I think it's disgusting the way the left is using gabby giffords to do their bidding on gun control, reminds me of cindy sheehan and the anti-war protest, used and thrown away... how do you people sleep at night?

“Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm,” Obama said in the inaugural address last month.

then your journey needs to begin in the homes of these losers and nut jobs who shoot up schools, rob, gangs, drug dealers, and other vile wretches... not in the homes of respected gun owners.

grant it these killings are a travesty, but they are minute in compairison to the number of legal gun owners in percentage. you can cry, "if it saves 1 life" till your lips go numb... truth is, if you want one life to take, you need a gun to take it.

@doc logic,

i have been shot and shot at.... it doesnt change my mind. it doesnt matter where... just that it happend. Giffy was anti-gun anyway, this just gave her a perch to tweet from is all.

"Most side with Captain Oreo?" Or the ones the media parades around with?

@DocLogic Its funny you tout an ABC News article for your stats, yet you complain about Fox News, did it ever cross your mind that ABC News distorts the facts to push their own left agenda? These new laws do affect legal gun owners, why should I have to as a legal gun owner jump through all the red tape to legal buy a gun? I am purchasing them legally, where as a criminal with some cash will go to the corner and with no red tape purchase a gun within 2 minutes. Should I really be subjected to background checks and mental health questionnaires? Who is going to come up with the mental health checks? The government? Seriously?? The highest crime rate in the US is the 535 people that make up our glorious government. Just for the record I won't watch the state of the union either, he has lied for 4 years, no reason to watch another hour of lies.

Sorry goober, but, outside of your right wing circle ****, most actually side with the President. Why?? Because it is simple common sense.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/majority-sees-obamas-gun-control-plan-favorably/

So sure, go ahead, ignore stats that reflect reality and make up stats that make you feel better......how'd that work in 2012?

Hey Doc, anyone ever tell you that name calling and disparaging remarks are the telltale signs of someone who has a very low self esteem? You certainly fit the bill. Oh and Ill tell you what tough guy, stats can be manipulated both ways. Just look at all the stats that Feinstein uses to support her bill, despite the fact that they have been dis-proven by the very agency she cited, its still used on her website.

I voted for Obama the first election, are you going to call me out as right wing too or is that your catch all insult for those who dont immediately agree with your fallacies? Any gun ban will ONLY affect law abiding citizens, its been proven that this doesnt work no matter how you cut it up. Its also a FACT that unless you have an FFL, no one truly owns assault rifles. The weapon you and everyone else are trying to fear monger into non-existence is just a single shot rifle that has the same cosmetic appearance.

Common sense should lead you people to believe this bill WONT make a difference but you just want to break yourselves to capitalize on every tragedy with an emotional knee jerk reaction and layer more BS laws on society that really dont do anything.

I guess that Gabby is leading the Cause, I remember Brady and The Brady Bill, infact we are still under the Brady Bill on gun control. This to me was just something that was argued against back than. The Brady Bill and what's going on now will have basically no effect except on some sales points and Mag size. I occassionally hunt to put food on the table and stretch out my pocket cash. I recently have decided I don't like the term Gun Violence, Guns are not violent, People are Violent. There is man on trial where I live and he Strangled his girlfriend, beat her with a crowbar, and ran over her 15 times with a car. Is a crowbar a violent tool, or a car a violent vehicle? Nope, people are violent. The question I would like to see answered is, why are people so violent and why does this seam to be on an upswing in the trend?

will mirror FOX News Entertainment

Spoken by a true Rachel Maddow/Chris Matthews fanatic - obviously

I agree Riley. Anyone who feels the need to comment on every single other comment instead of the article itself has some serious self-esteem issues. That usually is a sign of severe depression, and that kind of mental illness is the recipe for another mass shooting. Some people just can't cope with life. So very sad.

Iran - Nuke

N Korea - Nuke

Egypt - Out of Control with US arms support

Gas at the pump - Historic all time high for a February

US Economy & Jobless - we been living this one - going on 5 years now (7.9%)

Over 43,000,000 on Food Stamps - 5th year of this President

Come on Mr. President - even a broke clock - is right twice a day - something you've been unable to accomplish

Stop with all the Distraction by Design

Check your comments vs. mine. Tough guy is a bully and you are a bully. I have no problem calling a kettle black when my pot is only slightly tarnished. You push the envelope, I just call a spade a spade.

35,000 bodies? Check your stats genius. More than 5/8 of those are suicides, self defense shootings and criminals shot by police. A large portion of these are gang hits. The reality is much different but you twist the stats to fit your viewpoint. Nothing is more hypocritical.

Debate? Hardly.

First you said in 1.3, "Gee, I guess being shot through the head might change your feeling toward these things"

Then NaughtyMossy replied, "i have been shot and shot at.... it doesnt change my mind."

Then you said, "Right...you've been "shot at". What a compelling argument......

Sorry, I defer to the lady who has the bullet through her brain as a bit better evidence of someone that has been affected by gun violence."

That's a debate? Logic escapes you.

Doctor Logic

“You're right....which is exactly why not one letter of the new gun legislation will affect legal gun owners”

Obviously you haven’t read the bill or are willfully negligent. The Feinstein bill will prohibit the sale or transfer of semiautomatic firearms that have been around for over a hundred years. A father will no longer be able to pass down his firearms deemed “assault weapons” to his son or daughter. What will happen to this firearm then? It will be confiscated. The purpose of having a national gun register is either to tax something or take it away plain and simple. The bill will also put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage to criminals when it comes to firearm capacity. These are just a few parts of the bill. So please tell me again how not one letter of the new gun legislation will affect legal gun owners.

NaughtyMossy said ""i have been SHOT and SHOT AT.... it doesnt change my mind."

Why do you choose to not see the "SHOT" part? You only see and argue the "SHOT AT" part. Why so selective in your "debating"? If you believe that any retort to your comment must be a lie, then how can there even be a debate in the first place? Again, logic escapes you.

I hate to point out the obvious, because it sounds cold... but Gabby Giffords was pro gun, before she got shot. I feel for her, I would be willing to bet once her mental capacity reaches what is was before the shooting, she will once again be on the side of the second amendment. I do pray that she makes a full recovery. It is indeed disturbing how she is being exploited, just a few months after the heart breaking incident they escorted her in to vote when she could not possibly represent the people due to her mental faculties being impaired.. wonder who guiding her vote then.

Doctor Logic:

"I've been shot at too.....there, see, I just made the claim as well. Anyone can do it....."

It's amusing to see the title people give themselves. Logical?? No. Funny. Yes. I just wish I could see you actually say what you're typing. Now, that would truly be entertaining. Watching your lips move with nothing coming out of them.....

Thanks for starting my day with a chuckle.

Here's a Congresswomen pushing to abolish the 2nd Amendment!!! She's a traitor! Why not bring on real hero's from the wounded warriors project to show Americans what GUN CONTROL has done for Mooslime countries? Label unarmed citizens terrorist and kill them with "assault rifles".

Columnist Burt Prelutsky points out some more inconvenient truths when it comes to gun control. I hope the president has the integrity to these facts and urges the governments of all dens of gun violence in this country to eradicate the gang wars. Any chance??? Not hardly.

Some Really Inconvenient Truths

Barack Obama would like you to believe that it's white guys with assault weapons and NRA memberships that commit most of the murders in this country. But the truth, and he knows it, is that although whites comprise 67% of the population, Hispanics 16% and blacks, just 13%, blacks are responsible for roughly half the murders in America. The murder rate among blacks is eight times as high as among whites. Sadly, it is one area in which they truly overachieve.

But do you ever hear Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, Feinstein or Cuomo, mention it? Of course not. They would rather grab headlines by running their mouths off about guns with large magazines instead of urban punks with a lot of attitude, but no brains and even less compassion.

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/16652

Logic a Doctor your not, you sound like one of those Obama Drones who seek to destroy this Nation, if you are one of those who sold there souls and Vote for freebees, I pitty you. As for Gun Control Keep Telling yourself it will change, as it wont. Not unless this is now the USSR of A so get your uneducated ass to a school and learn whats really going on, as your comments are as stupid as they come.

You and Lord Obama Need to quit listening to the voices in your heads, as YOU DONT HAVE THE VAST MAJORITY on this ! Remeber Lexington and Concord, Obama will loose this one, and very possibly his office

I only question your logic and debating skills. And I won too, with logic.

I am for the 2nd amendment...I'm sure the next accusation will be I watch Fox News or I'm a racist or heartless right wing lunatic (as that what all liberals call anyone with common sense).

To the liberals, Why would you, Giffords, or anyone else support new gun laws that even Biden said would not have stopped those tragedies? But, addressing mental illness would.

That shows the level of the liberal mentality. You are supporting new laws that would not do anything for the event that you are so emotionally worked up about.

Doctor your Lack of Logic is showing, Quit Embarrassing your self, you unAmerican Traitor

Doctor illogical: The purpose of the 2nd amendment - is so that American citizens can protect themselves against the "tyranny" of government and for personal defense. While you may see the assault weapon ban as something that needs to take place - I have to wonder where will it stop. This will only be the beginning of our rights and freedoms being slowly undermined and taken from us in the most sneaky and deliberate ways. You won't even realize it - until it is too late.

King Obama is appealing to the bleeding hearts by using children and victims. How low can you go?

The left side have proved that if you don't think the way they do - then basically you should keep your mouth shut. Watch your prime time news channels. You only get the parts of the new they want you to hear. And though you may call Fox - Right Wing - bear in mind they feature a liberal's point of view with every round table discussion. Personally, I prefer to KNOW - not pretend to know - what is truly going on around me. Whether it is good or bad.

I am in awe at how naive the liberals truly are. You believe everything the Emporer tells you but when the truth is right in front of you - you refuse to acknowledge it.

I am in great fear for this country - for the right to bear arms, for our first amendment, the economy and for the medical care - or lack thereof that will take place in 2014. Remember this - nothing in this world is free. Men and women have served and died for our freedoms. If you give up your guns - then you need to go ahead and give them your money and your home. Medical care - that will be a joke. Pray that you keep your health - because the waiting list to see a doctor wil be months and months. Ask a medical care professional - they are terrified at what the future holds.

Instead of always wanting to be right - how about just doing what is right and standing up for what is right?

I'm ok with Obama's proposed gun regulations. When you read it thoroughly, it doesn't go far beyond restricting high capacity magazines and assault rifles. I've got plenty of those and the new laws would make the rifles very valuable. It will still be very easy to buy ammunition and 50 round magazines are not difficult to make from a 10 round mechanism. My record is clean so the background checks are no problem. No registration involved, except in the liberal states, but that's where much of the problem is.

Doctor logic

“There is NO need to have assault weapons”

Well I guess it is good that it is we have a bill of rights vs. a bill of NEEDS. You don’t need a fire extinguisher because the fire company will be their right? You don’t NEED an AR-15 because the police will take care of everything forever. Just like Korea town during the LA riots. Those store owners that had AR-15s to protect their life and property sure looked like they needed them.

“The bottom line is that these weapons HAVE been used in mass killings”

The AR-15 that people get so riled up about has been available since the 60s through mail order catalogs with no background check. I don’t recall there being an abundance of mass shootings back then. The firearm platform has not changed at all since then. So magically the gun transformed and is now the root cause of these mass shootings? It’s a good thing that we are addressing the root cause of the problem rather than pushing through laws that will have no net effect on gun violence

“people cannot have bombs or things of that nature because we've stated that though we are in a free society, things like bombs or the like are not in the safety interests of the public.....assault weapons are no different.”

The federalist papers further outline the purpose of the second amendment. The framers wanted the people to be as equally armed as a light infantry soldier. They knew that to maintain a free society, free of tyranny, the people’s rights to bear arms should not be infringed. Bombs are not within the armamentarium of a light infantry soldier.

DoctorLogic,

Gun control does not work. SOTU will be a joke, I will not watch barry o.

Wow, and you wonder why you clowns are losing the public debate?!

Your comment doesn't address the statement. Gun control does not work. Just look at Chicago. Toughest gun laws in the country. Rather than make a logical argument refuting this individuals statement you start off by calling him a clown. I starting reading the rest of your tripe then decided you had cost me enough seconds off my life.

Doctor Logic you have none, your nothing but an Instigator, a Bought and Paid for Traitor. Now that your being Blocked dont have to read your dribble of Pure BS

Can someone please help me understand why this current gun debate is going on? Nothing they are proposing will do anything to curb the number of deaths a year caused by guns. For starters very few people are killed by the "Assault Weapons" they want to ban. Magazines are very easy to make at home if your half intelligent. The stricter back ground checks do sound like a great idea but there is such a large and organized black market for guns in America that they will do little if anything to harm criminals access to guns.

Why are we wasting resources like money, political favors, and time on an issue that can not and will not be solved in any way by what the current administration wants to put in. The only way to curb gun violence is to ban all guns, stop the manufacturer of new ones, and confiscate all ones currently out in the public. Since the Government can not do those things, this issue should just be dropped.

I understand people were devastated by the Newtown shooting, but we are human beings and should be smarter than to let a tragic event cloud our judgement on what is the right thing to do. Banning Assault weapons will not bring them back or save the next one.

We should focus all of our energy and time on fixing the economy. That is one way to curb guns violence. When people have jobs and money they are less likely to go out and murder people. If we do not fix this economy then there will be way more pain, suffering, and death in America then any murderous "Assault Rifle" could ever dream about.

proudoftheusa

Its primarily due to Obama Supporters who are trying to Incite the general Public, in an extremely vile way, just as Obama did in the election yet it is doomed to fail, just as the Ill-logical rants of the so called Doctor Logic. The So called Assult Assult rifle is not an assult Rifle at all, and they keep stating it was used at Sandy Hook when it was not.

DoctorIllogic,

You are an example of all that is wrong with this Country. Please find a cave and return to your roots.

Anyone can make stupid remarks......Lord knows I've made my share

Doctor Logic

After reading your ignorant remarks I finally found sometjhing I could agree with!

Interesting - You can't spell liberal without a lie - priceless

The truth repellent - The Liberal Democrat

Why isn't this admin focused on the economy?

Or, if they enforce our immigration laws, they could deport illegals that are committing violence against American citizens AND are taking away some of our jobs.

Si Habla Espanol?....you'd better get ready to.

I think blocking is silly too Doc. We agree.

Now for more debate. You said, "Think of back to 911....we had thousands of Americans die in the twin towers and therefore completely changed the way we travel, how we operated within the world, the powers we give the federal government etc.. Since then, we have had more than 100 times those number of people die from gun violence within our borders....and we do nothing?!"

Since the vast majority of those dead from gun violence were killed by semi-automatic handguns and barely any were killed (percentage wise) with semi-automatic rifles , why aren't handguns part of the legislation? Wouldn't it be logical that without banning the type of weapon mostly used in these killings, that the number of killings will not be affected?

You are arguing for less killings right?

Doctor Logic, let's look at some real facts and use logic versus emotional knee jerk reactions to find a solution to this problem.

The FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2011 shows out of 12,664 murders, 8,583 of them were committed using a firearm of any type. Of those 6,220 were committed using a handgun while only 322 could be confirmed as being committed with a rifle of any type.

The fact is the gang bangers are not running around in neighborhoods with AR-15s while committing these violent acts. As far as the 35,000 gun related deaths when you add in suicides, it is quite difficult to kill yourself with a rifle. It can be done, but no where near as easily as you can do it with a handgun.

So, the governments solution to this gun violence problem is to ban semi-automatic rifles that look like military weapons and limit magazine sizes. Even if they were successful in doing so, and got a 100% rate of what they are looking for, they may stop about 1.5% of the murders caused with a so called assault rifle.

This totally ignores the issue of all the deaths caused by handguns each year. Where is the logic in that approach?

I would also like to know why it appears to be perfectly fine for us to hear about the gun related murders in places like Chicago every day, but nobody is stepping up to take action on that front. Why is it that when 20 children, almost all of whom were white, are murdered then the country is in an uproar and wants to do something about gun violence?

The president has stated he will be happy with this ban plan if it saves even just one life. If he is really concerned about saving just one life, why don't they send the National Guard into the inner city of Chicago to do house to house, and vehicle to vehicle, searches and confiscate all of the illegal firearms they find? The sad fact is there will always be guns in this country, and the criminals will always be able to get their hands on them. Until we start actually enforcing the over 1,400 gun laws that are already on the books, there really isn't any sense in looking at creating new ones. Laws of any type do not stop criminals, they only keep law abiding citizens in check.

gun ban wont pass, they wont ban the ammo.....obama will fail as usuall...point his finger, lay blaim and everyone will go back to the originall question "what are you doing about the economy?"

@proud -- It is called creating a distraction from the economic issues facing this country. The Democrats -- in combination with the MSM -- have done a magnificent job in this strategy. Never mind that the country is going to hell in a hand basket. The left won't engage in factual debates because they lose, but the left has read the low information voters very well who are fans of the Springer Show and other reality TV. They want fights. They don't want civil debate. Dodge, dip, dive, divert, distract, dodge is an apt motto for them. Don't discuss facts but draw persons into personal attacks. As vile as it is, it has worked. Watch -- Dr. Logic and 6dogs will have already left the blog or will personally attack.

"We've reached the point where people are afraid to actually talk about what they want to say because somebody might be offended. ... We've got to get over this sensitivity." Dr. Benjamin Carson.

Political correctness is dangerous. Because, you see, this country -- one of the founding principles was freedom of thought and freedom of expression. And it muffles people. It puts a muzzle on them. And at the same time, it keeps people from discussing important issues while the fabric of this society is being changed. And we cannot fall for that trick. ... Dr. Benjamin Carson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyyHegP255g

Starman posts,"Logic a Doctor your not, you sound like one of those Obama Drones who seek to destroy this Nation." calls somebody an "Obama drone and then regurgitates the most crazed piece of brainwash nonsense that Obama is seeeking to destroy the nation. DId I hear someone say brainwashed drone? I believe I did. DO I feeel some nostalgia for the Birtbher movement? It's too bad these lunatic jackals had that particular bone snatched away from them. Kenyan!!!! Kenyan!!!! Jebediah REich!!!! Haykorn!!!!! Black Panfers

Obama wants to kill Americans on American soil but first he must disarm .

I find it amazing and amusing that someone with the screen name "DoctorLogic" can cram so many logical fallacies into one comment:

@DocLogic Its funny you tout an ABC News article for your stats, yet you complain about Fox News, did it ever cross your mind that ABC News distorts the facts to push their own left agenda?

Right, the ole' 'everybody but FOX News Entertainment are wild left winger' argument. It is a cop-out to fall to that lame "argument".....and it only happens when you have nothing to argue.

Beginning a response to a comment about ABC with "everybody but Fox" ..... mis-stating the argument, overbroad generalization.

I am purchasing them legally, where as a criminal with some cash will go to the corner and with no red tape purchase a gun within 2 minutes.

Are you actually trying to argue that you want only laws on the books that crooks will abide by? That's stupid.

Responding to a comment about how criminals acquire guns with a question about laws in general .... classic straw man.

These new laws do affect legal gun owners, why should I have to as a legal gun owner jump through all the red tape to legal buy a gun?

Who gives a flying ****?!?! Waiting for a week to get a piece of machinery that is designed to end the life of something is too much to ask. That statement alone should disqualify you from owning a firearm!

.....dismissive, Argumentum ad Hominem

Just for the record I won't watch the state of the union either, he has lied for 4 years, no reason to watch another hour of lies

Coward.

Name calling. The mark of a thoughtful, well reasoned and persuasive argument.

DoctorLogic

Define "Assault Weapon". Maybe YOU will be able to accomplish what the people in Washington are totally incapable of doing.

Oh, and you noted in one post, not person will be affected by proposed legislation. Excuse me? So you say MY inability to sell personal property is not an infringement? You say MY inability to transfer ownership of personal property to other family members is not an infringement. You're saying that these will not affect me?

Are the parents of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry who was shot and killed near Rio Rico, Arizona, while attempting to apprehend a group of drug smugglers , killed with guns from Fast and Furious, invited to the State of the Union.

Ban control for so called "assault weapon does not work", we have an ex-cop , a crazy liberal wacko MSNBC lover, , killing people in California were assault weapon are banned , but not for police officers.

...is it me or does everyone think Dr.Logic is BoozyRH with a sex change?

News Flash:

Mr Spock has just gone court to sue Doctor Logic for copywrite infringment.

He's Illogical, Jim.

You can argue back and forth here all you want to and it won't make any difference.

Best thing to do is write/email/phone your representative and let them know if they try to deny you your human right to self defense they will not be re-elected.

NO JOKE: HIGHLIGHT THIS CAUSE

I'm in the waiting room
Can't see for the smoke
I think of you and your holy book
While the rest of us choke U2

STATE OF THE UNION WITHOUT A POPE

UTUESDAY CNBCus

Capitalism is a broken model in the United States of America. We need look no further than the flaring of natural-gas, that could be utilized in power plants, or CNG/LNG vehicles.

Potential electrical generation lost, that could be powering 240 Volt receptacles, in nearly every home in our country! Receptacles needed to charge electric cars. Jobs lost.

Instead, we have media reporting on a Tesla that ran out of power. What about the horde of automobiles that run out of gasoline every hour? Reporting is failing.

We can't trust capitalists with Truth. [SEE] The night sky over America illuminated by the power of Greed.

Presidential integrity is like a Roman Catholic Pope. Without either, the dogma starts to breakdown.

If Truth can not be restored, I fear that the SOTU will deteriorate taking capitalism down with us.

When I look at the World, I know change is bound to come, sooner, or too late.

THERESA-532036

1. these Weapons are Not Assault Weapons, they are Semi-Autos, The Real assault weapons are in the Military, except those sold by the U.S.Govt to Civilians everyday for the Marksmanship program.

2. Obama has Brainwashed a large portion of America, not FOX not the NRA, that comment is just stupid.

3. Your willing to give up your Rights to Obama, Gimme a Break, now your just one of the sheep. your right to live is not an issue, and NO it does not supersede the 2nd amendment

redvirginia,

You know, that is a very good question. He was killed by guns, but the problem is the guns that killed him were approved by the Obama Administration. Funny how they swept that thing under the rug.

a majority of gun violence, comes from gang violence.. and those people usually have had their rights to own already revoked, or are not old enough to legally own a firearm.

you want to stop gun violence? start doing something about gang violence, worthless parents who allow their kids to be in gangs, do drugs, sell drugs, rape, rob, and you know the rest! start putting some of the parents who allow their kids to become what they are who commit these crimes, to be punished in the same form as the criminals themselves.

it doest help, or change anything to make the innocent suffer.... wtf is wrong? it starts when you confront the REAL ISSUES where they lay....

that gun didnt jump into little johhny drug dealers gangbanging hand.... the little chit picked it up, loaded it, and being a bad lil gangster blew someones brains out.... so you want to take them from everyone, because of all the lil johnny gangbangers? but if you think all the lil johnny gangbangers are going to just up and toss their lil P-shooters in the guns are now illegal pile, you are smoking waaay too much crack!

and doclogic.... if you read, i also said i was shot, as well shot at.... for a doc.... you dont have good reading comprehention do you?

or is that name doclogic sarcasm?

thus ine final thing.... talking about fearmongering? i think the people who scream and stomp saying guns are bad.... just so dang terrified! im not afraid of honest people who have guns... they can have a grenade launcher for all i care... its the bad people who have them... and these new regulations do NOTHING to keep them from having them.... just makes it harder for the honest people to.

Johntho

Actually, I must agree with you. Gun control DOES in fact work. As an example I will use Kennesaw Georgia.

Kennesaw Georgia had crimes rates rising rapidly due to the proximity of the town to Atlanta Georgia. Before it got to a situation they would be unable to deal with, the town passed an ordinance REQUIRING ALL homes to have at least one firearm and ammunition for that firearm in the home.

After passage of that ordinance, crime dropped dramatically and is still among the lowest if not the lowest of comparable towns in Georgia.

So yes, I will agree that gun control, properly administered does in fact work.

Johntho

capable of shooting 30 to 100 times as fast as you can pull the trigger,

???? Please explain. How does one shoot 30 to 100 times as fast as one can pull the trigger?

Are you saying shooting 30 or 100 rounds with each trigger pull?

Are you saying that the firearm, in some miraculous manner, fires of it's own volition 30 to 100 times faster than a human being can pull the trigger?

Please explain the meaning of your post, it is totally illogical.

THERESA-532036 and Johntho,

I am sorry to break the news to you, but we have already tried a ban on so called assault rifles and limiting magazine capacity. Perhaps you are too young to remember, but it was in place from 1994 until 2004. The legislation was allowed to expire at that time because there was no proof whatsoever that it had any real impact on the violent crime rate in this country.

Once again, if you look at the FBI statistics it is not the semi-automatic military looking rifles that are being used in all the gun violence in this country, the vast majority of it is committed using hand guns. So, if you, and the government, really want to make a difference, like they say they do, they should be going after the handguns instead.

"Majority Sees Obama's Gun Control Plan Favorably"
From the survey...

22. Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?
Yes - 44
No - 56
No opinion - 1
1/13/13

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1146a1GunControl.pdf

Johntho, first off your definition of assault rifle would be a fully automatic weapon which have very strict restrictions on them and very few civilians actually own them. A semi-automatic weapon is only capable of firing one round per trigger pull, no matter how fast you may be able to pull the trigger. If we follow your definition further, it would require them to ban all semi-automatic weapons to include handguns, shotguns, and even .22 caliber rifles.

@Theresa -- Would you like to discuss the world's most prolific killing assault weapon -- the cannula -- and those victims "right to live?" I'll wait patiently for a reasoned debate.

Look - I am all for stricter laws when purchasing a gun - more stringent background checks - etc. But realistically - those don't mean anything to the criminals. You have members of Obama's regime shipping guns and God knows what else to known terrorists and criminals for the sake of the almighty dollar. You can change the laws - but those weapons we are selling will find their way back here in the hands of the criminals and terrorist to be used against us...and what then...my bad?

Change the HIIPA law - stop protecting nut jobs. If they are demented and tortured - make that public information. If you get busted with an illegal weapon or worse yet - use one - stop spatting them on the behind with a fly swatter. Make those who break the law - do the time according to the crime. No different for the drunk driver that takes out a whole family - with his 3rd offense and does 10 years. Really? How about we ban all cars. Will you cry for the right to own a car? Those have killed more than guns. Ban alcohol - will you cry for the right to be able to buy beer?

Put the gun control back into the hands of the states and not the federal government. Their focus should be the economy and what is going on in the world around us - not whether or not I keep an assault weapon in my closet. Let each state have it's own rules and regulations. If Illinois wants to ban weapons then by all means. Chicago seems to have everything under control with it's weapon ban.....

Assault weapons have no place in our society. I don't care if handguns kill more people! I care that assault rifles can kill so many, so fast! Without unlimited gun clips and without any regulation at all, this will continue to grow, not lessen! If you have a 10 round clip, you would have to reload, giving someone a chance to stop the assault. With 30,60,100 round clips, the murderer and kill over and over without a challenge. What about that is so hard to understand? It's not just the assault weapons, it's the assault clips too! Why is it so hard for you people to understand? Small minds with small arguments! Do you ever listen to yourselves?

Kennesaw had the lowest crime rates of surrounding cities before the gun ordinance, so there isn't much of a correlation between crime rates before and after. The strongest relationship for its continued low crime rates has more to do with its median income of $75,000.00 per household. Compare that with the cities you were talking about and you will see where there is money there is little crime.

Ok, well regulated means, what we have in place now. Unfortunately, gun laws are not being enforced the way they should. Your comment, Theresa (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness supersede your right to shoot me!) is lame at best. Legal gun owners aren't going to shoot you. My right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness includes owning a gun, or several, to ensure my LIFE, from gun toting gang banger, killing thugs who may want to take my life, which leads to me being happy that me and my family are alive and protected. Chicago has the strictest gun laws, blanketed by the strictes gun regulations of their state, Illinois, yet they are the gun murder capital of the WORLD. So you honestly think criminals will abide by laws, new ones too?

THERESA-532036 - A well regulated milita is considered to be any able bodied male from the ages of 18-45 who can be called upon at anytime the nation desires to serve (i.e. a draft). In case you were unaware of it, all males must register with Selective Service at the age of 18 and this is their official entry into the unorganized portion of the militia.

@theresa,

lets just ask this... as a gun owner, and a resposible one.... you were (this is hypothetical btw) being sexually assaulted/beaten and i was seeing this in a back ally from my window... would you...

A) like me to call 911, and wait in my home untill they arrived to save you?

B) prefer for me as i call 911 while i go with my firearm to attempt to stop what was happening until the police were able to show up?

C) sigh, and look at it as... "well she wanted gun control" and figure it as a lesson learned?

now dont get me wrong here... i might even come out with an unloaded firearm, i might not. but as a resposible owner, and a darn good shot, (i like to minimise my abilities), you can figure time the police arrive in most areas, you might be lucky if they get there in time for you to still be breathing after your assailant is done having his/thier way with you.... and be long gone by then as well. of course thats a bad part of town, and lucky if they show up before daybreak... but even in most cases... damage has been done, and every second, EVERY second counts, and by last poll lasts a lifetime to the victim.

lets take a vote.... who would vote A,B,or C?

all for A) vote here...

all for B) vote here

all for C) vote here....

@Theresa

If you have a 10 round clip, you would have to reload

Two points you fail to recognize:

First, not if you had several weapons on you, and second, what female teacher in that school -- who was protecting the children -- have the ability to take the lunatic down?

DoctorLogic

So glad that YOU are the one whom has the only ideology that works. Have you ever been shot at?? I have too in a place called South Viet Nam, as have may others who have severed OUR country. So what have you done to stand in the line of fire?? If you had indeed stood, did you do it without a weapon?? I do agree there needs to be a change but taking away guns is not an answer. In this countries past there was gun violence and they brought about change, do you remember how?? How about doing the same thing hangings once again will make those who do these acts think twice before they act.As it stands they get a place to live and food and shelter for the rest of their lives. Probably even get to play the video games and watch TV.It has worked once and gun control has not. SO oh wise and intelligent one tell us how you would do it. So all people's are served and not just you and your liberal tribe.

If you need 30,60,100 round clips to make you happy, I suggest you get therapy! There is no logic for anyone, other than military, or police, to have weapons that can shoot that many rounds! If you think you do, there is something really wrong with your thinking.

And, in Chicago, you are right, they have strict gun laws. Unfortunately, right outside the city, anyone can get a gun and bring it into the city BECAUSE THERE IS NO REGULATION OUTSIDE THE CITY!! You see, if there were uniformity in the laws and they were enforced, gun control would work. BUT, with every city, every state and every municipality making up their own rules, banning something in one city and not in another won't work!! We need laws that cover the entire country. And, yes, when the assault weapons ban was in effect, it did save lives. The police everywhere were safer to do their jobs and they fought to keep the ban in place. I remember, alright. It was a huge mistake to let the ban lapse. Sandyhook is the perfect example of that. A legal gun owner, who's mentally ill son, was allowed access to an assault weapon, killed 27 people in less than 3 minutes!! NO, you do not need an assault weapon. NO, you don't. I don't care how many times you say it, you don't.

@theresa,

the only reason the assault ban went into effect, and was even given a platform was due to the LA bankrobbery in thus, the robbers not only had full auto-matics (huge difference than semi-auto) and were wearing flack jackets, or in other words bullet proof vests. THAT IS ALL! maybe you were not old enough to remember, but i was, and also in my early 20's. before then fully auto was more than available... where were the tremendous crime waves being commited with them then? yes there were restrictions on them, not many. all you needed was a clean record.

yet one terrified little polititian, who was afraid his/her throne might be overturned, was given a soapbox to preach from...

Theresa...Can you explain why a police officer would need an assault weapon if the public were not allowed to have them? Can you also refer us to the results of a single study that states that the first "Assault Weapons Ban" was effective? Outside of the Arizona shooting, which was carried out with a handgun, can you reference any other mass shooting where an assailant was stopped while trying to reload? There is a reason why members of the Democratic Party don't want to bring the new legislation up, ask Bill Clinton. It's easy to blame the tool and not the user.

@Theresa -- Let's say for argument's sake that those clips you mention are banned. Now, what will you ask for when my scenarios occur and there is another mass slaughter of children? What do you ask for then? Are you will to stop at what you "define" as "assault weapons?" Afraid to debate?

THERESA - Do you think that handguns should be banned across the entire country? If so, are there any types of firearms that you think should not be banned?

I see gun control as an investment into the future. Short sighted simpletons fail to see the long term value to public safety in making this initial investment. That's okay, liberals will be happy to make that investment on your behalf. And while I can agree with you that eliminating a few specific elements of the public arsenal would likely have little immediate effect on the assault against American innocents, this is just the beginning and investments generally start out small and grow with time.

One of the hurdles for real gun control is data collection which is currently prohibited by the Brady bill. Enacting universal background checks could have a positive impact on the data collection problem. You don't need to like change and I really don't care if you don't - but this is my country too and these are changes that I care about and believe in.

The 2nd amendment as written in 1776 is archaic and irrelevant in 2013 and is in need of revision if you want to keep any part of it. I suggest you start thinking of ways to rewrite it if you want to save it!

No, I am not afraid to debate. I still insist, that if someone has a limited clip, even with mulitiple guns, it would be easier to stop them. Why is that so hard to understand? Why are background checks such a big deal? If you are law abiding, it shouldn't matter. If you aren't, it will be harder to get the gun!! The debate is simple. Do we need assault weapons if we are not in the military? NO. Do we need assault weapons and multiple round clips to hunt? NO. Do we need assault weapons at all? NO. End of debate.

XDm9mm, I can define assult weapon, that is any gun that is capable of killing 20 1st graders in short order. Nobody,

And therein lies the lie, It was not the Bushmaster 223 so called assault rifle that killed those 20 children, It was 1 crazy nut with 4 handguns, The so called assault rifle never left the trunk of the car.

So why are we talking about assault rifles, Easy...because they are an easy first target, eliminate them and using magazine capacity restrictions they can eliminate most semiauto rifles and handguns.

Switzerland i think it is... every home is to have a firearm, and ammo that can and does fire from it, what about the crime rate there?

is there even a crime rate?

Do you think he'll bring up unemployment and the financial mess we're in, or will it all be about parading shooting victims around?

Seems like I remember the saying, "It's the economy, stupid".

Theresa--if you can tell me how to prevent the criminals from getting those guns, I'll tell you how well prohibition worked.

VLGil is right. This is millions spent focusing on things that won't even scratch the surface. I'm sure the dangerous thugs give a flip about gun control. How about if we start making dangerous criminals stay in prison the full sentence? And make them do hard labor so they never want to go back? How about a war on gangs? There are entire neighborhoods the police fear to patrol--declare it a war zone and send in the military. Mental illness is another thing that needs focus though difficult to solve. Look at things that matter rather than playing the emotional card (i.e. parading shooting victims around to gain support for something that would not have changed their circumstances to begin with).

THERESA-532036, I will try to break this to you as gently as I possibly can. The shooter at Sandy Hook was in the school for more than 10 minutes. In that amount of time he could have just as easily used the handguns with multiple magazines, or a semi-automatic shotgun to cause more deaths.

The reason for this is simple ballistics. The .223 round that an AR-15 uses is very small compared to most other rounds besides a 22 caliber. If he would have used a 40 caliber, 9MM, 45 caliber, or shotgun, the children likely would have been dead with the first shot. Using the semi-automatic pistols he had would have been more effective. This would have allowed him to travel further through the school, attacking more classrooms, until the police were finally able to arrive. Remember, he took his own life before the police were able to, so in this case the police were of no help whatsoever.

Does anyone really need a 30, 60, or 100 round magazine? Who I am to determine what every individual in this country needs based on my own beliefs? People who live in congested cities have a much different outlook on guns than those who live in the middle of the woods. Who is right in that instance?

If you are really concerned and want to make a difference, go after the guns that most criminals are using. That should really be some low lying fruit, but for some reason nobody appears to care about the black children being gunned down in the inner cities as much as they do for the 20 almost all white children of Sandy Hook.

Also, there is a pretty big group out there that is stating the AR-15 was actually found in the trunk of the car he drove to the elementary school and was not used in the shootings.

Just a bunch of liberal rah! rah! rhetoric and a chance for everyone to step a foot in the limelight for two seconds to try and get attention for their angle.

So far this administration's approach to gun control has created chaos across the country- if that's any indication of what's to come then we'd better start wearing bullet proof vests

@ProFreedom-5130956

It's deflection. Keep their attention over here watching this hand, and they'll never see what the other hand is doing.

Ask any one here what the Posse Commitatus Act is and what recently passed legislation virtually eviscerated that long standing act. I'll submit that 95 to 99% are likely clueless, except those that believe in the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights.

Wow, what a bunch of made up "facts" and opinions!

DoctorLogic - where is your 35,000 a year gun deaths coming from when the the actual stats that we have from the FBI for 2011 show 12,664 deaths total, with ALL "weapons" including clubs, knives, etc.?

Look up the "Assault Rifle" which is the actual term since "Assault Weapon" was a political term coined but in 1989 to garner support the first useless ban. Actual "Assault Rifles" are heavily regulated and civilian ownership of any made after 1986 is prohibited, but anything before is bought and sold with appropriate licensing, albeit at a premium price.

Theresa - your comments are indicative the problem, you want to argue about what people need when you are obviously uneducated about the subject matter at hand. No the the ban had zero impact on crime and numerous mass shootings took place during that period. Do you remember Columbine or does that not fit your into your argument? As a former police officer I can also tell you that the ban had no impact on how I felt in regards to my safety. I knew I was not bullet proof for the first ten bullets and there were/are millions of the "dangerous" magazines in circulation, so other than being an inconvenience at the range it had no bearing on safety.

You comment on the Adam Lanza's atrocities with totally made up "facts". First I am pretty sure that when he murdered his own mother he crossed over the line to outright criminal, thus negating your arguments. He was in the school far longer than three minutes and I think all of us would like to know what actually happened there. Refer to the earlier statement and try to educate yourself and not argue on emotion.

@Theresa:

No, I am not afraid to debate

Huh so after you make your statements you end with this:

End of debate.

I would say you are afraid.

You can insist all you want, but the Sandy Hook tragedy would not have been any better and you know it.

Background checks is an interesting argument. You are correct if one is law abiding one should not object -- sort of like photo IDs to assure legal law abiding citizens are voting.

Need??? Do I need a store room of non perishable food and supplies while others starve? No. Do I need a Hummer when I could buy a Prius? No. It's not about need, it is about rights.

Marcus,

A fertilized egg is not a life.

This is all a bunch of liberal rhetoric and a rehash of anti gun proposals that the left has trotted out every time they get a chance for decades. The gun control advocates are a disgusting lot that are circling like vultures over the dead at Sandy Hook to further their agenda. This is going to bite them on the ass once people realize just what a disgusting group of opportunistic ghouls they are.

RedRover...can you explain to everyone here when life begins?

THERESA-532036

If you need 30,60,100 round clips to make you happy, I suggest you get therapy! There is no logic for anyone, other than military, or police, to have weapons that can shoot that many rounds! If you think you do, there is something really wrong with your thinking.

anybody who is a gun hobbyist of any type loves larger magazines simply because it cuts the time spent doing mundane tasks while they are doing their sport...

And, in Chicago, you are right, they have strict gun laws. Unfortunately, right outside the city, anyone can get a gun and bring it into the city BECAUSE THERE IS NO REGULATION OUTSIDE THE CITY!! You see, if there were uniformity in the laws and they were enforced, gun control would work. BUT, with every city, every state and every municipality making up their own rules, banning something in one city and not in another won't work!! We need laws that cover the entire country.

there are more than 300 million guns in this country and they are also available worldwide... even an outright ban in the US would make no dent in availability for criminals who really wanted them

And, yes, when the assault weapons ban was in effect, it did save lives. The police everywhere were safer to do their jobs and they fought to keep the ban in place. I remember, alright. It was a huge mistake to let the ban lapse.

The DOJ and various academic institutions studied the ban and concluded that it had little or no effect on gun violence and while the use of banned weapons did go down, people simply used non banned weapons in gun violence... as a contrast, since the ban expired, gun violence is down dramatically... the ban clearly did not work

Sandyhook is the perfect example of that. A legal gun owner, who's mentally ill son, was allowed access to an assault weapon, killed 27 people in less than 3 minutes!! NO, you do not need an assault weapon. NO, you don't. I don't care how many times you say it, you don't.

the Sandy Hook shooting lasted about 14 minutes per local police reports... however, anyone with a handgun and a bag of 10 round magazines could have done such a crime within a few minutes... an assault weapon didn't appreciably change what happened at Sandy Hook

Theresa... you don't understand what you are proposing... 'Assault Weapons' as they have typically been defined are not significantly different from other widely available rifles.... The Gun ban clearly didn't work.... 10 round magazines don't have the impact you think they have on the rate at which somebody experienced with guns can kill people, and there are so many guns in the US and the world that banning them throughout the US would have zero effect on gun crime....

banning is like saying 'you aren't allowed to carry rocks that are bigger than 1 pound'... criminals will still pick up a rock anytime they see one laying around and throw it at someone...

Shameful and disgusting that this administration will use Gabby Gifford as a "pawn" for his political chess match. Obama doesn't have a valid argument for new gun laws and knows it will do nothing to fix the problem of random shootings.

No law changes whether today, tomorrow, or next Monday will do a THING in the short run. If you want to argue that 10 years from now we will be "safer" then we can have that argument but there is not one person, including Obama, Schumer, or Feinstein, that can state that any gun law change today will have ANY affect within the next 10 to 15 years. Nobody. None. Zilch.

If Obama wants to debate the facts then bring it on. Discuss like a man. But he will play politics and part of that politics is to bring out Gabby Gifford as the pony that is going to jump through the hoop. But that is what we have, a pathetic and shameful president that will use another human being as a "pawn" for his political agenda. I find it disgusting.

Terry,

70+% of Americans agree that we should have background checks. 70+% of Americans agree that we should register firearms.

You have to register your car, why not your guns?

The bottom line is; any weapon capable of carrying more than one round at a time can be classified as an assault weapon. An MP5 fires a standard 9mm auto round, the same round as a 9mm pistol, but it is classified as an assault weapon. This classification lends itself to shotguns with any size magazine, your standard hunting rifles with an internal magazine, it doesn't matter how many rounds it will hold. A Winchester repeater could easily be classified, even though you need to cock it for it to repeat.

The shame is that the establishment knows that the major issue here is Who has access to weapons, not what weapons they have access to. Any of the weapons described here could cause the damage that has been heavily publicized here.

My hat is off to Judge Gifford and I sincerely hope whe fully recovers, but if someone had reported the lunatic who shot her before he was able to what he did, we would not be here, debating this. BUT, mental records are private. Even if there was some previous indication that he, or James Holmes or Lanza had received mental health evaluations, their records would not have been available to authorities for background checks.

THAT is what needs to change.

THERESA-532036

so tell me Theresa did the person in Sandy Hook have these kind of clips with him??If I am not mistaken he used pistols and I for one have NEVER seen a pistol with any such clip. Did he stop to reload probably and there was NO one there to stop his actions as LEGAL persons did not have weapons.

seriously,

sometime around 6 to 8 weeks, or whatever the law states.

Terry you are too funny with your vultures analogy. Care to comment on the hysteria of the pro-gun cry-babies that swarmed to Walmart and cleared out the shelves in anticipation of those anti-gun proposals?

rocky,

interesting that the shooter at sandy hook left his 2 hunting rifles at home. he took a semi automatic rifle and 2 semi automatic handguns. can you tell me why he left the 2 hunting rifles at home?

theresa with a hand gun like a 40 cal glock I can empty the glock in less than 6 seconds and reload another magazine in less than 2 seconds so if I have several magazines I can literally shoot (10 per magazine) 40 - 50 rounds in a minutes time high capacity magazines are not the issue the issue IS THE CRIMINALS

RedRover....I'm glad you think it is that early, but you are wrong. You can abort a child chemically up to 9 weeks and you can abort after that surgically up until 24 weeks. So again....Can you please explain to the group how a 23 week unborn baby is the equivalent to a fertilized egg? Murder is murder whether it is accepted by the general public or not.

RedRover do you know "facts" that none of the rest of us do? The public has yet to be given any official outline of the entire process. If he had semi automatic hunting rifles of a minimum deer hunting caliber they would have been far more devastating than a .225/5.56

NRA puts out a enemies list, are they going nuts, is this for real, I'm having trouble with the NRA's stance on issues like no background checks and anything over ten round clips and now a enemies list. As a member of the NRA I say this list looks more like a threat and if my name was on this list I would sue them. The NRA went to far this time and I will give up my membership because I will not take part with these crazy people that are running the NRA !!!

All you folks talking trash about our glorious leader are ANTI-OBAMITES. He will take our guns and make us safer and he will not take advantage of us as we have our bills o' rights and stuff. PLease give up your weapons he will insure peace and security and food for all of us. If you have more babies and grant amnesty he will insure a paradise for us all!

p.s. My fork and spoon are in a conspiracy to make me fat. PLease Mr. Owebama ban the most evil of all...forks and knives and regulate sporks for us all. Those stubby little nubs are cute and can't puncture a thing helping us control ourselves.

I am a frustrated and fed up American Citizen and I approve this message and support DR. BEN CARSON for president yesterday...no wait four years ago.

Just more BS from the inept obama admin. that tries to deflect attention from the real issues. Prehaps obama wants our weapons becouse he knows the real pain our nation will face has yet to come, and to prevent a blood-bath due to his inept leadership reguarding the ecomoney. There's four choices obama has. First, fix our nations economic situation. Second, create a strict birth control standard such as China's one child policy. Third, start a major war that will result in a very high death toll on our side. Finally, disarm the USA so his animals can riot burning homes, buisnesses, and killing innocent people without the worry of being shot and killed by law abiding people.

seriously,

i think you assume too much.

there are many things to consider prior to the surgical procedure that you mention. that decision should be left to the mother, father (if he is still around), and the doctor. it is not something that should be brush stroked into a single category that you demonize.

your definition of murder is different in this case compared to what the law states.

State of the union is always a joke no matter who is in office. Read the history of it sometime to see how like everything else in this country it has become a joke. It's now just a stupid dog and pony show, in fact a dog show has more integrity. Come to think of it I'll watch the Westminster show instead tonight.

Nuny,

the point being, he left the deer rifles at home because those were limited to the amount of carnage that could be inflicted compared to the firearms that he carried into the school.

I am going to start a petition on We The People asking the government to start cutting off hands and feet. After all, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2011 while 323 murders were confirmed as being committed with a rifle of any type, 728 were committed using hands, fists, feet, etc.. That is more than double the rate murdered by rifles.

Just think, if they cut off hands and feet most people wouldn't even be able to handle a weapon so the amount of death would go down. They likely wouldn't be able to drive cars, so the number of automobile deaths would be drastically reduced. They would likely have trouble feeding themselves as well, so the obesity epidemic in this country could be significantly lowered. As long as we do not provide prosthetics for them it would be a win for America.

That is where the logic of going after so called assault rifles leads us to.

Actually RedRover, if he had so called hunting rifles available and would have taken them he could have done a lot more damage. A 30-06, .270, or .308, could kill multiple people with just one shot depending on how they were lined up. Remember, he was in the school for over 10 minutes before the police arrived, even with a bolt action 26 people is an easy number to reach in that amount of time. A .223/5.56 round is a whole lot smaller than any of these rounds and was actually designed as a maiming round for NATO versus a killing round like a 7.62. To be quite frank, he could have also caused a lot more carnage if he would have used a 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun.

Theresa,

you must be a tea drinker. Your arguments are foolish, and yes, my right to live supersedes your right to a gun! Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness supersede your right to shoot me! The Second Amendment did not include assault weapons and called for A WELL REGULATED MILITIA!! WELL REGULATED, what part of that don't you understand? Oh, I know, all of it!! Exactly what does WELL REGULATED mean to you? No regulation? Somehow that makes sense to you? Really? Fox brainwashed and NRA brain dead. Yep, that's you.

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand. If you read the entire statement it is separated by a comma, which makes that sentence two separate statements. Besides, the Militia is every abled bodied person in this country. We still have militias. Just google your state militia and find out what regiment you bleong to and you can attend the meetings.

Your right to life does not supercede my right to a firearm. They are actually on the same level. Besides, my life supercedes any criminal's life. If they wish to try and harm me or my family, then I have a Natural Born Right to defend myself. I can garuantee we would be the last people a criminal ever tries to harm.

No, the 2nd doesn't specifically state any firearm. It just states "Arms". In the day of the founders they were using the best and newest products on the market. These were not Army men. They were farmers, businessman, politicians, Journalist, and everyday workers that rose up against the British using "arms" that were comparable to the British Army's. Besides, it's not up to you or anyone to decide WHAT I NEED. That is up to me and my family. It is none of your business if I have firearms or not. It's none of the govt's business to know how many firearms I have. I have a right to privacy. I have a right to keep and bare arms. I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The are a couple reasons the 1994 ban was put inplace. It was because the men that brought suit against the govt didn't have enough money to continue their defense against the govt, one of the two died, and the supreme court justices that made the decision was based off a case from 1939 in which the Supreme court didn't know that many of the firearms that were banned or regulated were in common use in the country. Common use is the basis for a lot of the bans around the country from being shot down as unconstitutional. DC ban on handguns was shot down because they are in common use. Assault weapons bans if challenged will be shot down, because they are in common use.

I love how you anti-gunners try to use the Well Regulated Militia part as your basis to keep people from having firearms. That's been tried and the Supreme Court has come back saying, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" gives we the people the right to firearms.

Gun politics in Switzerland example for USA. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.In recent times a minority of political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.

good point mwolf,

a bit over 10 minutes = 26 deaths. 1 shot fired, in just under 30 seconds. I can tell you this... i can fire nore than 26 rounds from a single shot bolt action no clip with an ammo belt. more if i had a 5 round clip, more from a 10 if they made it. the tool that killed all those kids, not only had sitting ducks, but they all ran into classrooms and hid with the teachers, meaning fish in a barrel. it didnt matter if this guy had a fully auto AK 47... or a single shot bolt action, and by all rights it shouldnt. the fact that 1 child and one adult was killed is enough, but it changes nothing.

if you want to believe the government has nothing on you, to include what time you might take your next dump, you are delusional.

the police have not just fully auto matic weapons, but tanks and armored vehicals, and full body armor at their disposal. even in the puny little UP they have em nearby. one person with a gun get full response up here from who ever can make it before its over. When some kid took over a classroom in marinette wi, they had armor all the way from fon du lac, over an hour away join in, i was there, so i know. the kid killed himself and didnt take 1 life other than his own. he just wanted to be heard before he took his own life.

then we ignore the fact this kid had issues, and go balls out on local media how yes, assault weapons need to be banned, as well semi auto (now considered a full auto by the terrified media and gun control freaks). the real difference between auto and semi technical is with full you get about 2-5 rounds pending the weapon that will hit the target pending the aim. some do not realise with a full auto, the recoil pulls the barrel up harder than u can keep it down (some have seen too many rambo movies) and if one were to fire a M-16A1 or M-60 on full auto (like in the movies) they could only do it in short bursts holding it as they stood upright or they would most likely be looking like they were going to try shooting out the sun. That to be precise, at more than 1 target, with a semi auto, it requires more re-aiming/concentration. maybe not much more, but more none the less.

the guy that shot the school up, was a decent shot from the sounds... who was taught by his mother, a marksman. so the gun this guy used, really wouldnt have made a difference. i took the time to time myself with my bolt action no clip rifle (without pulling the trigger and no need to do so) and it comes out to about 17 seconds between shots, picking my target as i reload, and getting set to draw a bead as i closed the bolt. accuracy would have been well within 6" of aim. Thats with a .270 cal., ammo readily available. Then one MUST conclude, that all ammo belts that hold more than 5-10 rnds of ammunition be banned as well right?

Nuny,

the point being, he left the deer rifles at home because those were limited to the amount of carnage that could be inflicted compared to the firearms that he carried into the school.

HE LEFT THE BUSHMASTER 223 SO CALLED ASSAULT RIFLE IN THE TRUNK OF THE CAR, HE USED 4 PISTOLS WITH MAGAZINE CHANGES, THERE WAS NO ASSAULT WEAPON USED IN THE NEWTON SHOOTING.

Johntho,

XDm9mm, I can define assult weapon, that is any gun that is capable of killing 20 1st graders in short order. Nobody, no civilian ought to own a gun capable of shooting 30 to 100 times as fast as you can pull the trigger, even faster if you know how to bump shoot. Get those types of weapons off of the street now.

Don't need a gun for that. A grown man could do that with steal-toed boots. That's what you need to wrap your brain around.

I wonder if ol "Gabby" had been hit by a drunk driver if she would be trying to BAN CARS??? She is merely a useful tool for the looney left and their anti gun agenda. She should be smarter than to be used by these loons.

Maybe Dr. Suzanne Hupp should testify again?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

And she lived it....

HEY BARRACK, IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course instead of dealing with the issues that will put our great Republic back on a path to prosperity for all this SOTU address will just be another embarrassment. The never-ending Barrack Hussein campaign will just continue with no substance.

This is the time Barrack Hussein has to pay all his cronies back for reelecting him, whether it helps the nation or not. This last election cost over $6 billion dollars nationwide. As the saying goes, “Payback’s are a bitch”.

As is typical, the Liberals/Progressives will haul out all their bleeding-heart causes and just pay lip service to the systemic defects our nation suffers from. Stripping more rights from legal responsible Americans who own guns in the name of alleged government safety. Pandering to the electorate to allow 20 million illegal aliens amnesty while 23 million Americans remain under/unemployed. Sprinkling glitter will help Barrack further “evolve” his position on GLBT. Social issues will be used to deflect the illiterate American people from the real issues that Barrack Hussein has no intention of fixing, because he doesn’t know how.

The Statist-in-Chief will promote more of his social and economic justice nonsense and throw more “Bread and Circuses” out to the unwashed masses. He will spin the usual Keynesian nonsense as revenue (tax) and investment (spend) which is just more Washington double-speak for growing government. We will be awed with all the wonderful things that government will do even though they have all been tried and have failed.

Job creation will be hailed even though those created continue to be of the low-wage/low-no benefit variety. Our debt will be ignored even though it’s expected to skyrocket past $20 trillion in the next 4 years. The stock market will be applauded although it is simply being artificially propped up by the Federal Reserve inflating our currency to the tune of $85 billion a month in monetary malfeasance. Growth is at a pathetic -0.1%. We are on schedule to create another $600 billion trade deficit. Consumer confidence is at historic lows and manufacturing continues to struggle. But of course D.C. and the surrounding Virginia suburbs are prospering beyond belief as government corruption grows under Barrack Hussein.

None of our systemic defects will be aggressively addressed. Trade reform has been forgotten. Tax reform will be promoted as some convoluted revenue enhancement by manipulating unknown and unexplained loopholes. Regulations will not only be ignored they will be promoted to reassure us of how government is only here to help us. Unions will not be addressed to work with business instead of against them to promote expansion of our industrial base. The billions unions have given to politicians over the past years need to be repaid. Our energy policy will continue to sputter as the emphasis will again be on the wet-dream of government subsidized alternative energy that will never work.

The biggest systemic defect is actually our biggest embarrassment. Education will be promised more money which has been the solution for 30 years and our children will continue to be competitive on the global stage in the 21^st century. More bureaucracy and less education will, as usual, be the solution.

Our foreign policy will continue to be an embarrassment to everyone in the world except the useful idiots on the Left. The Middle East is in constant turmoil. Iran laughs at our “sanctions “as they only affect the people and the government continues its nuclear weapon expansion. North Korea detonates another nuclear weapon creating more turmoil in Asia. The European Union continues to wallow in its own self-imposed “lost decade” as they refuse to launch the austerity measures necessary to correct their nanny-state mentality. The same mentality that Barrack Hussein is dragging our Republic down.

Symbolism over substance will reign supreme. The promises of “focusing like a laser” will be repeated and believed as Americans only have a mental retention span of a few seconds. The benevolence of government will be promoted and the real issues will be glossed over as usual.

To add injury to insult the limp-wristed Libbies will parade Gabby Giffords, Hidaya Pendletons mother and other "symbolic" personna to tug at the heart strings of the American people as we are governed by emotions rather than policy. Liberals have no shame when it comes to promoting their irrational "Life of Julia" existence.

Remember, the private sector is doing fine. The problem is the Beltway is doing even better.

God Bless and save America, it may be our only real hope and change.

“Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm,” Obama said in the inaugural address last month.

What is the leading cause of child mortality in the United States?

Gee, I guess being shot through the head might change your feeling toward these things (remember, both Gabby and her husband are gun owners).

Didn't they become gun owners after she was shot? Who wants to own a gun for protection after getting shot, then parade around talking about how guns are evil? If the gun is so evil, why would you want to have one? Hypocrites!

Barry "Skeet Shooting" Soetoro...really this is the best the United States has to offer? SAD.

Funny that the Progressives won't roll out the Georgia mother who saved her children with a gun from an intruder.

Always remember that here at Socialist Central the headline read.......

"Gun toting mom shoots alleged intruder five times"

Pretty sure MS/NBC is rooting for the wrong side.

I only have two things to say, here;

• Obama has it right when he says we need to do more about gun violence in this country. Too many people are dying needlessly.
• It doesn't matter what he says tonight, the media will hail his speech as a triumphant success, even if he were to suspend habeus corpus, and declare martial law..

thats the thing some people do not get either.... the economy being a part of violence. a poor economy can bring out the worst in people, even god fearing, respectable people. you lose your job, you lose almost everything, and there is no save for self respect. you lose you home, hope, means of transportation, due to mandatory insurance. your bills go sky high, and you sink in debt like a rock in water.

there have been instances where good people walk into a bank demand money, and sit on the front step waiting for the cops to arrest them.... they have no place to go, and for them life has become hopeless. with no job, some resort to other crime, selling drugs, prostitution, robbery, and the list goes on. some may or may not posess a firearm when they commit these crimes, most by the recent ones in my area are being committed with knives, even tho the penalty remains the same, min of 30 yrs, even if your pockets and hands are empty besides the note you hand the cashier. yet robbery no matter how passive it was commited also is listed as a violent crime, just like in some state, getting caught with a sack of weed.

you see... the US has more people in prison than ANY other country, even by percentage of population, and guess what, it hasnt worked, just bilked the taxpayors for billions every year. Redefineing what is and isnt a violent crime would eliminate over crowding, and help prevent those who were non violent, from becoming violent while in prison. hence repeat offenders likely to return to prison would also decline. Yet our government (liberals) continue to toss people in prison for exsample a 3-5th offence for drunk driving. even if no accident had occured during any one of these. They do yes send the person to re-hab, counseling, and yet they repeat. they go to prison, and when released.... repeat. so how does this work? it doesnt... the numbers prove it. yet like the unemployment rate, the numbers are also stacked against the truth. exsample: when one can no longer collect unemployment, they can no longer file, and thus like myself at one point, no longer count in the UE rate. when you look at Chicago, the number of violent crimes has shot up, in conjunction with guns, as well other weapons. if you shoot/kill someone who has invaded your home, it is also counted. if the police shoot someone... it too is counted in the homocide rate. so the numbers to tell.... just not all the truth. This sends people into what we have now, scared hens screaming the sky is falling at the tops of their lungs....

we the people are all victims... victims of our government takeing our eyes from the truths, of how we are being duped. you want a real president? elect one that doesnt keep his intrests in wall street like every one of them has from day one. elect a real working man/woman who busted real junk to get where they are in life, and has a proven record of completion.... not like the tool in office now.

So why not address the sad state of mental health care in the United States?

RedRoverRedRover

A fertilized egg is not a life.

Is an amoeba, bacteria or protozoan or any other single-celled organism a life?

unless something drastic changes.... (B) wins hands down.....

you wont have that option available to you if gun control yellow hens like barry have their way.

Because taking guns away from law abiding citizens in cities, counties, and entire states where gun violence is rare (as it is among that demographic!) is really going to make a difference in preventing black gang members and criminals from obtaining and using firearms in crimes.

You people sicken me.

Liberals are stupid. I am trained in the use of my semiautomatic Glock but I'm no great marksman. But even I can change out a magazine in 2 seconds. You simply click the release with your thumb on the gun hand and pop in another magazine you are holding in the other hand. It's incredibly simple and fast. If you are shooting at terrified, defenseless 5 year-old kids, nothing changes with this ban.

Also, high-capacity magazines are not difficult to make. If they are banned, illegal magazines will be built by criminals and sold on the black market. H_ll, I have buddies back in Tennessee and Kentucky who even make their own guns! And these are guys who cannot add 2 + 2.

And my 9mm Glock is just as dangerous and powerful as most of these so-called "assault" rifles. And good luck trying to ban semiautomatic handguns. The next Civil War will occur before that happens. And the libbies lose that one.

HEY THERE DR LOGIC!!!! Did you notice something about the posts YOU made and the ones from the people that countered you?

THEY GET 10 TIMES THE POSITIVE HITS THAT YOURS DO.

That is because the MSM has you FOOLed that the nation is actually behind gun control. The problem is they are not AND IT IS BIPARTISAN. It is only the progressive socialists that really think it is a good idea. They are smart enough to KNOW that the MSM is PURPOSELY skewing the data and AVOIDING the stories about those that have saved family, friends and strangers through the use of weapons.

It is sad that some have lost their lives through gun violence. It is even sadder that MANY MORE lose their lives through other means of violence: hands, feet, knives, hammers, abortion, bats, sticks.

You see, EVERYTHING is a weapon. The problem the PTB have with guns is that they are threatened by them. So they have to create the environment to make YOU want them gone. They are making YOU beg to have them disappear. They do this as ALL tyrannical governments do: they tell lies and half truths to make YOU beg for what they really want.

It is against the law to punish LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Maybe you should read the Constitution and better yet take a class that tells the truth about it.

JimSpence

RedRoverRedRover

A fertilized egg is not a life.

Is an amoeba, bacteria or protozoan or any other single-celled organism a life?

Hello Jim. Maybe you better go back to school and take some biology. Here, let me give you a FREE lesson: Yes, those organisms you mention ARE life. Believe it or not, some people actually think WE came from those little creatures. Pretty silly from your point of view, eh?

Last night....in Mn.....34 year old man.......Walks out of his home in upscale neighborhood,....and down to local big food chain store......pulls out gun....starts shooting people in the store's parking lot.....kills a 10 year old boy..........others wounded...........law abiding citizens....What's the answer....happens everyday someplace over and over.......What's the answer?............

Theresa Here you go you get who ever you want to try to get to me before I can change clips. They would have to be at least 20 feet away before they start coming at me as I would of shot anyone closer than that IF I was ever to go on a shooting rampage. I do NOT think anyone in there right mind would come at a guy with a gun and NOT know he is OUT of ammo. My 22 does NOT have a clip. It does hold 17 rounds though.

DRILLOGICAL - First, I seriously doubt that you have a doctorate in anything, unless of course they give one in 'Being a Moron.' If you do not have a doctorate then please QUIT using the title - it's insulting to those of us that have actually earned one, or in my case, two. Secondly, you have forgotten one MAJOR thing - it's called the Constitution! We, as American citizens, have the RIGHT to bear arms and there is not ONE THING Obammy nor the rest of you liberals can do about it. If you want to see another civil war in our country try and press the issue of what the ultimate goal of the liberals is - to confiscate all guns! We are not stupid nor blind to the ambitions of the left. In closing, I would simply like to say to you and all other liberals - SHUT THE HELL UP!

Dr. E

Last week in California while looking for the former police officer turn murderer Police officers mistakenly shot 2 people, Several months ago in NYC several police officers shot at a man who had a gun and hit innocent bystanders, when you look at the percentages the police are way ahead in the shootings of innocent people.

So Barry's idea of SOTU will be an all-out attack on Constitutional rights....

So be it...... Come and Take It.........

Idaho-Steven

Here, let me give you a FREE lesson: Yes, those organisms you mention ARE life

Thank you for making my point Steve?

A single-celled organism IS A LIFE.

Thus a fertilized human egg is life.

Thus human life begins at conception when the two gametes join and create a zygote, or a unique human person.

Thanks again, try to keep up, you lost this argument.

Are you feeling silly yet Spanky?

THERESA - I would strongly suggest you read the Federalist Papers in their entirety. They were written by some of the framers of the Constitution for the sole purpose of explaining the Constitution and arguing in favor of its ratification. It is stated quite clearly in there that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with hunting or even personal protection against burglars, but for defense against a tyrannical government. The framers new quite well that government can become corrupt to the point of watering down or even overturning the Constitution itself. However, guns in the hands of the public was a "last resort" with which the public can hold the government in check - or overthrow it if necessary.

So, why do we need 30,60, 100 round clips? Because that's what the military has (actually, they typically carry 40 round clips, but some weapons do hold much more ammo). How is the public to defend itself against the standing army of these United States with clearly inferior equipment? I know, I know....it will never come to that in America right? There's only one guarantee of that and that is allowing the public to own and maintain their own firearms.

You say such things only belong in the hands of military or police. I served in the military. I wouldn't give up any firearm to anyone for any reason. I won't give in to the fear that I might be shot by some lunatic whose cheese slid off their cracker a long time ago.

I don't think I'll ever have to fight against the very organization I once served. I don't believe our government would let it get quite that far. However, I can't be certain of that. Neither can you or anyone else on these threads. Any government - even democratically elected representatives in a constitutional republic - can be corrupted. I value the right to overthrow that government more than I value my own life and certainly more than I value yours.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Or in this case "perceived" needs...as many have already pointed out that assault weapons aren't even the guns of choice for the vast majority of criminals.

@THERESA "And, yes, when the assault weapons ban was in effect, it did save lives. The police everywhere were safer to do their jobs and they fought to keep the ban in place. I remember, alright. It was a huge mistake to let the ban lapse. Sandyhook is the perfect example of that. A legal gun owner, who's mentally ill son, was allowed access to an assault weapon, killed 27 people in less than 3 minutes!! NO, you do not need an assault weapon. NO, you don't. I don't care how many times you say it, you don't."

there is no evidence to support that claim at all. the caltrans maintenance yard shooting, thurston high school shooting, columbine high school massacre, and navistar shooting all happened while the ban was in place. the fact of the matter is "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime in lieu of a handgun, because handguns have one key important advantage over rifles, they are easily concealed.

sandy hook massacre could have happened if it were all handguns or shotguns too. the number of people killed is not because of the kind of weapon killed, it is because of the determination of the killer (whos name shall not be mentioned, this is not an important detail. all naming the killer does is idolize him, and encourage the next sick mind to try to 1up his work).

do me a favor and google a picture of an ar15 and a picture of a mini-14. tell me why the ar15 is an assault weapon and the mini-14 is not. they are the same caliber, and operate in the exact same manner and are of similar size and weight. if you are unable to answer that question, its ok. because there is no logical reason why other than "the ar15 looks scarier."

the problem with the assault weapons ban is this. banning what guns are popular today, only makes different guns popular tomorrow. gun control needs to happen at the level of the ease of purchase and the lack of mental health care.

arguing that no one NEEDS an "assault weapon" is similar to saying that no one NEEDS a sports car, because no one needs to travel above the legal speed limit. by this logic we should ban all cars capable of exceeding 90mph (fastest speed limit anywhere in the US is 85mph) and reinstate the National Maximum Speed Law (and its not even arguable that this would save more lives than reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban, it would by a large margin, as motor collisions are the leading cause of unnatural death in this country, and causes more death than ALL gun related incidents, including suicides, COMBINED.)

but of course thats just silly, because its not the fault of the car, its the fault of the person behind the wheel. similar that it is not the fault of the firearm, but the fault of the operator.

Hey Jim, no reason to feel silly here. YOU asked the question, I answered it. Nothing more than that. I have no agenda and based on YOUR silly answer it appears we actually believe the same thing.

Starsailing, every day someone get DRUNK and gets into a CAR and kills WAY MORE PEOPLE than guns do (other than our apparently IMMUNE military) EVERY DAY. Don't say that is not applicable. The discussion is the TAKING of LIFE. (Here you go Jim) Every day THOUSANDS of lives are taken by the murder method called ABORTION.

Guns "control" is ONLY about PEOPLE CONTROL. PERIOD.

@starsailing, I am fairly sure that if we actually knew the entire story and history of the shooter's life we would find that he had mental issues that many people knew about but were not allowed to do anything about. Just like the guy who killed the bus driver and took the boy hostage, all of his neighbors knew he had issues but couldn't do anything about it. Once again it leads to a people problem and not necessarily a gun problem. Sure, he likely shouldn't have had a gun, but as of now we have no idea how he got the weapon in the first place, whether it was legally owned or not.

When I was growing up they had people dropping cinder blocks off overpasses and killing motorists on the highway below. They went after the people, eventually caught them, and locked them up for a very long time. They did not attempt to ban cinder blocks.

Once again, laws are only good for keeping the law abiding citizens in line. Criminals always have, and always will, operated outside the law. If they cannot even enforce the over 1,400 gun laws on the books today, how will they ever enforce new ones?

mwolf,

There are actually over 30,000 gun laws across the country, but your right. If they cant enforce even 1,400 of them, why do any of the libs think any more are going to help? Would the police start ignoring more laws because they have a push to start enforcing new laws?

Sen Franken is working on the mental health issues of gun control. How do you keep them out of their hands?

Cinder blocks whine?...Oh please...get with reality...next what...whine about people falling and dying?.....

Change the subject as usual instead of addressing the issue.

When I was 5 and up at the farm, I saw the neighbor accidently shoot and kill his brother. Hard lesson for gun safety. mandatory gun safety classes for all to hopefully eliminate idiots?

Mandatory registration of violent people and mentally challenged people on a national list accesible in seconds for gun control from these people?

What is the answer?...more of the same is not working.

Starsailing said:

Last night....in Mn.....34 year old man.......Walks out of his home in upscale neighborhood,....and down to local big food chain store......pulls out gun....starts shooting people in the store's parking lot.....kills a 10 year old boy..........others wounded...........law abiding citizens....What's the answer....happens everyday someplace over and over.......What's the answer?............

Last night a 34 year old man.......walks out of his home in upscale neighborhood,....and down to a watering hole.......while driving home in an inebriated manner.........hits a minivan with a family in it..........kills one 10 year old boy........remaining family of mother, father, and daughter injured........law abiding citizens....What's the answer.........happens everyday someplace over and over........What's the answer?..........

starsailing

Mandatory registration of violent people and mentally challenged people on a national list accesible in seconds for gun control from these people?

OK Gilligan, how do you decide someone is "mentally challenged" to be put on your national list? Will this list be available to all gun vendors?

Where is the patients HIPPA Rights?

How would Adam Lanza or Jared Loughner have fit into your "national list" if they were never diagnosed. Do we get all 311 million American citizens psychiatrically evaluated by a qualified Board Certified Psychiatrist?

What if someone is labelled mentally challenged and he steals a gun and kills someone, who is responsible? The patient? The person the weapon was stolen from? The diagnosing psychiatrist?

What if someone is evaluated and found to be mentally stable, gets fired, goes home and gets his "legally acquired" gun and goes back and kills a dozen people at his former workplace? Who is responsible for that mass murder?

Good luck with your wet-dream of more government fixing anything.

starsailing, before accusing me of changing the subject, why don't you take the time to read all of my other posts on this thread? I have been very much on topic the entire time. The fact is you don't go after the tools, you need to go after the people who illegally get their hands on the tools or use them in the commission of violent crimes. Dropping a cinder block on a car and killing the occupants is just as deadly as shooting someone.

You should be very aware of the fact that the lawyers, and ACLU, are going to do their best to keep anyone from being added to one of your national mentally disturbed people listings. I have mentioned things like that on here before and they have stated "If you try to commit someone for mental issues before they have committed a crime, we will sue you so fast it will make your head spin.". That is where HIPPA came into play, and I highly doubt they are going to change that anytime soon, no matter what Sen. Franken may try.

Laws will be passed to have a data base for people not allowed to have guns or access to guns due to mental illness, violence etc...it is just a matter of time. Again...... people who now who should not have gun in possession are buying guns openly .....national name list for law enforcement or dealers to input into system, if the person wants to get false id or friend to buy, tough penalties. Let them sue.....

Talking cinder blocks as diversion was really helpful to the dialogue........uh huh....

Star, I think that you should set your sights lower (What is "mental illness" as defined by you... watching Fox? If you got in a fist fight in grade school could anybody in you house own a firearm or just not you?) I think that there should be a National database of convicted felons, that have not regained their rights, and it should be checked before a person could buy a firearm or vote.

If you want a National database of all firearm owners that is going to be a tougher nut to crack. I would start small... say a National database of all stolen firearms. Anybody prepossessing a firearm on this list would be a criminal or would have purchased it on the back-market. Placing a high penalty on this crime would drive law abiding citizens to licensed FFL's where a background check is already required by Federal law and they would have the joy of filling a form 4473. My guess is that this would dry up the black-market in no time and actually make a difference with respect to reducing "gun violence".

there is a data base already for felons of a violent crime, this is to include some kid who sold a 1/4 oz of weed to a cop and found guilty....

there is also a mentally ill database.... not sure when that went to effect, but, this list starsailing wants is for anyone who recieves any kind of treatment... even if its for dealing with being a victim, such as raped or other.

the solution? start holding people accountable for their actions or lack of, to include parents.

@ starsailing,

any type of scenario you mentioned about the guy shooting 3 people in a store can easily be applied to anything including a knife attack, not just gun laws, or open gun laws...

tell all of us why a nation with a mandatory gun ownership has by far least violent crime rate on this planet.......

the first thing that a dictator does is restrict weaponry.... remove the citizens' rights to defend themselves, then any corrupt polititian can do what he pleases

nuf said

Why do people on here keep using the "assault rifles" name when they don't even know what the definition is?

The same reason they continue to call people who are injured and killed by evil people, 'Gun victims'. It's easy and it convinces the weak minded that guns are capable of an evil action.

What a load of Obama BS, cant think for yourself after selling your soul to Lord Obama I take it, a pitty, but thats what happens when you trade your votes for freebees

Go f**k yourself wilsonarden. Go advertise your crap somewhere else, you loser.

What a waste of network time.......the Teletubbies probably make more sense.