that is that private parties at these show ask too much money for used guns. In most cases, you can find the exact same gun, only brand new, at a licensed dealer for 10-20% less.
Bottom line is that generally the guys who do buy from private dealers are people who don't want to go through a background check. That situation in fact commands a premium price. Now not all these people are people who wouldn't pass a background check. I know some folks who don't trust the rules about firearms records. They think the background check is just a sneaky form of federal registration which of course is federally prohibited. (bet most of you didn't know that either) They could very well be right because in this computer age, no record ever really goes away. Under the rules, they are not supposed to be able to check records to see that John Doe had 12 weapons background checks in the last year. But who know if they really follow the rules?
But I would be OK for a private sale in a public forum like a gunshow, to require a background check. Part of the issue is the logistics of it. Not just anyone can request a background check. Only licensed dealer can do so with the supporting paperwork. In the gun show scenario, a private "dealer" could have to pay a fee for this service to be provided by law enforcement or a licensed dealer to service a "transfer" sale. Some licensed dealers might not be to anxious to do this because they are liable for the record keeping. Some will, and this is the way that so called Internet sales are conducted. Any guns purchased this way can only be shipped from one licensed dealer to another. (This is another piece of misinformation being floated around. No Internet sale can legally be conducted without background checks and they must go through licensed dealers.)
The problem with trying to make this apply as a universal background check for any private sale is both the logistical difficulty involved and the enforcement aspects. This would be a lot bigger deal than most people realize. There is the issue of record keeping and who would be obligated to maintain the records. This is far more complicated than would appear on the surface and in a round about way crosses the lines between licensed dealers and private parties. This again is one of those things that just puts undue burdens on law abiding citizens. Those who are going to sell weapons to illegals or criminals are not about to be deterred by such regulations. It is unlikely that a universal requirement would pass the House. Maybe, just maybe the so called "gun show loophole" aspect, but I'd be surprised to see this change in such a sweeping manner.
If anything has a chance of passing it is going to have to be on Republican terms. It could be feasible that the Senate Republicans might allow a vote if some of these major factors are not a part of any regulations, but I see almost nothing getting through the House. The thing is that none of the things being talked about will in any way be effective in reducing gun violence. When you look at it in that light, it means this is just an anti-gun agenda issue that really has nothing to do with current events other than trying to capitalize on it for ideological purposes. I hate it when the right wing does this and I find it embarrassing when my side does it. We have people in our group who are getting caught up in the agenda of our extremists and it is wrong.
Some of the liberal talk show hosts want all guns out of the house and into national guard armories. This would make the rest of America just like Chicago where only the criminals seem to have guns.
If a poll question was asked "Should all guns be in national guard armories Yes or No?" I would guess that 60-70 percent of America would say No.
The liberal news media is actually scaring America into buying more guns. December had the most background checks in history.
President Obama went to bed last night to be awakened by an apparition of President Washington, to which he asked, 'President Washington, what can I do to be a better President?', President Washington replied, 'Love the people like I did.' Going back to sleep, President Obama was once again wakened, this time by President Jefferson, to which he asked, 'President Jefferson, what can I do to be a better President?', President Jefferson replied, 'Love the Constitution like I did.' President Obama once again went back to sleep to be awakened by President Lincoln, to which he asked, 'President Lincoln what can I do to be a better President?' President Lincoln replied, 'Go to a play like I did'
I am so sick of the liberal mindset and people like Johntho and Zardoz.
All you leftist people do is lash out at the first thing you see after a crisis and have the myopic false belief that more layers of laws is going to help the situation. You blame LEGAL gun owning citizens who have probably rarely even gotten a traffic ticket for the deaths of children and dishonor their memories by doing that.
You fail to realize that gun bans HAVE NOT worked in the past yet you are ALL about supporting another one.
You look past the real problem of mental health issues and criminal gun supplies that come from gun trafficking from countries like Mexico and continue to blame ALL the legal gun owners with your stupid seat of your pants outbursts.
In addition you blindly follow all the recommendations of the government because GOD knows they have ALWAYS been able to legislate our safety in the correct and suitable manner.
So sick of mindless drones and your rush to blame a cosmetic weapon that has no track record of killings or crime to speak of but hey, why not ban the evil gun because its made for killing. DUH, if self defense, predator depredation for ranchers/farmers, shooting competitions and enthusiast collectors who make up in excess of 98% ownership contributed to any crimes this year the FBI statistics office still has yet to hear about it.
I read over and over in these comments: "I think gun owners should have to take safety courses." "I think gun owners should have to have mental health evaluations every year." "I think guns should all have to be registered." etc.
Well, I think that people should have to pass a test before they are able to vote, at the very least identifying who is running and for what office. I think that people should have to show valid photo ID to be able to vote. I think that voting should take place on Election Day, unless you are out of the country, out of your state of residence, or are unable to for health reasons.
Now, no one really cares what I think I'm sure, and they're not required to. But, keep in mind that the things I want are not protected by the Constitution. Voting is a privilege. (see: archive.fairvote.org/?page=72) Gun rights are protected by the Constitution. Owning a gun is a right. (see: 2nd Amendment) Just something to keep in mind as we all arbitrarily decide who should have to jump through which hoops to maintain their "rights."
The truth is coming out 1/18 13 Adam did not use a Rifle only pistols
Anyone remember all the horrible suffering during the last assault weapons ban?? Yeah, it would be like that. Oh! The horror!!!
And the last assault weapons ban was soooooooooooooooooooooo effective. NOT!!
There was a decrease in criminal use of assault weapons after the ban. The gun lobby and gun makers were successful at putting out "substitutes" not on the list.
There are two prerequisites for turning a free country into a dictatorship: #1) Control the flow of information; #2) Disarm the people.
I don't think it is coincidence that protections against these are #1 and #2 in the Bill of Rights.
Assault rifles are for protection against a government which gives use the TSA, The Patriot Act and spies on its own people in the name of security. The 1st, 2nd and 4th amendment are regularly trampled on.
The Bill of Rights doesn't say these rights are conferred when convenient, they were conferred without limits and decades of centralized government and political supreme court appointees eroding these rights must have the founding fathers spinning in their graves.
All studies dating back to the early days of the Clinton administration indicate assault type weapons with high capacity magazines represent less than 3% of gun related assaults, 4% are from long guns like shot guns and hunting rifles and 93% by hand guns with a 10 round or less capacity.
Does it not seem strange the anti-gun lobbyist want to ban the weapons involved in just 3% of shootings and barely mention the ones responsible for 93%, and of the 93%, more than 50% are the small Saturday night special 22s and 25s that hold 5 to 7 rounds
Kannin
There are two prerequisites for turning a free country into a dictatorship: #1) Control the flow of information; #2) Disarm the people.
I don't think it is coincidence that protections against these are #1 and #2 in the Bill of Rights.
Here here Kannin, Sadly these days there is less need to control information when you can just control the press. Anyone here know what happened to the Fast and Furious gun game the government was playign? Anyone recall getting an explanation or any 'news' outlets harping on it every day??
Nowadays more people are interested in Honey Boo Boo then what really happened with Fast and Furious.... Add to that MSN for the radical liberals, FOX for the conservatives, CNN and the alphabet gang for the middle to middle left and where is the Truth coming from????
Everyone gets the news that fits their world view and the most cross checking of info there is is on message boards where people scream their opinion at the other side and it generally devolves into name calling and nastiness for those who disagree.
Davide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book..
Then, either manufacture a tragedy or grab one that comes up and do not let it go to waste. Harp on the tool (guns) rather then the problem (mental health) and wallah Now we can disarm the people as well....
Weather it is the nature of humans or someone is causing it none of this is surprising and it is oddly familiar........
O.K. Let the nasty comments roll and be sure to shrink this post. LOL
The prior assault weapons ban did nothing to reduce gun violence as the FBI data show that 70-80% of all firearms deaths are from handguns. That number was much higher in the late 80's and early 90's but at the same time as the ban there was the Brady Bill. This helped reduce the number of shootings not the ban.
The majority of the mass shootings in the last 20 years involved handguns rather than a assault weapon.
I am getting rather fed up with this garbage...
First off this isn't about disarming the people, this is about restricting the availability of assault weapons which are solely meant for killing large numbers of people... I cant own a hand grenade and you shouldnt own an assault weapon that can kill more people than a grenade...
You have this pubescent fantasy that there will come a time when all that stands between us and tyranny is you and a group of well armed patriots... you will finally be a hero and you will be able to shoot the bad guys and all for a good cause. It is a childish pathetic little fantasy. The fact is the "bad guys" (AKA the guvmint, the police, or whoever you have in your fevered little fantasies) ARE NOT THE ONES killing the kids in schools... its gun nuts like you that have fought to put the guns in reach of the murderers.
You have a right to your sick little fantasies, WE have a right NOT TO BE SHOT so you can get your rocks off by collecting assault weapons...
Do you pathetic childish little freaks understand that? Your masturbatory fantasies are not more protected than our right to live...
I HAVE A SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR GUN CRIME WHILE MAINTAINING SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR LAWFUL CITIZENS.........
Require every single gun Manufacturer to install fingerprint scanning technology in each and every Rifle-Pistol for sole use by the owner who already passed a universal background check for firing.....period.
Each time the weapon would be fired. It would require the owner to have his/her imprint scanned. The technology would then either accept the print on file allowing the weapon to be fired or shut down the firing mechanism of the weapon not allowing the unregistered individual to fire the weapon.
Please pass it (the idea) on to others (including your represenatives).
case closed............
In the wake of the Taft California shooting now they will go for it and write an executive order to ban shotguns and bullies too. Once you ban guns Crazies will start to use knifes like they do in china schools stabbing kids that seems to happen all the time in china. Then they need to ban everything from rocks, sticks, bats, knifes, fists. prosthetic legs in arms, chairs anything that can be used as a weapon. Then they need to write an executive order banning free speech so nobody can complain about it, that is when all of us will be safe? As you can see weapon bans on Mexico is working only 50,000 dead from guns with their ban in place in 6 years. Then we can just ask the bad guys to give back the guns that Obama gave to drug lords in mexico and al Qaeda in Libya in Syria. I'm sure they will obey the executive order from the white house. Oh wait maybe not they did kill Ambassador Stevens and his gun running operation in Benghazi that was shipping guns from Libya to Syria. Odd white house trying to ban guns rights in the USA to disarm Americans then behind Americans backs the white house gives guns and tax payer moneys to the bad guys that they used to kill the ambassador in Libya, a US border patrol agent Brian Terry (that was armed with a bean bag gun vs. a real Obama fast and furious gun) and kill infidel Christians in Syria. So it's OK for the bad guys to own guns just not Americans. Makes you think and scratch your head knowing the Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Keep your rights its all you got, your not getting anymore and after their gone the only right you will have is to Obey.
One paragraph of stupid. We are not talking about shot guns, for one thing only one was killed in CA., what people are talking about are guns capable of shooting 30-100 times non stop without reload as fast as one can pull the trigger. How dumb of you to try to change the subject to shot guns and knives. Anything you people can use to try to demonize Obama, here is the truth, your side lost. Suck it up and go to your room.
Obama doesn't need to be demonized. His actions show what an idiot he is. Economy sucks? Hey, let's do little to nothing on guns.
kenva STFU, you embarrass yourself with your ignorance.
@Johntho, Typical liberal fashion, insults and accusations when someone isn't as ignorant as yourself! Stay classy! ... Oh! That "thumbs-up" vote for your post was a complete mistake ... That was supposed to be an alert for your inflammatory tone that you are constantly presenting with others' comments.
If we outlawed guns we'd KNOW who the bad guys are and law enforcement could shoot them on sight.
Bleary - How so? What would give away the bad guys so the cops can shoot them 'on sight"?
Johntho,
Go ahead and keep spewing your abrasive words. You are such a tough guy.
Absurd arguments. In nations without guns the murder rates is 4 times lower than that in the US.
Brazil had 34,000 gun homicides with 14 million guns available. In contrast...the USA had 9,400 gun homicides with 300 million guns available, of which only 400 homicides were related to "assault weapons". Nuf said...case closed....
@eric,
please post links to your peer reviewed sources.
How many were killed in Taft? Was it many as in Conneticut? Education and ability to find the socially unstable before they do harm would have been the prevetive measure in Taft not banning shot guns or rifles or even hand guns. We realize that gun violence will never totally be eliminated but no one needs military type weapons. This is not a simple issue as we need to observe the Constitutional rights of citizens while at the same protecting the same from those who are bent on doing them harm. Of course arming more people will only compound the problem and not solve anything.
The framers of the Constitution were smart enough to realize that a well-armed citizenry would permit madmen to murder innocents by the handful. But they knew that an unarmed citizenry would permit madmen to murder innocents by the millions. They wisely chose to protect our country from the far greater evil.
To Got Rights: Prez O DID NOT give guns to al Qaida and the nutcases and/or mex Criminal Drug Lords. Puullleeeeezzzeee keep your post Sane OK????
@PhantomBeast do you homework no need to argue about old news.
EDITORIAL: Obama arming al Qaeda
Handing guns to Syrian rebels may not be a bright idea
Read more: HERE
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
everyone knows about fast and furious and so should you.
Pay attention to what goes on around you folks, watch the news, read the papers, rarely does the victims of shootings ever have guns, or guns in their homes. Even deranged people are not usually crazy enough to take on an opponent with a gun......Gun ownership has never been the problem, mentally challenged people of a tolerant society in denial are the problem
Johntho,
You embarrass us all...
The guns are to protect us from people like you.
Eric-913730,
How old are you 10?
I keep hearing "if it saves just one life...." A hammer ban is definitely in order. Rocks too.
Authors of the First Amendment knew about hand operated printing presses. Had they envisioned the disruptive political power of an individual with the internet, there would never have been a First Amendment. Authors of the Second Amendment knew about muskets. Had they envisioned the lethality of an individual with today's military assault rifle, there would never have been a Second Amendment. After the Second goes down, the First, and America as we know it, will too.
More bull from the toothless in breeders. The face is there is no purpose for those guns that you are protecting other then to kill human beings and there is no reason for civilians to own such weapons. So take your dumb argument the results in death to first graders down the hall, maybe somebody down there cares. I for one don't.
I don't own a gun and I doubt I ever will, but I know plenty of people that own guns because they like to shoot targets (often as a sport), hunt or protect their family. Only a very, very, very small percentage of gun owners buy weapons with the intent of killing human beings. (and my guess is, that percentage would find other ways to kill human beings if they couldn't get guns)
Johntho - It is obvious to me that with your level of vitriol and spite for fellow Americans, you would never pass the psychological test to become a rational gun owner. You should definitely stay away from guns.
And you know the founders would have not done this how??????
There is a huge percentage of the population who is not buying your garbage Johntho. You will never convince me that I do not need semi-automatic rifles. And the minimum magazine capacity that I would accept is 15 or 20. If you have several people perpetrating a home invasion together, the homeowner has to have the firepower to prevail. The sanctity of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can only be protected with guns, when you have such animals among us.
Rifles are easier to shoot more accurately than handguns (not that I have a problem shooting handguns accurately as I practice to the tune of 5000 rounds per year), and as you can imagine a musket is of no use when you have multiple bad guys entering your home.
JohnLaz-
Your scenario of "needing" semi-automatic weapons with 15-20 round magazines to repel a multi-person home invasion is pretty unlikely.
However, if you really feel the need for these types of weapons then why would you be against registering them or passing a background check?
When the Bill of Rights was written the US had no standing army. We had only militias to be called out to defend against foreign enemies. Muskets were not effective unless at close range and it took some doing to reload after firing a musket. Native Americans attacking with arrows and those same firearms made it necessary for many pioneers to use guns for self protection as well as for obtaining food. They didn't have mega marts in those days where one could buy food they grew their own and hunted.
We have it different today. Hunting is largely for sport and single shot rifles or shot guns are quite adequate to bag the prey and yet give smart would be prey an opportunity to flee. Some folks love to try their hand at target shooting. In contests to see who can do a better job than other is great fun for some.
Unfortunately those single shot weapons whose sole purpose is defence, sport, and obtaining food have morphed into killing machines whose sole purpose is to take down as many enemy combatants as possible.
One can understand the advantage of combat weapons on the battlefield where rapid fire and magazines with many bullets would be good but no one needs such in a civilian application. By the way if the US govt. was bent on conquoring you they would level such awsome firepower you and your little arsonal of semi-automatic and automatic weapons wouldn't stand a chance of an icecube in the Sahara on the hottest day of the year.
No one from the left or center is avocating total removal of guns or anyone's Constitutional rights but asking citizens to use common sense in the use of these deadly weapons. It is like driving a car. Even if the car can go 120 miles per hour and can drive where there isn't road or anywhere on the road is it responsible for a driver to go off road, drive 120 miles per hour or drive all over the road so as to kill others in the process. No, of course not. Responsible drivers stay on their side of the road, drive at a reasonable speed knowing that there are others who may not be so responsible. We don't ban cars but we do restrict people who are found irresponsible from driving a machine that can kill such as a car.
17th Century Philosopher Voltaire said.."Common sense is uncommon". He was right then and it still apparently is true today when we listen to some in society today. Fear tactics are used by leaders to intimidate people into compliance. Hitler did it and so did Lenin and Stalin. We see it in North Korea today. I am not afraid of my government and refuse to be afraid because some talking pundant tells me I should be. I am no coward but those who must have arsonals they think to protect them are, indeed cowards.
Well said Adler, how correct was Voltaire in making that observation as is evident here.......they may have firepower but it is no indicator of common sense, just an overdose of testosterone and the inability to think clearly.
Your right Adler, we do not ban cars. However I don't follow what you are arguing for. With guns it's ok to ban certain weapons but with cars we should only go after those who show they are irresponsible?
If it's ok to ban certain weapons due to how they look, then by the same test we should ban 2-door cars because they look sporty and sporty cars can be driven very fast which we all know is dangerous. Or should we say that cars don't cause issues, only irresponsible drivers cause issues?
TNSEVOL,
"However, if you really feel the need for these types of weapons then why would you be against registering them or passing a background check?"
The answer to the question about registration is what could be coming next... confiscation. If you don't believe that is on the table, look no further than NY Governor Andrew Cuomo's statements. I had a background check for every gun I own. Fortunately, I live in a state that allows private sales without a FFL transfer. If they knock on my door to confiscate what I legally bought, I can simply tell them I legally sold it. Sorry, don't remember that name...........
Dear John WV- I think if you'll do a little more research you would find that if the founders could have seen what technology would bring they would have made Gun Ownership Mandatory, the Basic premise behind the Second Amendment is as a Deterrent to Tyranny. I believe that to be why they said arms and not muskets or rifles, they were very familiar with the potential of having an unarmed populous. The Second Amendment is as relevant today as it was on the day it was authored, those in Power have the Propensity to try and stay in Power. Our Very Own Career Politicians are a prime example of that, is this a government you can trust? Only the criminally Naive and Stupid would place their future in grave danger like that.
In WW2 Occupied France, soldiers visited households on the mandatory French gun registration list. Cruel examples were made of those who would not, or could not, not surrender their guns. In post Katrina New Orleans, authorities visited households on the mandatory gun registration list and (illegally and unconstitutionally) confiscated all guns. Police and soldiers were too few to control overt and rampant gang criminality. Families were rendered vulnerable and defenseless. Some suffered horribly.
Ever wonder WHY the NOPD acted to confiscate guns? http://www.propublica.org/article/shooting-at-algiers-point-after-four-years-accounts-shed-light . And remember that a lot of the guns were found in abandoned, flood damaged houses or in the alleys and yards and unattended.
This is beyond ridiculous. No one NEEDS an assault weapon. No one NEEDS 6,000 rounds of live ammunition, as the shooter in Colorado had. What a sick, sick place the US has become that we would put up with any of this insanity.
Don't bother blathering on about 2nd amendment BS. The founding fathers put that in place when there were 18th century muskets and to defend themselves against the British and Native Americans when the US was only a small smattering of colonists. It, in no way, reflected the country of millions we have now--complete with police forces, national guard and the armed forces.
We have stricken down other amendments when it was clear that they were ridiculous. It's beyond time we do that as it applies to any weapons specifically made to kill people. (Note: I'm not talking about hunting rifles, etc.--just the handguns and assault weapons.)
Anemone88, your argument is very valid, however it is lost on the toothless inbred morons that argue that the second amendment covers their right to kill 20 first graders.
Johntho
Anemone88, your argument is very valid, however it is lost on the toothless inbred morons that argue that the second amendment covers their right to kill 20 first graders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And where in the constitution does it say that? Maybe you should enlighten yourself and read it, instead of shooting off you big mouth and showing your stupidity.
Where in the constitution does it say its ok to have these sorts of weapons?
There is a black market for everything even body organs. Bannning the weapons will only keep the law abiding folks who would only use them for recreation or protection from getting them. The bad guy will purchase or steal the weapon that he needs to commit the crime hes going to committ. It really is pretty dumb to ban the guns from law abiding folks. Laws mean nothing to the bad guys folks. Now they should do away with the gun show loophole because that loophole makes it real easy for the bad guy to get a gun.
Johntho,
plain as day in the 2nd amendment. by the way the Supreme Court has upheld it many times (see DC vs Heller).
according to your logic, the internet, TV and radio should not be protected by Freedom of Speech because the founders could have never imagined the technology...
High Rolla, I wonder if you think it would make sense to have background checks at gun shows? Right now there are none. Any low-life can buy all the handguns he wants and drive back into the city and sell them on the street to other low-lifes. These individuals don't even know or care about a 2nd amendment, nor do they care about a human life. You might feel differently once bullet hits the flesh of your loved one.
A88: To add to your argument. The new nation of ours had only about 600+ men in the Army. The Militia Acts of May 1792 required all able bodied men to be armed and be ready. This was to protect the state until a army could be funded and raised. Thus 'a well regulated militia'.
Sorry, I would like to add a nice source.
www.usmilitary.com/2899/origin-of-the-army-of-the-united-states/
First time trying to add a web site, hope it works. You have to copy and paste it.
chucky b - that gun show loophole that you are trying very hard to convince others of doesn't really exist. The majority of dealers at gun shows are FFL's and follow the rules, backround checks and waiting periods. A very few guns are sold from one person to another and that is not heavily regulated at this time. Should it be, sure, but if you've ever been to a gun show, you would know that your post is so not even close to being correct.
Chucky,
Please enlighten us with factual evidence to this. Do you have any credible sources for this?
Red -
Not exactly true. Approximately 40% of all gun sales in the US are classified as "private"sales and no background check is performed. Only about 50% of the guns sold at a gun show are through licensed dealers - of course that is the average and it varies based on state rules.
I have been to several gun shows, and I have a licensed gun dealer across the hall where I work. He often complains about the lack of background checks and the dealers who have two tables - one for licensed sales and one for sales from their "personal" collection that don't require background checks.
Which guns do you think are sold at a higher price?
TNSEVOL: I would be thrilled if the only thing accomplished is the closing of that loophole.
I propose a question. You are asleep in your home. You hear a noise. A guy on meth has broken in and has a machete. Your wife and kids are in the home. You have a choice. Cell phone to call the police, armed forces, National Guard, a 45 or a baseball bat. Choose.
GotRights? Seriously I was hoping for some good debate the hatred is not productive. We need to work together to solve these issues. I am a former Marine and gun owner but assault rifles have no place in our society except in the hands of our troops. They are not proposing a complete gun ban. You mention killing sprees in other parts of the world but that is in other parts of the world with different circumstances, we are in America and lets focus on America. You do understand that 5 and 6 years kids where killed by a assault rifle designed to be used against our enemy's??? Again 5 and 6 year old's. It is time to act and no banning assault rifles are not going to stop everything it has to be a broader focus on several fronts. All I can conclude with is 5 and 6 year old children killed by a rifle that is designed for war we need to rethink our priorities?
Jeff they might not be proposing a complete ban right now but they will. Just look at Obama he campiagned on rasing taxes on the rich on the indivdule rate. Now he has done that hes decided he wants to keep on taxing. Give em an inch and they will take a mile.
Not true High, not true at all. I am a gun owner and would not allow that to happen, that is just more fear tactics from the NRA. No one is proposing taking all guns away from everybody, lets get the guns off of the street that are capable of shooting 20 1st graders, several times each. We should not forget that, never.
a .22 can be used to shoot 1st graders and 22's can kill. A high powered pellet gun can also kill.
Where do you draw the line John?
Jeffgrey, thanks for your thoughtful comments and for your service to us all!
Johntho - With the vitriol I have seen you spew on these forums, you should not have a gun. You would never pass the psych exam to be a gun owner.
After banning assault weapons, let's put all current owner's of registered assault weapons on a national database like we do for sexual predators. I'd like to know who in my neighborhood has these killing weapons, wouldn't you?
Mike, Why don't you go around your neighborhood and introduce yourself, then ask if they own any guns?
BTW...predators actaully broke a law. Gun owners have not broken any laws.
TH, Folks know who I am in my neighborhood. I don't cower in the dark like a scared fantasy driven gun nut...
Mike,
Neither do most gun owners. What makes you think they cower in the dark?
Out of the 10 houses on my street, 8 of them have gun owners in them.
Truth Hurter, I'm not lumping gun owners in with "gun nuts" I've a FOID card too. But I don't need an over 10 round clip to compensate for other deficiencies in my self-image. I'm also not afraid to use my name in this blog!
Mike,
I'm with you. I like my 20 and 30 clips for the convenience of not having to waste time reloading 10 or 5 rnd mags at the range. I have all the 30 round mags I will ever use for my weapons setup, so selfishly they can ban whatever they want of magazines go forward...I will still keep and use what I have. However, the number of Assault weapon incidents that use larger clips are so few and far between. We have bigger problems as a violent society that we should address and would mitigate armed violence more effectively than limiting a magazine size. This gun issue is nothing but hyped up superficial political hot air over a tragedy that liberals kidnapped for their political gain.
Keep in mind that the guns used to kill those kids in Sandy Hook were obtained legally. They belonged to the mother of the perpetrator. She lost her life and 20 innocent children lost their lives because of the rapid fire capability and the sheer number of rounds in magazines for the weapons used. Had the woman secured the firearms well enough the kid wouldn't have had such an easy time getting and using them on her and those kids. Banning guns outright would not have stopped him from killing but the number of deaths would likely have been much smaller. Had he gotten the help for his mental instability that he really needed it is unlikely that those small children would be dead today.
There is more to this than taking guns away or not.
GOTTA REPOST THIS
Sorry, dear kids:
The NRA is too powerful for us to stand up to, we have to cower to them again. There have always been bad guys and always will be. Many people think it's useless and even silly to try to protect you without a gun in our hands. The bad guys have won, kids, we can't protect you at school, the mall or grocery store, or even at the movie theater. Too many of our politicians won't try to protect you either because they could maybe loose their jobs - the NRA will make sure of that.
Money is more important than you, dear kids, it's not worth the fight to try to protect you - it would be too expensive. Rich people would rather give tons of money for TV commercials instead of giving money to help the mentally ill or poor. So, the rich people don't seem to care about your safety either.
Maybe you heard that a child was shot 11 times at school, and the other 19 children in that classroom were shot 3-6 times each. The bad guy also killed six other grown ups who worked in the school. The bad guy used an assault weapon and brought 100's of bullets with him to the school that horrible day. The NRA said that the principle of the school should have had a gun to kill that bad guy. The NRA wants all of the teachers and principles to carry a gun to school. Why? Because the NRA wants to sell more guns, they want more money.
Kids, you must understand that we have to surrender to the bad guys. If they really want to kill you, they will find a way - with or without a gun - so why should we try to protect you? We give up. There are many things to be afraid of, kids, so get used to the bad guys with their big killing machines. Guns, money, and power are more important than you. The grown ups don't have the energy or courage to even try to fight for your safety.
Or do we?
Please, support President Obama as he and millions of us are going to TRY to help protect our children from all the bad guys with their assault weapons. Let's have his back to get better care for the mentally ill and to demand universal background checks. Our children deserve it, and everyone - with or without a gun - has the right to feel/be safe.
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard, "For our children and grandchildren's sake..." about the national debt, I could easily retire. How about, "For our children and grandchildren's SAFETY...???
Well said K2, A good guy can soon become the bad guy with one squeeze of a trigger. Let alone 100 trigger pulls. It is time that we out yell the NRA and send them to the dump for former lobbyist
You should replace the words "bad guy" with "psychopath" because that is the correct description. The rest of us 99.9% of legal gun owners would have shot that psychopath if given the chance. Your vitriol is aimed at the wrong people. Grow a brain and use it for once.
Hi, Truth Hurts! I used "the bad guy" because that's how the NRA used/described it, remember? And yes, psychopath is indeed another description. And who wouldn't have shot that Newtown bad guy if we could have? Yes, most gun owners are responsible people - no doubt about that. And insulting my brain is really uncalled for.
Wasn't sure you had one based on the fact that what I was reading was your "repost". Thanks for clarifying and glad you have one.
President Obama has men and women with machine guns protecting his children at their school everyday. Will he ban those guns and let his children go to school like ours do? As with all politicians it will be the do as i say not as i do
Hey Bob - If any President has children, they are protected - they HAVE to be because of all the bad guys. So why shouldn't the Obama girls have protection? What are you trying to say? They don't deserve protection? Hate is really an ugly thing, Bob.
Want to ban semi automatic weapons, fine, come and get them. Want "reasonable" gun control, I hope you are willing to die for your cause, because I am for mine. Why do I need an "assault" rifle? I need it in case someone comes to try and take my gun away, which violates my second ammendment right, so I can kill them. I will never apologize for the fact that I choose to exercise my second ammendment right by owning an AR15 rifle. And yes, I use it to hunt with, beacuse it is good practice for what I hope and pray I will never have to do.
BS. You hope and dream about the day you'll go down in a hail of gunfire as a martyr. You've watched too many movies where the good guy kills all the bad guys and gets the girl. Truth is - you will die. And only your blood relatives will mourn your passing. You will not be a hero. You will be the crazy gun nut down the street who dared anyone to pull the gun from his cold dead fingers - and they took him up on it.
Matt - please join Al-Qaeda.
I always enjoy it when people assume they know exactly what I am via one post. I do not want bloodshed, of any kind, I abhor violence, I have never even been in a fist fight. For the record, I have a BA degree in Criminal Justice, a BS degree in Surveying, and I am a licenced professional at my job, as well as having earned the respect of my colleagues. So if you wish to lump me into the "crazy" group, you will fail.
I have no desire what so ever to challenge anyone to take my guns, I simply wish to lay out my argument of why I own them and why I am opposed to banning them.
As for the worst case scenario, and if I would die. All I can say is if I am accosted, I feel comfortable that my regular training in self defense, with and without a weapon, as well as trainging in small unit tactics, unconventional warfare, and tactical combat casulty care, will likely be equal to or superior to those I am up against.
No, I am not former military. But there are SEVERAL curent and former police and military, including special forces, who are willing to teach people these skills. And I consider myself very lucky to call many of these people friend.
In other words, I am "well regulated" which by the 2A definition means well trained.
Have a nice day blearyeyed :).
Matt, wait until you are old and "well regulated" will have a different meaning.....
We have Immigration laws in the United States yet there are 12 Million Illegal immigrants in the U.S. that are breaking our laws everyday they are here. Illigal immigrants have even toured around the U.S. on an "Undocubus" touting their illegal Status and thumbing there noses at us and our laws.
Whats going to stop those 12 million criminals from having guns? You seriously think there going to obey our laws?
If your interested in the Best interests of America and saving lives then maybe you should be concerned with enforcing our laws and Securing our borders.
Ten thousand People a year are dying in Mexico to supply America with Illegal drugs.
Securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws has the potential of saving Ten thousand Lives a year.
Will tens of thousands of lives be saved every year with new gun Control laws?
Will even a thousand lives, a hundred lives, be saved with new gun control laws?
V.P. Biden said that if passing new gun control laws Saves Just one life its worth it.
How come saving Tens of Thousand of lives a year isn't worth it by simply securing our borders and enforcing our laws and removing the stimulous that is driving the Drug war in Mexico?
A more effective answer would be to de-criminalize drugs. Take the enormous profit motive away from the cartels.
Are you going to pay for all the health risks, harm to society, Domestic Abuse, crack babies etc from legalizing drugs?
That also doesn't deal with the 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. and the hundreds that poor across our border each month.
How many of those 12 Million illegal immigrants do you think could be Terrorists just hiding in the Shadows until they get the Sign that its time to Strike?
This would eliminate most of the "senseless" gun violence as well. Poor inner-city kids could quit fighting and dying over drug turf!!!
Noah,
We pay for all of that and more currently. At least we could tax the product at that point. Quit housing people in prison for crimes against themselves.
Why don't you answer the real Question Dblackman instead of trying to defend Illegal Drugs?
Again, if gun Control laws saving just one life is worth it then why isn't securing our borders and enforcing our laws that would save tens of thousands of lives a year be worth it?
Why is it when everyone says "reasonable gun control debate" it involves banning me "law abiding citizen" from owning something? I am all for reasonable gun control laws.
I have no problem with registration, I have no problem with thorough background checks, I have no problem with very strict enforcement.
I have a very serious problem with not enforcing the laws that are on the books, with not addressing the root issues, mental health, inner city violence, etc...
How about a national I.D. card for owning firearms of all kinds? With that said individuals would have the right to carry concealed etc. in all 50 states. Violation of any of the rules or laws would be severely punished under federal law perhaps?
The Second Amendment is not there to protect my rights of duck hunting, It does not say anything about so called "Assault Rifle" nor does it say "Musket". It was intended for Americans to have the capacity to stand up to Aggressors Foreign and Domestic.
So we should all take a step back, breath and discuss this rationally. I have been all over the country, I do not feel threatened by guns themselves, I have felt threatened by some of the idiots with them. I do feel threatened by the "fear Factor" being pushed by the media and the current administration.
Some may not understand my way of thinking, calling me a gun nut, some may not understand my way of thinking calling me an idiot for the registration portion. But we should be able to at least discuss this without all of the BS retoric flying around here, television, radio, internet etc...
I agree with you except for the Registration part.
Why should we be opposed to Registration?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/
http://now.msn.com/journal-news-gun-owners-map-may-have-threatened-prison-guards-sheriff-says
Registration would have to be kept secured at all times. Also protected under a Federal statute.
LOL. That is a laughable and unrealistic expectation of our government.
Possibly, but at least have the discussion, rather that than lose my rights to own.
You seriously can't believe that such a database would be secure do you?
How many stories has there been of Federal Officials leaving Lap tops etc lying around with databases in them with hundreds of thousands of peoples personal information in them?
How many stories have we heard about databases being hacked, etc?
Where do you think the Journal News got the information from?
They got it from Freedom of Information Requests. In other words they got the lists of registered gun owners from The GOVERNMENT.
Registration is merely one step away from forced confiscation. History is full of these example. PLus it does nothing to either prevent gun viloence or keep the weapons out the hands of those who should not have them.
chuckzul
Registration is merely one step away from forced confiscation. History is full of these example. PLus it does nothing to either prevent gun viloence or keep the weapons out the hands of those who should not have them.
______________________________________________________________________________—
Paranoia is just one step away from being on a do not own a firearm list as well. I agree, my first response is not to be put on a registration list, sadly I probably already am. I have purchased arms from licensed dealers. So that kind of ruins the whole idea of never getting on a list. Odds are most all of us that own a firearm are on a list somewhere already.
Dblackman -
Considering federal records are hacked into regularly and that there are some very irresponsible bureaucrats, just how secure do you think those records would ever be?
The saying is that 'where there's a will there's a way'. And considering the financial institutions of this nation and elsewhere cannot keep financial records safe, I think that those type of records would also be hacked in no time flat.
Ask Canada about gun registry, they already have a handgun ban so they went with a Long Gun Registry. In time the Folly of the exercise was obvious, did it make a difference, No. It was horrifically expensive, I believe the cost was several hundred million. The end result was someone came to their senses and realized it does nothing but provide an exercise in record keeping, it made no difference in the crime rate and was a black hole in which money disappeared. They ended it. Hurrah Canada !!!!
The gubers want no regulation, no restrictions, no laws that affect them. Now, do you want these nitwits dictating the safety and security of your family??? I didn't think so...
Mental Health, entertainment, security guards = keywords for doing NOTHING
350 people drown in they're bathtubs each year (CDC), 32,367 died in auto accidents(Trans. safety), 75,000 deaths per year from alcohol (according to CDC), 1301 deaths by sex (CDC). Come on people banning guns is not the answer, how about we treat the cause "Mental Health". Also put a gag order on the media, report the incident and leave the name of the offender out, they want to be infamous. That idiot could have just as easily used some household chemicals and killed more kids than he did with guns. If the principal had been armed there would have only been one death, the criminals.
Per FBI stats Guns are used 3-4 more times to STOP a crime than they are used in commission of a crime. By the way just what is an assault rifle ? There is no such thing.
The truth sometimes hurts. Right now, the most anti-gun legislators like Biden and Feinstein are crafting opportunistic legislation that does not make a lot of sense. The assault weapon ban was ineffective over 1994-2004 and was actually discontinued. The FBI and DOJ statistics indicate it was not effective at reducing violent gun crimes, yet this same crowd wants to re-institute the ban, I guess, expecting a different result this time? A ban on higher capacity magazines will not work, there are tens of thousands or more pre-ban magazines, criminals can carry several 10-shot magazines, or just use a 12 gauge shotgun, 8-shot, loaded with 00 buckshot, in a magnum load. These are just feel-good proposals and ineffective at reducing crime. A database of mental patients would help, fast prosecution and stiff jail time for gun crimes would be a good deterrent, or at least help, as would prosecution of adults allowing small children access to their guns, resulting in a bad result. These things would help. Asking Americans, in effect, to forgo self-defense, constitutional rights and personal liberties is never a good trade in a republic. I question, in most certain terms, the bias, agenda and tactics of those formulating our gun laws that will affect most Americans who have not been involved in any way in gun crimes. The strong fixation on the object of crime, rather than the criminals and going after root causes simply escape the logic of these anti-gunners, hoplophobes, those who simply "do not like guns", and of course, Feinstein, who would take up all the guns if she just had the votes. No thank you, this was already tried, and failed, in Russia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia and China. No need to follow THEIR example, nor is it nice to try to do an end-run around the Constitution, Congress and the American people. The greatest threat to these mostly left and far left legislators and executive branch seem to be an educated, informed, armed citizenry.
It's a stepping stone. When it is proven ineffectual, it is simply grounds for "We didn't do enough! We have to get tougher!"
Let's get something straight - no one in power wants their populace armed. Neither Dems nor Reps really want the public to own firearms.
I know with utter certainty that if I was in power, I'd do everything possible to disarm the public.
I believe the best thing that could be instituted for Gun Control would be Term Limits, why do we allow Career Politicians? Much like Feinstein, they know what is best for us and therein lies the reason for Term Limits.
The Messiah just signed a bill that gives him armed protection for life and his children protection until 16.
Hypocritical a$$hole.
Cunical, whats your point, exactly? With all the hatred being spewed forth about our Commander in Chief, this seems very reasonable to me.
All other past Presidents and their children get/have gotten protection. But, President Obama shouldn't get it - why? Is this what you have to complain about, cunical? And his name is President Obama, not the "Messiah" - it's you haters that keep calling him that!
Na...I call him the Messiah....I call him the Empty Suit!
Oddly enough though...both seem to apply......
Funny...old Uncle Joe said that if saves one life it's worth it....Funny how if someone from the Empty Suit's circle of fools would have just made the effort to act 4 dead American in Benghazi might be alive today...but I guess that was too much effort....
But stealing our right to protect ourselves is right in line with mainstream America.....NOT!
You are incorrect K2mn..........His name is Barack Hussein Obama.....he was elected President of the United States so he is called President Obama, but that is not his name on his birth certificate.
The reason they call him the Messiah is because of the way lib's have replaced god with him.
Pos.N°NameMakeTimeVariationPenalty
1
302
PETERHANSEL (CHE), COTTRET (FRA)
MINI
001:26:57
00:00:00
2
315
GORDON (USA), WALCH (USA)
HUMMER
001:27:39
00:00:42
00:00:00
3
300
AL-ATTIYAH (QAT), CRUZ (ESP)
BUGGY
001:27:53
00:00:56
00:00:00
4
313
TERRANOVA (ARG), FIUZA (PRT)
BMW
001:28:06
00:01:09
00:00:00
Well...someone's watching Dakar.
"Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy-- quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody's rights. You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go." - Thomas Sowell
Meanwhile, I just had one new Barrett REC7 rifle and four 30 round magazines come in today, and just made another order for one more rifle and 8 more magazines. I'm taking it to the range later today to shoot. Talk about a sweet sweet weapon.
Hey Lee, good idea to get some target practice. Will kill more children if your aim is better.
Guess some people have a lot of extra money to spend! The economy IS getting better! Don't forget to pay your NRA dues, too, because that's all they want is your money. Happy shooting!
NRA claims that it's new members "surged" 100,000 since the shootings of the children. Whoop-de-do! With 4.1 million members, that's a whopping 2.3%. They fail to mention if anyone quit over this. Also with a US population of 300 million the percent NRA membership is a mind boggling 1.3% of American citizens. Why are people so afraid of them? It must be money.
Regardless of NRA affiliation, the NSSF estimates about 80 million lawful gun owners in the United States which own a total of approximately 300 million firearms. I'm sure in your happy little bubble, you can enjoy marginalizing 25% of the population.
If you want to make a difference, don't go after rifles (used in 3.5% of homicides), of which "assault weapons" are a subset. Go after handguns, which are used in ~72% of homicides according to the FBI. I mean, the ultimate goal is reducing gun violence, right? Then you can also go after shotguns, because, heck, the Mossberg 500 makes that list of the BATFE "top ten" most frequently used guns in crime. (The other 9 are small caliber handguns.)
There are a LOT of non-NRA gun owners who support the 2nd amendment also jemu. That includes a lot of gun owning Dems like myself. I don't belong to the NRA but I DO support the 2nd amendment and I don't want it infringed upon! If the government want to do comprehensive background checks fine, they need to enforce the more than 20,000 gun laws already on the books rather than the knee jerk BS that they're trying now. I DO NOT support a federal registration of firearms! Call me paranoid or whatever you wish but the government nor anyone else has any business knowing what guns I have! I filled out all the proper forms and went through the background checks when I purchase a firearm and that should be enough! If they wish to have shrinks add their patients they feel are a risk to those background check files that's fine and would probably help keep at risk individuals from having access to guns.
In the long run America is going to have to turn around and take care of her mentally ill if they want to actually help reduce the problem however.
Ted Nugent stars as Rosa Parks in the NRA's thrilling new production of 'Back Of The Bus Sucka'
Our patriotic and law bidding gun owner should not be held responsible for the acts of other gun owners. However, it is the moral responsibility of Gun Makers, Gun Sellers, Gun Buyers and Gun Owners to help protect our children from Gun violence.
Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the President, Congress and every mother and father in the USA to protect their children from gun violence.
Therefore, I recommend a very easy solution to curtail this gun violence.
We the people of the USA should tax each gun made 100%, tax each gun sold 100%, tax each gun violent video game or movie 100% and tax each gun owner $20.00 a year for gun safety.
The income from all of these taxes should go to the protection of our children from gun violence in our schools and other public places, (i.e. This tax money will be used by public schools for hiring school guards, school entrance surveillance and by the NRA for giving gun owners yearly Gun Safety Classes).
This Gun Tax can be easily adopted by the President and Congress without all the 2nd Amendment issues. Furthermore, it would help the NRA and its law bidding gun owners and support their call for gun safety and gun violence.
Lastly, if a person has a gun and does not pay the $20.00 a year tax they are now a tax evader and can be prosecuted under IRS Tax Law.
That would be a Tax on the lower and Middle class.
Don't you remember Obama Promised he wouldn't raise taxes on the lower and Middle class.
You also seem to forget the Demcrats claim to be the Protectors of the Lower and Middle class and now you are proposing that the Democrats Punish the lower and middle classes?
Again why does it always have to be to the extreme. Your idea of a tax is not without merit. But all the 100% nonsense is just overboard. The registration fees, taxes etc. could be used to further your ideas of armed gaurds.
See how easy it is to have a reasonable discussion, that is how you actually get something productive done.
You can have that tax the same day they add extra taxes to alcohol. I'm sick of DUI/DWI drivers. I say we add 100% tax to alcohol, 100% tax on media that involves drinking in it, and 100% tax on alcohol advertising.
Then we can also limit the amount of alcohol a person can purchase at one time, and ban these "high content" alcohols. Nobody needs a beverage that is greater than 15% alcohol by volume. We also need to limit these "high capacity" bottles of alcohol. Nobody needs to have more than one drink per day. Wine will come in 1-glass bottles, beer will come in 1-packs, and all "spirits" of greater alcohol content will be banned. I've had enough of these drunk drivers ruining lives.
Also, the first time anyone is caught driving under the influence, their vehicle is impounded (regardless of whether or not they own it), and sold off at auction, proceeds benefit victims of DUI. It'd make you think twice about letting anyone borrow your car.
plus ban all violent movies, gangster rap, violent television, violent books and order all citizens to be polite to each other and not to cheat on taxes
The Really Sad thing is the NRA has made the most realistic suggestion about protecting students in Schools, but because it was the NRA that made the suggestion, it has to be bad. What would the consensus be if the suggestion had been made by Bill Clinton, because it was, we let it slip to the wayside. The simple way to deal with this is make it a mandatory Death Sentence to anyone using a Firearm to commit a felony on school property and enforce it. This administration seems to have a problem with selective enforce of laws, only enforce those that further it's agenda.
Our newest high school in my county in KY has had 2 full time sheriff's deputies in it since it opened a fwe years back By the Border. I personally feel a LOT better knowing they are there to protect our kids in case of something like Newtown being tried. I also think that any shooter knowing that they would face armed individuals if they tried a shooting would move on to an easier target rather than even try to invade our school.
You just gotta feel sorry for a lot of the pro gun folks. They are afaird that there going to lose all their guns, but they just don't have any common sense. What is being proposed is a ban on assult rifles and magizines that would hold more than 10 rounds of ammo. They can't take away all your guns, the 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to have a gun. In order for them to take all the guns they would have to change the constitution and to do that they would need two thirds of congress to go along with it, which is not going to happen, and even if it did then they would need three fourths of the states to agree with it, and that's not going to happen. Will the ban stop all the killing. Of course not, but perhaps you won't have the mass killings like the recent elementary school and the theater in Colorado. As one person posted on another blog, he would like to have an indy car to drive, but then it would make no common sense to drive through his neighborhood at 150 miles an hour.
Define "Assault Rifle"?
If you do not know what an Assult Rifle is, explaining it to you would do no good.
I know exactly what an "Assault Rifle" is. Before you start talking about banning "Assault Rifles" it needs to be clearly defined.
Are you going to define a .22 that has removable magazines as an "Assault rifle"?
Are you going to define any rifle that can have a scope mounted on it as an "Assault Rifle"?
Are you going to define any rifle with Picatteny rails on it as an "Asasult Rifle"?
David Noah - Those on the left that are for "gun control" can't/won't even define what should or should not be banned. Most liberals want to ban every type of firearm. The liberals in Washington want more federal controls placed on the citizens of the U.S. in the belief that they know best. We have Federal Laws against automatic weapons and other guns such as "sawed off shotguns". We don't need more federal control, we need more enforcement of current laws. The individual states are the ones that should, and in most cases, are the ones to enact their own gun controls, not the Federal Government. The Federal Government should only get involved when a state or local government exceeds the 2d Amendment as determined by the Supreme Court.
Idiot, all weapons cannot be banned unless they change the constitution, and that just is not going to happen. Read post all of post 21.
They are not proposing just a ban on magazines of over 10 rounds, just today a Connecticut representative introduced a bill to ban everything except single shot guns. The Federal Normal Weapons ban is just a stepping stone to a complete ban, same way it was done in England, anyone who says this is just a "reasonable restriction" is lying.
Look at England what is the biggest weapon used there? Knifes and bombs second. Yea that is what I want for my death. Thanks Robert.
It is illegal to carry a knife with a fixed or locking blade over three inches long in England unless it is work related. Guess it looks like Bombs only.
More from the fear campaign. Let's ignore that fact that since 1992, violent crime and homicide rates have decreased 50%. Let's ignore the demographics of crime. Let's ignore the weapons of choice in such crime.
It's much easier to word things in such a manner to scare the public. "War on Terror." Well, if you're against the War on Terror, that must mean you're pro-Terror. "Assault weapons ban." Well, if you're against banning "assault weapons," that must mean you're pro-assault. It's all language meant to monger fear and emotional response. I could call any sharp knife with a blade longer than 4 inches a "throat slitter" and then introduce legislation against it. Well, if it was called "the throat slitter knife ban: a campaign against throat slitting" who would vote against it?
But no, let us, as a people, get diverted from the real problem, which is essentially the war on drugs, poor education system, lack of social safety net, and practically non-existent mental healthcare, and instead focus on a designation of firearms responsible for LESS THAN 3.5% of all firearm homicides. How do I know it's less than 3.5%? Because "rifles" is a category in the FBI statistics, and "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles.
These jacobin idiots are going after video games again!?!. they shouldn't have enough airplanes to do that!?!. no wonder MkUltra is doing this.
The average citizen pushes for gun control to feel safe; the government pushes for gun control to gain more control. Wake up America, the government is using your fear against you to steal your freedoms, stop being marionettes and start studying real facts. The press and the government are lying, gun control does not make us safer, look up the facts. Mexico has some of the most strict gun control in the world and look at their crime! England has the most strict gun control in Europe and the highest violent crime rate, much higher than ours. Stop automatically believing everything you hear from your elected officials and cable news; jump on the internet and do some research yourself, the facts do not lie!
All that info is just hot air unless you show your sources.
@ Patriots
Either you don't know how to use the internet or you haven't been paying attention. It takes 2 seconds to Google Mexico & to see that they have had 50,000+ deaths over the past several years.
It has also been discussed on this very site that England does now have the highest violent crime rate on the other side of the pond.
Don't be lazy look it up yourself.
I am surprised I read nothing about the possible motive of these insane people that kill innocent people, either here or in the news. What was there motive? I does not seem there was any specific person as a target for revenge. Just
random outrageous shooting to draw the most attention possible.
I argue that the media should be banned from televising and reporting these incidents, these incidents can be supplied accurately in a formal FBI report through the applicable government website/library. Why should the media be able to report this 24 hours a day for weeks giving the insane shooter what they wanted, instant fame! This seems to promote the next shooter and each shooter may feel they need to do something more horrific than the last. The media has no self regulation, they do what ever to sell advertisements and support their business. I have not heard our all intelligent government, the President or Vice President mention anything about this or invite the media to any of the meetings being held to ask them what they can do to help prevent the next instance.
Where there is a will there is a way, seems applicable to focus on the killer's motive and spend the resource there first. There are so many weapons in the US, placing new laws that we do not have the resources to enforce and not enforcing the ones we have seems ridiculous.
I agree. I remember 46 years ago. Bought my first 22 rifle from a sporting goods store with money from my first job. I had other rifles and shotguns that my father had bought for me. I started shooting and hunting around 10. There were no school shootings that I can remember. There were plenty of guns around. No one thought of taking a gun to a school or theater to kill people. Kids were bullied at school, they got over it. The family unit I think was a lot different. People talked to their kids and knew what they were up to most of the time. The middle class was much stronger. The gov. did not ban guns. There were no background checks that I knew of, at least at 16, I put my deposit down, and bought a .22 Browning rifle. I wonder, what has changed?
The Bad Thing about Crazy is It's Unpredictable and the Only Thing You Can Count on about Crazy is It's Unpredictable. Therein lies the Problem.
By the Border
Exactly, no amount of security guards or mental health screening is going to even slow it down and is a waste of time and money. Banning the weapons that help them kill a lot of people in 30 seconds is the right direction...
That pretty much only leaves single shot weapons.
The only argument the gun nuts seem to have on the assault weapons ban idea is to quiubble over what exactly should be classified as an assault weapon. We'll figure it out, gun nuts, the idea is to take away the guns that are designed for battling with other humans, rapid fire, semi-autos, whatever. Some weapons may be hard to classify but we will decide on a weapon to weapon evauation basis. Quibbling over what should and should not be classified an assault weapon is not an argument for or against some of the higher capacity weapons being banned.