I seem to recall watching a movie were only the police and the military have guns (which is what you are proposing).

...and, praytell, where exactly did I suggest that?

Feisty: Why do you give a tiny rat's behind how many members the NRA has? You don't like us NRA members and that is fine. I really don't care.

But whether we have 4 million, 4.5 million, or 10 million members it still makes no difference to you. And how YOU feel makes no difference to me either.

DaNoid said:

What happens when the good guy with a gun becomes the bad guy with a gun?

You implied we can't have a good guy with a gun because the good guy might become the bad guy.

So are you telling me you SUPPORT the 2nd Amendment and my right to own a gun? If I misunderstood and you were not implying we should restrict gun ownership then I certainly apologize.

So confirm for me: Was I wrong in assuming your comment was intended to restrict gun ownership or not?

Steve-446003

You said it yourself Joe.... NOTHING is going to stop the next act of violence..... but EVERYTHING you do will stop the next generation of FREEDOM....

====

What 'next generation of freedom...' is stopped Steve? It's a cute phrase. One in which I notice you didn't finish either. The next generation of what freedom is taken away?

I'll pose the question made a couple of weeks ago, what gun carrying GI Joe Blow stopped the acts of the madman in California...what gun carrying GI Joe Blow stopped Lanza, stopped Colorado...the shooting at the military base...stopped Tuscon, stopped the mall shooting here in Omaha years ago..?

It gets a little tiring constantly listening to so many chest thumping, self proclaimed big d**k, big gun carrying son a b**ches talk about their version of law and order and yet time and time again you jokers never seem to be a part of the story. Show me the "good man" with the gun that is not law enforcement/government that has done something worth remembering!!!

Joe Biden should know that it is illegal to discharge a weapons within 200 feet of residential property, but Joe is prone to these types of comments so what else is new. Being an NRA member and speaking with many members we are certainly open to compromise IF the law will prevent a criminal or mentally unstable person from getting their hands on a weapon, but that is a big IF. I really think the states should decide as Montana and Texas are very much different from Illinois and New York.

The government of the United States of America:

Attempts to restrict gun ownership at home; triples international arms sales in 2011.

Mark Actually Biden was responding to an unexpected question from the Forum that he was asked it in. His answer when taken in context was related to his experience before he was Vice-Pres and lived in a more rural area in Delaware. Rural folks have this problem a little more often than city folks due to distances involved we have slower response times. His advice is pretty good and as a Firearms Instructor is the same as I have given to many folks over the years. The Object is to scare of an intruder Rather than have to shoot him which most women have a problem with anyway.

Well...you know Bumbling Biden... That guy alone is probably responsible for the recent increase in sales of guns in the US. Nothing like spreading fear all around. Your concern for innocent children are nothing but crocodile tears as long as you support abortion.

NRA is correct... the only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun

When do you suggest the 'stop' happens?

Before or after the body count?

Seems that the recent events of mass carnage......the 'bad guy' does himself in......the 'good guy' doesn't have a chance to act........

Legislation pre events is best!

ProBusiness

Is it possible for liberals JUST ONCE to have an adult conversation without bringing doctors in white coats, policemen, or children on a stage to manipulate them to change an argument from a discussion to one of sympathy?

=======

Are you proposing that use of people by the President when promoting the WH agenda started in Jan 2009?

what legislation would keep a mentally deranged guy from killing his mom

Forcing her to LOCK UP her killing machines would be a good start...

Especially since she KNEW her son was bat @!$%# crazy!

The equivalent of a Sandy Hook happens every 2 days. That's how long it takes for 20 kids to die in cell phone related accidents. If you were truly interested in protecting children There are a lot of higher priorities than maniacs with guns. But I guess when it's something you use everyday 20 kids every two days isn't that much too pay. Hypocrites.

chilled -

Before or after the body count?

A consensuse of my law enforement friends is that they are the cleanup crew. If you have to wait for them 9 times out of 10 they will get there just in time to make the report. Who is going to protect you in the 10 minutes it takes for them to get there?

[I seem to recall watching a movie were only the police and the military have guns (which is what you are proposing). That movie? Schindler's List]

Stupid parallel, Pro... but don't let paranoia hold you back.

Fisty - .

Forcing her to LOCK UP her killing machines would be a good start...

A $3000 safe will keep them out. Anything less is only to keep them out of the hands of children.

You implied we can't have a good guy with a gun because the good guy might become the bad guy.

So are you telling me you SUPPORT the 2nd Amendment and my right to own a gun? If I misunderstood and you were not implying we should restrict gun ownership then I certainly apologize.

So confirm for me: Was I wrong in assuming your comment was intended to restrict gun ownership or not?

To go along with what "Gingerbread Momma" said, there is a very fine line that separates the good guy with a gun from the bad guy with a gun. Every day we see good guys with guns become bad guys with guns. Yet I keep seeing the same argument...that any change in current laws regarding firearms is only going to hurt "law-abiding gun owners" and that it won't do a thing about the criminals as if those two groups are entirely separate populations and never the twain shall meet.

Sometimes all it takes is a bad day at work.

If you want to own a pistol or a shotgun for protection of yourself, your home and your loved ones I have no issue. It's none of my business. More importantly, you have DC v Heller on your side which says that no government can completely disarm citizens.

...but know that Justice Scalia wrote in DC v Heller that the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, is not absolute and that laws can be passed that say there are certain types of guns that you can't own.

Every right comes with a responsibility...that was the lesson my dad taught me. The thing is, as a society we have proven ourselves incapable of handling the responsibility that comes with unbridled freedom. I should be able to drive at whatever speed I please but because some joker couldn't handle 100 mph we have speed limits. Hell, someone once upon a time had one too many at the family kegger and stood in the wrong spot and now I can't get a set of lawn darts.

In the ideal world the NRA is right and you should be able to own any kind of gun you want and be able to fire off as many rounds in a minute as you can. As we are constantly reminded, however, ours is not an ideal world.

If we can limit the damage done when the good guy with a gun becomes the bad guy with a gun do we not have a responsibility to do so?

I would LOVE to have an adult conversation on the topic but it is impossible to find an adult liberal who can carry on a discussion without name calling or bringing up "for the children" within two sentences.

You are correct...we need the adult conversation. It is also impossible to have when the immediate knee-jerk response is the dystopian fear of the black helicopters coming to take away all the guns.

Is it possible for liberals JUST ONCE to have an adult conversation without bringing doctors in white coats, policemen, or children on a stage to manipulate them to change an argument from a discussion to one of sympathy?

Sure. It would be just as possible for conservatives to have an adult conversation regarding social programs without characterizing the recipients as parasitic leeches preying on the blood of the noble taxpayers, but I don't really see that happening either.

What our country needs is an INTELLIGENT national debate on the issue. May I suggest that Mr. Biden contact the leadership of the NRA and offer to discuss or debate the issue in a format to be mutually decided, moderated and televised in prime time by the major networks. NEVER HAPPEN!

A consensuse of my law enforement friends is that they are the cleanup crew.

...and that's the horror of it all Morgs74.

The democrats have waded in these kids blood enough. The people do NOT want a semiautomatic weapons ban, they want jobs and a robust economy..... move along people, move along.

chilled - It sucks but the reality of it is the genie is out of the bottle. There are way too many guns in the wild presently to effectively legislate back from existence. People need physical deterrents from criminals which may not be playing with a full deck.

What are the chances of me ever getting in and robbing your safe deposit box? None. Why do we protect jewelry and documents better than we protect our children? I would start there.

If I say that I fear the government taking my guns, I'm paranoid through the left's standard. I'm not against the government taking guns out of the hands of those on the left. I am against them taking my firearms. If the left wants to turn over theirs to Unka Sam... go for it. Just don't come crawling to me when Unka Sam turns on you because there's some tyrant at the helm demanding guns to be melted down.

I don't know why having my guns taken away from me bothers me so... it's never happened in the history of mankind where some tyrant has ever removed the weapons and mass murdered millions of people because they were disarmed... shame on me for even thinking this way.

Dave Reggie - actually the People DO want a semiautomatic weapons ban as well as a ban on large capacity magazines; better mental health checks; enhanced background checks; closing loopholes for sellers of guns; mandatory licensing and training of gun owners. Please try to keep up!

Oh, they definitely also want jobs and a better economy - are ya listening Repubicans in the House????

Da Noid,

If we can limit the damage done when the good guy with a gun becomes the bad guy with a gun do we not have a responsibility to do so? Not if it limits the right of the good guy to protect him or her self. Why are people against the right for people to defend themselves?

"If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun," he said. "Have the shells of a 12-gauge shotgun and I promise you - as I told my wife … 'Jill, if there is ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever is coming in is not going to.'"

@ Mark - Besides Bidden advocating unsafe gun handling do you know what you have when you fire both bores of your double barreled shotgun at trees? A fancy stick. What moron would trade a shotgun for a stick? What moron would look to Joe for advice on guns if this is what he gives? Typical anti-gunners though, no personal knowledge of what they speak, just strong feelings.

It would not be totally impossible, Morgs, but it would be difficult. The best way to approach it would be a gradual drawdown similar to the way that the nation has approached smoking cigarettes. Start with a small tax on gun ownership that gradually becomes more and more onerous with every passing year. At a certain point, people will start thinking with their wallets.

"Sure, you have a right to own a gun, but you also have the right to pay this $500 tax on each of them that we will raise by $250 every year."

That way there would be no attempt to mass-confiscate the weapons and no confrontation between the military and the populace. Sure, criminals en masse will still own guns, but the whole notion that the citizenry owning guns is any deterrent to criminal behavior is mainly mthological nonsense that isn't supported by any crime statistics anyway. If mass ownership of firearms contributed to a decrease in criminal activity, then the United States would be the most law abiding nation in the history of time and that obviously isn't the case.

David Noah,

Thank you!! Great post!!

actually the People DO want a semiautomatic weapons ban as well as a ban on large capacity magazines;

Wrong. Even with the blip (And I think it really just a blip.) up, less than 1/2 the population wants these things. This is why Obama and sons are so frantic to pass this legislation now. They need to get it passed before the blip goes back down shortly.

Not if it limits the right of the good guy to protect him or her self.

Against whom are you defending yourself that it requires more than 9 bullets at one time in your gun?

...or are you just a poor shot?

I have yet to hear a decent argument on 'gun control'. Oh sandy hook. Yeah, a sick fvck killed people, great that you have your red herring with the gun... So why did lanza do what he did? It was the guns fault I bet...

'A lie told often enough becomes the truth'

Vladamir Lenin

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC - For starters, I appreciate the civil conversation.

I see a problem with this statement though:

the whole notion that the citizenry owning guns is any deterrent to criminal behavior is mainly mthological nonsense that isn't supported by any crime statistics anyway.

Criminals are more likely to break into your house during the daylight, when you are not home. When asked, and I will try to find the link, a criminal said, you never break into houses at night, that is when you get shot. That statement alone says that home owners with guns are a deterrent.

Sure, criminals en masse will still own guns

This is a recipe for disaster.

@ Michael - This is why the pro gun people refuse to deal with the anti gun crowd. You lie and tell us you don't want to confiscate guns then dream up crap like this. You can't deal with the constitutionality of it so you try an end run around it and think that's acceptable. People who talk like this are truly honorless.

IR,

Reference your post #1.21.

Fair enough. However, you mention response times and I ask you - are we really under such danger of attack that a rural household needs a weapon to compensate for the inability for the authorities to provide timely defense? If so, guns are merely the symptom of a deeper malaise. This also brings out another huge aspect of this gun thing - the regional factor. Rural versus urban attitudes regarding guns, gun usage, and gun control.

As a gun toting liberal country boy I can vouch for Joe Biden's technique. A couple of blasts from the 870 or a few rounds cranked off from a 9mm can do wonders if some strange car pulls up in the barn yard late at night. I wouln't use the SKS because the shotgun barks load enough....and besides, the shot doesn't carry all that far so there is no fear of injuring someone in the distance.

Most understand that folks in rural areas may need the assurance of personal protection from time to time but what does that have to do with requiring individuals to go through a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm. Both make a lot of sense to me.

When all this gun control legislation was first proposed, Joe Biden said that he didn't really believe it would do anything to curb the violence (or words to that effect). Sounds like Mr. Obama's speech writer whipped one up for Joe.

Perhaps dealing with the underlying problems would be a good start.

Caesar:

If you've never heard a decent argument for gun control, you are apparently both deaf and illiterate because pretty much every debate about gun ownership ever has decent arguments on both sides. Simply because I think the arguments against gun ownership outweigh the arguments for it, that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that the arguments for gun ownership aren't present or legitimate. It simply means that I think the arguments against it are stronger.

The moment that you make statements like, "I have yet to hear a decent argument on 'gun control' is the moment that everyone present knows that you've basically just closed your ears to the debate.

Da Noid,

So where do YOU want to draw the line at the number of bullets? You expect everyone to be a perfect shot and just have a gun with one bullet? Or maybe 2? Better yet, 3? What about all the pellets in a shotgun shell that bumbling Biden wants us all to buy instead? Please elaborate...

Gneisenau

@ Michael - This is why the pro gun people refuse to deal with the anti gun crowd. You lie and tell us you don't want to confiscate guns then dream up crap like this. You can't deal with the constitutionality of it so you try an end run around it and think that's acceptable. People who talk like this are truly honorless.

He posed a barrier to a gun-free society. I posed the first and most direct solution to that barrier I could think of. I live in a nation with an entrenched gun culture. I learned to deal with that fact a long time ago. But the reality is that at one point, we lived in a nation with an entrenched smoking culture that has largely been, through a combination of taxation and relentless anti-pr campaigns, been marginalized. The same could happen with guns, which would prevent or at least reduce in severity the bloody clashes that others have predicted here, assuming the ultimate goal, as was the case with a smoke-free society, a gun-free society.

Would I prefer to live in a gun-free society? Sure. But when I weigh the pros and cons of living in America, the pros outweigh the cons, which means I accept the cons. But that doesn't mean I 'lack honor' because I describe a method of reaching a gun-free society that wouldn't also result in the massacre of hundreds of thousands or millions of people.

And by the by, I've never lied to anyone on this issue. I would prefer to live in a gun-free society and have never made any bones about that desire to anyone, including in any post I've made in this forum.

Hello folks, I think the general public has received the message loud and clear from this administration. The second amendment is under assault and gun dealers can't keep enough guns on the shelves.

The intent of the administration is back firing on them and only through continued vigilance by the law abiding gun owners will we keep the wolves in sheep's clothing at bay. This administration continually attacks our Constitution. The administration has assaulted our fourth amendment with the 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). They are attacking our first amendment through SOPA, ACTA, CISPA, PIPA. It’s an all our assault on our Civil Liberties.

And it would be hard to not notice that the government through their corporate owned presstitutes, have been wall papering their front pages end to end with gun violence news.

If you can't see the writing on the wall that there is something afoot and the desperation of the administration is palpable and that the government is going after your guns you are blind. They are taking a back door approach so that they can chip away at your gun rights. First the rifles then the handguns.

According to Veterans Today:

CURRENT PROVOCATIONS OF HOMELAND SECURITY ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Here are typical examples of what the folks who run Homeland Security are doing with American Taxpayer money:

Homeland Security has signed purchase agreements for almost two billion rounds of .223, .308 and .40 Caliber ammo. the .40 Caliber ammo is hollow point almost exactly the same as the old Black Talons which law enforcement did not want the public to have. these .40 caliber hollow point rounds cannot be used in war because they are prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1899. Only jacketed, non-frangible rounds can be used. Conclusion, these rounds (about 5 for every man, woman and child inside America) apparently are to be used on American citizens.

LAW ABIDING GUN-OWNER CITIZENS NOW APPEAR TO BE THE TARGET OF THE USG AND HOMELAND SECURITY

It is simply astounding that the USG and political gun-grabbers would dare to harass law abiding gun-owners by attempting to to make new unConstitutional laws to make them statutory criminals, when the USG and its alphabets and Homeland Security are the WORLD’S BIGGEST TERRORISTS. They did attacks on the Twin Towers including the attack of 9-11-01, and instituted the highly illegal and treasonous, seditions “operation Fast & Furious” which was only disclosed to the American public by a couple of America Super-heros inside the BATF which were seriously harassed for it. And yet Eric Holder, USAG walks free un-indicted for criminal negligence, accessory after the fact, misprision of a felony, etc., etc., and obvious criminal RICO along with all the other top BATF involved as well as those in Congress who approved this disgusting illegal operation which contributed to hundreds of murders. This is the biggest American GUN CRIME in history and the PERPS WALK FREE, un-indicted and unpunished. Kind of reminds one of the perp who shot Ron Brown through the top of the skull with a .45 after his plane “was crashed” by changing the approach signals on the ground. And these criminals have the gall to try and make statutory criminals out of ordinary law abiding gun owners.

It is blatantly obvious that law abiding citizens who have semi-auto rifles with removable large capacity magazines have never been related to any mass shootings.

According to Chris Geo:

“The U.S. government clearly sees the writing on the wall. What lays ahead for America is a day of unbearable reckoning. The debt bubble which will soon burst and the resultant financial collapse will wipe out savings accounts, pensions, investment funds and equities of the working class, all across the nation. Imagine bank accounts being reset to zero, “bank holidays” enforced at gunpoint. That will unleash a wave of violent protests, social chaos and even talk of revolution. The government will almost certainly respond with a declaration of Martial Law, the rolling out of highway checkpoints, and before long, the use of live ammo on unruly protesters. The desperation is evident in the Trillion Dollar Coin test balloon that was just released.”

The bottom line is that the government is pulling out all the stops to declaw and defang the American public through any means available. You have seen and witnessed for yourself the paid shills and sheeple who are advocating for the government’s agenda. Nothing happens by accident folks, Obama through his Fast and Furious Attorney General Eric Holder's "Memo", has taken the authority to assassinate American citizens. It doesn't get any clearer or obvious as to what is going on.

The questions is will we go quietly into the night?

Against whom are you defending yourself that it requires more than 9 bullets at one time in your gun?

...or are you just a poor shot?

Da Noid, It doesn't matter how poor, or good of a shot you are. If you are being attacked, the chances of successful shooting declines immensely. Not everyone is Clint Eastwood under pressure. What happens if there are more than one bad guy attacking you? Let's say there are 10 of them... is one of those bullets going to become a magic bullet and strike 2 attackers? The argument is silly.

The clips on my Ruger hold 16 bullets each. They are both completely loaded. I don't have to worry about counting shots. If someone attacks me, I'll definitely hit them... and more than likely give them an overdose of lead poisoning. BTW a Ruger is a semi-automatic pistol. It fires so much more easily than my 12 gauge Remington that packs one hell of a kick.

TrustVerify - Again with the lie that the government wants to take your guns. Do you people never tire of such lies?

Dave Reggie - The democrats have waded in these kids blood enough. How many children's blood do Republicans have to wade through before they decide these children are more important than their love of assault weapons? How many have to die before it's too many?

@ Michael - I used the term "you" in a general sense. At least you are honest in your expectations. Quite a few on your side are not.

I still can not accept an end run around a right. If it's going to be done do it honorably and alter the 2nd amendment.

Campdog - When I bought both my weapons, I went through a criminal background check for both of them. I had to wait 5 days to pick them up after I paid for them. What other background check is necessary? I do understand they don't do it at gun shows but considering the flea market atmosphere at those shows, no transactions can be made unless a person walks in with a background check already in paper form. I'd like to see the government try to stop people selling guns to other people as individual transactions. It's simply not enforceable. Hell, the government can't even stop the selling of drugs on the street.

I see the critical thinking chip has left the liberal/liv building. Evidence? What about this?

Shortly after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Fox News quoted an anonymous source as saying the gun-rights association had gained an average of 8,000 new members a day since the tragedy.

How many days is "shortly"? 3, 5 10? Any of those being the case, the number could well have been 8000 a day. Now when you read the rest of the "argument"

But Politico quoted the NRA as saying that it had gained 100,000 new members in 18 days — which is an average of 5,500 a day.

That specifically gives a number of days in which the alarmist sign ups may have slowed considerably on a per day basis and resulted in the lower average number. It's just the jump on FOX mentality.

No, I'm not particularly driven by crime statistics to the point that I parse which specific types of crimes are committed with guns and which aren't. The most salient statistics that I've ever heard on the topic are the ones that tell me that the gun you keep for self protection is 17x more likely to be stolen from you and used to kill or injure a member of your family than to ever be used by you for its stated intended purpose. The second most salient statistic is that the gun you keep for self protection is 14x more likely to be stolen from you and used to hurt or kill a member of MY family.

Sure, someone has to have both the motivation and the capacity to commit these crimes, but why should we, as a society, make it easier for them to engage in the behavior? I've never heard a very compelling argument for that. Some say that it's constitutional, but the fact remains that there are things that were once constitutional that are not any longer because they've been changed. And others will say that the positive uses for a gun outweigh the negative uses, but I've never seen that to be the case.

I see something, like a cigarette, that has far more negative impacts on the society than positive impacts. And as such, I would like for them to be eliminated. But I live in a representative democracy and am in the small minority in that opinion. As such, it's incumbent upon me to abide by the majority's decision.

That does not mean, however, that the minority does not have any valid arguments, which was your original point.

TrustVerify - Again with the lie that the government wants to take your guns. Do you people never tire of such lies?

would you be ok with the remove then? or how about confiscate...I know BAN...how bout ban, would that be a nicer word to use

BREAKING NEWS: Drew Peterson sentenced to 38 years in prison for murder of third wife

Who is Drew Peterson? No details on the main website of NBCNews.

How many wives can one American have? I have thought it's ONE? But this nobody killed his 3rd wife? Did he also kill his 2nd wife too, and the 1st wife?

To echo the point made earlier in the thread. The right of a child (or any American) to, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should trump the right to carry firearms any day of the week. Liberty is not defined by some narrow right like, 'to bear arms'. Because for the thousands of Americans who die by guns every year these two amendments to the Bill of Rights are in conflict. The solution will require us to seriously compromise on ways to improve the safety of all Americans in our gun saturated society, I would assume that there really shouldn't be any compromise to the rights of citizens to, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

FYI: One of the Newtown children was shot 11 times - 11 times - why don't you get it - no kids maybe?

Who is Drew Peterson?

Chicago cop whose first two wives "disappeared" also. He is thought to have offed at least one of them I think.

To echo the point made earlier in the thread. The right of a child (or any American) to, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should trump the right to carry firearms any day of the week.

BINGO!!!

We have a winner!

you are not obligated to own guns Michael.

but why should we, as a society, make it easier for them to engage in the behavior?

then why in society should i be punished for the mistakes of the few?

I see something, like a cigarette, that has far more negative impacts on the society than positive impacts. And as such, I would like for them to be eliminated.

that is the problem, you on the left feel you have a better foresight and knowledge to know what is better for people, what is right. It almost sounds like you would rather have government (in whatever capacity) have control over people's lives and yet the left screams its the right that wants to control.

That does not mean, however, that the minority does not have any valid arguments, which was your original point.

no my original point was there hasnt been a good argument for control. Their are root issues then their is the easy way. which goes back to why should i as a law abiding citizen be punished for the mistakes for the unstable or those who seek to break the laws regardless (hence criminals).

Sabin, Klebold was never diagnosed for anything but has been recognized as depressed post mortem (his writtings).

From the article above:

"We have to speak for all those voices -- for the 20 beautiful children who died 69 days ago because they can't speak for themselves," Biden told the nearly 300-person crowd. "I can't imagine how we will be judged as a society if we do nothing."

And yet, day after day we here RW bloggers saying nothing can be done.

I don't want to live in a America where RW bloggers voices dictate do-nothing policies.

That in itself seems childish.

(Oops, I used the word child).

Salud

But yeah....it's the gun's fault

You have a reputable source for this, pal?

Hello George, if you haven't been following this case closely everything isn't as it appears. These videos are two minutes each.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo

Enclosed is what a parent of one of the children at Sandy Hook testified to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dhXPlCjr0Vw

The right to pursue life, liberty and happiness -- what a crock!

If anyone takes away another person's life, isn't there investigations, trials and prison time? You see, you can't protect everyone, not even with the strictest of ANY laws, so just give it up haters! Gun control will do NOTHING! Assault weapon ban will do NOTHING!

there are risk involved everyday, if not guns, then meteors or auto accidents. Until you have a crystal ball that can predict the future, you have NOTHING! Please stay off of peoples rights to own guns.

You have a reputable source for this, pal?

yeah, its called Liberals, FR, NBC, ABC, CNN, HuffPo, Media Matters, Think Progress, WH etc.

Yep its the left that has anthropomorphisized guns

Pigotry - Drew Peterson was a suburban Illinois policeman. His third wife died in the bathtub - first ruled an accident but, after his 4th wife disappeared, the body of his 3rd wife was exhumed and her death was determined to be murder.

His 4th wife has never been found and he is suspected of killing her.

According to reported crime statistics, the U.S. has the highest rate of gun related deaths of ANY developed country at 10.2 / 100,000 population. The next on the list of developed nations was Switzerland at 3.84/100K. It's interesting that Switzerland also has a relatively high percentage of gun ownership. According to these statistics an American has a 20 times higher probability of dying by gun violence than the average for all other developed nations. Our gun violence rate is more like countries such as, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, ..etc than Canada (2.3/100K), Australia (1.05/100K), or the UK @ (0.25/100K)

First place, we are not even talking about guns, guns for hunting and sport, so take that argument down the hall and see if anybody will fall for it there.

Second thing, civilians have no need to have a weapon capable of shooting from 30-100 times non stop as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Third, you sick SOBs that write off the killing of 20, 6 year old as "marching them in front for sympathy" There is no word or sentence that can describe just exactly how despicable you are. What a bunch of low lives. You know, typical of tea bags.

and Last, not one of you anti's offer any solution to our violent society. More guns hasn't worked and as a matter of fact it just keeps getting worse.

I do, have a solution, I say we take those guns away from everybody and not allow them to be sold anywhere in the U.S., anyone caught with one, will be a criminal, in the scope of things that one slogan by the NRA is going to come true. Gun nuts that by reason of their insanity cannot follow the laws will do jail time, pay fines and never own another gun as long as they live.

If you think these bans don't work, do some research, learn for a change from a neutral source. Not being lied to by the NRA whose only skin in this game is to sell more guns.

Hey SeekingSanity #1.79

Thanks. So, Peterson is famous, a celebrity? I want to be his next wife, and will wait for him when he gets out at the age of 97. I can then be famous too.

P.S. (Pig Shit): I just wish that ... when he gets out at age of 97 and marries me (to make me famous..).... he is too old to lift his hands to kill me. Then I will get a chance to introduce him to all of you - my friends on this vine. I will give him an alias along the same line as my alias (pigotry).

Feisty Redhead submitted this post at 1.4 above. She linked to the article if you would like to scroll up and click.

NRA is correct... the only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun

The same NRA who LIES about membership numbers?

A number of readers have wondered about the NRA’s claim that it has more than 4.5 million members. As can be seen above, just in the space of six months, the NRA’s estimate of the size of its membership jumped by 500,000, an increase of more than 12 percent.

Shortly after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Fox News quoted an anonymous source as saying the gun-rights association had gained an average of 8,000 new members a day since the tragedy. But Politico quoted the NRA as saying that it had gained 100,000 new members in 18 days — which is an average of 5,500 a day.

Even if such numbers could be sustained over a period of time, that would mean about 80,000 to 130,000 new members in December — and 275,000 to 400,000 by early February. In either case, that falls short of a 500,000 gain.

Mother Jones magazine in January documented how the NRA’s estimate of its membership rolls has varied greatly in the past 20 years, between 3 million and 4.3 million. In an update, the magazine also suggested an alternative way of discovering the actual membership — counting the number of subscribers to the NRA’s magazines, which are provided free as part of the membership fee. (In fact, that’s the only way to get the magazines, since they are not sold on newsstands.)

THe math didn't seem to add up, so I searched for the Fox article that was referenced. It was easy to find. I just typed "fox news nra gains 8000", and it was the first on the google list. The article in question was published on Dec. 19. Sandy Hook happened on Dec. 14, which is 5 days previous to the article. I assume the question to the NRA was posed on Dec. 14 or Dec. 15. I can't be sure of that. So the average 8,000 new members/day over a 4 or 5 day period would be 32,000 - 40,000. Let's go with 32,000. Then the NRA said it gained 100,000 in 18 days. If we take away the original 32,000 and 4 days, that leaves 68,000 and 14 days. That's an average of 4,857/day.

That tells me that after the shooting and the initial political posturing on gun control in the subsequent days after, a lot of people became concerned about having gun control enacted in the foreseeable future. That prompted these people to join the NRA. As the next 2 weeks (14 days) went by, that number diminished considerably. That seems pretty reasonable. I know here in Atlanta, with a mere mention of snow, the bread and milk shelves are empty. But after 4 days, when the temperature gets back up in the 60's again, people still buy bread, just not as much and not as fast.

4,587/day x 30 days(month) x 6 (months) = 825,660 new members in 6 months.
If they got 500,000 in 6 months, that would be 500,000 divided by 180 days = 2,777/day. That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable claim.

Any thoughts?

You have a reputable source for this, pal?

Can't take the challenge to your orthodoxy eh Feisty? It has been well known that every rampage-style attack has been done by someone taking meds. Meds that, by the way, include the warning that they "May cause mania".

We know that there are some meds that can cause people to have suicidal thoughts - why is so hard for you to believe that some meds cause people to have homicidal thoughts??

The problem I have with the likes of you and the Democrats that are exploiting Sandy Hook for political and idealogical benefit is that your non-stop focus on guns takes all attention of what may turn out to be the real problem - kids pumped up with powerful psychotropic drugs that plot murderous rampages.

Pigotry - the sickening part is, after he was suspected in his 4th wife's disappearance, he got engaged to some idiotic woman! He'll probably marry her while in prison!

You deserve better! He's not even good looking!

[If you've never heard a decent argument for gun control, you are apparently both deaf and illiterate...]

Uh oh...now you've gone and done it! You will feel Commodus' entire wrath now! Be prepared to be called....a douchebag! It is his favorite word, after all. It's what he calls you when he gets his ass handed to him in a sack.

FAIL! caesar...

FAIL! caesar...

FAIL! caesar...

Meant to say I assume the question was posed on Dec. 18 or Dec. 19. Sorry for the typo.

Hey, SeekingSanity who writes:

Pigotry - the sickening part is, after he was suspected in his 4th wife's disappearance, he got engaged to some idiotic woman! He'll probably marry her while in prison!

You deserve better! He's not even good looking!

Thanks.....I hope he is not as ugly as me, a pig (pigotry), iPIG. Hahahaha

Lil Michelle . . .

isn't there investigations

This coming from someone with an IQ of 162????

The reason why the U.S. has so many of it's citizens dying by firearms is simply that we have so many guns. It's not a secret that humans have conflicts. Conflicts trigger strong emotions. Strong emotions trigger actions, often violent. When violence happens it's hard to show restraint. Anything can become a weapon. If a gun is present in this situation it may very well be used. I don't think that Americans necessarily experience more anger than other citizens of other nations. American mothers are not worse than others in teaching their children, to, 'use their words...' The difference is truelly because we have many more guns than any other 'civilized' nation...

Similar logic follows for suicides. Personal crises are more likely to end in a permanent resolution if a 'tool' is readily available.

Everyone has moments to stupidy. Accidents do happen to the best of us. The sheer number of guns in our society will result in more accident deaths by firearms.

Americans aren't dumber, angrier, or more aggressive, than other people. We simply have more guns....

Are we as a country going to get serious about the mood altering prescription drugs that I feel plays a huge part in the violence today? You see the commercials every damn day, and just the side effects alone should be cause for alarm. However, I don't see people screaming about this. If what the person posting above was correct on these crazy people involved in these shooting is true, why are we not holding Dr's and drug companies as responsible for their actions as we are towards the NRA or any other organization supporting gun rights?

Please, I just would like to know your feelings about this

Because someone who would break the law to massacre kids at a school WOULDN'T break the law and carry a gun to do it. No wonder society is all !@#$ed up.

Every Child deserves a safer Childhood, but the NRA doesn't agree !!!

NRA Nut LaPiene says "Lock'n Load" ******* "Trauma" ********** !!!

why are we not holding Dr's and drug companies as responsible for their actions as we are towards the NRA or any other organization supporting gun rights?

Because it doesn't fit their ideology.

Who am I, I am a majority of Americans. Most responsible gun owners don't need a gun capable of shooting 20 1st graders multiple times. Thats who I am.The second amendment has nothing to do with military type weapons. There is not an amendment that does not have a limit affixed to it. The government has every right to regulate, and deny what types of guns, ammunition and yes magazines that you can own. The second amendment does not give you a right to a rocket launcher. For that matter check out your 1st amendment right to yell fire in a crowded theater. My right to throw a punch ends at your nose. Never forget that.

Every Child deserves a safer Childhood

Then let's ban cars, pools and stairs.

It has been well known that every rampage-style attack has been done by someone taking meds

Then why does it appear to be so difficult to back up your claims?

I'm sorry, but I quit taking "barrel lickers" word for it a long time ago!

Given the HIPA laws, I'm curious how this information was gathered?

Statistic show that we are number 1 (by a long shot) of the number of guns per population. But we are far from number one in homicides by gun.

Again, how about providing some of your supposed statistics so we can decide for ourselves?

Johntho - you can yell fire in a crowded theater. That right is, in fact, protected under the first amendment.

Not going to vouch for the accuracy but it looks pretty compelling:

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=school

Statistic show that we are number 1 (by a long shot) of the number of guns per population. But we are far from number one in homicides by gun.

Again, how about providing some of your supposed statistics so we can decide for ourselves?

Looked it up on Wikipedia. Not that difficult Feisty.

Just more proof of how intelligent gun owners are:

An 18-year-old Florida woman was only slightly injured this week when she was shot by her friend's oven, police said.

Aalaya Walker was visiting a friend in St. Petersburg Monday when they decided they wanted some late-night waffles, The Tampa Bay Times reported. So Walker began preheating the oven — unaware that her friend, JJ Sandy, 25, was storing a magazine from his .45-caliber Glock 21 in the oven.

The magazine exploded about 9 p.m. ET, spraying casing fragments at high speed and striking Walker. She managed to pick some of the fragments out of her leg and chest and then took a bus to the hospital, where she was treated and released.

Posted by US News 2/21/2013

Does it surprise anyone that this is in Florida? She was clearly standing her ground against that darned oven!

Q22, you state above ' Statistic show that we are number 1 (by a long shot) of the number of guns per population. But we are far from number one in homicides by gun.

That means some countries have fewer guns and more gun violence - which is counter to your assertion.'

Actually, we are #1 in deaths by gun violence when compared to other, industrialized, countries. So, the question is do we consider our peer group countries like Colombia, Mexico, Panama,..etc or, would we rather compase ourselves to the UK, Germany, Canada, Austalia...

We have 10.2 gun related deaths / 100,000 people per average year. The next highest gun death rate for an industrialized country is Switzerland at 3.44/100K.

Personally, I'd prefer to have fewer gun related deaths than the developing world...

Does it surprise anyone that this is in Florida? She was clearly standing her ground against that darned oven!

I think you could find a million stories of people misusing household items that cause accidental death or injury that don't involve guns or ammo. proves nothing except what kind of story people think is news.

Lil Michelle - Scott Peterson is a dyed in the wool Republican gun lover. Try again, stupid!

Not going to vouch for the accuracy but it looks pretty compelling:

Compelling? That's was passing for compelling with you??? lmfao!

Did you even read it? It's the website where the clown above copied and pasted his bull@!$%# screed?

Johntho - you can yell fire in a crowded theater.

Simple is a good name for you!

NO you can't;

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

Feisty,

If you live in Roselle,Il. as you claim, then you'd know that most of the killings in Chicago are done by the gang bangers. Makes more sense to go after the source of the problem. Enforce the laws and crack down on the gangs and the killings will go down.

We have 10.2 gun related deaths / 100,000 people per average year. The next highest gun death rate for an industrialized country is Switzerland at 3.44/100K.

When you take out suicide the number is much smaller at 3.2.

Here is my wager with you - since the constitution means nothing to you - if you want to really have an impact on lowering gun deaths in this country then go to Chicago's South side, East LA and Harlem and frisk everyone. Don't arrest anyone - just confiscate every firearm you find. Most gun murders are gang related. Taking guns away from the gangs will have the biggest impact.

But that might be unconstitutional - you know - and probably racist to boot.

'A lie told often enough becomes truth'

Vladamir Lenin

Adopted by the DNC, NBC, FR's Liberal posters world over.

If you live in Roselle,Il. as you claim, then you'd know that most of the killings in Chicago are done by the gang bangers

My post #8.4 explains where the gang bangers are getting their guns!

You're welcome!

Is this what We Americans need?? 2nd Amend rights tossed Out, NO One except cops have any type of Weapons, skies filled with cop's and homeland security drones Spying On US ALL THE TIME, half of them armed with the New HomeFire Mini Missiles to wipe out citizens HERE who complain about the great smoke and mirrors power ecehelon, The US Corporations, to whom ALL the public servants bow down to and "serve and protect", Yeeaaa Sure!! Serve The Evil Rich and their corporations and protect their Ill gotten Blood Money. Americans are looked upon as mindless and obedient sheep; Are You???????? At $5.00 p/g gas refined from AMERICAN TAXPAYER OWNED CRUDE and Exploited on the World Free Market; Exxon executive given $40,000,000 * CASH* Bonus, Americans Given THE BONER In Congress And We don't have a say about Our property, JUST SHUT UP AND PAY!! You Like That??????????? Did You get a gander at "the Homeland Security Agents" being armed to the hilt as they Try to STRIP AWAY our "well regulated Militia" FireArms? THEY ARE STREET THUGS, KILLERS WITH pasted on badges and guns stuck in their waist bands who will Kill AnyOne they are ordered to with No trial or Day In court. You Like That???? Sounds Like What That Little Sack Of $H!T adam lanza did AND COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED by A National HealthCare Psychiatric OutReach Team. Hell, after checking Lanza and his disallutioned mom, they'd Both be Locked up in a Newly Opened Mental Hospital. You Anti Gun NUTTY people want to Lock Up America's Guns, Except, of course, for the Badged criminals OK!!!!!!!!!!! Lock Up The NutJobs First!! With An American Universal National HealthCare System And A WELL REGULATED Psychiatric OutReach Division with "Examine and Retain" authority LIKE OUR SANE ALLYS HAVE..It is Amazing how some of you AntiGun Nutties SelfRighteously turn your Empty Heads to What is REALLY WRONG In America...THE FAULT OF CONGRESS: 20% Unemployment, $4.00Take Home Pay for our kids YET $4.00++p/g of gas And So On, And So On.... For All You AntiGun Nutties...PULLEEEZE look at which way the wind is blowing...'Cause this violence Won't Stop..Ban Knives, Basball Bats, Crickett Batts, Frozen Leg Of Lamb, Table Lamps, Heavy ashtrays and Most Importantly Crooked Politicians on Crapital Hill.....More To Come...

Q22, yes, there are indeed many ways for people to hurt themselves as they go about their daily lives. These include cars, toasters, power tools, ...etc. The issue, as I see it, is that most of them are not specifically, designed to kill. Guns are.

The idea of banning household items is pure nonsense. Clearly, there should be a system for continuous improvement of safety. But, guns, by there very nature are designed to be dangerous.

Feisty,

You have no idea where the gang bangers get the guns. You don't have the nerve to discuss things face to face. Only your point of view. If one doesn't agree you just insult and call others names. Go after the cause and not the tool. A gun is a tool. Some people should obviously not have that tool. My rights shouldn't be denied because of a select few.

Phantom - again, NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT BANNING ALL GUNS!!!!!! IDIOT!!!!

You have no idea where the gang bangers get the guns.

You're right BUT the University of Chicago does...

You don't have the nerve to discuss things face to face.

Again, you're right! Kinda difficult to "discuss" face to face via a keyboard!

You're batting 1000 there buddy! ;o)

My rights shouldn't be denied because of a select few.

MY right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness shouldn't be trampled because of Yosemite Sam's like yourself!

Your right to play Cowboys & Indians doesn't supersede mine!

Be prepared to be called....a douchebag

Hey mickey, that fool "casear" called me that a few hours ago after I check that non-sense he was talking about. After that, he got mad and called me Flava flav. LOL!!

Feisty wrote:

Johntho - you can yell fire in a crowded theater.

Simple is a good name for you!

NO you can't;

The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.

The U.S. vs. Schenck ruling was the one that mentioned "shouting fire in a crowded theater" that was never binding law. Your own reference states that Brandenburg v. Ohio overturned that decision.

And I'm the simple one? Got anything else other than name calling?

The term assault weapon is BS. There is no such thing on this planet. A military weapon, ie fully automatic, for those in here who are stupid that means as long as you hold the trigger and have ammo it will keep firing, cannot be owned by anyone legally unless you have a Class 3 license. With that license you are scrutinized and even have anal probes I have heard. The ATF is constantly inspecting your facility and weapons. The laws are in place for this. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle, it is not different from any 5.56 or .223 weapon that is sold for hunting except for the way it looks. They all fire the same: pull the trigger, one round fires. Legal to own, always will be. I can do just as much damage with a revolver from training. Send a moron who just wants the weapon for looks at me and my 6 shooter will have him. You cannot stop mentally unsatble people or criminals from getting weapons and using them. It reminds me of a cartoon that was published back in 1995 of a gun ban nut next to a gun rights, I'll say nut just to be fair, and he stated to the gun ban person,"I don't need a gun, I can beat you to death with this sign" It is all in the context of the situation. And Mr. Vice President, I would have to say that regardless of what the members of the government do from this point forward, I think the public knows that you all deserve to be fired at the next opportunity because not one of you has done your job for over 5 years. You can't make up for the shape this country has been put in by the so called change by taking up on issue after a school shooting. Using this tragedy as a smoke screen to cover what this country is about to fall into is wrong. We are on the verge of our entire country being sold to the Chinese and bowing down to the Muslim brotherhood by apologizing for being an American at every turn. Enforce the gun laws we have SEVERELY. Punish the ones who break the law SEVERELY. Send a message of zero tolerance. Break a gun law, go to prison for a long time. More laws that no one enforces will not help anything. As far as the shotgun statement goes. What happens when the criminal has scoped out the house, ma comes out and fires her whole 2 rounds into the air and now mr criminal slowly walks up and beats her with the now empty gun. Oops, that plan didn't work and you promised it would. Give me a break.

Seeking,

Get a clue. Coumo and Feinstein have talked about it. Stop with the agenda. The attempt at demonizing and making people feel guilty about owning guns won't work. Gangs kill more than all of these nut jobs combined. The feeble attempts by the anti gun folks to try the guilt trip won't work.

Q22, Any discussion of gun violence and cause of death needs to consider suicide and accidental death by firearm. These are part and parcel to the availability of guns being the problem in American society. Also, to your point, if you do remove suicide, we still remain the highest gun 'homicide' rate of any developed nation

Also, I do not view the constitution in a linear way. The question is, when does society have a compelling interest in regulating a 'freedom'. Clearly, all laws in a society should devolve from the overarching interest of that society. All laws limit 'freedom' to some extent. You can't murder your neighbor. You can't speed without consequence. Does this make you less free. Perhaps. But, if your rights take away the rights of others then they need to be limited. We have the right to, 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' . Is that less important than the right to, 'bear arms'. The fact is far too many Americans die because of the enormous numbers of guns in our society.

[After that, he got mad and called me Flava flav.]

That's because Commodus only likes vanilla. It's his "flava"...

Q-22, this discussion has nothing to do with the second amendment and you should know it, you have been told plenty of times. The government can regulate guns, other wise we could be talking about 50 caliber machine guns and rocket launchers. We are talking about regulating weapons of mass destruction. If that ain't so I want t nuke to take to the RNC meetings. I am a law abiding citizen I ought to be able to do that.

And I'm the simple one?

Ummm YUP!

I copied the wrong paragraph... BIG deal!

Johntho - you can yell fire in a crowded theater. That right is, in fact, protected under the first amendment.

Fact is you claimed it is legal and it is NOT protected under the first amendment!

Now go sit down, you're embarrassing yourself!

Can a person be prosecuted for yelling fire in a crowded building when there is no fire?

Answer

Yes, it's called Reckless Endangerment. When you make an action like that intentionally and knowing that there is no such danger, it encourages an action in the crowd that you would have probable reason to suspect panic. People get injured in panics. To put people in danger knowingly and without justification is illegal in all states. But get hold of a lawyer for specific citations.

Answer

Yes, freedom of speech only pertains to things that do not endanger others. FALSELY yelling "FIRE!" in a crowd will get you arrested. It can cause unwanted panic and people can be injured.

Answer:

Answer

Yes, it's called Reckless Endangerment. When you make an action like that intentionally and knowing that there is no such danger, it encourages an action in the crowd that you would have probable reason to suspect panic. People get injured in panics. To put people in danger knowingly and without justification is illegal in all states. But get hold of a lawyer for specific citations.

Answer

Yes, freedom of speech only pertains to things that do not endanger others. FALSELY yelling "FIRE!" in a crowd will get you arrested. It can cause unwanted panic and people can be injured.

Im whistling....here she comes...my pet rock roll right on in...

'Obama plays chess while republicans play checkers'. KILLA DEBATIN SKILLZ INDEED. what kinda jackazz makes a statement like that. NEW YAWK!

HAHAHAHAHA

Excellent post Locke, numbers. Rights are rights but all are regulated.

Simpletonion, I suggest you go to the picture show one that is busy and try it, see if you like the consequences of your stupidity. You must be the dumbest rock in the pile if you believe your own bovine excrement. You cannot endanger others simply to exercize your rights.

Or where do your rights stop and mine begin, remember I too have rights.

To Seeking Sanity: Good!! I am glad for that, HOWEVER MY MAN; With the "discreet" "Approved Guns Lists" which the state legislatures are cleverly using, It is Banning Guns by Attrition. Certain guns, Pistols and rifles are Not ALLOWED TO BE SOLD In each state; by attrition the Number of "Allowed for Sale" Weapons is DECREASING NOT INCREASING. Mathmatically that is a Big Negative on the Total of guns for sale numbers. So look, My Man, if you enjoy your Sig Sauer SP2022 or Glock 17 1st gen and now you are ONLY allowed to have a jamming and stodgy bolt action single shot 22 rifle, ThereUpon IS a big difference because your beloved Sig Or Glock 17, 19, 21 or whatever semi APC You Prefer is no longer available to You by the politico's clever weapons attritions list; whereas Exxon or the other oil companies and/or Corporations can have their security teams armed with Fully automatic weapons. Face It: "Approved Gun Lists" are a/THE form of banning weapons. You can yahoo or google or bing Or Whatever for lists in each state...Does Texas have One??? Gonna' find out Right Now. Uummmm.. did you see the above post on the number of people, Mostly Male, who used guns and whatever for murder and some suicides?? ALL were taking Big Pharm's meds....What percent of gun killings are done by NutJobs, and Gangbangers???? Is this what We Americans need?? 2nd Amend rights tossed Out, NO One except cops have any type of Weapons, skies filled with cop's and homeland security drones Spying On US ALL THE TIME, half of them armed with the New HomeFire Mini Missiles to wipe out citizens HERE who complain about the great smoke and mirrors power ecehelon, The US Corporations, to whom ALL the public servants bow down to and "serve and protect", Yeeaaa Sure!! Serve The Evil Rich and their corporations and protect their Ill gotten Blood Money. Americans are looked upon as mindless and obedient sheep; Are You???????? At $5.00 p/g gas refined from AMERICAN TAXPAYER OWNED CRUDE and Exploited on the World Free Market; Exxon executive given $40,000,000 * CASH* Bonus, Americans Given THE BONER In Congress And We don't have a say about Our property, JUST SHUT UP AND PAY!! You Like That??????????? Did You get a gander at "the Homeland Security Agents" being armed to the hilt as they Try to STRIP AWAY our "well regulated Militia" FireArms? THEY ARE STREET THUGS, KILLERS WITH pasted on badges and guns stuck in their waist bands who will Kill AnyOne they are ordered to with No trial or Day In court. You Like That???? Sounds Like What That Little Sack Of $H!T adam lanza did AND COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED by A National HealthCare Psychiatric OutReach Team. Hell, after checking Lanza and his disallutioned mom, they'd Both be Locked up in a Newly Opened Mental Hospital. You Anti Gun NUTTY people want to Lock Up America's Guns, Except, of course, for the Badged criminals OK!!!!!!!!!!! Lock Up The NutJobs First!! With An American Universal National HealthCare System And A WELL REGULATED Psychiatric OutReach Division with "Examine and Retain" authority LIKE OUR SANE ALLYS HAVE..It is Amazing how some of you AntiGun Nutties SelfRighteously turn your Empty Heads to What is REALLY WRONG In America...THE FAULT OF CONGRESS: 20% Unemployment, $4.00Take Home Pay for our kids YET $4.00++p/g of gas And So On, And So On.... For All You AntiGun Nutties...PULLEEEZE look at which way the wind is blowing...'Cause this violence Won't Stop..Ban Knives, Basball Bats, Crickett Batts, Frozen Leg Of Lamb, Table Lamps, Heavy ashtrays and Most Importantly Crooked Politicians on Crapital Hill.....More To Come...

. If that ain't so I want t nuke to take to the RNC meetings

im pretty sure Nukes are beyond the right to bear arms because of the radioactive and highly watched over material that is used. although I can obtain a full automatic legally and possess it.

Biden goes to Conn. shedding light on this one massacre as what will happen to all of us unless we get gun control. They are using this one incident involving a mentally/physically challenged kid whose mother had one too many guns around and failed to get him in treatment as part of their snake oil sales, aimed at taking away our freedoms.

Nobody has the right to take another human life. Nobody has the right to take away the freedom to protect oneself in order to preserve life either. The dems have made their case and the byproduct of this is enhanced paranoia and hysteria with people stockpiling weapons & ammo; also increased gun violence. My city alone has had a shooting a day since the turn of the year- unprecedented violence involving guns here alone.

They need to stop using Newtown as a sideshow act for political gain- it's disgusting and is creating ripples and tensions that are better left alone.

myname123, so you are in denial about that too. Many republicans are exactly as you describe, thing of it is you accept them because they own a vote. Hell, the republican party even accepts dead people, they still vote in republican districts?

@ Feisty - HIPA laws

Thats what I'm wondering as well. I'm also wondering how we are going to get around that in mental checks?

Feisty,

I'm 20 minutes from Roselle girl. Meet face to face and discuss if you wish. So much for that batting huh babe. As usual you resort to name calling or insults when someone doesn't agree. Typical of what I see from you. I will not give my rights up because of the gang bangers and nut jobs.

Exactly my point, if I can't have a nuke, then you shouldn't own an assault rifle. Fair is fair caesar McNuttless.

Thats what I'm wondering as well. I'm also wondering how we are going to get around that in mental checks?

That's a good question?

I can totally see this turning into a 21st century witch hunt!

For instance, Adam Lanza's mother knew he was mentally ill and didn't do a damn thing about it!

[im pretty sure Nukes are beyond the right to bear arms because of the radioactive and highly watched over material that is used.]

BRILLIANT! Pure gold, Jerry! Wiki-Wiki!

[although I can obtain a full automatic legally and possess it.]

Sure you can...You couldn't pass a background check to carry a Super Soaker.

I'm 20 minutes from Roselle girl. Meet face to face and discuss if you wish

Thanks but, I'll take a pass!

I'm not in the habit of meeting angry, impotent people on the internet in person!

As opposed to live ones?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341051/ohio-officials-poll-worker-may-have-voted-six-times-eliana-johnson

Mickey, NY

yep, thats all i see...all i need and guess what Monkey, you do exactly what i want.. you come running when i beckon. WHISTLE!!!

Im sure Monkey what you have to say is overly witty and very clever but dont think when you get down to it, you can discuss one aspect this 'gun debate' for example. You can have your pizza or hands on your azz or whatever bullshlt out of you manpleaser but i take great pleasure in knowing you are nothing but a blind worshipper of King Hussein. I'll hug my guns tonight and my kids and my wife and my dogs. You can hug your Communist Manifesto. TOUCHE'

But we have great comments of wisdom such as 'Obama plays chess while Republicans play checkers'. Outstanding for a homo erectus

P.S. you might want to wipe that off your chin too.

Thanks but, I'll take a pass!

I'm not in the habit of meeting angry, impotent people on the internet in person!

whats the matter, you libs get called out and then you default to the school yard tactic (bully) that 'you're not worth my time'... LOL...Yeah Fisty and Monkey....what a pair of brave individuals.

Johntho

Exactly my point, if I can't have a nuke, then you shouldn't own an assault rifle. Fair is fair caesar McNuttless.

apples and oranges but a libtard cant tell the difference Jethro..you're forgiven

Poor Redhead,

Back to name calling and thinking people are angry when they disagree. My daughter that lives in Roselle would highly disagree with you and you views on guns. You don't want to own a gun that's your choice. No issue with that. My choice is to own guns. Never once have any of my guns jumped out of the locked gun cabinet and shot anyone. Imagine that. They stayed where I locked them up. I have even left one on the coffee table overnight to see if it walked off and went on a shooting spree. It behaved and didn't go out by itself. The gun isn't the problem. It's the damn gang bangers and nut jobs out there. Go after the problem and not the tool. This feel good crap going on now will do nothing but limit peoples rights.

[...dont think when you get down to it, you can discuss one aspect this 'gun debate' for example.]

How would you know what I'm trying to debate or not, don't you have me on "ignore"?

Sure you do...but you know you take a peek, each and every time I post, just to see if I'm "talking" about you.

Bravo, my little cowardly putz.

[I'll hug my guns tonight and my kids and my wife and my dogs.]

Commodus, you're too stupid to pass a background check, so stop lying about the guns, and quit lying about the "wife and kids"...or the dogs...ok, maybe you have dogs, but they don't like you either.

Uh oh, just about time for you to "punch out" from your "infrastructure" job...Have a great weekend, my cowardly little putz!

The Peoples Voice, wasting your time. Same issue with Monkey. got no where. I was called a pussy for it? Explain that logic. The debate isnt about restricting guns. How many are killed with 'assault rifles' per year vs. a semi auto 9 mil? how many in the month of chicago were killed with an AK, SKS, AR or whatever .223/5.56 semi auto platform vs a semi auto handgun. So the narrative isnt about gun control.

where is the outrage in Phoenix or Tucson or L.A. Chicago. I hear about homicides in Chicago and the media punts it. just 'lighter' side of news. The liberal left sheep continue to Personify and inanimate object as if a fvcking gun can kill without a human behind it. Root ISSUES.

'A lie told often enough becomes truth'

adopted by FR liberals, NBC, ABC, WH etc.

Poor Redhead,

Nothing poor about me pal! lol

My daughter that lives in Roselle would highly disagree with you and you views on guns

I'm supposed to give a @!$%#... WHY?

This feel good crap going on now will do nothing but limit peoples rights

AWWWW! So sorry, the majority of this country disagrees with barrel suckers like yourself!

Go after the problem and not the tool.

Don't you mean "fool" like yourself? lol

If you need to have cold hard steel in your hands to make you feel dominant, there is something wrong with the hard-wiring in whatever brain you have left! ;o)

How would you know what I'm trying to debate or not, don't you have me on "ignore"?

Mickey,

Little sleazure is an attention whore who has NO ONE on ignore! He wouldn't miss getting his daily dose of having his ass whipped on a regular basis! lol

Attention Whore;

October 19, 2009 Urban Word of the Day
Label given to any person who craves attention to such an extent that they will do anything to receive it. The type of attention (negative or positive) does not matter

Stop feeding the POS!

It's not worthy of your time! ;o)

Phantom - NO - no one is talking about banning guns. That's the lie the Republican party is using to scare ignorant people who are terrified of losing their guns. And, not a man, I'm a woman.

Feisty - definitely NO to meeting The Peoples Voice! He'd probably bring a gun with him - you know those crazies!

Spamming the propaganda your union tells you to must pay well then

Get back to me when you know WTF you're talking about!

I have NEVER belonged to a union...

DAYUM!!! What is UP with the stuck on stupid brigade on parade?

Feisty - definitely NO to meeting The Peoples Voice! He'd probably bring a gun with him - you know those crazies!

It's their bravado! lmao!

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

How would you know what I'm trying to debate or not, don't you have me on "ignore"?

Mickey,

Little sleazure is an attention whore who has NO ONE on ignore! He wouldn't miss getting his daily dose of having his ass whipped on a regular basis! lol

Ouchie... Believe Fisty, the bitter of rage bull dyke knows all...and yeah listen to seeking 'he'll bring a gun'. I heard that one too... Who plays victim the best...Yeah take a good look into that mirror idiots.

You have been weighed, measured and founding wanting.

And please do keep up the good job of 'whoopin my ass' keyboard cowboys.

Biden encouraged someone to use a shotgun against others?

Ceasor Brainless, please explane how the right to own a AR-15 is different then owning a nuke, or to be more practical a rocket laucher or even a machine gun. Be careful its a trick question.

Why is it the libs have no problem with Joe's comment on "nothing making a difference" and choose to focus on NRA's "good man with a gun".... you'd have to admit, even if you're a liberal, Joes' comment to his OWN WIFE about using a shotgun to scare off an intruder is STUPID... when you can use that same shotgun to STOP the intruder DEAD in their tracks...............

"Morgs74

Michael Thompson, Charlotte, NC - For starters, I appreciate the civil conversation.

I see a problem with this statement though:

the whole notion that the citizenry owning guns is any deterrent to criminal behavior is mainly mthological nonsense that isn't supported by any crime statistics anyway.

Criminals are more likely to break into your house during the daylight, when you are not home. When asked, and I will try to find the link, a criminal said, you never break into houses at night, that is when you get shot. That statement alone says that home owners with guns are a deterrent.

Sure, criminals en masse will still own guns

This is a recipe for disaster."

So the criminals will break into your house when you are away and steal your gun. Good job arming the "Bad Guys"

myname123 - I'm surprised you can actually count to 3. As I always say, seeking sanity in the Republican party but as morons like you prove, daily, there is absolutely NONE to be found!

The guns are just a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is that everyone of these shooters either were on or were withdrawing from the dangerous anit-depressants lookit up the info is out there, we must not let the second admendmant be infringed upon no matter what. The line in the sand has been drawn. We must not let the government step over that line, they have already violated their oath of office and they must be held accountable for that. For your info I am a democrat and i execiise my rright to bear arms. NOBODY is GOING to TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY. When are you people going to stop bickering back and forth and stand together to protect our rights and force our government to do its job and enforce the laws that are already in place. Obama and Biden have already openly admited that these new proposals will not do anything to stop the violence. So why are they not addressing the real issues here. Have anyone of you people ever stopped to think about that? Stop arguing about the distractions and strand together on the real issues here and force our Gov. to do the same or we throw them out and start over with some that will uphold and protect the constitution like they are swore to do.

ps. i already posted this comment at the whitehouse.gov

Isn't it amazing the likes of fisty and ss and their urchin followers support Biden in his push for morality talking about the "massacre of those innocent children". Yet they refuse to consider the moral issue of murdering millions of unborn children each year for their convenience. Disgusting.

Johntho

First place, we are not even talking about guns, guns for hunting and sport, so take that argument down the hall and see if anybody will fall for it there.

Youre absolutely right, we are talking about a solid Amendment that has already been reaffirmed by SCOTUS, the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Second thing, civilians have no need to have a weapon capable of shooting from 30-100 times non stop as fast as you can pull the trigger.

AGAIN SCOTUS disagrees with you. You nor anyone else should be able to tell me what I can and cannot own. I choose to own an AR15 for several reasons but mostly for the meat of the 2nd Amendment that with enormous weapons and ammunition sales to a multitude of government agencies that have already begun to encroach on civil rights and 4th Amendment rights, it would be foolish not to own one myself.

Third, you sick SOBs that write off the killing of 20, 6 year old as "marching them in front for sympathy" There is no word or sentence that can describe just exactly how despicable you are. What a bunch of low lives. You know, typical of tea bags.

I am an Independent voter and I voted for Obama first term. Obama is the one surrounding himself with children and making an emotional plea to legislate something that ONLY affects citizens who have owned guns for generations and NEVER committed a crime with them. ARE YOU REALLY NAIVE enough to believe that a criminal or psychopath would stop their plans because the Obama administration passed a law?

and Last, not one of you anti's offer any solution to our violent society. More guns hasn't worked and as a matter of fact it just keeps getting worse.

More guns is the result of making an emotional knee jerk reaction to a tragedy and trying to politicize it. Your CinC and his quick emotional reaction is the reason they are flying off the shelves.

I do, have a solution, I say we take those guns away from everybody and not allow them to be sold anywhere in the U.S., anyone caught with one, will be a criminal, in the scope of things that one slogan by the NRA is going to come true. Gun nuts that by reason of their insanity cannot follow the laws will do jail time, pay fines and never own another gun as long as they live.

Thats working really well in Chicago isnt it? 500 murders 435 of them with illegal weapons that have been smuggled into the US by Mexican Cartels for sale on the open market. These guns are flooding communities with the most stringent of gun laws. Nice try.

If you think these bans don't work, do some research, learn for a change from a neutral source. Not being lied to by the NRA whose only skin in this game is to sell more guns.

I have learned that I have owned guns for 30 years and have never committed any crimes with them. You just want to punish the just because you are afraid of an inanimate object.

Murder rates by state (Per 100,000 pop)

#1.DC 21.9 #2. LA 11.2 #3. MIS 8.0 #4. NM 7.5 #5. MD 6.8 SC 6.8 #6. AL 6.3 #7. MI 6.2 AZ 6.2 #8. MI 6.1 # 9. TN 5.8 #10. IL 5.6 GA 5.6 #11. OK 5.5 AK 5.5 #12. NC 5.3 #13. NV 5.2 FL 5.2 #14. PN 5.0 #15. CA 4.8 IN 4.8 #16. DL 4.5 #17. OH 4.4 TX 4.4 #18. NJ 4.3 WV 4.3 #19. NY 4.0 AL 4.0 #20. KN 3.8 21. VA 3.7 #22. CN 3.6 NE 3.6 #23. KN 3.5 ND 3.5 #24. WY 3.2 #25. CO 2.9 #26. MAS 2.8 MO 2.8 #27. SD 2.5 #28. WS 2.4 WA 2.4 #29. ID 2.3 #30. OR. 2.1 #31. MA 2.0 #32. UT 1.9 #33. IO 1.5 #34. MN 1.4 #35. RI 1.3 VT 1.3 NH 1.3 # 36. HI 1.2

Stats from the 2011 UCR

What we see here is that there is no correlation between gun laws lax or strict in overall murder rates. For instance NY and AL share the same rate even though the two states have very different gun laws. We can therefore surmise that reducing murder rates is not a matter of gun laws but rather a matter of society working to address the root causes of crime.

Feisty,

Let's look at some facts that you rabid anti gunners fail to understand

1)Guns are here to stay, they are not going away, no wave of your magic wand or you sprinkling pixie dust, or wonky law is going to make them magically go away.

2) You cannot legislate morality.

3) You cannot stop a determined person

4)Criminals are not going to obey the law regardless of whatever gun legislation passes, hence the reason they are criminals.

5) Gun owners can and will defy laws that they deem unConstitutional.

6) Gun tragedies are going to happen despite whatever gun measures are passed. Whether it is at a mall, school, church, wherever. People and even children are going to die. That sucks but it is what it is.

Take a long hard look at the above and take this advice:

Get mad, deal with it, and get over it. Nothing of significance is going to change. The evolutionary sophistication of our weaponry is far outpacing our humanity and morality. That sucks too, but it too, is what is is. We simply have not gone far enough down the evolutionary path to purge our humanity of anger, jealousy, etc. Maybe in a few millenia, but not now.

I can completely understand that following the tragedies of our nations' most recent mass shootings that people wish for some sort of reform to comfort them and reassure them that this can be prevented. However, the current gun-control proposals will, in reality, do little if nothing to curb gun related fatalities. I would like to list out my understanding of gun control advocates' arguments for more stringent gun controls and my rebuttals. If I have misunderstood, please feel free to correct me.

Argument 1) On the issue of "assault" style weapons, taking the magazine capability out of the equation (that will be the next issue), gun control advocates make the claim that a rifle like the AR-15 should not be legal to obtain by your normal civilian as it is overkill for what they perceive as legal use for a firearm.

Rebuttal 1) The actual functioning mechanics of the AR-15 or any semi-automatic rifle, have many legal uses. Ranchers have used semi-automatic rifles for years to protect their livestock from predators. The current models of semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are no different in their capabilities to the semi-automatic rifles used in hunting. The civilian model AR-15 in fact, uses a .223 round, which is really just a .22 caliber round with a larger propulsion system to increase accuracy when leaving the longer barrel of a rifle. The .223 round is not a strong round either. In many states, it is illegal to use the .223 round for big game hunting due to its weak kinetic impact in comparison to other hunting rounds. While the round can kill, it takes exceptional accuracy to incapacitate an adult with one shot. It should be noted that prior to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, the state of CT already had an "assault weapons" ban on their books. If the shooter's mother did in fact own an "assault weapon" as classified by law, it was not a legal possession under CT law.

Argument 2) A magazine capacity of more than 6-8 rounds is unnecessary. High capacity magazines should be banned because they have no lawful purpose.

Rebuttal 2) Not everyone is an expert expert shooter. While in my state and many others, you are required to take a gun safety course prior to purchasing a firearm, that does not ensure that in a time of need, we will all be able to hit our target on the first trigger pull, or completely neutralize the threat by the end of 6-8 trigger pulls. As was evidenced in the home invasion story from Georgia last month, it can take many rounds to completely neutralize a threat. In that case, the woman hit the intruder five times in the face with a .38 caliber round. In that situation the intruder fled, but in another they may be more determined. When defending yourself with a firearm, you are always taught to continue shooting until the threat is neutralized and always at center mass. A .38 is a significantly larger round than what typically comes out of an AR-15 and five of those to the face can still leave an attacker alive and able to hurt you. In a self-defense situation, the shooter is usually suffering from a rush of adrenaline, which would probably cause a significant deterioration of accuracy. Depending on severity of the threat, caliber of ammunition, type of firearm, and shooter skill, not all bullets will hit their intended target. If you are limited to eight bullets let us say in a .22 caliber handgun and you hit your attacker with six of the eight and he/she is still standing and able to hurt/kill you, then all your handgun did was delay their original intention. If however you have a larger magazine, then even though you missed two shots, you are still going to have some more to finish the job if need be.

Argument 3) America's gun culture is what has caused the large number of gun related deaths. If we adopted a stricter gun control policy like other developed nations around the world, then gun related deaths would decrease significantly.

Rebuttal 3) While it is true that the US has one of the highest gun related death numbers in the developed world. To take that number in a vacuum is irresponsible. While it is true that the US has one of the highest instances of gun related deaths, one must take into consideration our high population and the circumstances. A large percentage of gun related deaths in the US are suicides and I would argue that even without guns, many (not all) of those people would still have found a way to kill themselves. In addition, when comparing the US to other countries with stricter gun control and therefore fewer guns, one should include all violent crime statistics for both countries in order to achieve a more common denominator. I will use the UK as an example as it is the closest in terms of culture to the US's. While the US has a much larger instance of gun related deaths to the UK, the UK far exceeds the US when comparing the ratios of violent crime in proportion to total population. Not only that, but the ration increased sharply in the UK following their ban on civilians legally owning firearms. That comparison, in my opinion, shows that a decrease in available firearms to law abiding citizens, not only prevents them from defending themselves against a better armed criminal, but that a truly deranged individual who has the mindset to kill, will find a way to kill regardless of what tool he/she has to use.

Argument 4) The second amendment was written at a time when the most technologically advanced weapons available were single shot muzzle loaded muskets and cannon artillery. The founding fathers never meant for everyday civilians to obtain this type of weaponry and we should modify our understanding of that amendment to better reflect current technology.

Rebuttal 4) While it is true that portable weaponry has made leaps and bounds since the time of our founding fathers, I reject this argument on two premises. Firstly, if we are to say that the Second Amendment should be revised to better reflect current technological capabilities, then should we also modify the first amendment? If so, should we modify all the amendments? Where does the revision stop? The founding fathers could not have possibly imagined that we would have the capabilities to send messages from one side of the world to the other in less than a minute. They could not have imagined that messages of dissent and groups unhappy with the way the government was running would be able to organize across the country and convene in a digital space to discuss their grievances. Should we therefore put limits on the freedom of speech to reflect the leaps in bounds in technological capabilities of the day? Secondly, at the time of the Bill of Rights not only did the founding fathers mean for us to have the same weapons as the country's military, but many of them owned artillery themselves well after their own political service. It is here that I have some trouble. The pure constitutionalist in me says that absolutely without limits a law-abiding citizen should be able to purchase all techs available to the military. The realist in me understands that an everyday individual getting their hands on a nuclear warhead would not be in the best interests of our national security. I do believe however that the point where the line is drawn now is already sufficient.

Those are my arguments and I hope I was able to make them in a way that did not offend anyone. Please feel free to debate and ask for clarifications where necessary. I would love to learn more about the other side's point of view.

92% of Americans are for background checks. You gun nuts aren't very popular. Why?

"If the ballot doesn't work, bullets will."

You gun nuts lost the election and now you are threatening revolution. You bet your bippie we want to disarm you crazy gun nuts.

#1. Gayle Trotter...NRA spokesperson for WOMAN....testified by fabricating a creepy rape story about a Mom, 5-6 kids , and a semi-automatic gun show-down.

This "WOMAN'S EMPOWERMENT" speech came from the same lady who commented on Violence against Women & Woman in Combat.... NOPE, she doesn't approve.

Puzzling......

.

.

#2. When asked, the woman, who who shot an intruder while her kids hid, and her husband dialed 911....said she did NOT see a reason for having an AK-15.

Lady #2 has common sense.

Redhead, the more you type the stupider you sound. Back away from the keyboard and do somethiing constructive like shovel your snow. Oh, yeah, you don't have a cyber-audience of idiots like yourself to send you keyboard kudos for all your ignorance if you're actually outside getting some exercise.

They continue their anti gun rhetoric despite their true agenda being exposed. Are they that stupid or do they think "we the people" are?
In any event, they continue with their anti gun diatribe despite a growing consensus that realizes nothing they propose has even the smallest chance of preventing shootings and crime in general, and has everything to do with disarming the American people.

Consider the following:

For the year 2011, the number of people killed in this country by long guns (shotguns, rifles including what they characterize as assault weapons) was 211. To contrast this, the number of people killed by bludgeoning (clubs, bats, crowbars bricks, etc.) was 496. However, thousands were killed with handguns but Obama's seemingly irrational focus in on assault weapons, a most miniscule offender.

Thus Obama's true agenda is exposed, which is the disarming of the American people in full concert with the United Nations that insists people the world over be disarmed.

In that goal, Obama is only too willing to comply, and he thinks he's found a way to violate the constitution to achieve this.

Note: The 2011 numbers were used here because the Justice department has yet to release the 2012 numbers, which will not be substantially different.

Guns cause violence.

Cars cause accidents.

Silverware causes obesity.

Paper causes bad laws.

I've still haven't seen a single gun-control advocate answer any of these following questions that the right always brings up:

1) What defines an assault weapon? The Clinton era ban that expired made no quantifiable difference.

2) Why control semi-autos with cosmetic features that account for less than 2% of ALL homicides per year, than hand guns? Really think about who's having the knee-jerk reaction here; right wingers who want to protect their constitutional right? Or the left wingers who, before the day was done at Sandy Hook, wanted an assault weapons ban?

3) How do you increase gun control effectivly WITHOUT infringing on the rights of the law-abiding community? The only suggestion I've seen is close the "gun show loophole", which according to the DoJ, less than 1% of all guns aquired at a gun show are used in a firearms related incident. And sorry, but a national registry, or any firearms registry showing who owns what, is ILLEGAL by federal law, and was proposed and passed by a liberal Congress.

4) What types of firearms are currently banned, and/or strictly enforced? You'd be surprised as to how many people think full autos are legal and easy to get LEGALLY.

5) What laws would you enact, or steps would you make to get illegal guns and illegally obtained firearms off the streets and out of the hands of criminals?

6) How do you propose to curb inner city violence such as in L.A., Chicago and other cities with high crime rates with firearm related incidents?

7) Have you ever held a gun with a 30 or 60 round clip in it? Hold a 6lb weight in your left arm, 18-22" away from your body, in line with your right shoulder. Then do it with a 8-11lb weight. Finally do it with approximately 1.5-2lb weight. Time yourself doing it each time to see how long you can do it before your arm begins to tire (or shake). Do the same with your dominant (shooting) hand, held straight out, but decrease the weights about 30%.

1.Redhead/piggy is the same dude working as a blogger

2.Biden knows nothing about guns

3.Nut's should not be allowed to own guns

4.I am not a nut and I have the right to own a gun to protect myself when I feel the need to so,one of the company's that I own puts me at a vary high risk of getting robbed or even killed.

5.I feel the need to have at least a 10 round mag I carry 3 of them and I don't fire warning shoots ever.

miklkit - Go to a store and purchase a gun. Then come back and tell us the first thing they do. Please.

This strawman argument is getting old...

What I find troubling is some of the comments coming from the VP:

"If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun," he said. "Have the shells of a 12-gauge shotgun and I promise you - as I told my wife … 'Jill, if there is ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever is coming in is not going to.'"

That's just not a safe thing to tell anyone to do. Regardless of anyone's position on gun ownership, telling someone to just fire two blasts outside the house, without regard for which direction they are pointing a gun, is dangerous and just plain irresponsible. People are responsible for where their fired rounds hit, and the warning shot that our VP is suggesting, is something that even his law enforcement officers are prohibited from doing. In fact anyone following his advice in any large town or city, would probably be arrested.

It is irrational comments like those made by the VP, that make your gun-owner friends question whether the anti-gun-owners statements have any merit.

@Feisty.. Please answer for me the following questions...

What's the difference between a pistol grip on a rifle vs. a pistol grip on a pistol?

What's the difference between a rifle with a black plastic stock vs. wood?

What's the difference between a pistol with a compensator on it vs. a rifle with a compensator on it?

What's the difference between shooting a rifle or a pistol with a 20 round magazine vs two 10 round magazines? (with magazine changeover in .8 seconds)

Why is a black rifle with a carrying handle on top need to be banned yet the same rifle with a wood stock doesn't?

Why is an AR-15 that shoots .223 Remington considered a small caliber varmit gun out west?

How is banning a black rifle going to stop mass murders of children in the future when so many other firearms are just as efficient at killing if the person intends to do harm?

Why is a rifle more dangerous with a folding stock (yet still harder to conceal than a pistol) than a smaller pistol?

Why should there be a ban on rifles with wood stocks that have a hole for your thumb to grip it?

And this one... Why whould the vice president tell people to go out and buy a shotgun when a shotgun can do more leathal damage to people in a small space than a .223???? Just wait until the libitards understand what Biden condones.... Yes... a SHOTGUN can do MORE damage than a .223 THIS IS WHY the liberals have it all wrong. Nothing they propose will stop mass killings in the future... Your JOE has even said so...

But please answer me these questions... ok?

Can anyone liberal please tell me how banning an AR type firearm will stop the violence in south Chicago or stop another killing spree like in CT?

"If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun," he said. "Have the shells of a 12-gauge shotgun and I promise you - as I told my wife … 'Jill, if there is ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever is coming in is not going to.'"

Jesus Holy Christ is this man really this stupid?

"Jill, fire a gun in the air." The Secret Service would be on her like white on rice.

And I don't know how the rich and famous are treated, but for us poor white folks out in here fly over country it is illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits of any municipality, and yeah it is illegal to shoot into the air to scare them off. Last I checked it was only legal to shoot at an intruder, but maybe they changed the rules for Joe. {The reason it is illegal to shoot into the air is that what goes up, must come down. Granted in the case of shot pellets, the dangers are minimal, they are not non existent}

Go, Joe!

3rd rule of gun safety Joe, Identify "Know" your target.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

I'm just glad to see the Administration keeping this message front & center!

After the massacre of 20 innocent at Sandy Hook, things did change this time...

They deserve a VOTE!

#1

Well of course you are Feisty. It keeps the MSM from reporting the real news. This President is a master Magician or Illusionist. "Watch this hand over here, hey don't pay attention to the other hand, Watch this hand over here!"

And the gun debate is subterfuge, a distraction, so he isn't questioned on the real issues, Abuse of Power, Failed leadership, High Crimes and Misdemeanors, the Economy, the Debt, Unemployment, "Jobs are Job 1!" and that list goes on for a long, long way. And it all starts with the most Transparent Administration in History, yeah, how that working out.

obamascandalslist.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-scandals-list.html

check out the above site. Not just Feisty, everyone.

"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden

I think this is the first thing to come out of this Administration that comes even close to being the Truth.

Nothing THEY are doing will “fundamentally alter [the outcome] another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year”, because they are doing all the wrong things.

@ Back East

@Feisty.. Please answer for me the following questions...

What's the difference between a pistol grip on a rifle vs. a pistol grip on a pistol?

What's the difference between a rifle with a black plastic stock vs. wood?

What's the difference between a pistol with a compensator on it vs. a rifle with a compensator on it?

What's the difference between shooting a rifle or a pistol with a 20 round magazine vs two 10 round magazines? (with magazine changeover in .8 seconds)

Why is a black rifle with a carrying handle on top need to be banned yet the same rifle with a wood stock doesn't?

Why is an AR-15 that shoots .223 Remington considered a small caliber varmint gun out west?

How is banning a black rifle going to stop mass murders of children in the future when so many other firearms are just as efficient at killing if the person intends to do harm?

Why is a rifle more dangerous with a folding stock (yet still harder to conceal than a pistol) than a smaller pistol?

Why should there be a ban on rifles with wood stocks that have a hole for your thumb to grip it?

And this one... Why whould the vice president tell people to go out and buy a shotgun when a shotgun can do more leathal damage to people in a small space than a .223???? Just wait until the libitards understand what Biden condones.... Yes... a SHOTGUN can do MORE damage than a .223 THIS IS WHY the liberals have it all wrong. Nothing they propose will stop mass killings in the future... Your JOE has even said so...

But please answer me these questions... ok?

#1.177

Now Back East, you know that is unfair, poor Feisty has no idea what you just said or are asking, let alone have the cognitive ability to answer those questions intelligently. ;-)

She can only parrot that which she has been told to her by the MSM.

And I am guessing you are just as flummoxed as I am at the same descriptions in the 1934 FCA. But what do you expect when you have law makers that have no understanding of anything, other than getting elected, make the laws.

An excellent post btw. I doubt you will get a reply from Feisty.

Also, I should hope you are aware the AR 10 and 15 come in a multitude of calibers. Many of which actually disqualify it from the "Assault" class.

I have an AR chambered in .243 win. SSM, which is a Rifle cartridge, not an intermediate cartridge, which as you know, is a defining characteristic of an "Assault Rifle", does this then also disqualify my AR from the so called "Assault Weapons" ban? Just another one of those stupid questions that come up from this debate. ;-)

Fiesty knows what the dead think. Why she even knows how they should think ....her way

We should be focusing on stopping gun violence, not stopping the gun. Let's focus on the violence part (which we know will continue no matter what restriction you put on the tool used to commit violence). Mental health advocacy has turned into a whisper because "ban" makes a politician electable and creates a better headline to boot. Sad we would rather make ourselves feel warm and fuzzy than pass effective legislation that would actually protect our children, and the rest of us too.

All of you using children to make your point as to why we need more gun control take a look at this.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo-health-abortions

Yes we are #2 behind Russia in abortions. So where does the real focus need to be if we use your same logic for gun control on this issue. Do not get me wrong Sandy Hook as well as any murder is in no way insignificant, but who is looking out for the over 1.2 mil babies aborted. If you say it is a woman's right then your gun control argument is over.

When you have a VP telling people to go outside and unload a double barrel shotgun into the air with no regard to where the bullet comes down I'd say that isn't the way to keep it front and center! What's he going to say if that bullet comes down and kills your child? You people that are so against guns in the hands of citizens should go take a class in gun safety not so you can buy or even own a gun but so you can see how most of us treat owning guns. It's just people like you that don't have a clue about gun safety or how to even pick one up that cause people to get hurt. Take a class in what to do if you find a gun at least. You might also thank people that owned guns for creating a free country, with out them we might still be living under British Rule. One other thing our military takes our young men and women and puts them through 3 months of Basic Training and then asks them to fight for this country. Our Military Generals are upset that a lot of these young people have never even held a fire arm and have no idea how to. They are suggesting that young people take classes before they enlist so they are better prepared for what we need them to do. Do you think that is a good idea or would you rather we just step aside and let anyone that wishes to kill American's here and abroad? When is a good time to keep our nation safe? Our VP thinks just the sound of guns going off will scare away intruders. I think that depends if you are outside with them or still in your home. I also think that if those intruders knew you are the good law abiding citizen and turned in all your guns to authorities if it comes to that, that you and your home will be an open target. So do you think your property will be safer if criminals think you own a gun or if they know you don't? Thanks to the media in Westchester (?), New York the criminals in New York City, 45 miles away and just a few train stops away know who doesn't own a gun. If you feel so strongly about not owning guns then why don't you post your name and address on your local news paper or here on the internet that you don't own guns? Lets see how safe you feel?

Biden's a grand-standing phuck with the intelligence of a tree frog, but extremely representative of the party he represents.

BTW, Fisty Redhead, you wouldn't need to post corrections to your ignorant posts if you weren't sitting in front of your computer like a complete loser hitting refresh every 20 seconds so you can post first.

Try setting your goals for yourself just a tad higher, huh?

Oh, and saw a great bumper sticker the other day: Annoy a liberal: Work - Succeed - Be Happy

Talking about absolutely nailing it in the fewest words possible. LOL!

Make the debate over guns worthy of our son

By Mark Barden and Jackie Barden

Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun violence is the latest in a series of events following the Dec. 14shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Our 7-year-old son, Daniel, 19 of his first-grade classmates and six educators were killed in the tragedy. We believe this hearing is an opportunity to rise above the hard-line rhetoric and intransigence that too often lead to inaction and hopelessness, and we hope that our leaders and our nation will start a new conversation with a chance of achieving real change.

Our Daniel was a constant source of laughter and joy. He was intelligent, articulate, incredibly affectionate, fair, thoughtful toward others and unfailingly polite. Daniel believed in holding doors open for strangers. He talked to the person sitting alone. He loved to help clean up a mess, and he made sure there was enough milk for everyone before adding it to his cereal.

His kindergarten teacher recently wrote to us: “He is the kind of student that should come wrapped in ribbon because he is a gift to his teachers. I can remember leaving notes for our substitute to ‘ask Daniel’ if she or he needed help with anything.”

Motivated by Daniel’s empathy and kindness, one of our relatives created a Facebook page, “What Would Daniel Do?,” to inspire others to reach out as our youngest son did.

As lawmakers and others discuss what can be done to curb gun violence, we hope Americans will ask, What would Daniel do?

Daniel would listen and be respectful. Our country needs a new dialogue, one that doesn’t follow the tired script of political squabbling. Any improvement to our laws, no matter how small or reasonable, should not be decried as the forward wave of an attempt to “ban guns” or “take away rights.” Even those of us who have lost the most are suggesting no such thing.

Daniel would be honest. We know that there are no easy answers to these multifaceted issues. Anyone who suggests that a single law would “solve the problem” isn’t telling the truth. But neither is anyone who says that changes in our laws can’t make a difference.

Daniel wouldn’t give up hope. We refuse to accept the status quo. Making our society safer will require sustained, comprehensive action by individuals as well as by communities and government. As parents, there is nothing more important to us than our relationship with our children. Every parent can start right there, in their own home. On a broader level, it is urgent that we address the gaps in our mental health system and examine school security. We must have the same open dialogue about gun responsibility and accountability. The parental desire to love and protect our children is common ground for gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

We have joined with other families, neighbors and friends in making the Sandy Hook Promise (http://www.sandyhookpromise.org/). We hope every member of Congress and Americans nationwide will join us in pledging to honor the lives lost last month by coming together to end these violent tragedies.

Our Daniel wanted to be a fireman like his uncles. He played drums in our family band, and he could run like the wind. Until Dec. 14, Daniel’s future was limited only by the size of his dreams.

Our son’s future was stolen from him: There will be no firehouse, no more rock band, no Boston Marathon.

But if our nation uses this moment to make the future brighter for other children, Daniel’s life and the lives of his classmates and educators will have meaning for years to come.

Our nation’s ability to deal with gun violence is limited only by the civility of our discourse, the scope of our ambitions and — as Daniel would have done — our willingness to come together and take action.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-response-to-newtown-shootings-think-of-daniel/2013/01/29/b658933a-6a48-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html?hpid=z5

___________________________________________________________

Twenty Innocent Angels and Six Faithful Guardians.

Lest We Forget

Ever

IR---as the President said---Daniel deserves a vote. He deserves more than that in my book but at the minimum, Congress should draft the legislation and put it up for a vote. Let's see who stands up for Daniel and all the other victims.

Thanks for the laugh!

Hey JOE, thanks for the comment about yourself!

Pat Boston MA....you can't be a real person. Joe Biden is a strong Vice President?????? Joe Biden is Obama's attack dog and nothing else. He does what his master tells him to do. I would love to be a fly on the wall after he has a meeting with Obama as it would be great for America to hear what he really believes about Obama. Any assualt weapons ban is DOA in Congress. Any restriction on magazine size is DOA in Congress. Background checks we can live with. Lets move on to the record deficits and debt.

Attack dog?? Actually, he's more of a feeble senile person that runs around the country not making any sense, embarrassing the White House, and more importantly spreading his warped sense of gun control (i.e., shooting a shotgun from your balcony..). I mean, how much more of irresponsible person is this guy?

Lest we forget.

Thank you IRA. Thank you.

IR - thank you for reminding everyone what we are fighting for - the right of every child to go to school without fear of the madman coming in with guns blazing; for every child to go to church without the fear of a nut coming in shooting; for eveyone to be able to assemble without the fear of a nutcase mowing everyone down with an assault weapon.

Yes, people can still shoot but without doing as much damage as is done with an assault weapon. We certainly owe every child this much!

Seeking - thank you for pointing out the madman. You hit it right square on the head of the nail. Will you be as vehement in your disgust for the drugs that are being prescribed to these people? IMO they are not working. I have some first hand knowledge as my sister is ADD, ADHD, Schizofrenic, Bipolar, anxiety attacks. It does stabilize her somewhat but, good god folks, these drugs are destroying people every day.

"these drugs are destroying people every day..."

No. They are not.

You are just wrong headed.

I am tired to death of gun nuts trying to deflect any reasonable discussion of gun control..which is COMING whether you want it or not, and deflecting to anything else.

Dear Gun Nuts:

We will talk about what happened to those children. It is not "using" a situation for political gain... it is all of us coming together to figure out how to avoid such a tragedy again.

Just like we did when driving drunk was killing lots and lots of people. New laws were enacted to reduce the carnage. And they have helped.

If you have so little control over your emotions that you can't be a part of the solution without writing posts to people you don't know about "meeting" them, and what your daughter in the same town "thinks" (given your post, "Peoples Voice" there isn't a lot of thinking that goes on in your family) then don't write about the issue, and quit having an adult read these posts to you.

When I read what the "gun nuts" have to say about this, I become convinced that the only way we fix this is to require ANYONE with a NRA membership to seek a mental health evaluation from a qualified professional.

The only thing I have learned from this is that gun nuts are truly nuts. And that should worry everyone.

New,

You anti-gun nuts are all the same. Cry over the innocent children that were killed by a crazy, yet you defend to the death a woman's right to choose to slaughter year after year unborn children. So WHERE in the hell is your outrage about that? It's amazing that you can walk and chew gum at the same time...

Here is a prime example of deflection from a reasonable discussion of what our current problems is...TOO MANY GUNS IN THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE THEM.

JK: it is not lawful for women to murder children. It is lawful for women to end the cycle of dividing cells. What do you think...that there is a 10 year old child in a woman's womb?

This is what happens when you allow the crazies to dictate science education.

Do join us in the current century, won't you?

This is not about protection it’s about control, how can you take the sheep to slaughter if they keep kicking at you? Nice to see so many sheep out of their pens this morning!

Oh please new,

You are the one deflecting about abortion. Cells dividing?? Really?? If that is the case then why are so many precautions that expecting mothers are supposed to do during pregnancy? Do you really think it's all just to protect "dividing cells"?? The FACT is that thousands of unborn children are slaughtered every day all in the name of a woman's "choice and you CHOOSE to ignore that fact. You would rather drool over the fact of limiting guns ownership. Gun ownership, I might add, that would restrict law abiding citizens and NOT the criminals. And in case you simply forgot we have laws on the books, but yet we choose to either ignore or not enforce them, so how is one MORE law going to save a life? When you nutjobs like Biden blabbering about firing off shotguns from your balcony on your house, perhaps you should commit your feeble mind to people that don't know the first thing about gun safety. Those are the people that kill more individuals on a yearly basis than the crazed gunman in Sandy Hook.

And as I already have posted for the third time...California already has a listing of 2,000+ convicted felons that have a gun registered to them, and yet they don't confiscate them. Why is that?? Sure pass more laws, when we already have on the books laws that would prevent another Sandy Hook RIGHT NOW but yet we choose to not enforce it because we don't have the "money"... Please give me a break with your heartbreaking weeping tears about innocent children that were victims and yet stand by and don't give a damn about preventing another tragedy like that TODAY!

@sensible....

Joe Biden left out how you can do more damage with a 12 guage than a .223... BTW, what is an assault rifle? One that's black, has a carrying handle on the top, a compensator? Or any firearm with a magazine well... because it don't make a difference between shooting kiddies trapped in a classroom with a pistol or revolver, or a shotgun.... WHAT"S THE DIFFERENCE?? Each gun is one bullet per pull of the trigger.. Magazine change overs take .8 seconds when practiced... One could do the same damage with 6 shot of 00 vs 30 rounds from a .223 (which is a small caliber by the way... used for varmit hunting out west).

DNFTT

(Suicide is now supposed to be...what, funny?)