Exploited? How WCA? Those people are there because they feel strongly enough about the issue to show up and be counted!

Wonder if the Parents of Ambassador Stevens will be there too?

Kind of like this woman there Fuzzball:

Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.

"Betrayed is a good word," former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."

Oh, but having that filth, Ted Nugent, is not exploiting anything. Yeah right. Hypocrite.

AlaskaGirl, what the cat-scratch-fever epedemic?

WCA ... the good Sgt. is backing up her lawsuit ... perhaps we should await the trial and the judgement? You know, all those "facts" Republicans rail about.

Yes, when NRA dared to even mention the Obama kids, the liberals went wild. But parade a whole group around for political reasons & it's OK with the left.

No one is against ending the violence, but so many of us understand it is the heart that needs to be changed, not the method.

Verify the idea for yourself.... review the deaths due to so-called "assault weapons".... if the murder rate for the US was that low.... NO ONE would be speaking out.......

clash on gun rights as victims' families gather

Whew, I thought for a moment there you meant gun nut Ted Nugent had gotten through security somehow and went craaaaaaaaazy!!!

If our lawmakers want to address gun violence they should start with our drug policy!

Talk to ABC BCWC. They are the ones reporting the story.

She feels exploited, just like the rest of these people will feel once the DNC tosses them to the curb after they are through with them.

"Constitutional rights are designed to be protected not just when they're popular but especially when passions are seeking to restrict and limit those rights," said Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who has emerged as a vocal critic of new gun laws.

Taking guns away from the law abiding will not slow down the criminals and mentally challenged, it will encourage them.

@WCA: Nothing is ever cut and dry, but you providing just a snippet is the norm for you. Here, at least is another snippet: A spokesperson for the Army said its policy is not to comment on pending litigation, but that it is "not true" any of the military victims have been neglected and that it has no control over the guidelines of the Veterans Administration. Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November, which specifically details the plight of many of them.

The president of the United States does not have control over every single thing. There are laws and guidelines that have been in place long before this president came into office. If you are going to post something, the least you could attempt to do would be to show some objectivity.

Alaska Girl, who are you to say someone is a waste of good oxygen, just because he doesn't agree with you. This is what Obama has turned this country into, rich against poor, whites against everyone else, men against women, Liberals against Conservatives, and I could go on and on. We are no longer the UNITED States of America, we are the DIVIDED States of America.

JERSY GIRL 1

...and you calling liberals racist bigots is uniting the country?

More like The Ununited States of Obama!

JERSY GIRL 1

Alaska Girl, who are you to say someone is a waste of good oxygen, just because he doesn't agree with you. This is what Obama has turned this country into, rich against poor, whites against everyone else, men against women, Liberals against Conservatives, and I could go on and on. We are no longer the UNITED States of America, we are the DIVIDED States of America.

You mean none of this was going on before Obama was elected? Or perhaps you'll play the "It wasn't this bad before Obama was elected" card?

I want glasses with that color of rose tint. I would love to look back on a few years ago and imagine things were "so much better".

Taking guns away from the law abiding will not slow down the criminals and mentally challenged, it will encourage them.

Oh, yes, please enlighten me as to how so.

Once again, by the standard of "Criminals Won't Follow The Law" we ought not to have ANY laws and devolve into complete anarchy.

Show some objectivity AG? From you? Really?

Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims

So another Obama lacky is "Unaware". When will you lemmings stop falling for this crap?

Save the standard response. I know he was a Republican. From New York. Whatever that means.

Bev said,

"Have you noted the Repubs are NOT doing anything to improve the economy; even their tea baggers

The GOP even wants to rob their medicare and SS. So whose getting kicked to the curb?"

Might want to take a look at this Bev before you go running your mouth...

Poll: Americans Don't Really Like the Job Obama's Doing

By Susan Jones

The Gallup poll shows that Obama's lowest approval rating is 31 percent, for his handling of the federal budget deficit. Only 39 percent approve of the way he's handling the economy. And the economy is expected to be a main topic of discussion Tuesday night.

Obama's Job Approval on 9 Issues:

National defense - 53% Approve, 44% Disapprove
Foreign affairs - 46% Approve, 48% Disapprove
Immigration - 46% Approve, 48% Disapprove
Energy policy - 44% Approve, 46% Disapprove
Gun policy - 42% Approve, 54% Disapprove
Taxes - 41% Approve, 57% Disapprove
the economy - 39% Approve, 60% Disapprove
Middle East: Israelis/Palestinians - 36% Approve, 55% Disapprove
The federal budget deficit - 31% Approve, 65% Disapprove

Even a low information voter like you can understand this...

Bev, this means Obama is not doing anything either...

Bev, the fact of the matter is Obama is "getting kicked to the curb"!!

ozzieyo1-7277359

Wonder if the Parents of Ambassador Stevens will be there too?

ozzieyo,

If they are, you can bet they'll blast the Republicans since they refused to do what the Stevens family asked. The Stevens family asked NOT to politicize Benghazi.

Chris Stevens' Death In Libya Shouldn't Be Politicized, Father Says

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/14/chris-stevens-libya_n_1965009.html

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

So did the mother of a Navy SEAL killed in the attack make a similar appeal. But, you know the GOP it's sequels. Fast & Furious fizzled out so the they made up another drama with Benghazi Svelgali-gate.

Speaking of sequels Fast & Furious has a new sequel

Fast & Furious 6 (2013) More at IMDbPro »

In Honor Of The New Fast And Furious 6 Trailer, Here Is Ludacris Saying "They Got A Tank" For 2 Minutes

The upcoming [Fast 6] aka [Fast & the Furious] 6 Ludacris is in this one is bound to be the the series' greatest.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1905041/news

You can bet the craaaaazy pundits over @ FOX NEWS TOXIC NEWS are getting excited to re-boot their precious Fast & Furious sequel too!!!!

Satanick

Nobody is actually interested in reducing gun violence. If they were, they would have ended the war on drugs a long time ago.

Alaska Girl, who are you to say someone is a waste of good oxygen, just because he doesn't agree with you.

you answered your own question. Liberal hubris never ceases to amaze and humor me. pay no attention to the AK Mooseknuckle for future reference. Also pay no mind to the Great White Northern French Canadian Hoser aka Savoir Faire. I took Fisty's advice and put the morons on ignore...

White Collar Auto

I saw the article on ABC News as well. It is upsetting to think the Ft Hood victims feel they aren't getting the level of care and compensation they deserve. I understand the point of classifying the attack as "workplace violence" vs a terrorist attack, is to make it easier to try the shooter in a court of law. I don't believe anyone is intentionally slighting the victims and heroes of the Ft Hood attack, why on earth would they? Certainly their issues need to be taken seriously, and I would be surprised if the Obama administration doesn't do exactly that.

you answered your own question. Liberal hubris never ceases to amaze and humor me. pay no attention to the AK Mooseknuckle for future reference. Also pay no mind to the Great White Northern French Canadian Hoser aka Savoir Faire. I took Fisty's advice and put the morons on ignore...

did ya now, Cūlus Granite

You all can argue all you want on here but the facts remain that mass killings by the mental handicapped are few but end really bad. We try to ban drunk drivers from driving but that hasn't really worked. We ban drugs but that hasn't worked either. Banning guns and mags sounds good but that won't work either. When someone wants drugs or to drive when drunk or obtain a banned weapon that person will find and or do it. It is so easy. The problem is two fold, mental illness needs to be addressed and the main problem of the break down in the moral fabric of America meaning our society has broken down and needs to be repaired. How we do that, I don't know. Everybody needs to back off and leave our rights alone. Fix what needs to be fixed and leave our guns alone. 95% of gun owners, even those who have semi automatics and large mags are responsible gun owners who never cause any trouble and secure their weapons. Do not punish them for the bad 5%. That is like taking away every ones vehicle because a certain percentage will kill someone while driving drunk. Knee jerk reactions never work.

For anyone interested, read the ENTIRE ABC article instead of just the few cherry picked lines WCA provided.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-hero-obama-betrayed-victims/story?id=18465024&page=2

In its unceasing support of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, the NRA has taken up the fight to eliminate the ban on driving Bradley tanks on America's highways. "The only way to stop a bad guy from driving wrecklessly down our hiways is with a good guy meeting him swerve-for-swerve and turret-spin-for-turrent-spin"

NRA spokesman "Tank" McNamara says "Cars don't kill, drivers kill." Laws infringing on America's God-given right to hit the open road at any speed in any vehicle only mean that law-abiding citizens are forced to leave their 10,000 horsepower, 36-wheeled, double track military assault vehicles back home in the driveway, while the scofflaws zoom past them on the open road in wussy suburban assault vehicles, sold as SUVs, flagrantly violating speed limits and lane restrictions, (but carefully avoiding any unpaved roads that might need 4-whl drive).

When the NRA finally succeeds in repealing the Assault Vehicle ban, the road-hogging SUV commandos will come to realize that their freedom to terrorize the rest of us will be met with Bradley tanks driven by vigilante tank jockeys, keeping hiways safe with their blazing 7.62mm guns. Those wreckless scofflaws will have to find another "tank free" hiway on which to wreak their mischief ...

... until, of course, those SUV commandos realize that any vigilante-driven 2nd-Amendment-protected Bradley tank can be taken out with an equally 2nd-amendment-protected UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle, aka drone) ...

... but, then, no drone is a match for an F-16 Stealth Fighter...

... and the F-16 can be taken out by a Patriot missle ....

... and the Patriot missle may be overcome by .... oh well, you get the point.

And the beat goes on. Sleep soundly and stay out of the way, knowing the NRA, is "on that wall for YOU!", as Colonel Jessup (played by Jack Nickolson) sneeringly pontificats in "A Few Good Men".

Maxx the Moocher

Might want to take a look at this Bev before you go running your mouth...

Poll: Americans Don't Really Like the Job Obama's Doing

Maxx, you might want to find out the cross tabs.

Crosstabs provide fine-grained results by demographic group (e.g. how do men vs. women feel about this issue?). We can generate crosstabs based on any demographic information you include in your phone list, and also from answers to other survey questions (e.g. do you plan on voting?).

http://www.precisionpolling.com/features/crosstabs

Gallup Polls have been known in the past for their accuracy in predicting the outcome of United States presidential elections, though they have come under criticism more recently

Poll analyst Nate Silver found that Gallup's results were the least accurate of the 23 major polling firms Silver analyzed, having the highest incorrect average of being 7.2 points away from the final result.^[6]

In 2012, noted poll analyst Mark Blumenthal criticized Gallup for a slight but routine under-weighting of black and Hispanic Americans that led to an approximately 2% shift of support away from Barack Obama.

In 2013, the accuracy of Gallup polling on the question of religious faith has also been questioned.[11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_%28company%29#Gallup_Poll

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

I've heard Chuck Todd say he doesn't like Gallup that much.

"Constitutional rights are designed to be protected not just when they're popular but especially when passions are seeking to restrict and limit those rights," said Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz,

Hey there Cruzie......how about protecting a womans' Constitutional right to choice, privacy. Protect that!

I did not call any Liberals racist, but many Conservatives on here have been called racist. When I was ten my grandfather and I read "Uncle Tom's Cabin". I cried through the entire second half of the book. I had no idea this kind of behavior even existed until then. As was pointed out in the movie "Lincoln", many Southerners were Democrats and opposed to the ending of slavery. My ancestors fought to end slavery. I have many friends of many different nationalities. The problem is Liberals want to put labels on anyone who disagrees with them. There is no searching for common ground any more. There is no tolerance for being different. I find that as appalling as being racist. You can read anything you want into what I said, I am proud to be an American, but I am not proud of what this country is turning into.

GreenTimer

"A Few Good Men". ...One good woman is always a better plan. Oh, and one at a time is healthier.

Does WCA mean exploiting like Bush 43 exploited the 9/11 victims, the military, etc? Seems the right's view is that "exploiting" only occurs when a democrat is president and when a republican is, they are "invited guests"! Give it a rest, WCA and those like him; you wouldn't have a nice thing to say while President Obama is in office if you were the ones "invited".

Looks like JerseyGirl read Roger Ailes comment about President Obama labeling people when it is the conservatives who do what they claim the other side does.

If these boards are a sample of what is going on out in the WHOLE U.S.A., no wonder there is division amid the masses. Do you people actually talk like this every day in your r/t lives or it simply because this is a blog board and you want to get your frustrations out? Washington is corrupt. It does not matter which party it is. Grab your stress ball... give it a good squeeze... and say Hello to someone... Ask them how they are doing. Good grief. *shakes my head*

blackcatwhitecat, # 1.35,

Right-oo! One woman is "As Good As It Gets", 'cause anymore than one would mean "Something's Gotta Give".

Jack Nicholson knows.

White Collar Auto

"Good to see First Read is keeping a running tally on the People being exploited by the White House tonight"

I was just about to ask what ever happened to good ol' White holler Otto!... Looks like nothing.

Bummer.

So Greatly, that "stress ball" isn't doing you much good. This is a political chat site; we come here to express our views, disagree and, at times, annoy each other. If you don't like it, no one requires you to stay.

Man the KKK rep's are out in force today. White SS collar and Ozz and Jersy girl. Glad to see your heads about to bust open. God forbid you crazy people can't have your AR-15 and the 100 round clips. Why don't you all take those WMD's of yours and move to TX. then leave the Union and we will see how long you last. Then we will see what the NRA will do for you then.

Part of the purpose of the Constitution is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to all of the people of the United States.

When the ability of a person to cling to their little metal rod while they plan to KILL interferes with anyone else's liberty, justice and domestic tranquility; we must regulate and restrict the ability of a gun owner to obtain the false sense of security they desire.

We regulate religion, prohibiting practices which harm, or carry an excessive risk of harm to others, or which require violation of a law (No human sacrifices and no peyote smoking) even though religion is protected in the FIRST amendment.

There is nothing special about the second amendment which prevents guns from being properly regulated.

Anyone who thinks to the contrary can bring their 50mm fully automatic cannon to the state of the union address, open carry or conceal carry, if you have the permit (and can conceal a 50mm cannon.)

dari43, laws regarding drunk driving have reduced the numbers substantially. This notion that no law can prevent all deaths means don't bother trying to reduce the numbers is absurd. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that guarantees any citizen the right to own military weapons intended to fight wars. No one is taking away the rights of sportsmen or hunters or the right to protect one's person or personal property....but you don't need a Bushmaster to shoot a rabbit or protect one's self, and you sure as heck aren't going to walk around your home with it thrown over your shoulder as protection. Read Scalia's Heller decision on guns, you might be surprised to learn that we don't have a right to own any kind of weapon we want.

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

Hey Jody... same things apply when responding to posts that do not match one's own thoughts. It is a two way street. *smiles*

Beverly in Chicago,

Jerswy Girl, you obviously watch FOX; particularly slant head Sean Hannity, Bill o'reilly or visit right wing nut job websites POX's echo chamber.

Toxic Fox news started a war on everything; including Karl Rove now.

War on Christmas

War on Muslims

War on LBGT

War on Immigrants and Hispanics

War on Women

War on anti-gun control

War on on the economy

War on imagined voter fraud

War on Black people

SO BASICALLY FOX IS FIGHTING FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

War on Christmas? How about Freedom of Religion?

War on Muslims? Actually they focus on Terror Groups such as the Taliban, The Muslim Brotherhood, etc.

War on LGBT? Actually no. Again, Freedom of Religion. Also, freedom of Speech.

War on Immigrants And Hispanics? No, Enforcing laws and the constitution regarding immigration rather than IGNORING the laws as Obama has is not a War on Immigrants and Hispanics who are considered White by the way. Fox and republicans have no problem with LEGAL Immigration.

War on Women? No, that was fabricated by Obama & Co. All the repubs said to that was don't make people pay for contraception because it violates their Religious beliefs. Make the people that want the drugs pay for it. No one is advocating the control of a woman's body.

War on Anti-Gun Control? HELL YES. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ITS NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND

War on the Economy? Controlling Spending and Asking for a budget is a war on the Economy? Guess you don't mind that our children are over $100,000 in debt the day they are born. If Bush added over $6,000,000,000,000 in four years the Dems would have called for his Impeachment. A Dem spends that money and there is not spending problem, but a revenue problem and taxes need to be increased. Bunch of hypocritical idiots.

War on Voter Fraud? No. Voter ID requirements don't punish or restrict anyone from voting. GA institued voter ID requirements in the 2004 election and there were no reports of anyone being restricted from obtaining a FREE ID to vote.

War on Black People? Your joking right? Reporting facts is a war on black people? You might want to listen to some of the programs. Listen to the talk radio shows that are liberal and primarily black and see who is keeping race an issue. I listen to WAOK in GA everyday, and I'm dumbfounded at the lack of intellegence of some of the callers, and dumbfounded that a lot of the callers felt it was ok for Chris Dorner to gun down cops in CA. They also think it's ok to have drones flying in the US to kill Americans. It's not a war on black people. It's a war on ignorance which is color blind.

You should stop drinking the Kool-Aid and listen to all sides, do your own research, and form a well thought out conclusion based on facts rather than the propoganda BS being slung by the media and the Dems. You just might find that you would identify with Conservatives if you actually used your brain.

dirp, your heart is in the right place, but your mind isn't keeping up. The people that kill with guns generally aren't legal gun owners. They're usually criminals that have bought guns illegally, or people that the law says shouldn't have them but fall through the cracks (look up how the national background check tracks to mental health issues, the answer is: not well). Banning assault rifles will only save a handful of lives every year. We'd be better off banning SUVs. They kill more people. Even banning all guns would only help so much. Look at China. Their murderous wackos come to schools with knives, swords, and hammers to kill kids.

While we're on the topic, let's compare a gun ban to most other laws. Most other laws ban behavior, and provide punishments for violating those behaviors we don't like. We don't ban alcohol or cars, we ban drunk driving. We don't ban crowbars and ski masks, we ban theft. We don't ban swords, knives, axes, or most poisons, we ban using them to kill people (murder). Why are guns so different? They're just tools. If the people using them really want to kill someone, they'll use another tool. The UK showed that when they found that, after they banned guns, their gangs started buying knock-off katanas and killing each other with those. So they banned the katanas. Now they're using other weapons.

Chuck,

We are allowed to own AR-15s. We are allowed to own M-16's which are the actual full auto military grade asasult weapons. It's 100 round drums. Not clips. If everyone moved to TX that owned firearms, then it would be the safest country in the world. It would last forever because those people would be able to hunt for food, protect themselves from invading armies if any were dumb enough to try, protect their homes and families if any criminal were dumb enough to even try.

The Union would fall to third world status because criminals would have free rein on the population, because no one would be able to fight back. Think of the South Side of Chicago as a good example of how things would look in a Liberal world.

dari43, so you feel that since laws are violated, then we should not have laws.

Do you feel that since rape still happens even though it is illegal, then laws against rape do not prevent rape, and so there is no good reason to outlaw rape?

Same question for murder, speeding, tax evasion, building codes, disease quarentines, shop lifting, contract violations, etc, etc.

Maybe you think that our drug scene is no better than Mexico's because of our worthless drug laws.

If you like lawlessness, you should visit Somolia. Far as I've heard, nothing is forbidden in Somolia.

Hey Ruken, just couldn't stay away, could you?

So as a responsible gun owner, I have no problem with closing the private sale loophole, making sure everybody who has a gun is registered for it, limiting clips for high-powered weapons, and just outright banning some of the military-style death machines.

BUT, some of the state lawmakers are going overboard. In California, the legislature is drafting rules to force ALL gun owners to take an hours-long safety class every year, pay yearly insurance (for the damage your gun might possibly cause), and pay a state-added tax for ammo. None of these items plays any role in reducing gun violence, so they cannot be understood as anything other than a punishment for the 'sin' of owning ANY gun, like the tobacco laws.

As a democrat, I'm a bit disappointed in CA. This kind of stuff leaves us open to the charge that we are indeed going after ALL guns and, like the opponents of abortion, are trying to circumvent the constitution by making ANY gun ownership, as a practical matter, impossible in the states controlled by dems. There are steps which can be taken to reduce gun violence, and many of those are possible to achieve; let's not overreach (just because we can in a few states) and end up with a backlash at the next election. Let's not feed into the right wing paranoia.

I watch CNN as much as I watch Fox News because I like a variety of input, then I make up my own mind. I have a college education and can disseminate information without having to walk a party line. I have been just as critical of George Bush as I have been with Barack Obama. I was very outspoken about going into Iraq and very much against it. But since we did go there, I thought we should win the war and not walk away the way Bush Senior did during Kuwait. I am very much against Presidents using over reaching powers, I don't care which party is doing it. I believe in the Constitution and the separation of powers. It has worked for us for over two hundred years and I believe that is the main thing that has set us apart from other Nations. I believe in smaller government, this over bloating of government could be our downfall. I also believe that States should have more power and say than the Federal Government because there is not a one size fits all when it comes to what States needs are. I certainly don't think the Federal Government belongs in the education business. I attended school prior to the Federal Government seizing education. I received a very well rounded education. We had great teachers, great curriculum and great school lunches. Again, I think States are better equipped to run schools and are more in tuned to what is needed to have more children attend school and graduate. So for you small peon Liberal brains who walk lockstep with MSN, I feel sorry for you that you have no ability to think beyond what you are told.

Dawg: Have you ever been to TX. I am guessing not. TX Deer are no bigger then my dog. They do not have Water down there. You can't breath because of the Refineries. And the people down there are dumber then a box of rocks. There are only a few states that you can own a fully Automatic weapon and TX is one of them. Hell you can drink and drive in TX. Did you know that to? I am glad Ted Nugent moved his crazy butt to TX. Good place for the Crazy SOB. Like I said, if TX wants to leave the union, I say good reddens. Mexico will get TX back the way it should be. And as to the guns you say you can own. The idle is to keep those guns out of the hands of the crazy people. I can see why your afraid.

I want every victim of illegal immigration to stand!

--------------Every American would have to stand, because each and every American has paid higher taxes, been a victim of crime, had their child wait for an illegal child to learn, has paid increased health care charges, etc.

HOW MANY AMERICANS HAVE BEEN KILLED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? Thousands

Do you feel that since rape still happens even though it is illegal, then laws against rape do not prevent rape, and so there is no good reason to outlaw rape?

Same question for murder, speeding, tax evasion, building codes, disease quarentines, shop lifting, contract violations, etc, etc.

Maybe you think that our drug scene is no better than Mexico's because of our worthless drug laws.

Rape, murder, theft, etc. are illegal because in committing one of those acts you harm another person. How is the simply ownership of a semi automatic rifle hurting anyone? How is the simple use of drugs hurting anyone? If people use a gun to kill someone then yes they should be put in jail. If they drive while under the influence and kill someone then they should be arrested as well. But what gives the government the right to say that I can't own a gun or that I can't do drugs? Laws are not necessarily preventative, they are there to punish people who break this societal understanding of right and wrong. I don't need a law to tell me that I shouldn't shoot up a school. But the law exists because some people won't follow the near universal sentiment that shooting up schools is wrong. No one is suggesting that we should remove all laws. But laws that limit personal liberty are antithetical to everything this country supposedly stands for.

Jersy; You sound more like a liberality. And that is a good thing. We all want smaller government. It just comes down to how we get there. Do you trust Representative? Local, state and Federal? I sure don't, because they have all been bought off buy big business. The federal government didn't take over schools. But the Fed does a lot of funding when states run out of money like most of them did. Everyone hates big government until they need the Government. Look at Chris Christy, Look at Charlie Chris, Even the TX governor wanted the money from the government to put out the fires down there. They all wanted that money when they needed it. Jeray, do you not what the Government to help your people if you live in NJ? I live in Mich and I want the Government to help those people, same in FL, TX, and anywhere else in this country. That's what we do as a Nation, We help one another. I know that sounds socialist. But that's what we have always done. And yew we have had to borrow the money some times. Hell we help other country's all the time, but we wont help our own. This Gun mess. I own guns, but I can see no reason for anyone to own an AR 15 or anything like them. But like everything there could be some exceptions. Like if you live on the border of Mexico. That is a war zone. Maybe in some other states. But you can't hunt with these guns. they are made to kill men not deer. If you can't kill a deer with the 6 shoots your are allowed to hunt with, then you have no business in the woods to start with.

Steve,

There is a HUGE difference. These people were directly affected by the unrestricted gun ownership wet dreams of the NRA. The NRA tried to use the President's kids as a political tool by insinuating that the Presidential family should not be more protected than the rest of us.

It is such a simple difference I find it amazing that you cannot make that distinction yourself.

chuck-2111043 " I own guns, but I can see no reason for anyone to own an AR 15 or anything like them. <snip> But you can't hunt with these guns. they are made to kill men not deer."

Chuck, It's reasoning like this that will continue our path down the slippery slope to firearm take-away. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle made so it looks like a weapon of war. It does not function any differently than any other semi-automatic rifle. Taking the ugly guns first is just how to keep the ball rolling. Next is "assault pistols", then "assault shotguns", then the rest of our firearms.

And BTW, you can't hunt with an AR-15 because it's underpowered for big game. The minimum hunting rifle in many states is more gun than the .223 an AR-15 uses.

Dawgfan, please do not use the US Constitution to enshrine the legitimacy of popular fads.

Fox News invented the term "War on Christmas" to apply to those who do not recognize Christmas as a religious holiday. There is no Constitutional mandate to celebrate Christmas.

War on Women was invented by liberal politicians to apply to laws passed by states that required women to submit to vaginal probes and other conditions in order to abort a fetus. There is no Constitutional mandate to give birth.

Please tell me how one focuses on the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood without focusing on Muslims in general.

Please explaing what freedom of religion and freedom of speech have to do with prohibiting LGBT from full equality under the law.

I am so glad that Fox News and Republicans are in favor of LEGAL immigration. Please let me know what they would do differently than what the Bush and Obama admins have done.

So you are entirely in favor of requiring everyone who keeps and bears arms to join a well regulated militia?

Demand drives a capitalist economy. More and more wage earners making more and more wages creates demand. The private sector is sitting on trillions of cash that it will not invest because there is no demand. Only the public sector can spend money for the private sector to hire wage earners to build roads, bridges, shipping lanes, etc. This stimulates demand and generates tax revenue to decrease the public debt.

The lack of any plans to insure the integrity of counting every vote demonstrates that Republicans and Fox News have no interest in stopping voter fraud.

The opposition party always speaks against the policies of President of the other party. The opposition party does not inpugn the personal integrity or patriotism of that president - until our first black president. When was the last time a United States' President was demanded for his birth certificate? When was the last time the opposition party's sole job was to prevent the re-election of a President? When was the last time a TV network proclaimed that a President wanted America to fail?

Disagreements do not constitute war, and fads are not protected by the Constitution.

Peace.

GreenTimer - "So you are entirely in favor of requiring everyone who keeps and bears arms to join a well regulated militia?"

Greentimer, Many who keep and bear arms are already in the militia - "every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft), and former members of the armed forces up to age 65."

Assuming you would not discriminate against women, make that say "every able-bodied person". Assuming you would not discriminate against the physically handicapped, make that "every person". Take out the age discrimination and we now have "every person of at least 17 years of age".

Well regulated as used in this context is defined as "sufficiently armed and accoutered".

So yes, everyone is already in the militia and keeping arms is part of our responsibility to "ensure the security of a free state".

Seeking...

This coming from a person that can't spell "racist". You know...people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

White Collar Auto

Hey Ruken, just couldn't stay away, could you?

you mean Le Femme Portfolio? Yeah Ruken is a real piece of work, kinda interesting how shltheads like her think eminent domain is wealth redistribution.

Dont be so hard on her WCA, its not easy being a professional moron

Reasonable: so, I guess when we bring the boys and girls home from Afghanistan, we won't need a Permanent standing Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force anymore because we have all the yahoos with their wanna be M16's to "ensure the security of the free state."

I'm sure the entire country will be in agreement with you.

Heck, we can almost eliminate the entire budget deficit, just eliminate most of the Department of Defense, we have all those "able bodied persons" ready to run to our defense.

Oh, yeah, except for one thing, this is the 21st Century and measures written into the Constitution in the 18th century, like slavery, and "right to keep and bear arms" just don't matter anymore.

dirp - "Oh, yeah, except for one thing, this is the 21st Century and measures written into the Constitution in the 18th century, like slavery, and "right to keep and bear arms" just don't matter anymore."

Any other clauses you would like to edit out while you're at it? If we no longer need a Second Amendment, how about the First? Cancel my right to disagree with you? Maybe restrict my ability to worship or not as I see fit, instead of follow the State mantra? Pick a few more to cancel?

It's a package deal. If you believe in these unalienable rights, you may not infringe upon them.

Careful Dirp, your right to free speech will 'not matter anymore' when the government is done disarming the American people and there is no longer anyone to stand for the rights our founding fathers intended us to have and protect.

ReasonableApproach

I asked about "requiring" every arms owner to become a part of a well regulated militia. The fact that "many" gun owners are in the militia means that some percentage of gun owners are not in a militia. So you in fact do not agree with the second amendment's essential condition of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated militia, which you propose is automatically made up of every gun owner in America, would not engage in the killing of 10,000 US citizens every year.

To attach a definition of "armed" to "well regulated" is specious. The temperature in my house is well regulated and very much unarmed. The same could be said for NBA games, commercial air traffic, holy communion, accreditation of university courses and soldiers marching in a Fouth of July parade down Main Street - all well regulated and all unarmed.

GreenTimer - "I asked about "requiring" every arms owner to become a part of a well regulated militia. The fact that "many" gun owners are in the militia means that some percentage of gun owners are not in a militia. So you in fact do not agree with the second amendment's essential condition of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms.

The definition of militia in use when the amendment was written, as adjusted to eliminate age and sex discrimination, means every American citizen over 17 is in the militia, so I do agree with you, as we are all already in the militia.

GreenTimer - "To attach a definition of "armed" to "well regulated" is specious. The temperature in my house is well regulated and very much unarmed. The same could be said for NBA games, commercial air traffic, holy communion, accreditation of university courses and soldiers marching in a Fouth of July parade down Main Street - all well regulated and all unarmed."

The meaning of some words have been known to change over time. "Regulated" in this context is one of them. Please feel free to search on the phrase "Meaning of well regulated militia" and avail yourself of the great deal of research about the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

I hope you don't mind my belated response, everyone else seems to have moved on to one of the newer threads...

well we can pass law after law trying to control this or that.....until we are willing to deal with violence instead of the weapon we will never get anywhere. I have guns and they've never killed anyone.....why, I dont kill. so leave me alone.

Nobody is bugging you, Dan, unless you are saying you want the right not to report your gun if it's stolen.

Amy, I think we are wasting our valuable time with some of these people on here. They don't care about other people, what a person or family goes through when grieving for a family member who's been riddled with bullets. They don't care, because their guns mean more to them than human life. They are a pitiful and pathetic bunch of non-humans. Just wait and see. This article will get thousands of comments because it has that all consuming word g u n s in the title, while other articles will get maybe 100 comments today. These are people who are of the same ilk as Ted Nugent and the @!$%# that's bringing him to the SOTU.

Dan, you and others can say you don't kill, but we don't know that. For all we know, you are Christopher Dorner, the man wanted for three murders in California. Maybe we should just leave him alone, too.

Amy B. Portland, ME

a Wisconsin National Rifle Association lobbyist who told a local gathering that the NRA's agenda would be "delayed as the 'Connecticut effect' has to go through the process.

As soon as the outrage over the Newtown shootings, subsides, there will be another mass shooting to rile us up. That's the point. How many of these tragedies have to happen before the country addresses ways to curb the violence?

Amy, that's what they want. So they can spew more nonsense about the safety of guns.

AlaskaGirl, and Bev, it bothers me that folks act like gun control means taking away their right to bear arms. It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Nothing the President is proposing would take away Dan's right to own a gun.

Owning and using a gun should be like owning and driving a car. Regulate training, register and license. Had these steps been in place 25 to 50 years ago, we most likely would not be having this debate.

Guess what, the second amendment would have still been in place, and the Nations People would be seeing a lot less gun deaths.

However, the NRA makes a lot of money from the gun manufactures, and that blood money is more important to them than the lives of our citizens.

Simple!

I want gun control to be exactly like owning and driving a car and one step farther, I want important data collected and reported as it should have been in the first case! NRA doesn't get to call the shots any longer...

Not simple.

The Christopher Dorner story, for example, muddies the waters considerably. Not a law proposed, nor any presently on the books would have had any affect on Dorner's rampage and subsequent shootings. This guy was a cop, felt he was wronged by the department, killed three people, and promises more. Today's LA Times story has the LAPD perplexed in their search - is Dorner whacked out, or is he cold, calculating, and rational? He has so far eluded capture, carrying a $1 million bounty on his head.

The point is this story blows holes in both sides of the gun control debate. One extreme would contend guns are so evil you can not even trust cops with them while the other side howls about everyone needing to be armed to protect ourselves against the Dorners that are behind every tree. The rest of us stand by in various states of confusion with no good answer on how to stem the carnage.

You folks realize that owning and driving a car isn't in the Constitution.

Right?

You do know how many people are killed by people breaking the existing laws while driving a car.

Right?

Mark in SoCal

There are times Mark when I feel you are far to sane for this site ... must be the excellent vintages of Pinot Noire.

Children all over the world get killed by weapons everyday, what makes you think that the U.S. is any different? The world is a nasty place!

So in the Liberal mind if we have strict gun laws the violence will stop? Do some research on Chicago and think again. Why give the government more control over our lives when we know for a fact that it isn't the guns..it is the crazy people using the guns. This is just another useless agenda that will do nothing but makes liberals look like they actually care about human life.

I'll raise a glass to you, BCWC! Finest vintage.

Do some research on Chicago and think again....and compare it to New York City which has tougher gun laws and far less gun violence.

SHAWN - totally ridiculous post since the rest of the world - where guns are severely restricted - have far fewer shootings than the US. Try again!

Amy B: I think it is *you* that needs to do some research.

NYC and Chicago both have very strict gun laws. In the state of Illinois, they do not even allow carry permits. All owners are required to have an FOID card, and are required to undergo training and such.

I suppose you have no issues with "Stop and Frisk" and other overreaching policies, either?

All the liberal lefties want is for the Federal Government to decide everything for them since they can't think for themselves. Automatic assault weapons are ALREADY against the law and controlled by the Federal Government. Everyone knew that the so called "Assault weapons Ban of 1994 (?)" did nothing to curb gun violence.

Leave gun control up to the individual states. CA, NY, Conn for example have strict gun control laws (stricter than any Federal law was). When are people going to get it in their heads that ONE SIZE FITS ALL FEDERAL LAW does not work except to make some politicians and their followers to feel good? If one doesn't want to own a pistol or semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, no one is forcing them to buy or keep one.

You folks realize that owning and driving a car isn't in the Constitution.

Perhaps not, but cars and their manufacturers sure are regulated.....From the point of manufacture up to and through ownership by an individual!

We need sensible, minimum, federal gun laws. If states want tougher ones, fine. Right now we have 50 different sets of state laws and thousands of city laws within those 50 states. Chicago is a perfect example of my point; it has tough gun laws but all anyone needs to do is drive outside of Chicago to another town and buy the guns. That's part of our problem.

Mark, I agree with you. I was just making a point to the guy that says he has guns and hasn't killed anyone. Like I said, for all we know he could be Dorner. I agree with your assessment that this is a very complex and very heated debate in regards to gun safety measures. Nobody seems to want to come to the middle. The extreme right doesn't seem to want anything done, while the left tries to throw stuff out there that may help. All the while, the NRA is holding a gun to our collective heads while the weapons manufacturers and bullet makers are laughing it all the way to the bank, cashing in on this blood splattered country that is America.

sfcret: Wrong.

dari43 - You are partially right regarding the status of our mental system

However FYI, Reagan is the reason so many mentally ill people are on the streets and do not get much assistance; he guided the passage of law(s) to close down thousands of mental institutions arcross the nation and with the Republicans dominating the Presidency for the majority of the past 30 plus years things went downhill from there for people needing mental health.

George Washington is probably turning over in his grave.

The Real Rationale for the 2nd Amendment, That Right-Wingers Are Totally Ignorant About

On Oct. 22, 1786, in a letter seeking more information about the rebellion from a friend in Connecticut, Washington wrote: “I am mortified beyond expression that in the moment of our acknowledged independence we should by our conduct verify the predictions of our transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and contemptible in the eyes of all Europe

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/real-rationale-2nd-amendment-right-wingers-are-totally-ignorant-about?page=0%2C0

Jody - So in your opinion, the Federal Government needs to enact a minimum gun control law, even if the States have tougher laws, which makes the Federal laws meaningless. I believe the Federal Government already has gun control laws on the books. There are far to many Federal laws on the books now. Don't you think the States are better equipped to decide what gun control laws are best for their purposes instead of "one size fits all"?

A big obstacle to commonsense gun control is the Right’s false historical narrative that the Founders wanted an armed American public that could fight its own government.

In another letter on Nov. 7, 1786, Washington questioned Gen. Lincoln about the spreading unrest. “What is the cause of all these commotions? When and how will they end?” Lincoln responded: “Many of them appear to be absolutely so [mad] if an attempt to annihilate our present constitution and dissolve the present government can be considered as evidence of insanity.”

In 1794, President Washington, who was determined to demonstrate the young government’s resolve, led a combined force of state militias against the Whiskey rebels. Their revolt soon collapsed and order was restored, demonstrating how the Second Amendment helped serve the government in maintaining “security,” as the Amendment says.

Beyond this clear historical record – that the Framers’ intent was to create security for the new Republic, not promote armed rebellions – there is also the simple logic that the Framers represented the young nation’s aristocracy. Many, like Washington, owned vast tracts of land. They recognized that a strong central government and domestic tranquility were in their economic interests.

So, it would be counterintuitive – as well as anti-historical – to believe that Madison and Washington wanted to arm the population so the discontented could resist the constitutionally elected government. In reality, the Framers wanted to arm the people – at least the white males – so uprisings, whether economic clashes like Shays’ Rebellion, anti-tax protests like the Whiskey Rebellion, attacks by Native Americans or slave revolts, could be repulsed.

However, the Right has invested heavily during the last several decades in fabricating a different national narrative, one that ignores both logic and the historical record. In this right-wing fantasy, the Framers wanted everyone to have a gun so they could violently resist their own government.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/real-rationale-2nd-amendment-right-wingers-are-totally-ignorant-about?page=0%2C1

To the dumb a$$ that said we libs just want the government to do the thinking for us and the Assault weapon ban did nothing. Well your wrong. We didn't see these mass killings all the time. One person with an AR 15 killing 20 kids in under a minute. Yes the killings still went on. But not like this, what we are seeing today. We have hit critical Mass in this country and the NRA does not call the shots anymore. We the masses will be strong enough very soon to stop the NRA dead in its tracks. NRA said they just have to let things settle down from Newtown and the people will forget about it and things will go on as normal. Sorry about that NRA, We will not forget. NRA your days are numbered. You might fool some small minded people into thinking the Government is coming to take all there guns. But sooner or later that lie will have played itself out and the scared little minded people will figure you out and faster then you think. Maybe getting the Motor city mad man to help you by getting on stage and making statements that he will shoot the President himself if he was re-elected. That big mouth wasn't so bad when the Secret Service came looking for him. He tucked his tail in a hurry. The small minded people might be a bit slow, but they will figure it out soon enough and will know the NRA has duped them into buying up all the guns that made the NRA's bosses huge Profits. Hell these AR are selling at twice the price they were before the Newtown shootings. Man what sell job the NRA has done on the small minded people of this country. There should be a law that don't allow people like the NRA to take such advantage of people that are not able to think for them self's.

Mark in SoCal, good points. There is a middle ground to be found for both sides.

I have said before, I am not anti-gun, have family members who enjoy hunting. My uncle, who owns hunting guns, recently mentioned his grandson who thought it would be a good idea to have a concealed carry permit. I think my uncle caught the attitude of many who think like his grandson,--how cool is that, I've got a gun and can carry it everywhere, look at me. My uncle didn't mince words with the young man, told him it was a dumb idea because he could get in a disagreement with someone, maybe some tough guy would pick a fight, and he'd accidentally shoot that person--he asked the kid, and where do you think you'll end up for killing or injuring someone? Prison, no, that's a dumb idea.

There's an element of macho coolness for some regarding gun ownership, to have concealed carry permits, to trot around bragging about the Bushmasters, AK-15, owned, etc. One part of our problem is this "cocky", hot-shot, show-off gun mentality that too often ends up in disaster on the streets of Chicago, and hundreds of other cities across the country. Add that to drugs, and turf wars, and we have the disaster we see play out nationwide.

Sensible gun laws, better access to mental health care are factors but we must also add to the discussion our failed war on drugs and poverty.

sfcret, no, that's not what I said. However, I should have stated what I think those minimum federal laws should include: universal background checks, straw-man purchases should be criminal, close gun show loopholes, and limit the size of magazine clips; I'd also like to see a ban military-assault weapons because no one needs them for hunting or self-defense. I said the federal government needs to enact sensible guns laws to be applied to all 50 states. If states want to have stricter laws beyond that, then it is up to the states but at least the 50 states' laws must be equal to the federal laws. My guess is that the laws I mention as minimum would pretty much meet what the state's with tougher gun laws have in place.

That is how OSHA works; the federal law establishes minimum safety and health regulations; state regulations must be equal to or better than the federal standards.

Beverly in Chicago,

Think about where our founding fathers came from. In their time and earlier, the peasants (vast majority) were not allowed anything like a weapon (even down to pitchforks in some places) while the wealthy land owners (very small minority) employed private armies (with the only weapons) and used these armies to oppress and control the peasants and force them to labor under whatever rules and conditions the wealthy saw fit. These 'government regulations' meant that the peasants did not have the means with which to defend themselves from the 'government' and ensure their own basic rights. The framers of our constitution knew this very well and in part, because human nature is to get what you can and then protect it by any means necessary, they wanted to ensure the right of every person (peasant and wealthy land owner alike) to defend themselves, as well as the government, from those who would endeavour to enslave and oppress the people of this great, new country.

Obama's speech received a generally tepid response because it was eminently predictable. However, his speech's low point was when he mentioned gun control because this is a topic where even many of his democrat supporters abandon him.

The reason for the unpopularity of any new anti-gun laws is that by now, only the really dense haven't figured out that shootings such as Newtown are merely cover for his long desired and long planned push for the disarming of the American people.

Everything he proposes has absolutely zero to do with preventing any gun violence at all and is all about disarming the law abiding citizen. He will fail.

#4 Michigan vs #8 Michigan State 9 pm EST.

SOTU 9 pm EST

Man that's an easy choice.

Pitchers and catchers report today.

Just one? Is this not a three ring circus tonight?

Pitchers and catchers report today.

there is no truer sign of the approaching big melt.

deaths due to automobile crashes have gone down thanks to seat belt laws and industry regulations. Why in the wold wouldn't we look at ways to reduce the criminal use of firearms?

Your comparisons only prove that you are ignorant and unwilling to participate in making this country safer for all of us. Oh, but wait, just as long as we leave you alone.

I don’t support the NRA because all they are trying to do is gin up their base of with fear. So what if every proposal made by the President became law. It would not affect my second amendment rights.

Many that hate any type of gun control are uneducated white men who think that carrying an assault rifle will make them bigger men.

Job1.....another clueless liberal response......I belong to the oldest rifle club in the USA and our 7000 members are doctors, lawyers, policemen, hunters, members of the national guard, teachers, and engineers. Alot of us own semiautomatic rifles. Pretty unfair characterization of gun owners on your part.

Amy..because criminals don't care about the laws, that is why they are called criminals...wow use your head....

Job1...there is not a gun made to make you look like a bigger man...

Amy (and everyone else for that matter),

We have already made it illegal to kill someone and yet it keeps happening. Do you honestly think that a person intent on killing is going to stop and think 'oh wait, this gun is against the law, I'd better get a different one' before they murder someone? I'll help you here - No, they won't give it a split second of thought. Do you think that the 2 seconds it takes to throw a new magazine in a gun will give a 1st grader a better chance at responding and escaping or subduing their attacker? Again, no it won't. Yes, the deaths are tragic and the pain the families and friends must endure is terrible but making guns and associated peripherals illegal will not stop their illegal use by criminals in pursuit of criminal activity. The only part of our population affected by new laws is the part that actually obeys those laws, this is the reason that gun owners find new controls and bans to be an infringement on our rights.

As for your assertion that automobile related deaths have declined, you are correct. However this is not because we outlawed certain types of cars or restricted their passenger capacity or even put restrictions on how fast they are capable of going. There was renewed attention given to proper training and screening for those who wanted to operate a vehicle and even with those improvements, automobiles still kill more people each year than all types of guns combined in the U.S. I see no problem with having to pass a background check to purchase a gun, it will be nearly impossible to enforce that on private sales though (and you can bet not a single criminal will submit for a background check to buy or sell a gun). I do not agree with any idea to create a national, state or local registry of who owns a gun or what type and how much ammo they have because data like that are notorious for being 'leaked' or hacked and abused.

I have owned guns and kept them in my house since I was 14 and raised 4 kids with those guns in my house. In the last 32 years (yes I am showing my age) I have NEVER seen one of my guns shoot by itself, threaten anyone, get angry or even express any emotion at all. None of them have even so much as pointed themselves in any direction without my help. My children knew that they were not to be touched, EVER. I have had guns with considerably more power than the AR-15 and guns with less and yet nobody has died or been wounded by a single one of them. I do however know that they are there in case of an emergency where a gun would be the appropriate response.

Our focus should not be on the tool that is used (we will NEVER be able to control all potential tools of death even if criminals did start obeying those laws) but rather on the individual that is using the tool. I can't say that I have the end all answer to how to address the social, economic, moral or psychological issues involved but those are the areas that need to be addressed and in my humble opinion will be the only way to have success in reducing the violence that has created this heartbreak and emotional response to gun ownership.

More and more people, sane or not, are using guns as an answer to their problems. Guns enable violence... they're everywhere, easy to get and are glorified in movies and on tv. Until society is able to identify those who will use violence to solve their problems, we have no choice but to strictly regulate gun ownership. Responsible gun owners, NRA.... try being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

The majority of the people (the ones with common sense) agree with me on gun regulations. However, there are people that live in the shadows or the fringe that fear their own shadows!!!

Regulate training, register and license. Had these steps been in place 25 to 50 years ago, we most likely would not be having this debate.

Dan that is just what we need to do. Free markets means company's can sell anything to us no matter if it will kill us. Less look at tobacco. We know it kills people. Why is it allowed to be sold. There were cars made that were death traps and the Auto company's knew it. But they were allowed to be sold. There are foods that we know kill people and give them diabetes. But if we stopped selling them, the drug company's would go broke, now wouldn't they. It goes on and on. And its all rigged to take our money from us. Kinda like the old company stores. Free market is rigged and we American's pay the price. Supply and demand has nothing to do with it. Look at the drug problem we have. No one tries to stop the flow of drugs into this country. To many people making tons of money off of it. And we all know it. Why do you think it was so easy for OBL to carry out his plan for America? He knew the greed here would do his job for him. He just had to get the ball rolling and walstreed did the rest for him. Worked like a charm. Hell he said that himself. You see in this country, someone can sell you something that will kill you and its ok as long as someone can make money form it.

Antha,

When will it become clear that the ONLY people who will pay ANY attention to new (or existing) laws are the law abiding citizens and NOT the criminals and deranged people? Can you not understand that, being criminals, they will most likely NOT acquire the weapons they use thru legal channels that can be regulated and therefore your precious extra regulations and laws will be rendered ineffective before they are even presented and voted upon? Baseball bats enable violence, knives enable violence, rocks enable violence, automobiles enable violence, bottles enable violence, airplanes enable violence, 2x4s enable violence, pitchforks enable violence... the list can go on to include pretty much anything and everything a human can grasp and manipulate. I suspect that you wouldn't propose strictly regulating every possible 'tool' imaginable (although, I could be wrong).

Job1,

I do not own guns because I live in fear, however, I do not need to live in fear because I own guns. I certainly do not live in the shadows or in fear of my own shadow. I agree that training is EXTREMELY important to safe and sane gun ownership. Registration and licensing is still bugging me for previously mentioned reasons.

Amy B. Portland, ME

"deaths due to automobile crashes have gone down thanks to seat belt laws and industry regulations. Why in the wold wouldn't we look at ways to reduce the criminal use of firearms?"

Violent crime is down 50% over the last 20 years, continue ignoring the facts.

Is this a serious post?

Chris never been a Rhodes Scholar - it is! And, has much more value than ANYTHING you've posted - ever!

wow the bs keeps coming and the sheep keep following...lol

Chris,

Why not? It seems gun articles here at FR just bring out excessive ugliness in posters and a feel-good story is fine tonic.

Thanks for sharing this post, Pat. What a moment for Ms. Victor. Imagine being 102 and waiting in line for hours to vote. The states' failure to address this situation is horrible. And notice that you never hear of long lines in Republican polling places.

Pat, thank you for that very informative and significant link.

As far as I'm concerned the face of the problem is the GOP'S voter suppression.

Students are know the target of Republican voter suppression.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/02/11/latest-target-for-voter-suppression-college-students/

Sounds like Moochelle and "friends will be taking up a whole section. I't's good to be Queen

Yes, the pope is Jewish, the earth is flat and you are informed and intelligent.

Yes, the pope is Jewish, the earth is flat and you are informed and intelligent

You're batting five hundred Rasputin my good comrade. Satanick spot on, but most of these libs are probably welfare receiving pot heads so the drug comparison will not go over well.

Yes, the pope is Jewish, the earth is flat and you are informed and intelligent.

Strong rebuttal. You really showed me the errors of my thinking.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/war-on-murder-or-war-on-drugs-pick-one/
This article sums up many of my thoughts on the matter.

surface to air missiles, rocket launchers and bathtub nuclear submarines, as well!

Sorry, I missed those, after all, there are so many weapons we have a right to have that you cannot remember them all.

My apologies to the NRA.

Don't forget laser guns.

Also, using a car as a weapon is protected by the 2nd amendment, and whoever thinks the government has the right to say you can't drink and drive is a fascist.

The Second Amendment protects the rights of "law abiding citizens" to have guns, machine guns, assault rifles, grenades, tanks and bazookas.

why not we give them to Egypt?

You mean Egyptians have more rights than we do? Outrageous!

I don't know you should ask one.

Egyptian men have the right to bear arms, but the women do not have the right to bare arms. Outrageous!

Rasputin - you're a blithering idiot. The 2nd Amendment gives no one the right for machine guns, assault weapons, etc. Justice Stevens (prior Supreme Court Justice) says the 2nd Amendment CAN and SHOULD be changed. And, we all know assault weapons were banned for a time before. You truly are a good Republican - totally ignorant of any facts but willing to shout your ignorance at the top of your lungs!

And you clearly have no clue what a "Communist" is!

Okay, wait - just realized your post is sarcasm. It's so hard to tell these days with the idiotic Republicans posting pretty much what you posted! My bad!

Rasputin - you're a blithering idiot.

No, I believe he was being sarcastic.

...or maybe just realistic...after all, considering there are some survivalist nutcases out there who want to tell us that guns are necessary to combat the evil dystopian threat of an imaginary Hitler who will one day seize power in this nation you're going to need artillery, missiles, helicopters, tanks...you name it.

I support the right to arm bears. Even Communist ones.

Clara, a bathtub nuclear submarine? Where do I get one of those?

because a "bad guy" who is thwarted from buying a gun because his name comes up on a back ground check, is a "bad guy" who has to settle for yelling at strangers, as opposed to shooting 10 - 20 of them in a shopping mall.

Name one gang banger, crook or bad guy who committed all of the mass murders in schools, churches, places of work, courthouses, theatres, etc.

You are just repeating the mantra you hear from Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the scumbags that feed the ignorant and haters, like you.

The problem is that every day "good guys with guns" become "bad guys with guns".

see also: DORNER, CHRISTOPHER

Amy,,,,, you are correct. If we can improve the data in the data base that is used for background checks we will have gained a lot. We need each state to submit info the same way. We need mental health info that is relevant to background checks included. Each state must submit that info.

Rasp, why call me names, that will accomplish nothing. As for "bad guys" if I am stupid for calling someone that goes to a school and kills a bunch of people a "bad guy" then I guess I am stupid. Someone that does that crap, to me, is a bad guy, sorry. I guess I don't know your definition of a "bad guy".

Da,,

that sounds to me like a serious people problem. Yes, we sure have to do something about it. The only thing is that will be hard and it doesn't seem like any one wants to tackle it. Much easier to go after the guns, while leaving the people to wallow in their own misery.

So Rasputan, all you care about are the infrequent mass murders? That is so infrequent that its insane to take action against our rights and punish law abiding citizens over it.

Get back to us when it's your 6 year old, or 14 year old, or wife, or sister or brother, mother, father or yourself in the next "infrequent" occurrence. Something tells me you'd sing a different tune though and cry louder than a baby with diaper rash in a urine drenched diaper.

I have had family members shot...albiet not in a mass shooting, just your run of the mill crime. And no, I didnt cry like a little baby and no, I never blamed the gun, just the guy who pulled the trigger.

Deaths from gun violence are much lower in New York City since they introduced tougher sentencing laws for those caught committing a crime with a gun. Why doesn't the NRA do itself a favor and push for tougher sentencing laws? This would certainly target the criminal, as opposed to targeting the gun. Can't we agree on practical ways to reduce the violence without locking horns interminably?

Amy, that is far too rational a point to be posted here.

My God , when are people going to start getting real !!!!

When will you start getting real?

Stop with this silly "They're Trying To Take Away All Our Guns" argument because that's simply not the case.

Guns don't vote. That's why they need to be blamed. The shooters can vote. If they all got locked up, who would be left to vote for a democrat?

Amy B: I'm sure "Stop and Frisk" had nothing to do with that, nor did the reality that it's very difficult to live as a poor person in NYC... affluent people generally don't commit crimes. Crime is linked more to poverty than anything else. I live in one of the most affluent communities in the United States, we have exceptionally low crime, and also very high gun ownership rates. Hmmm, it's a wonder we are just shooting each other up all the time.

Matt, well, Maine has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, and a high rate of gun ownership, but we are a mostly rural state, so perhaps you could say high rates of gun violence are linked to urban populations. Except, of course, for the fact Newtown CT was neither urban or poor.

The key thing to remember is, New York City's gun violence went down with the passage of these tougher sentencing laws. It wasn't that New York became less poor. I think it's something Chicago should look into.

Well Matt clearly you have never been to NYC. Seriously, you think only affluent people live there? Excuse me while I pick my spleen up off the floor, it flew out while I was laughing uncontrollably at your asinine post.

@Amy: Oh, I see now, it's all about Newtown, and not about gun violence. I get it now, it only matters when white kids in suburbia get shot. Got it.

@Shellie: Where did I say anything even remotely related to what you're claiming. Maybe, just maybe, the fact that NYC is run like an aristocracy, and that policies like "Stop and Frisk" can get passed have an effect on crime rates.

And for the record, NYC still has a murder rate approximately 25% greater than the national average. The FBI knows *exactly* where these murder hotspots are, as published at FBI.gov, under the Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics. But that requires complex, real solutions, and not simplistic, idiotic slogans that sheep buy into under the guise of "safety." We know where the problems are coming from. How about actually look at the root cause?

Amy B

As I mentioned, some would call me a right wing gun nut, but I agree on very stiff sentences for violation of law when it comes to guns. Committing a crime with one or selling one to a felon. I vote for a rope and a tree but that would be a little extreme, but you get my feeling on the subject. I have also heard of the "stop and frisk" thing in NY but don't know much about it. The little I do know makes good sense to me.

@Matt, it's tough to live a poor person in NYC? Where to begin with that statement... first, it's tough to be poor anywhere. Second, have you been to Crown Heights in Brooklyn, how about areas of the Bronx? There are some places in downtown Manhattan that aren't too nice... the poor are in NYC and they commingle with all other classes, yet less gun violence.

There's nothing inherently wrong with "Stop and Frisk" the issues come when the cops abuse rights. Simple solution though, sue the police department under United States Code Section 1983 (Civil Rights laws) and before you say, who will pay, if it was illegal, there's a fee shifting statute that requires the defendants to pay the attorney's fees. "Stop and Frisk" requires reasonable suspicion of specific and articulable facts that a person has committed a crime. Moreover, during the stop and frisk, only things that are weapons can be recovered from the person. I could have a brick of heroin on me and get stopped and frisked by a cop, but UNDER THE LAW they could not remove it from me.

So, the strictest gun laws in the country combined with enforcement of said laws has yielded one of the largest cities on the planet with relatively low gun crimes. Your move.

@ED: Considering the cost-of-living is something like 50% higher than anywhere else in the country, coupled by the insane real-estate costs, yes, it is more difficult for a person to be "poor" in New York, NY than say, Mobile, AL. Take a look at the poverty rates of the 10 poorest metro regions in the country -- this is just a hunch, but if it was equivalent between cities, wouldn't NY rank right up there?

The whole point is that poverty is the link to crime in general. The FBI statistics show that crime is disproportionate to the national average in cities of population >250,000, and it can be narrowed down to specific neighborhoods. And I figured it'd just be a matter of time until someone tried to justify "Stop and Frisk" as being legitimate. In the case of "Stop and Frisk," "reasonable suspicion" is being brown- or black-skinned. Well, good enough for me, I guess.

How many implementations vs. how many weapons did they seize? If it wasn't 90+%, then "reasonable suspicion" wasn't reasonable. I know, let's just round up all the poor neighborhoods and send them off to a special "camp." Surely that would decrease crime, and the ends justify the means, right?

NYC does *not* have the strictest gun laws in the country. Chicago has a no-carry policy, which means no concealed nor open carry. Please explain the disparity.

Better yet, just educate yourself. Go to the FBI website, FBI.gov, and look up the Uniform Crime Statistics. It's not hard. It's a nice website, easy to navigate. Go to the tables on Gun Homicide, and go through them. You can even see the murder rates neighborhood-by-neighborhood in metropolitan areas. Then ask yourself, why are we talking about gun control, when we know where the crime is coming from. Why aren't we in those areas, trying to figure out how to educate better, create public outreach, reduce drug trafficking, and focus on community building?

Lets talk facts then.....explain how you can justify violating the rights of all Americans over an infrequent act committed by a handful of people?

Well free as soon as your rights are violated get back to us.

It is a little late at that point Shellie...thats why so many are vocally opposing it now.

Who will wear blue and who will wear gray?

@Flaming Lib, I think the next one will be much less civilized than our last one...think Bosnia...

An uncivilized Civil War? Outrageous!

jwp - so when they had a ban on assault weapons in the past, what happened then?

LOL @ jwp. The "I'll sit here and talk tough online but when the shooting starts i'm going back under my bed" tough guy.

No, not really. You don't have the votes to change the 2nd Amendment. Come after my guns, it won't be pretty.

He also took spell-check away from citizens and look what happened!

"should have invited". There is no escape from the Grammar Police!

If you don't trust OUR government, then what the hell are you still doing here?

flaming libtard - I take it you came here sometime AFTER January 2009. I don't trust Stinky (bo), never did. He's a lying POS. And I've been in this country longer than Him. I'm not going anywhere.

SHAWN/Steve....do you have 2 personalities here?

Never confuse the government with the country Flaming...those are not the same thing. And I refuse to give up on one because of the other.

Good point Gecko, seriously.

In case you don't know, we have been lied to way too many times lately and they are still lying today! Now reminds me of the 70's when the people started getting to the truth about our government, history is repeating itself as we type. I have lived in third world countries and if WE don't stop this madness the U.S. will become one!

Yeah, that's it and not the fact that we outnumbered them just a little.

Flaming...its part of history....that was the words of the Japanese, not something Steve made up.

Flaming, they didn't invade because as they said, " There's a gun behind every tree." Know your history.

Shawn, learn yours from something other than the movies.

Misattributed

• I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
  • Statement made after the attack on Pearl Harbor by Yamamoto as portrayed in the film Tora! Tora! Tora!, this is one of the most quoted remarks attributed to him. Though it is thought that it summarizes his sentiments well, a definite source for this quote has never been provided. William Safire wrote that there is no printed evidence to support this quote. Safire's Political Dictionary, page 666. For more information see the Wikipedia article "Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote".

• You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
  • It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)
  • Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians said,^{[citation needed]} I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur]

  http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

• http://listverse.com/2009/03/08/15-notable-political-and-military-misquotes/

He is clearly more of a man than you are Anthony.

When was the last time an assault weapon was used by a private citizen in self-defense.

When was the last time an assault weapon was used to mass-murder a lot of innocent citizens?

We rest our case.

Define assault weapon?

A weapon whose sole purpose is to kill a lot of people quickly and up-close.

You mean a Samurai Sword...

David, are you equating a sword to a semi-automatic (easily converted to full automatic) rifle with a 30 round magazine?

Mark, you are mistaken...no semi-automatic is easily converted to full auto.

@Mark

A weapon whose sole purpose is to kill a lot of people quickly and up-close

I can do that with a shotgun, pistol, hell, even a nailgun, Your definition sucks, come up with a better one moron.

I would pay to see that...really, sell tickets and I am there.

So how is the animal care business going Anthony the Vet?

When a Woman weighing 130 pounds is being attacked by a 220 pound man intent on raping her are you going to blame her for being raped because she can't defend herself unarmed?

Do you think she'll defend herself with a Bushmaster?

Has any private citizen ever defended themselves with a Bushmaster?

Yes Mark, there are plenty of documented cases where people have used AR-15s to defend themselves and their property.

AnthonyVet

Apparently the secret service must meet your definition of being pussies since they're armed. Maybe you should tell them that.

Cite some free. I'll wait.

Lets start with one Shellie.... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/24/no-shots-fired-home-intruders-decide-not-to-stick-around-after-seeing-their-victim-holding-an-ar-15/

If that one persons life isnt good enough let me know and I will get you some others.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338418/why-young-women-want-ar-15s-celia-bigelow

By Celia Bigelow & Aubrey Blankenship

Sorry, President Obama. As young women, we prefer an AR-15 “assault” rifle with a 30-round magazine for self-defense.

In fact, we wouldn’t want to be stuck at home without one. In the wake of mass murders like Sandy Hook and the horrific rapes and murders of thousands of women each year, pepper spray, mace, or five-round handheld pistols aren’t going to cut it.

So what’s a girl to do? When choosing our tool for home defense, we want the best — in accuracy, handling, and aesthetics. The best choice by all three criteria is — hands down — the AR-15.

I can understand why a woman would want the AR-15 but I suggest the 12 gauge shotgun for those who can deal with the power of the weapon. One shot - one kill - is easier with a weapon that fires a slug that is 7o caliber or, if you choose, fires nine .30 caliber rounds with one squeeze of the trigger. And if you want to speak about intimidation - the 12 gauge wins hands down.