I can get behind the universal background check idea. The challenge to that however is government agencies, states and the feds do not share information well or willingly. How do you address this issue?

sjacobs - keep the pressure on your representatives to ensure that the states and agencies have the proper incentives to share information and consequences with teeth (hold them liable/accountable) for those that don't share.

nomoresameo "Universal background checks is a great idea. Leave everything else alone. Why some people seem to feel 'safe' simply because they own a gun is beyond me. But they have the right, so, unless the 2nd amendment is wiped out, leave everything else about guns alone."

Common sense - but to answer your question, perhaps the following might provide some insight;

The best reason for allowing American citizens to 'have the right to bear arms' is highlighted by a Study on Guns and Crime Rates comparing burglaries in the United States with those in Canada and Britain (where strict gun laws make it virtually impossible to have a gun at home). In this study (link below), only about 13% of 'Hot Burglaries' in the United States occur while the residents are at home, versus almost half in Canada and Britain. The fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time than their foreign counterparts "casing" a house to ensure that nobody is home. Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late-night burglaries because "that's the way to get shot."

I would much prefer that a potential burglar (or worse) break into my home when my family is NOT at home out of fear that I might be armed.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gunslott.html

For those who think nobody should have a firearm for protection, consider this story – If she didn't have a gun for protection, we can only shudder at what the stalker might have done to her and her two children;

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder?lite&lite=obnetwork

Roy - again you're posting nonsense. NO ONE is saying people shouldn't have a gun at home. NO ONE.

What is being proposed is that people have to have a background check to be able to buy a gun; that they have their gun registered; that no one is able to buy assault weapons; that magazine's be limited. NO ONE is saying a person can't have a handgun or a rifle. That is the lie you and the NRA is trying to sell.

One of the biggest 'obstacles' that I see to 'gun control' is the issue of mental health. I can see serious problems with health care professionals agreeing to have a government 'LIST' of people with mental issues that should prevent the patients from getting a weapon - out of concern that such a 'LIST' could be used for other nefarious purposes - such as hiring checks by prospective employers, checking on neighbors, etc..

Imagine what would happen if a newspaper decided to publish such a list, like the newspaper in New York that used 'freedom of information' as a reason for publishing the names and addresses of law abiding people who had gotten gun permits.

And would it be wise to allow the public to learn that their neighbors are on a list of 'mental patients'?

Where is the 'balance' between 'freedom of information' and 'privacy rights'?

SeekingSanity "Roy - again you're posting nonsense. NO ONE is saying people shouldn't have a gun at home. NO ONE."

Excuse me, but I think I was responding to the comment of 'unless the 2nd amendment is wiped out', which makes my comment entirely pertinent.

If you read my post carefully, I said 'Common sense' to the proposals of nomoresameo. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to criticize without reading fully.

Roy, you realize I hope that the government already knows more about you than you do. So it is nonsense to think that such lists would be used any differently than any other list or information they have about you.

The new gun laws are common sense laws. I don't believe that a burglar would try and rob you if you were sitting there with a shot gun ready to fill him with pellets. He would still rob you when you're not home. If you need assault type weapons to protect your little part of land than you surely must be a poor shot and probably shouldn't be allowd to have a firearm in the first place. To all that is proposed including the licensing one should have to demonstrate safety and proper use of such weapons in order to legally one one. I also believe that if a crime is committed by a gun owned by you that you are an accessory to the crime unless you have reported it missing whereby there had better be evidence of a gun safe for storage and trigger locks on each of them or the charge might still stick.

All out ban on firearms is something I am opposed to. The Second Amendment as written isn't clear but subsequent court definitions have made it clear that even those who are not part of a well regulated militia may own firearms so I say if you want a gun or two to protect yourself and your property or for sport, finding food or whatever I am fine with that. You just don't need a bushmaster to gun down Bambi.

Most of the recent gun violence where several to many people were hurt and killed were done by people teetering on the edge of sanity. The background checks might help keep weapons from them.

Insurance companies need to support this effort too. Often those folks are uninsured especially for mental illness and so they don't get the treatment they need. It can be done descretely with severe penalties for anyone who leaks personal medical or mental illness information. The law must have teeth and be enforeced.

I am absolutely appalled by Democrats' caving in on this. There are already 300 million guns in this country that will never have to go through a background check, nor would a background check necessarily turn up mental health problems that haven't manifested yet, nor will background checks predict when a jealous husband will go ballistic on his pistol-toting wife, who apparently couldn't see it coming, nor will background checks accurately predict when some parents will negligently leave a gun in a pocket to be found by a small child. A gun bought legally years ago can be turned to evil purposes in a New York minute by someone you would never suspect.

It happens every day in this country. Over and over again. Like Groundhog Day.

The gun lobby, having created the fear which caused us to arm ourselves to the teeth, only continues to profit if that fear continues. They have no interest in making anyone feel safe. Their only interest is making you feel fear. The only way for the gun lobby to do this is to perpetuate the conditions under which fear exists. In other words, the gun lobby doesn't care whether your children live or die.

In fact, it's better business for them if your children die.

And it's for this reason that the NRA opposes universal background checks.

Which were never enough in the first place.

And around and around we go, while children and people of all stripes continue to die.

Roy:

So the woman is busy talking to her husband on the telephone, instead of calling the police herself. Now, instead of being known a loving mother, she's a killer. Her children will know that for the rest of their lives, if she says she's going to kill them and heads for the bedroom where the gun is located, she WILL KILL THEM. They will listen to her because they are afraid.

You will notice that she did not need an assault style weapon or high capacity magazine. A simple .38 with six bullets apparently did the trick.

I wonder how many people were killed by friends or relatives that same day?

One thing is absolutely clear, if there is a gun in your house, there is a greater probability of someone residing in the house being injured or dying a violent death than if there is not a gun.

You simply have to be stupid to have a gun in your home.

@dirp --

It's something like a 43 times greater chance that the gun will be used to kill a loved one that it will be used to protect them. And 50 times greater that a gun in the street will be used for a murder than in a justifiable homicide situation.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/105337/yes-really-ban-all-the-guns#

It is a fact. Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Guns on the street make us less safe. For every justifiable handgun homicide, there are more than 50 handgun murders, according to the FBI.

But, hey ... don't let facts get in the way of good fear mongering.

Seeking Sanity - I'm confused. In response to Roy Wilson you wrote:

"Roy - again you're posting nonsense. NO ONE is saying people shouldn't have a gun at home. NO ONE.

What is being proposed is that people have to have a background check to be able to buy a gun; that they have their gun registered; that no one is able to buy assault weapons; that magazine's be limited. NO ONE is saying a person can't have a handgun or a rifle. That is the lie you and the NRA is trying to sell."

Then below in 3.1 you wrote:

"Steeler - other countries don't permit people to have guns like we do. That would be the issue!"

Would you yourself like to see all guns banned or are you in favor of keeping some legal?

Posted this from the Dew Drop Friday, and want to repeat it here:

Why do those on the right howl when there is an embassy attack that "we MUST find out who knew what and when did they know it?", but when something like Newtown happens- the mantra is 'wait- let's not be hasty and jump to any conclusions here..."?

And a suggestion for the 'mainstream media': keep running that clip of Wayne LaPierre saying how much he supports background checks. Hell, let the viewers decide if it's old or new footage- just run the hell out of it. Maybe then, when he's interviewed on one of the news shows, someone would ask him; "what's changed"? And maybe- just maybe, the chicken**it will come up with an answer.

Restricting the sale of certain types of semi auto rifles or the size of magazines is a solution to a problem that really doesn't exist driven more by emotion than reason. I do understand the "why" behind it but law driven by emotion often is bad law. As difficult as this pill is to swallow, we can't control the actions of others and some people who seem very normal do terrible things.

Never the less, restricting the transfer of ownership of guns to only those who can pass a mandatory background check makes sense.

simpletonian - I am in favor of people being able to have handguns and rifles if they pass a background check; register the gun; and are properly trained. NO ONE should be able to own assault weapons or large capacity magazines. They only have one purpose- to kill humans.

I have a brother who hunts and I would never say he shouldn't be able to. He also has handguns. I grew up with a handgun in our home.

Seeking Sanity - Thanks for answering my question. Very cogent and directly to the point. I have two more for you if you don't mind.

What types of issues found during a background check do you think should prevent someone from buying/owning a gun?

What functionality or aesthetics of a gun would cause you to qualify it as an assault weapon?

There are already 300 million guns in this country that will never have to go through a background check, nor would a background check necessarily turn up mental health problems that haven't manifested yet, nor will background checks predict when a jealous husband will go ballistic on his pistol-toting wife, who apparently couldn't see it coming, nor will background checks accurately predict when some parents will negligently leave a gun in a pocket to be found by a small child. A gun bought legally years ago can be turned to evil purposes in a New York minute by someone you would never suspect.

______________________________________

AM: And THERE is the stupidity of the current lefty liberal anti-gun rights psycho-babble. All the lefty liberal proposals will do is give them the false sense of "having done something". Useless. Anyone who cannot pass a background check and tries to buy a gun legally deserves to be locked up for the crime of unlawfully possessing a stupidity-filled brain. The only two things universal background checks will accomplish is 1) to out really, really stupid people with no real consequences except to educate them to be less stupid the next time they try to buy a gun, and, 2) to create the same kind of highly profitable OC business as the Volstead Act did in the 1930's.

You will probably be horrified by this business analogy, but, it does explain a whole lot of the "gun-violence" problem: In every mass production process involving tens, and hundreds of millions of units produced over long periods of time, there will be a small number of units that are defective, despite even the best quality control efforts. In a country of 300+ million people there will a small number of defective people that will get weapons of any kind, guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, 2x4's, broken bottles, etc. and use them to murder other people. Lefty liberal "feel-good" laws will NOT prevent the efforts of those defective units.

So, go ahead and pass your "feel-good" laws and let's see the reality of the results.

simpletonian - any domestic violence conviction or conviction for assault. Clearly any serious mental illness should prevent someone from owning a gun until that problem has passed (some problems do pass.)

Nothing beyond a traditional hunting rifle is needed by a normal gun buyer. Period.

Joe in Albany - you again prove you have nothing useful to say - but you are always eager to post it!

&@#*! Bush! After 9-11, I can't tote my Glock onto a flight to Orlando.

Why did he 'stomp on' the 2nd ammendment??

DBO . . .

Why do those on the right howl when there is an embassy attack that "we MUST find out who knew what and when did they know it?", but when something like Newtown happens- the mantra is 'wait- let's not be hasty and jump to any conclusions here..."?

Excellent question. I would venture that it goes back to the Freedom To and Freedom From mantra of the party of No. They have the Freedom to selectively "care" about horrific incidents and the have the Freedom From actually caring about any of it.

Makes me wonder when Congress will catch up to the wishes of the American people, including the wishes of a majority of NRA members. The people want more than a "quarter of a loaf on guns". Doesn't matter if it is dems or repubs, they are ignoring what the majority has expressed as making good sense. Every citizen needs to email or call their representatives and senators--let them know your view. You can bet the anti-government militias and the 2nd amendment purist gun-advocates are doing that so the rest of us should be, too.

Universal back ground checks is a great start but it should NOT be the end of the conversation. We need all states to be on the same page pertaining to guns, gun ownership, registration, licenses, checks, etc. We need bans/restrictions on military-assault style weapons and we need to limit the legal size of magazine clips. We do not have to eliminate the 2nd Amendment to pass sensible gun laws so that all 50 states have the same minimum requirements. One of the biggest problems we have now is 50 different states with 50 different laws. People like to use Chicago as an example of strict gun laws and plenty of gun-violence; well, that's because all people need to do is buy their guns outside the city.

One only needs to remember that one crazed individual decided to wage a military assault on a first grade elementary class to understand that weapons developed for war were never intended to be manufactured for the publics sporting pleasure nor did our founders envision such a notion when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

That said, pass what can be passed but keep fighting for more and keep this topic front and center.

Jody - well said! Sensible and something rational people should be able to get behind!

Seeking Sanity - What if a man was attacked by his wife/girlfriend, and she put some marks on herself and lied to police/judge which results in a domestic violence conviction for an otherwise innocent person? Would or could there be exceptions?

There are many different types of mental illness. Some have a propensity for violence and some do not. Which one's would qualify and which would not? Would it be contingent on the prescribed medication and its possible effects?

For me and my short 38 years, tradition would refer to my father and grandfather. I wasn't alive to meet anyone in my family before that. Does traditional mean whatever a family has been doing for a while? How long does it take to become tradition? Or, by traditional, do you mean one shot? If so, should we also limit handguns to one shot?

Universal back ground checks is a great start but it should NOT be the end of the conversation. We need all states to be on the same page pertaining to guns, gun ownership, registration, licenses, checks, etc. We need bans/restrictions on military-assault style weapons and we need to limit the legal size of magazine clips.

______________________________________

Translation from Planet-Liberal-speak to English: We need an all powerful lefty liberal federal nanny state to control all aspects of our lives because lefty liberals are just so much smarter than everyone else and they know what's good for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, Jody. NFW.

I just don't see that the fact that one change won't solve the whole problem as an excuse for making no change at all.

For example: I don't get the excuse that we shouldn't have an assault weapons ban because it wouldn't solve the problem. If we have universal background checks that would make a 20% difference in the level of gun violence and we have an assault weapons ban that would make a 10% difference and a high capacity magazine ban that would make a 10% difference, suddenly we have made a 40% difference. That is significant.

It's the same principle as those who say we can't tax rich people enough to fix the economy. But if we tax rich people and get 10% more revenue and cut spending 5% in the military, 10% in corporate welfare, and collect 5% more taxes from corporations, we have made a 30% difference.

"We need an all powerful lefty liberal federal nanny state to control all aspects of our lives..."

Does 'all aspects' include who can marry, who can abort a baby, who can smoke what??? Hmmm... Mr smarter than the rest of us?

"I just don't see that the fact that one change won't solve the whole problem as an excuse for making no change at all."

Exactly. New, stronger DUI laws have reduced deaths from drunk drivers. BUT- not ALL such deaths have been eliminated. So.....repeal DWI laws? Per the right, the answer seems to be "well, yeah".

Jeez, Roy Wilson, Google yourself; you'd be amazed by what you can learn about yourself. My mom who doesn't own a computer, whose only exposure to the internet is when she stops and looks at mine was shocked to discover there's a wealth of information about her accessible with the simple click of a button.

We'll take off our shoes at the airport or handover our sodas and water bottles but how dare anyone deny us assault weapons and a 100-round magazine drums. I'll never understand the kind of thinking that if one owns assault weapons and lots of ammunition, they can prevent being over-run by our powerful military yet think nothing of the restrictions to make an airplane trip.

Albany:

AM: And THERE is the stupidity of the current lefty liberal anti-gun rights psycho-babble. All the lefty liberal proposals will do is give them the false sense of "having done something". Useless.

Which is no excuse for doing nothing that actually might be useful.

Seriously, Joe. This is not a products liability case. There's a big difference between someone being killed or injured by a defective gun and being killed or injured by a defective person with a gun, or even a person with a gun who behaves defectively, for which by the way, unlike the ordinary products liability situation, the gun lobby has managed to coerce Congress into giving the manufacturers immunity.

Or are 11,000 gun murders per year merely an acceptable "tolerance" to you?

Be sure to tell that to the families at Newtown.

Translation from Planet-Liberal-speak to English: We need an all powerful lefty liberal federal nanny state to control all aspects of our lives because lefty liberals are just so much smarter than everyone else and they know what's good for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. We need the nanny state because supposedly law-abiding gun nuts cannot control themselves and don't even know what's good for them, much less the rest of us.

If the wackos would take some REAL responsibility for this problem, no one would have to propose a nanny state. After all, that's what conservatives are all about, isn't it?

Well, then, start acting like it.

Heartlight - You're on the right track. I think we should go even further. Let's tax the rich 30% more, cut defense by 30%, 30% in corporate welfare, and collect 30% more taxes from corporations. Then we can make a 120% difference. Wait a minute, my math is wrong I think. I'll get back to you.

simpletonian - If someone is convicted of domestic violence they shouldn't own a gun. If they couldn't prove they are innocent that's unfortunate but they carry that conviction.

As to rifles and handguns, you're just trying to be difficult and we both know it. That is for the people who set up the specifications to determine - the same as to what mental illnesses should prohibit someone from owning a gun.

Seeking Sanity --

If someone is convicted of domestic violence they shouldn't own a gun. If they couldn't prove they are innocent that's unfortunate but they carry that conviction.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much the law right now, for all the good it does. Most of the time, domestic violence restraining orders come with prohibitions against gun possession.

But that doesn't stop domestic murders by people under restraining orders who ignore them.

This isn't about rules. This is, in the end, about the responsibility of society to keep guns out of the hands of people who don't need them and shouldn't have them.

And the only way to achieve that, it seems, is to take them away, nanny state or not.

After all, Eisenhower did it to the heavily-armed civilian population of Germany after World War II.

Thus, it can be done, but we're cowards, through and through, and selfish, and stupid, to boot.

DBO, I've had similar thoughts about the GOP's Benghazi outrage and the silence on the Newtown massacre. It shows a level of the GOP's intolerance for a terrorist attack in Libya but their tolerance for a terrorist attack in this country and worse, a terrorist attack on innocent first graders.

Seeking Sanity - I realize "one size fits all" laws sometimes don't fit everyone as intended. Some will, unfortunately, fall through the cracks. I am not trying to be difficult. These are the same questions I ask myself in order to form my own opinion on such things.

I am asking you what you mean by traditional. That is a fair question, no?

dirp "Roy: So the woman is busy talking to her husband on the telephone, instead of calling the police herself. Now, instead of being known a loving mother, she's a killer"

Excuse me, but if you read the story, the burglar/stalker was not killed - he was hospitalized - Don't you even wonder what he had in mind when he decided against merely burglarizing the house and instead started stalking the woman and her children - even breaking down doors to get at her and her small children?

If you think she was not justified in protecting herself and her children from this psycho, I doubt that you would have compassion for anyone - except perhaps the stalker.

There's a big difference between someone being killed or injured by a defective gun and being killed or injured by a defective person with a gun,

______________________________________

Counselor, you missed the point: a defective person who is bent on killing people will find a way to get a gun illegally, or find another easily accessible non-gun weapon to carry out their mentally defective desires. Charlie Manson didn't have a gun, Ted Bundy didn't have a gun, John Wayne Gacy didn't have a gun.

l'll bet a few of their victims WISHED they had a gun when they were being murdered.

As I said: So, go ahead and pass your "feel-good" laws and let's see the reality of the results.

Let's keep this simple so even the 'low information voters' will understand;

In Canada and England, where they have strict gun control laws making ownership of a gun in the home nearly impossible, about half of burglaries occur when the residents are at home (Hot Burglaries) because the burglars have no fear of the homeowner being armed.

In the United States, that rate of 'Hot Burglaries' is only about 13%. The difference is that burglars in the United States 'case' the intended target house far more carefully because if the resident is at home, their chance of getting shot is far greater.

That means that the chance of your family being confronted by someone breaking into your home while your family is home is about 385% greater under the strict gun control laws of England than in the United States.

Now ask yourself - Do I really want such strict gun control laws in effect that my family is almost 4 times as likely to come face to face with an intruder intent on burglary - or worse?

While I personally don't keep a gun at home (at least not yet, but I'm considering it), I like the idea of anyone thinking about breaking in having to worry that I 'might' be armed.

No. We need the nanny state because supposedly law-abiding gun nuts cannot control themselves and don't even know what's good for them, much less the rest of us.

______________________________________

AM: Thanks for proving my point:

Translation from Planet-Liberal-speak to English: We need an all powerful lefty liberal federal nanny state to control all aspects of our lives because lefty liberals are just so much smarter than everyone else and they know what's good for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can be kinda cute when you get your leftuous indignation in high gear!!!

BTW, does the term "gun nuts" include that picture of Barry incompetently shooting skeet at Camp David??

He looked just as foolish in that picture as Dukakis did driving that tank and Kerry in his NASA "bunny suit"/.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Adler-273784I "I don't believe that a burglar would try and rob you if you were sitting there with a shot gun ready to fill him with pellets. He would still rob you when you're not home."

That's precisely my point. If a burglar is intent on robbing my house, he will make sure my family is not at home out of fear that I 'might' be armed.

I would much prefer that a burglar make sure that my family is NOT at home before breaking in because we allow homeowners to own guns in this country. If we took away that right (as most anti-gun advocates would like), then it would be about 4 times as likely that my family would be confronted with someone breaking in to commit burglary - or worse, (based on the comparison study I linked above - and again below);

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gunslott.html

The unanswered question that needs to be asked is "How many burglaries (or worse) are PREVENTED because we have the 'right to bear arms', which makes criminals have to think hard about breaking into an occupied house out of fear of being shot?"

Has anyone considered that passing laws against guns only affects people that obey the laws, which is not the problem at hand?

The old saying holds true - to wit;

"If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns".

As I mentioned above, I personally do not own a firearm (yet), but I can see lots of reasons that people should be allowed to own them, if they see fit.

Albany --

He looked just as foolish in that picture as Dukakis did driving that tank and Kerry in his NASA "bunny suit"/.

Piece of advice, Albany: Don't get yourself caught in his crosshairs.

You can be kinda cute when you get your leftuous indignation in high gear!!!

You ought to know, having put me there on SO many occasions.

Always a pleasure, Joe.

Seeking said,

" If they couldn't prove they are innocent"

In the United States you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...

As usual you don't know what you're talking about!!

pathetic just pathetic...

We have a mental health problem in this country, not a gun control problem.

Perhaps. But for the sake of argument, let's say you are right.

What is your answer to addressing the problem we have with people killing other people with guns in this country? We have arrived to a point where no one is safe. Innocent people are killed outside their homes, in schools, parks, theaters, malls; etc., etc., etc. What should be done so people could enjoy their lives without the thought of being killed while trying to enjoy their life in some of the most simple of ways?

So you want a database of the mentally ill/disturbed people
but a database of registered guns is out of the question.

Register People … Not guns

stories about the ease of buying guns at gun shows are over exaggerated.

That is not true. I have seen it myself first hand, plus there was a reporter from our local newspaper who proved how easy it was ot get an assault-style weapon, no background check, right out of the trunk of a car in the parking lot fo the gun show.

You need a driver's license and proof of insurance to buy a car from a dealer, but you don't need either to buy one from a private individual

The seller needs to have a legal title to the car, which includes the VIN. In most (if not all) states the sale and resulting transfer of the title must be recorded with the state or county.

Tnsevol...

I appreciate your comment but car ownership is not a "right". The problem with gun ownership and misuse in America has a lot to do with constitutional law and not common sense.

Those that suggest that any discussion of altering the second amendment as it applies to gun ownership is unamerican might want to re-think their position unless they want to agree that discussing other constitutionally protected rights might also be labeled unamerican.

The second amendment gives us a right to own muskets and flintlocks.

Dennis . . .

So you want a database of the mentally ill/disturbed people
but a database of registered guns is out of the question.

Wonder if those that are cyring for this think the mentally ill have less rights under the Constitution than they do. Does the Second Amendment justify have your health data splashed all over some "list" that is accessible by some 18 year old cashier at WalMart that sells guns??????

Layton - I'm pretty sure the database could just easily say "no, cannot purchase a gun." Doesn't have to give the details of why!

Seeking, I would certainly hope so! However, I am concerned as who gets to make that decision regarding people with mental health diagnosis. We've seen what the republican party thinks of women's bodies and issues, just imagine giving them the "reins" to mental health issues for the populace.

(That should give everyone nightmares!)

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." At that time, the US had no standing military so a "well-regulated Militia" was composed of the people using their own guns and was a necessary component of a newly formed country to fight off foreign powers. It was also a country that, beyond it's bigger towns and cities, was a dangerous place so it made sense for the people to own guns to provide food as well as protection. No where in the 2nd Amendment does it state that the people have a right to own the same weapons as those who are now part of the permanent standing US military which provides weapons to those who join. Anyone who tries to claim, as many gun advocates do, that they have a right to own the same weapons as our military does, clearly misses the point that back when written, the only guns available were muskets and pistols. It is impossible to know with certainty what the founders would think today, but I'd speculate miltary-assault weapons and 100-round magazine drums wouldn't be included in the 2nd amendment even if written only 50 years ago; our founders could never an envisioned the powerful weapons of today and possibly have felt that the public had a right to own them as part of the "well regulated Militia".

Layton, good point.

Steeler - other countries don't permit people to have guns like we do. That would be the issue!

How come other countries don't have the same issue. Surely they have people with mental health challenges, too.

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

They actually do and they suffer too...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017709/Anders-Behring-Breivik-arrested-holiday-island-massacre.html#axzz2JxRDe9vJ

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

A determined, obsessed, time bomb of a human being set upon killing will, in a free society, be able to acquire a means to do so. It is the price we pay to live in a free society, here and wherever else a free society exists.

If they outlawed all guns tomorrow, I'd be able to buy an armory on the black market tomorrow night, so we can only hope to do for guns and gun violence what many say about abortion...

Make it legal...and RARE.

I favor universal background checks...

Seeking Sanity---that was the point I was trying to make. The pro-NRA people seem fixated on saying this is a "mental health problem" as if the solution was solely in getting everyone to be sane. The fact of the matter is that working on mental health would help but the access to guns by the mentally unstable is a huge part of the problem.

Steeler - the NRA is today's mafia - nothing more and certainly nothing less. They have no problem with people being killed - it's good for business. And, make no mistake, today's NRA is just a business run by the gun manufacturers and the idiots like LaPierre they hire to run that business. They are supported not only by the gun manufacturers but also by foreign countries who would like nothing better than to cause problems in the US.

They know if they appeal to the low IQ voters with threats that "the government is going to come take your guns" they will get a response. It's disgusting!

Steeler Fan you are right. It will take a balanced approach to fixing this problem. Unfortunately, like the economy and seemingly everything else these days, some seem to see the world in black and white, right or wrong, my way or the highway. It isn't that simple. As with the economy we need both spending cuts AND revenue increases, this problem requires both background checks and banning certain weapons and high capacity magazines. No one wants guns totally band or outlawed but common sense should prevail with a balanced approached. Once we start looking at things in a balanced way, as nature itself does, we will find great solutions to these and other problems.

dirp---the Supreme Court already ruled in the Heller decision that guns can be regulated notwithstanding hte Second Amendment. There are limits but the decision established the principle that regulation is permissible. Decision was written by Scalia, about as conservative as they come.

Dirp.....

But it is in the constitution and until it isn't it will remain the law. There is nothing sacred about the constitution. It was written by men and can be changed by men so long as enough votes can be gathered to pass the bill to amend. It happened with slavery and it can happen with guns. Just need to get crackin' and garner the votes. Avoid hard feelings and get ready for a lot of hard work!

Who knows maybe someday the Constitution will be amended but based on the hair-on-fire outrage at the suggestion of background checks, assault weapons and magazine size limits has produced, just imagine the uproar if anyone in Congress suggested that the 2nd Amendment be amended.

Jody, Iowa...

Don't you think the same could be said of constitutional changes required to allow gay marriage, recognise life as beginning at conception, allow prayer in schools etc.? Sacred cows are not all the same color or breed but they are sacred none the less.

just - I'm registered to vote and registered to own a car. If you have a problem with registering to own a gun - you probably shouldn't be able to!

justaplumber - you obviously don't deserve a gun if you can't be registered to have one!

justaplumber . . .

Thank the good Lord we still have real men in this country willing to protect our rights!

You're correct and to keep with Seeking's comments above, those real men and women registered to fight for our country. I'm sure they would have NO problem registering their guns. If you feel it unwarranted for you to register for anything then don't. Don't vote, drive, serve, OR own a gun. PERIOD.

Seekinginsanity---You are right, I WILL NOT register my firearms! Myself and thousands of Americans will become criminals when you have your way.

Do you think that is the answer? To make criminals of honest Americans who have raised families and built this country?

Let me explain something to you.....Criminals don't register their weapons.

When King Obozo's gun registration doesn't work what do you think will happen next?

You guys are good little comrades, I'm sure you will be the last ones they come for.

Just what do you think registration will accomplish? Surely your not that dense.

you must be a gun totin nra gopher... lmao.. you need to think about all the kids getting murdered.

you must live in the country....