Nomore - Agreed. Limiting caliber or clip size is a feel good measure with no enforceable future. You would be making people criminals since they already own them. And if you grandfather them in it would be even more unenforceable.

What I find interesting is the difference between rural and urban thinking. Does it have to do with hunting or old fashioned "wild west justice" that presents such a dramatic contrast?

As someone who lives in the city but works in the rural I hear from them often. Police are 20-30 minutes away and 2 shotgun shells won't provide you with adequate peace of mind or protection should @!$%# hit the fan. They are also tools of the trade. The .223 caliber is a perfect varmint gun but also the most hated right now.

Illinois about to get "conceal and carry" passed... the only state without one.

I'm all for background checks! I'm all for certain types qualifying for personal use.

But if we are going to pass some new laws, lets enforce them.

Universal background checks are certainly a step in the right direction.

Absolutely Brian!

Here is some revealing info on where the guns are coming from into the City of Chicago;

You might think the Deep South is the biggest source of the firearms in the hands of Chicago’s criminals.

Maybe you heard about the less-restrictive gun laws in the South or the high-profile cases the feds have brought against gun traffickers moving weapons from Mississippi and other states to Chicago — the Dixie pipeline.

But the truth is most guns recovered in crimes here were originally bought in Illinois.

More specifically, in Cook County.

And the No. 1 supplier of those weapons is just a short drive from Chicago, Chuck’s Gun Store in south suburban Riverdale.

From 2008 to March 2012, the police successfully traced the ownership of 1,375 guns recovered in crimes in Chicago within a year of their purchase.

Of those guns, 268 were bought at Chuck’s — nearly one in five.

That statistic comes from a groundbreaking study by University of Chicago Crime Lab researchers, done at the request of the Chicago Police Department, which is grappling with an extra-violent 2012 that has seen a 28 percent spike in the city’s homicide total compared to this time last year.

In their study, U. of C. researchers combed through gun-trace data to determine the weapons most likely bought by straw purchasers.

Those are people without criminal records who buy guns for felons — often at a hefty markup.

Fifty-eight percent of those recovered guns were bought in Illinois. About 19 percent were purchased in Indiana, 3 percent in Wisconsin — and less than 2 percent in Mississippi.

Cook County was the source of 45 percent of the guns over that period, according to the crime lab’s study.

Roseanna Ander, executive director of the lab, said the new findings suggest a key strategy to keeping guns off the street is for law-enforcement agencies to target the local gun stores most likely to sell firearms to straw purchasers.

But the laws on the books make it tough for prosecutions against shady gun dealers who follow the letter but not the spirit of the law.

And that’s against a backdrop of a well-funded gun lobby and an underfunded federal enforcement effort — a combination that undermines crackdowns on gun dealers

Cases against shop owners rare

Police conducted stings on suburban gun stores in the late 1990s, but those investigations produced mixed results and they haven’t been done consistently for years.

“Firearms dealers are so well protected it makes it really hard to prosecute them. It has to be very, very egregious,” said Mark Jones, a retired supervisor for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Still, “having the dealers know people are paying attention again and are willing to act could have an impact,” Ander said.

In recent years, some people have been convicted of making straw buys at Chuck’s and other stores in the area.

But straw purchasing cases are rare compared to cases involving illegal gun possession and other types of firearm offenses.

Read the entire article @; http://www.suntimes.com/index.html

It sure is a murky mess...

It's a good trend and a good first step.

Interesting indeed, but is this really useful? Perhaps a more telling survey would be percentage of people in the above categories that use a gun, and for what purpose (or intended purpose).

but six-in-10 rural respondents do (59 percent).

Then the article says that "gun-owners are more affluent":.......$75K...

City gun vs country gun?....Affluent guns in the backwoods?

The last paragraph is also quite interesting in my opinion:

And gun owners are more affluent. Those making more than $75,000 a year are the most likely to own a gun (50 percent) – even though professionals (40 percent) and white-collar workers (40 percent) are among the least likely to own one.

What I find interesting is that the poll shows people earning more than $75,000 a year are the most likely to own a gun, yet "white collar" and professionals are less likely to own one.

I believe that there should be a new poll showing what jobs those people polled have that offer a salary of $75,000 a year for non-professional or white collar jobs. I'm sure there are a lot of people in this country that would like to be making that type of income right now.

What I find interesting is that the poll shows people earning more than $75,000 a year are the most likely to own a gun, yet "white collar" and professionals are less likely to own one.

I wanna know who isn't white collar or a professional and is making more than $75k a year. That to me seems like it would be a small number. Then again I'm a white-collar professional who makes less.

Guns are not cheap. Paid $1600 for an AR-15 .223 w/ pistol grip and scope.

This is why although straw buyers exist for those who can afford but unable to purchase, I don't think that or the gun show loophole is that widely used. A thug isn't going to pay $1600 for a gun no matter who is selling it, they would rather steal it and keep the money. I think theft is underestimated.

nomor... lets see there's bricklayers ,steelworkers plumbers , framers hydraulic operators , farming - the list goes on and on if you have a worthwhile skill and show some spine!

a salary of $75,000 a year for non-professional or white collar jobs.

Rural life must be fantastic....There's a lot wrong or misleading in this poll!

OK, so these are probably the number of "legal gun ownership", who would admit to having otherwise?

Rural life must be fantastic....There's a lot wrong or misleading in this poll!

It's starting to stink, if you ask me...

I make 110K, Masters, Finance and I own guns and voted for Obama the last two elections so am I a DINO now because as the GOP has found out, you can't win an election without Independents and moderates. What I find interesting is so many people saying "good first step" so what are the second and third steps? When I discuss this with my liberal friends, it is a total ban and that is why this won't pass. Ask yourself this, do you want Mitch McConnel to be the Senate Majority Leader? If you do then enforce party orthodoxy and you will lose at least 12 Democratic Senators from the midwest and west. I grew up out there, I do know what I am talking about.

Agreed, Feisty, doing some head scratchin' over this article.

phukker.............

I know quite a few bricklayers, plumbers, carpenters and other blue collar workers who would jump at the chance to be making that $75,000 a year. I do know of some union workers in those industries that make a very high income. Most of that income is from overtime because they need to finish a job on schedule and begin to work longer hours to complete it on time.

I do agree however that if a person is willing to make the effort they can and most often do make more than those who simply become satisfied with a lesser amount of earned income and never search for a better paying job.

It's starting to stink, if you ask me...

Couldn't agree more, Feisty.

Then the parcing of rural vs suburbs.....when do the two meet to become one or the other. Then suburbs become part of the city......

Bad poll but I guess the lines have been drawn and redrawn...kinda like redistricting!

And gun owners are more affluent. Those making more than $75,000 a year are the most likely to own a gun (50 percent) – even though professionals (40 percent) and white-collar workers (40 percent) are among the least likely to own one.

Read carefully folks ... it simply states that those who earn 75K and are not white collar or professional are more likely to own a gun than those who are ... there is no implied statement as to the total numbers in each group as compared to each other overall.

All of you live on Fantasy Island if you think the current and / or proposed gun laws will stop the violence. Most of the killings numercially are gang related. It is a societal problem that has been getting worse for decades. Too many young men don't know who is their "Daddy". The gang becomes the family an self perpertuating violence is transferred to the next generation.

Gangs make more than $50,000 a week in a small town, all of them will pay for their protection as part of the drug trade. Enact the new gun laws, just don't bet the farm on any change........

Think Progress:

The police chief of Milwaukee called out Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) — an opponent of gun safety regulation — for echoing National Rifle Association talking points about the uselessness of expanding background checks for all gun purchases. The organization argues that the government should enforce existing laws instead.

During a heated exchange at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposed assault weapons ban on Wednesday, Edward Flynn pointedly interrupted Graham’s claims that the federal government is failing to deter individuals from misrepresenting themselves in the background check process by failing to prosecute people who were rejected from purchasing a weapon as a result of their false claims.

Flynn argued that rather than embark on a “paper chase,” law enforcement officials are focused on preventing people from purchasing guns illegally, eliciting loud applause from the audience:

The latest anti-gun propaganda article with the predictable trumped up stats. I wonder how much of these stats are contrived, perhaps by all those phony twitter tweets.

When one considers that, under Obama, enforcement of existing gun laws is at an all time low, yet he clamors for more anti gun legislation, a completely different agenda emerges.

All one can conclude is that Obama has no interest in curbing gun crime at all, he just wants to disarm all Americans, one step at a time, one gun at a time.

I am a Progressive, and I have a CCW. I got one when our Pubbie governor started proposing austerity programs for the poor.

I've got a pistol and a shotgun, but only once did I carry the handgun, and that was while canvassing a Pubbie neighborhood for Proposal 2, and Obama. Didn't want a Pubbie to sic their Rottweiler on me.

I keep my guns and ammo locked up like Ft. Knox, and I do not intend to use them for domestic defense, nor constant carrying unless extraordinary circumstances arise. Joe Biden and any Detroit cop'll tell you what to use for effective domestic defense: a shotgun.

I am the absolute worst right-wing nightmare ever born: an informed, literate, articulate, militant Liberal with a gun, and a Green Belt in Combat JuJitsu!!

Just no good news for the Pubbie party lately is there?

Yes this "poll" stinks. Like most others. Any poll can be manipulated by the questions asked. "Do you favor a. being set on fire b. being cut up and fed to the dogs c. having your right to free assembly revoked.

Poll shows overwhelmingly most Americans favor having their right to free assembly revoked.

Wonder why more people in rural areas own guns? Because you can't shoot one in your apartment, maybe.

Why do all the guns in Chicago come from "Chucks"? Well, how many other gunshops are there in Chicago....none? This one is not even in Chicago, it's just closer.

Do you believe everything you read? Apparently FoggyDeadHead does.

This poll is bogus and the questions were more than likely organized to obtain the answers they wanted to hear. I know for a fact that poll questions can be manipulated to bring a desired outcome. There are already many laws on the books that would take care of this problem if they were enforced. People would attempt to purchase a weapon, who know they cannot legally do so, should be turned over to the local district attorneys office for prosecution. The second amendment shall not be fringed upon, it does not specifiy as to ant particular type of weapon and law abiding citizens have the right to own any kind of small arms no matter if automatic or not. There are people who can eject and reload a 10 shot clip just as fast as a 18 round clip. Gun ownership is not the problem, people who need mental help but cannot get it because of the liberals forcing them on the street is the problem.

Want to end gun violence or violence in general: ban the death penalty for one-off murders and establish a mandatory death sentence for multiple-felonies with no appeals.

Execute a hundred thousand felons a year, and my guess is criminal violence--including gang-related violence--would drop.

Distortion.

1,000 people do not speak for the entire nation.

.

.

STILL waiting for the liberal Grand Scheme to convince criminals to give up their guns.

.

.

You really need to go to a gun show to understand the paranoia that many owners have. The fear that the 'gubmint' is going to take away their guns is pervasive, and this isn't only in the rural south, but the firmly blue northwest. These can be otherwise intelligent people, but on this subject there's little reasoning with them. Also keep in mind that the real extremists don't live in cities as a rule, but have retreated to the rural areas to avoid scrutiny. The NRA has been successful in demonizing 'gun control' in the minds of many of these owners and until that perception is changed, this will remain a divisive issue.

Personally, I intended to buy an 'assault rifle' myself right before the Sandy Hook incident, but the skyrocketing prices right after has delayed that. My reasons for buying? First, living in a less-populated rural area like I do, being a known gun owner does tend to keep the criminals away. Second, some of these gun owners really are crazies and I want protection from them when they finally go off the rails. Too many of them buy into the Bush-2 doctrine of 'You're either with us or against us' and I seriously doubt I'll be with them....

Considering ALL the laws that are in place now, does it really matter when they are not enforced? The idea is create even more which will exude a feeling of security yet in the end that vicious cycle will continue to spin. Enforce what is presently in place and what happened to the focus that was going to be put on Mental Illness too??

The gang becomes the family an self perpertuating violence is transferred to the next generation.

Gangs make more than $50,000 a week in a small town, all of them will pay for their protection as part of the drug trade.

This is the old way. Police cracked down on those gangs and broke them up. In the new type of gang, where you live dictates your enrollment. No need to sign up, you're in whether you want to be or not. They also don't trade in drugs.

nomoresameo

Universal background checks are certainly a step in the right direction.

to get a part-time job at Home Depot, you go through a background check...but not required when purchasing an AR-15...

Entitled

Several of the Executive Orders issued by President Obama are aimed at better enforcement. Defunding of the ATF (successful NRA lobbying) and conflicts among state and federal laws are part of the enforcement problem. We need to fix those things.

Steven B

STILL waiting for the liberal Grand Scheme to convince criminals to give up their guns.

why don't call your US Congressmen and tell them that all criminal and civil laws should be flushed down the toilet because they don't prevent 100% of crime so why bother...

Why not apply your way of thinking to everything:

Let people steal, rape and murder. Let's stop doing CORI checks on teachers or anyone who has anything to do with children; let's stop checking passangers for bombs before letting them on planes!

If you’re going to demonstrate that it will actually be done seriously, that any new gun laws will have any effect, then start with Federal Employees, and show that the laws apply to them as well as it does private citizens.

Start with cleaning up the Government first by prosecuting an ATFE agent that committed Fraud on his background checks. When are you going to prosecute the ATF agents and their leaders for allowing 2,000 guns to "Walk" into the hands of Mexican Drug cartels?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57560107-10391739/pistol-purchased-by-atf-agent-found-at-alleged-cartel-crime-scene-in-mexico/

Pistol purchased by ATF agent found at alleged cartel crime scene in Mexico

CBS News has learned that two guns found in the area of a recent Mexican drug cartel shootout have been linked to Fast and Furious: One trafficked by a suspect in the case, and the other purchased by a federal agent.

…

CBS News spoke to Gillett, who is still employed at ATF. Gillett acknowledged he once owned the weapon in question, but says he sold it in Phoenix sometime last year after advertising it on the Internet.

…

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote a letter (PDF) to the Inspector General late today asking for an urgent investigation. Grassley included records from three of Gillett's gun purchases, so-called Form 4473's, and says that Gillett appears to have provided false information on them.

"Lying on a Form 4473 is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison," Grassley's letter states. The senator also points out that's the same alleged violation that suspects in ATF's Fast and Furious operation were arrested for. "Jaime Avila, Jr. recently plead guilty to a variety of charges" in Fast and Furious, including "for giving a false address on Form 4473."

Form 4473's require purchasers to list their current residential address. Gillett's gun purchase forms incorrectly list the local ATF Phoenix office and a shopping plaza as his personal residence, according to Grassley's letter.

Gillett did not comment on allegations about the address on the forms.

The NRA is always trying to do is gin up their base of “gun bubbas” with fear.

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

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

Columbine happened in 1999, five years into the Assault weapons ban of 1994, if it didn't work then what makes you think a similar ban will work any better now?

"Insanity; Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -Albert Einstien

#1.37

TRANSLATION:

"I can not find a way to get criminals to give up their guns"

Yes, I didn't think so.

You aren't going to revoke my rights in your ill-conceived, Utopian foolishness.

David Noah

So if a law does not stop EVERY crime, the law is not valid?

We have traffic laws. People still drive too fast. So in your feeble mind traffic laws should be rescinded? Insanity may be the inability to reason well enough to deal with the large problems of society.

I am the absolute worst right-wing nightmare ever born: an informed, literate, articulate, militant Liberal with a gun, and a Green Belt in Combat JuJitsu!!

and you have the internet...LOL...

so GOPisNotExtinct, i have to wonder, Combat Jujitsu? BJJ i take it...interesting you felt compelled to spell out what a badass you are. yeah the Conservatives will probably shaking in their shoes. but if i were to say i have a similar background you'd call me a liar and the name calling will ensue...

its the internet

Frankly it's yet to be seen if this is a tyranny of the majority or minority but either way i agree with Steven.

You are not going to get legally owned weapons from law abiding citizens. Regardless of how many cute little theorys, polls, insults or phrases you elitist dim-bulbs come up with.

Take it to the bank.

Yup, character flaw of mine Caesar.

My point: Not all Liberals are wimpy pushovers. There is a tendency among Right wingers toward excessive physical aggression.

Let calmer heads prevail. You never know who or what you are confronting.

Free advice for Right-Wing hot heads. ;o]

@ Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Very interesting stats!

Among those who do not own a gun in the household, 75 percent support stricter laws.

My husband a tree hugging, bleeding heart, lefty, liberal owns multiple guns, and he FULLY supports stricter gun laws!

Then again, he doesn't worry everyday about the tyrannical gubment coming to take them away...

When did common sense become extinct in this country?

#1

Yes they are. (and would venture slanted to the left)

You, or anyone else in the room, ever read the book, "How to Lie With Statistics" by Norton. Or any other book about conducting and interpreting polling data?

And do you remember the polls that showed 61% of the population were against Obamacare?

And you husband is an idiot (he married you) {Just Kidding}

Of course he's not worried about "gubment coming to take them away", he is an idiot. (If he is a Liberal, then he is part of the collective hive, and will do what ever the "gubmint" says. He would believe a statement like this "We are from the Government, and we are here to help". me? not so much.

"My question to all you Liberals is this, "If you don't like our society, the way it is, why don't you move to somewhere more suited to your likes, such as, Canada, England, or else where in Europe, where they have guns laws "that work", "Free" Universal Healthcare, Pensions and Welfare?
Why must I (we) change to fit YOUR Ideal and Ideology?" No one is making you stay here.
One thing about a free country, is, you are FREE to LEAVE when ever you want."

I do not say it is easy to pack up and leave. My question is, since there are already places on this planet that have most of what you want, why not go there instead of changing (ruining) my Ideal? Why not clamor to the Government, "We don't like it here, help us leave."? I would gladly pay higher taxes in the short term, to be rid of you in the long term.

There is nowhere else on the planet for me, or those like me, to go. My kind (Conservative, Capitalist and Self Reliant) came here, over the last couple hundreds of years, to get away from those things we didn't like, it was not easy. All I am saying is perhaps it is time you (liberals) use the same strategy, and go some where, where there are no RWNJs.

And Common Sense became extinct when, the paradigm shifted from being the American Dream of Entrepreneurship (owning one's business and property) to "Getting a College Degree" (getting a 'good' job). Common Sense died with the migration from rural communities.

"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980

“When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". --unknown

Common Sense died with rise of the liberal progressive and their reliance on 'gubmint' to provide solutions, to 'social' problems.

“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008

nomoresameo

What I find interesting is the difference between rural and urban thinking. Does it have to do with hunting or old fashioned "wild west justice" that presents such a dramatic contrast?

The funny thing about your statement is that those from the urban areas - who I assume employ 'urban thinking' (meaning in favor of tighter gun control) are the ones committing all the gun violence.

Comparatively speaking, only a small percentage of gun violence happens in rural areas where 'rural thinking' is employed.

Caesar:

Some Gracie Jitsu, some Japanese, Russian Sambu, Jeet kun Do, Krav Maga, American boxing, Jail House Rock ....a mish-mash.

GOPisextinct wrote "I am the absolute worst right-wing nightmare ever born: an informed, literate, articulate, militant Liberal with a gun, and a Green Belt in Combat JuJitsu!!"

Ohhhh, I'm so scared, what a self-aggrandizing twit.

bayllie wrote, "to get a part-time job at Home Depot, you go through a background check...but not required when purchasing an AR-15..."

Do you have a clue as to what your talking about? NO, would be the answer. I challenge you to find a single state or registered gun dealer who doesn't require a background check of the buyer before making a sale.

bayllie wrote, "why don't call your US Congressmen and tell them that all criminal and civil laws should be flushed down the toilet because they don't prevent 100% of crime so why bother...

Why not apply your way of thinking to everything:

Let people steal, rape and murder. Let's stop doing CORI checks on teachers or anyone who has anything to do with children; let's stop checking passengers for bombs before letting them on planes!

So Steven B asks a very legitimate question, and your nonsensical answer is to question why we should have any laws? Steven B is not advocating throwing out laws. He and I want to know how do we get them to turn in their weapons? How any of these proposed new laws make us safer? We already have laws that make it a crime for felons to own a gun. Why do you want to punish the innocent? Why do you want to restrict our constitutionally guaranteed rights?

Let calmer heads prevail. You never know who or what you are confronting.

totally agree with that. however if you are under the misconception every right wing gun toting hick is a hot head id say you are 100% ill informed. Besides Fisty above seems pretty hotheaded (im sure she'd say passionate) and i doubt you'd consider her conservative in any sense of the form

Hey "hard".

I don't think you know the meaning behind "self aggrandizing".

Twit.

hardtostarboard - There will be a lot of "cold dead hands" should the go around knocking on doors. I am pro-gun but hardly a fanatic. I won't shoot anyone should the come to my door and ask for my weapons. I will demonstrate civil disobedience though and if they don't know what they are looking for I will be damned before I let them in so they can go fishing.

aggrandizing present participle of ag·gran·dize (Verb)

Enhance the reputation of (someone) beyond what is justified by the facts.

This definition fits all internet tough guys and nailed you to a T.

Back to school for you GOP, back to school. Concentrate on vocabulary and meaning of words learned.

Ah yes, once more the Old Southern ReThuglican White Guys turn up in the polls . . . good thing that's a shrinking demographic!

.

Dear Feisty, I happen to live in a corner of rural America that's still pretty nice!

My biggest concern is that our once purple-leaning state has been gerrymandered so that the state gov is BRIGHT RED from top to bottom, undoing all the PROGRESS that's been made since we got rid of Jesse Helms . . .

Yesterday the state ReThuglican party passed an AWFUL fracking bill, that takes out almost all the protections from homeowners, and takes all environmentalists, etc., off the monitoring panel. uggghhh.

.

But I LOVED hearing yesterday that the primary race in Chicago to replace poor Jesse Jackson, Jr (get well soon, sir!) WAS WON BY AN ANTI-NRA CANDIDATE with an F rating from the NRA, who ran on a pro-gun-safety platform!!! she was supported by ads from Bloomburg's pac.

.

pro-gun-safety candidates can win!

.

FORWARD! :-)

Incredible that no one is talking about the prosecutors and judges who let criminals plea bargain, or get off with pat you on the head sentences. Here's an example: A guy here in Idaho was sentenced to life in prison after his 14th. DUI. Did you get that? 14th DUI

I still maintain that if you commit 1st or 2nd degree murder, rape, assault with a deadly weapon you should fry. None of this horsecrap 2 50 year sentences

It's been pointed out repeatedly that Feinstein is proposing legislation that effectively bans most guns and requires that they be destroyed or turned into the police at some point in the future. It's been pointed out that some states are or have legislation that requires firearms to be shipped out of state, effectively banning ownership of them, or face criminal charges.

Why can't the anti-gun fanatics see through their own propaganda instead of repeating lies?

The current gun laws aren't being enforced. If they were, there would be fewer criminals on the street. I'm all for harsher penalties, including minimum life in prison for violent crimes on the first conviction. Second conviction, if released from prison, is death penalty. And BTW - forget about crying about over-crowding. Stack them 10 to a cell with one bed if need be. Let them work out who gets the bed. Make prison a place to avoid not learn more criminal tactics and connections.

GOPisextinct-

I am the absolute worst right-wing nightmare ever born: an informed, literate, articulate, militant Liberal with a gun, and a Green Belt in Combat JuJitsu!!

Glad you are on our side, G!!!

Go get-em!!!

Salud, Amigo

@ GOP

My son would have you for a snack. You are real scary. lmao

Steven B

#1.41

TRANSLATION:

"I will apply logic only when it suits me while ignoring the real world and how it works" So basically what you are saying is that when laws don't prevent criminals from breaking the law, the law should be made obsolete?????

You aren't going to revoke my rights in your ill-conceived, Utopian foolishness.

what rights am of yours am I invoking?-DO SHARE! Also, I suggest you write a nice, long letter to the US Supreme Court to let them know that they have no right to tell you that you have no right to own a missile launcher or be able to obtain a gun if having a crminal record.

Justice Antonin Scalia (a Conservative) stated: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited..."

It is "... not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

So please stop pretending to be the VICTIM by using "but but but criminals..." excuse because that's just sad.

Here's a statistic: 100% of gun owners are gonna be or wanna be KILLERS.

That is the purpose of owning a gun, to KILL.

You aren't going to revoke my rights in your ill-conceived, Utopian foolishness.

what rights am of yours am I invoking?-DO SHARE! Also, I suggest you write a nice, long letter to the US Supreme Court to let them know that they have no right to tell you that you have no right to own a missile launcher or be able to obtain a gun if having a crminal record.

Your fountain of illogical rhetoric is amusing.

I refer you to #1.49

And this:

Straight from the Mouth of a U.S. Government Attorney

The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!

Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"

Meteja (attorney for the government): "Yes"

Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Meteja: "Exactly."

Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn't enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.

Garwood: "Membership in the National Guard isn't enough? What else is needed?"

Meteja: "The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard."
(Excerpt of oral arguments in U.S. v. Emerson, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 13, 2000)

Here's a statistic: 100% of gun owners are gonna be or wanna be KILLERS

100% of people are gonna be or wanna be killers since we already possess that instinct as it is..idiot

I'm a killer, dirp? Better yet, Feisty's husband is a killer?

@ PI

LMAO

hardtostarboard

Do you have a clue as to what your talking about? NO, would be the answer. I challenge you to find a single state or registered gun dealer who doesn't require a background check of the buyer before making a sale.

I'm going to make this simple for you:

1. check private gun sales and background checks (licensed dealers vs sellers at gun shows, flea markets, or people who post firearms for sale on the Internet)

2. check what UNIVERSAL background checks would require

Just sayin....... I mean all of us, really?

@ZappasUtopia - I figure this would be one time Fiesty and I could agree. LOL

I think what this poll shows us is why we're so vehemently at odds over this issue. Look who are where the majority of the gun owners are as opposed to where the most heinous violent crimes have occurred. Gun owners that have/ had absolutely nothing to with these crimes are feeling pretty ostracized.

I read all the time about AR-15s not being suitable for hunting. My response is where do you live? It's awesome for smaller game, probably shouldn't use it for deer (.30 cal or better is my personal rule - might be the law depending on where you live).

I guess that does make me a killer dirp. Sorry most everything I eat, is dead when I eat it. I'll seek some therapy.

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome. It is a fact that most people do not know what laws currently exist; thus, it is meaningless to assert that people favor "stricter" laws when they do not know how "strict" the laws are in the first place.

Exactly right Dowhatisright, especially when they don't tell us how many people were polled and where they were polled. For the most part I ignore any of these polls. There is no way that a polling of 1000 people represents the thoughts of 200,000,000.

Pistol, you’re absolutely right, you can hunt (law
dependant) with an AR. In Nevada I don’t
think so(law), its also too open to begin with.
A .30 is necessary, although you might be ok at 150 yds with a
.270. its about a humane hunt and the
clean kill. If a .223 can drop a human,
it can drop a deer. If need be, I could
hunt with it. Better to have it and not
need it, then need it and not have. But dirp is a registered moron so just ignore
it.

PS what does a proposed universal check do as opposed to the
Brady check?

Steven B

The U.S. government argues in federal court (U.S. v. Emerson information page) that there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!

Holy Jeezus you people have no ability to understand what you read. The case was about Emerson who was indicted for possession of a firearm while being under a restraining order, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) ("the Act"). He appealed it.

That's why we have 3 branches of government; Executive, Legislative, and Judicial so they can check and balance themselves. That's how the system works.

so I will ask you again: DO TELL what rights of yours am I revoking "in my ill-conceived, Utopian foolishness"?

Dowhatisright76

Polls can be slanted by carefully worded questions to achieve any desired outcome.

yes polls can be skewed to fit the agenda (for example Fox News polls in favor of Romney winning, oops)

They are not to be taken as an EXACT SCIENCE (you would be a moron to) but you can use them as a reference especially when they are similar regardless of the source (or agenda): For example:

75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales.

About 70 percent of respondents supported bans on military-style semiautomatic weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/

The NRA should do background checks on all their members, if they did they would probably lose half of their members !!!

Bayllie wrote

I'm going to make this simple for you:

1. check private gun sales and background checks (licensed dealers vs sellers at gun shows, flea markets, or people who post firearms for sale on the Internet)

2. check what UNIVERSAL background checks would require

Dear Bayllie, Eighteen (18) months ago I purchased a S & W 686 on the Internet. Guess what, I needed to pass a background check before I could complete the transaction, which I'm sure you'll be happy to know, I did in flying colors.

Go ahead, pass Universal Background Check, and when that doesn't help, pass Double Universal Background Check, and when that fails, pass the dreaded Triple Background Check replete with sternly worded letter. OR we could just enforce the laws we already have.

Your Friend

hardtostarboard

I needed to pass a background check before I could complete the transaction,

i figured the FFL that it had to be transfered to would have to Brady check you..in fact I know they do...thats interesting before you purchase you have to do that.

Im trying to figure out a Universal Background check is...im sure I can google it but i was hoping one of our Brianiac Lib friends would edumacate me. Since they know so much on the issue.

You Libs have the nerve to whine about Fox News and Dittohead this and that...what do you think you do when you spout off garbage and have no idea what you are talking about...Sounds like FR/NBC/MSNBC/ABC are no different.

PI: you said it, you are a KILLER.

Feisty needs to watch out though, if she burns the dinner JUST ONE MORE TIME !!! :)

Feisty and her peanut gallery dont care a lick about what the laws would do if passed or how they would affect the populace. All she cares about is the victory of yet another democratic mandate to do something that appears all warm and fuzzy on the outside but on the inside is dry and useless. She simply would support the tweaking of any poll, study or survey that would win (or in actuality propagandize) favor in support of whatever meaningless legislation her favorite party dreams up. They never let a tragedy go to waste, use it and ram through any laws possible (even those that have proven to be worthless in the past).

This is a funny one. The stupid Redhead admits her family owns guns - some guy thinks we will be impressed with a green belt in some combat martial art. I am not worried about the govt coming to take my "undocumented" guns that were handed down from my father and grandfather. Most are shotguns so maybe Gaffe a minute Biden would approve. I personally prefer to utilize my CCP 9 MM Glock that I have never had to use. I hope I don't need to use it but if I am getting gas somewhere and some low life decides to rob the place - lets just say the clerk will be glad I was there.

The trouble is that of that 92% who say we should have stricter guns laws, not even 2% even have a clue about what current gun laws are. They assume that because gun crimes exist, the laws aren't strict enough. Wrong, we just don't enforce those already there and only law abiding citizens obey laws anyway.

A lot of people support "universal background checks", until they realize that the only effective way to do that is with government registration. There is no justification for the government knowing who legally owns guns. They have no business knowing this anymore than they have business knowing who you are having sex with. But there are illegal forms of sex like pedophilia and rape, so we should probably register our sex partners to make sure we prevent illegal types of sex.

Or better yet, there are a lot of rapes, probably hundreds of thousands. So maybe we should register everybody with a sexual "assault weapon". We should probably record their DNA so we can trace them. And then there's "high capacity accessories". Things like Viagra. We should probably just ban that altogether because it could be abused by a sexual predator.

These analogies are not meant to be funny, they are meant to illustrate that doing things like registration of guns is an invasion of privacy of law abiding citizens. There is no legitimate reason. That is a reason there is federal law prohibiting it. Many suggest that the only logical reason is to pursue some type of confiscation. There is some good logic to that. As long as I hear numerous politicians supporting some of the current proposals saying, "It's a good first step.", I'll have trouble supporting that they don't have bigger things in mind. What are the next steps?

I see posts on this topic frequently saying things like all guns should be banned. Do you realize that this is tantamount to saying we should reinstate slavery or eliminate womens rights? If people say things like that they are jumped on with both feet. But we're talking about things guaranteed by the Constitution. So suggesting that taking rights away from minorities or women is abhorent, but taking away guns is just a logical opinion?

So, what if we infringe on women's right just a little bit? That would be OK right? No, you say? how could that be? You're willing to infringe on legal gun owner's rights "just a little bit." You gun folks have to be OK with that right? No, we're not. And we aren't crazy because we feel that way.

I am an Obama supporter and highly Progressive, but I see guns as a personal right and anytime we infringe on the personal rights of law abiding individuals, we are crossing a dangerous line.

I have no doubt that making a federal registry of everybody's DNA would have an impact on reducing sexual crimes like rape, but I don't think any of us are willing to go that far. We don't want our privacy invaded and we all can see plenty of room for abuse.

I am frankly upset with my liberal cohorts who are going around misrepresenting things like "assault weapons", "high capacity magazines", and convoluted public surveys and studies designed to achieve a specific conclusion. I thought we were above that, but I guess not.

I watched some of the hearings today. Of particular interest was the testimony by the Milwaulkee police Chief Flynn. The Chief testified vehemently against assault weapons and at times got rather contentious. Here is an exchange I wish had occurred.

Congressman: Sir, does your department have any assault weapons?

Police Chief: Ah.. well we have patrol rifles. We have Smith & Wesson M&P 15s.

Congressman: That is basically a .223 AR-15 type rifle, correct? What everybody is calling an assault rifle?

Police Chief: Yes.

Congressman: Are these just like the civilian models any law abiding citizens can buy?

Police Chief: Yes, some are.

Congressman: Some are? Are they the same or aren't they?

Police Chief: Ah....well, we have some that are for law enforcement only.

Congressman: Are those automatic versions like the military has?

Police Chief: Ah... well our tactical enforcement unit does have some with automatic capability for special situations.

Congressman: So your department has assault weapons and some are real assault weapons? Sir, so I suppose you have a few assault weapons just in case there's an extreme need, just how many, 2, 3 a dozen or so? or is it more like hundreds.

Police Chief: Well it's more than a few.

Congressman: Is it closer to hundreds?

Police Chief: Ah... well... yes, I suppose so.

Congressman: Who authorized using these weapons in your department, when and what are they used for?

Police Chief: I did in 2009 to replace shotguns with patrol rifles.

Congressman: So sir, why do you have assault weapons in your department.

Police Chief: Well, that's pretty simple, we don't want to be out gunned by the criminals!

Congressman: Do your assault weapons have high capacity magazines?

Police Chief: We use the standard magazines.

Congressman: That's not what I asked. I'm trying to establish whether you limit yourself to ten rounds or so, or if you have high capacity magazines. Sir, how many rounds do the standard magazines hold?

Police Chief: Ah... 30 rounds.

Congressman: So it takes you 30 rounds to subdue a criminal? Seems like one or two well placed shots would do it. We've all heard that nobody needs thirty rounds to kill a deer hunting, why do you need these high capcity magazines? Sir, your officers are trained in the use of these weapons aren't they?

Police Chief: Yes they are trained and we just use the standard magazines that come with the rifle.

Congressman: Yes, I see. OK. ....So sir, are most gun crimes committed against police officers or ordinary citizens?

Police Chief: Ah...ordinary citizens.

Congressman: Would it be fair to say that the overwhelming vast majority of gun crimes are committed against ordinary citizens rather than against police officers?

Police Chief: Yes.

Congressman: So even though it is ordinary citizens who are the victims of most gun crimes, you are OK with them being out gunned, but not yourself?

Police Chief: Well, I wouldn't put it that way.

Congressman: Yes I suspect you wouldn't, but in fact that is what you just testified to.

Congressman: Earlier you stated that the only purpose for assault weapons was killing a lot of people. Is that why you have them?

Police Chief: Ah.... no.. we have to be adequately armed to face our criminal opponents.

Congressman: Sir, is it your job to kill criminals? Or is it to enforce laws and arrest law breakers?

Police Chief: We don't consider it our job to kill criminals, but sometimes we have to subdue them as effectively as possible to prevent other deaths or injuries. That does sometimes happen when we enforce the laws.

Congressman: So your job is to enforce the laws and arrest law breakers and bring them to the justice system, but you have hundreds of assault weapons with high capacity magazines, who's only purpose, by your own testimony, is to kill a lot of people. And you feel it is essential that you not be out gunned by these criminals, but you are proposing that ordinary law abiding citizens, who are the primary victim of most gun crimes, are by design and by law, out gunned by the criminals. Sir, I have no further questions.

(Note: The exchange did not occur at the hearing, however the Milwaukee Police do carry S&W, M&P 15 "patrol rifles" and indeed Chief Flynn did make this change in 2009 stating they did so that they wouldn't be out gunned by criminals.)

Personally, I see no logical point in the future when law abiding citizens are battling it out with police or government forces, as some on the right might envision, but I do struggle with law enforcement having a need to overpower ordinary citizens, because the citizens are restricted. I do struggle with the DHS needing some 7,000 fully automatic, real assault weapons and calling them personal defense weapons.

Recently, a number of gun manufacturers and large gun distributors have begun refusing weapon sales to law enforcement in States where those same weapons are restricted from civilian purchase. Maybe there is some logic to that. I don't want law enforcement to be disadvantaged to criminals, but neither should law abiding citizens be disadvantaged.

We are now talking about so called assault weapons, but the dirty little secret is that these are no more lethal than most hunting rifles that they are at least currently "ignoring". It isn't the gun that possesses the lethality, it's the cartridge. When you get past "assault weapons" the next logical step is any weapon that fires these powerful rounds. That would include the many tens of millions of typical hunting rifles out there. Many are far more powerful than the .223. These are used in hunting so as to not just wound game, which could result in a lost deer or worse like a pissed off bear, moose or wild boar.

There are currently close to 3 million AR style rifles out there and probably twice as many AK style versions, because they are far cheaper. Yet these weapons account for only the smallest fraction of a fraction of a percent of gun crimes. In fact pistols account for the overwhelming vast majority of gun crimes. So if we eliminated just the very smallest fraction of "responsible" guns, why wouldn't we logically go after the ones responsible for the vast majority? Anybody with half a brain can see this as a logical future step. "Assault weapons" are just the first baby step and many politicians have said exactly that. See why gun the gun rights folks might be concerned?

The biggest problem associated with these mass shootings that are being exploited to make a case against guns, is mental illness. Now some are suggesting that we try to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but we are instead focused on the guns. And as much as it makes some sense that the mentally ill don't have access to guns, I would rather see us more focused at treating the mentally ill. In reality, some of the ideas focused on keeping guns from the mentally ill may in fact discourage these people from seeking the help they need. Then of course there's the slippery slope of just what constitutes mental illness in need of restriction? Frankly I see plenty of opportunity to use this as a tool that potentially just infringes on personal rights. This is one of those things that makes so much sense until you try to figure out exactly how you write the law so it works without violating someone's rights.

Laws should be about defining criminal acts and law enforcement should be about bringing criminals to justice. The very concept of laws designed to prevent crimes are flawed in principle. These usually are not very effective and most often infringe on law abiding citizens. When we make laws which take some behaviors and practices, that are today legal and hurting no one, and then make these people criminals tomorrow, this really serves no useful purpose. A lot of gun laws are good examples of this. We create laws on top of other laws and these are virtually ignored by criminals. And many of these laws aren't even enforced or prosecuted.

I hate the fact that these tragic events occur, but I am realistic enough to know that laws can not really provide what it takes to prevent them. What it really takes is actions. Laws are the lazy way out.

The 2nd Amendment is about the personal right to self defense with a gun, and the Supreme Court has recently just ruled exactly that. They have also indicated that some reasonable restrictions may exist while staying consistent with the intent. They pointed out that other rights may too have some restriction. We all understand free speech is protected, but you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. That is a reasonable restriction because to use free speech that way would most likely cause injury and/or possible death to others. Does the mere possession of a particular type of gun have a similar effect? No, it doesn't. However using a nuclear weapon or an artillery gun for self defense would be an example of a reasonable restriction. You could make a case that a machine gun might also fit in the reasonable restriction category, barely. And the Supreme Court has upheld the restrictions placed on these, although not an outright ban. Does a woman have the right to vote and receive equal treatment to a man. Yes. Some have suggested that a reasonable restriction on her rights might include a restriction that prevents her from having an abortion. The Supreme Court has told us that is not reasonable. I agree with that. But I also see that coming closer to the same logic as free speech restrictions than does my legal possession a gun some have labeled an "Assault Weapon."

This is indeed a personal rights issue and my possession of a gun poses no threat to you, unless I threaten you with it or attempt to use it against you in a situation other than self defense. We have freedom of religion too, and your religion poses no threat to my rights unless you try to impose your beliefs upon me to control my life. I ask my liberal Friends to set aside their biases and personal opinions and view this as a personal rights issue. If you do, you might be able to see the error in your thinking.

1.79

Good...your rambled circular , self-serving, tiresome argument is in print.

However, the Police Chief's intent has merit... and to call 92% of Americans uninformed about the intent of stricter background checks is ridiculous.

Your personal rights mean nothing if you defy the laws.... nor do your "rights" have more impotrtance than my safety/

#1.80

STILL waiting for your Grand Scheme to get the criminals to give up their guns.

nor do your "rights" have more impotrtance than my safety/

And how does my Right to keep and bear arms impact your safety.

Facts, please. No wild-eyed speculation.

.

Guns aren't the problem, it's the stupid people that own them.

1.81

S. B.

I've asked you nicely...DO NOT stalk my posts....it is bizarrely creepy.

You can "wait" until hell freezes over....so stop demanding a response from me.

Police Chiefs across the country and Law Enforcers can't seem to penetrate your thinking with logic.

The disturbing posts, obsession and distorted argument on bullets and guns identifies you as woefully mis-informed on what the government is discussing..... on behalf of 92% of the American citizens.

Repeating your assertions on "banning guns" gave you a miniscule vine following from the rabid extremists, but the rest of us find you to be....annoying.

Take your debate to your Senator...your Sherrif, your Governor.... and see how far youget before you are corrected.

The poll only displays logical numbers..... for those that legally own guns. I'm really curious about the number of illegal guns held in the hands of the urban people that were polled (i.e. gang bangers).

You want to see crime increase? You want to see more Criminals and violence? Then see if you can pass any new gun laws /restrictions and I will guarentee you are going to see them all because Legal Gun Owners are fed up and will not stand for anymore. Go ahead...........let's see what you got!

Is Patiodaddy threatening that he is going to organize all the responsible gunowners to go haywire and start a criminal surge as protest?

Seriously...he's advocating for law-abiding folks, who understand consequences, to follow his illogical rant?

Is this "Challenge" to defy any new laws Patiodaddy's solution?

Really...this is "what he's got" ?

What is this amazing infatuation with wanting to restrict MY guns? If you don't want a gun that is your choice - don't get one. But just because you don't want a gun doesn't authorize you to request that I don't have a gun.

And also this article is telling - us in the south have a connection with our guns and find it a right given by our Constitution that every law-abiding person can own a gun. 50% in the south own guns while only 28% in the north own guns.

Don't you realize that the very argument we are having now is the same reason we had a Civil War in 1861? The Civil War was caused by the federal government imposing the "north's" views on the south. And, before too many speak incorrectly, the Civil War was NOT about slavery. In fact in wasn't until 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) until Lincoln made slavery a primary issue. No, it was "state's rights" that caused the Civil War - not slavery. The Federal government reducing the power of the 10th amendment and the southern states feeling like the north's views pushed on the south. Sound familiar?

50% of the south are gun owners while only 28% of the north are gun owners? But yet the 28% north is wanting to incorporate restrictive rules on the south because the north doesn't agree with them? Do you realize the conflict you are causing?

This is a state issue. If New York and Illinois don't want guns and want to restrict then have at it. I wouldn't live in either of these states anyway and you can do what you want. 2nd amendment still applies so they can't remove completely but if they want to restrict I don't care. Just don't come into a southern state like Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, or South Carolina and tell us that YOU don't want guns so you want to make sure WE don't have guns.

Try that and you are setting the stage for what could snowball into a second Civil War. Okay I said it. Many people think the same thing but afraid to say it. I am not. I say things as I see things. The federal government has already imposed irreparable damage on regulations and mandates that restrict how the country grow economically but is having a significant effect on the south. Some southern rumblings have even said out loud that maybe it is time to secede (and I tend to agree) but I assure you if a federal push to restrict gun ownership continues and the north continues to push its ideology on the south that is different you are creating an atmosphere for another Civil War.

If you don't want guns then don't buy a gun. But trying to restrict my right to have a gun is no business of yours. Maybe its time to secede and we have separate "countries" and then in YOUR country you can repeal the 2nd amendment and have strict border checks so we "southerners" don't bring guns into YOUR country (of course, a liberal has NO idea how to secure a border so we'll see how well THAT works) but leave our "country" alone. Leave us alone.

Pro

1.87

But trying to restrict my right to have a gun is no business of yours.

92% of us are concerned about restricting a purchase of a gun to anyone unless they have had a full background check.

And...I hope you can guarantee that none of your guns is sold to anyone without going through a background check to the buyer.

It is curious (puzzling, disconcerting, questionable )..... why this would bother a law abiding citizen.

R I Mom says:

It is curious (puzzling, disconcerting, questionable )..... why this would bother a law abiding citizen.

That is like saying "I don't know why you object to the police randomly searching your house because if you have nothing to hide it should be okay"

Sorry, the founding fathers were crystal clear that a law-abiding person has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, etc, and the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

We have laws. For those who BREAK the law we have punishments. But we don't EVER restrict someones rights IN CASE they break the law. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I will not register any of my guns and will not allow the government to have a list of what I have. If I sell to another individual it is against the law for me to sell if I know they are a felon or have a mental illness. If I break that law I am punished. But we don't restrict rights IN CASE someone wants to break the law.

You wouldn't allow a policeman in your house "just in case" you are doing something illegal would you? Same applies here.

RI Mom.

What I said was that the people thinking we need "stricter gun controls" don't even understand what the current ones are. Therefore it is a meaningless data point.

And I am not debating the intent of those who think universal background checks are a good idea. Hell, I agree with the intent to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. However, I am saying that most have no idea of what it would entail and if they understood it, you wouldn't have so many in favor of it. In fact, many in Congress were tentatively supportive of it until they started drafting legislation and realized the problems with it.

As for Chief Flynn, I don't doubt his sincerity. But I do see him as being somewhat hypocritical. He himself introduce assault weapons in his police force and justifies his need for them yet wants to deny law abiding citizens from having them. It doesn't make his opinion invalid, but it does put it in perspective. As the head of a law enforcement agency, Idon't see his opinion as being any more valid than many other law enforcement department heads who have directly opposing views. And there are a lot of them. I do recognize a considerably different perspective between those in urban and rural environments. If this survey proves anything, it is that. Federal regulations impact everyone, regardless of what environment you live in. If anything, Federal regulations probably ought to error on the side of freedoms.

As to a circular argument, you obviously don't understand the principles of debate and would rather just blurt out what's on your mind without thinking it through. That's just a shouting match, not worthwhile debate.

You say "tired argument" and I say you view it that way because you can not adequately counter it. Doyou have any doubt that registering everyone's DNA would be a useful tool for combating crime? Would you be good with that? Do you think that just maybe it could somehow be abused? Would it be an overreach of government and an invasion of your privacy? My guess is that we share very much the same view on this.

As to your last blurting of what's on your mind.

"Your personal rights mean nothing if you defy the laws.... nor do your "rights" have more impotrtance than my safety"

Actually, defending personal rights is indeed sometimes about defying laws when the laws are unjust. Civil disobedience is a recognized tradition and means to establish rights in this country. It is civil disobedience that was at the root of most landmark personal rights issues. The fact is that unless someone can prove "injury" caused by a law, the Supreme Court generally will not even address the case. Personally, for me, like most Americans, I will probably just begrudgingly conform, hoping that someone else will have the courage to challenge it. I am not proud that I take this "practical" approach. I tend to be more pro-active than reactive. I will support them, but can't see myself as one leading the charge. But I also realize that if we all just begrudgingly conform, all we do is allow our rights to be diminished.

I am not advocating we defy laws that have not yet been created. I am trying to prevent the unjust application of law in the first place. When you can break a law by doing nothing injurious or even threatening in any way to others, there is something drastically wrong with the law.

And you are wrong, my rights are more important than your "safety", when exercising my rights has no infringement on your safety. Supreme Court case law has upheld this principle many, many times on a variety of issues. When you infringe on anyone's rights, you infringe on the safety of all of us. That is the whole reason behind having a Constitution that enumerates ourrights. The Constitution does not guarantee you that right to feel safe. But it does guarantee that you have a right to provide for your own safety and it specifically says that guns are a key component of that.

You find it easy to just blow off some right that you do not choose to exercise. But I'm sure you are quite defensive of your rights that are important to you. You are willing to compromise someone else's right if you feel there is something in it for you. I am not a women, but I will defend your rights. I am not gay, but I will defend their rights. I am not a minority, but I will also defend their rights.

Being a Progressive, I believe that it is all about our personal rights and freedoms. But I realize that doesn't guarantee a perfect world. I tend to vote based upon that general principle and I detest politicians who's basic platform is about restricting personal rights based on emotional issues. Religion, gender bias, racism, and even selfishness drive these emotional issues. Your perception of your personal "safety", is also emotionally based. The statistical facts are that gun related crimes have decreased in recent years. At the same time our population has increased. So statistically, your personal safety as it relates to being threatened by guns, has in fact improved. But I suspect that you don't perceive it that way. I am saddened that politicians, "on my side of the aisle", are using this emotionally based issue to drive another restriction of personal rights. I hope that enough of them come to their senses and prevent this over reaction.

And before you criticize my lengthy response, please recognize that I did not just shout at you, calling you anidiot. If you don't want to take the time to read and understand my position, that is up to you. You don't have to agree, nor do I expect you to. However, I do expect that you take my position and at least ponder it and consider my reasoning rather than just slamming it with some irrational reply. In reality, from a broader perspective, we may be in basic agreement on many other issues.

DEAR hardtostarboard

Dear Bayllie, Eighteen (18) months ago I purchased a S & W 686 on the Internet. Guess what, I needed to pass a background check before I could complete the transaction,

so your one little example applies to all internet and private sales? What part of not all transactions are through LICENSED DEALERS??? Better yet, please show me that 100% of gun/ammo sales result in background checks.

Look up what the Aurora shooter was able to purchase through the internet WITHOUT anyone checking him.

which I'm sure you'll be happy to know, I did in flying colors.

I'm happy for YOUR COMMUNITY that you pass it WITH flying colors.

If the mother of the Newtown shooter realized that she should not have had kept guns in a home she shared with a mentally disturbed person, maybe 20 children would not have ended up full of bullets.

wow... @bayllie ,background checks are required for any firearms purchased from a Federal Firearms license holder, if the firearm is purchased via the internet from a FFL holder in a different state than the buyer, it must be shipped to a FFL holder in that state, and the buyer MUST pass the federal background check in order to posses that firearm. This IS the law. Buying a firearm in your state of residence from a FFL holder, you must pass a background check, again, this IS the law.Firearms are not allowed to be shipped to anyone that does not hold some kind of Federal License, and this also depends on the clasification of the license as to which firearms that can be recevied, or shipped... this IS the law.

Any person that is selling a gun, has the right to, so long as he has a legal right to own that gun, to any person as a private transaction, so long as the buyer resides in the same state...this IS the law. By legal right, I mean they are the owner of the gun.

These laws apply to all 50 States, without question.