Gifford doesn't have the money Bloomberg does. Not a chance.

As a conservative from Iowa (Des Moines, the capital), I'm not sure how effective it will be. Iowa recently changed from a "may issue" state, to a "shall issue" state. Of course, this was last year, before the Newtown massacre, perhaps the public here has changed, but most I speak to don't seem to have changed. Most people I speak with look at it as a means of more government control. Everyone is angered and upset about the tragedy, but once calmed seem more apprehensive. I commonly hear "yeah, background checks should be done, but who says who passes and who doesn't?"

Previously in Iowa, the county sheriff's in more restrictive counties were allowed to not issue for whatever reason they chose, and they didn't have to state a reason. That was as a may issue. And I won't say liberal which commonly implies party lines, because some democrat sheriffs were very pro-gun, and some republican sheriffs were very anti-gun. Many people pushed for Iowa to change to a "shall issue", which meant that as long as a background check didn't pop-up the specific alerts, you were issued a license. No longer were sheriff's able to bar to all but their friends, which did happen. Iowa also has a current movement, whether it gains much traction or not in post-Newtown remains to be seen, to include in it's state constitution the right to bear arms. Iowa is one of the few state's that has no state-level guarantee of the right to bear arms.

I have the impression, Feisty, that no one can tell Grassley anything (at least anything that makes sense). That said, I'm glad to see these ads keeping the gun issue in the public eye. It is time for reforms and I hope those who support the reforms don't fall for the GOP/NRA trap of stall and delay.

Question: How do they propose private entities do background checks on other private entities before selling? Secondly, does the seller get this info? Thirdly, will the seller be able to disseminate this info or will there be even more legislation to fix this?

Morgs 74 asks:

"Question: How do they propose private entities do background checks on other private entities before selling? Secondly, does the seller get this info? Thirdly, will the seller be able to disseminate this info or will there be even more legislation to fix this?"

Wow Morgs, what a coincidence. I had those same questions. Why don't you get the answers and share them with us?

David Walker - Sorry to step on your toes, I rarely read your blathering. I don't have the answers. I am asking this to all. I am also wondering what anti-gun peeps think of people being able to do random background checks into their mental health, criminal and other histories.

Exposing the mental illness some of these people on this blog I am sure would be devastating. Especially those brave enough to use their own names.

(Flake also represents the state, Arizona, where Giffords once served as a congresswoman before she was shot by a gunman.)

This Flake doesn't sound so great - he could use a Tony the Tiger make-over.

You can always be sure of one simple fact.

Democrats NEVER complain about CRIMINALS OR CRIMINAL MIS-USE OF FIREARMS.

They always complain about , "gun-owners". Why?

Because they believe that exercising a Constitutional right makes you a criminal. To Obama and his minions, a "gun-owner" is a felon, no matter how law-abiding or how much you pay in taxes.

Their agenda is the same as always, deny your rights, deny your freedoms, then destroy your Constitution. Allow crime to increase and murderers to run rampant until the job is done, then issue brown shirts to criminals and form them into a new version of the SS.

Wonder if the Gifford ads will be as effective as the Michael Bloomberg ones were here in the IL 2nd district?

HaHaHa.....The Illinois election Bloomberg pour money into was a Democrat primary in a Democrat district. Duh, a Democrat would win. LOL

Wonder if Americans for Responsible Solutions will be any more influential than the Brady Campaign which has a whopping memebership of 27,000 after 38 years of existence, compared to 4 million NRA members.

Feisty, that no one can tell Grassley anything (at least anything that makes sense).

Funny, Steeler Fan, I fan the exact same thought!

In yesterdays Detroit Free Press (freep.com) there was a story about a 4 year old who shot himself fatally. He did it with his dads gun, his dad was a cop. Now, tell me again how guns make myself or my family safer?

You can always be sure of one simple fact.

Democrats NEVER complain about CRIMINALS OR CRIMINAL MIS-USE OF FIREARMS.

They always complain about , "gun-owners". Why?

Because they believe that exercising a Constitutional right makes you a criminal. To Obama and his minions, a "gun-owner" is a felon, no matter how law-abiding or how much you pay in taxes.

Their agenda is the same as always, deny your rights, deny your freedoms, then destroy your Constitution. Allow crime to increase and murderers to run rampant until the job is done, then issue brown shirts to criminals and form them into a new version of the SS.

Once again, our economic troubles would be over if more people started making tinfoil hats.

@Johntho..........

There was an article about a child being killed when an air bag deployed, snapping his neck. Now, tell me again how air bags make my child safer?

There was article about a construction worker killed when a sledge hammer fell off a platform and hit him on the head. Tell me again how hard hats make a construction worker safer?

The topic is gun control. Not freak accidents.

JobSeeker - Johntho and his ilk have the unique ability to let a few bad eggs dictate his life only when it fits thier agenda. Thankfully the majority of America can see that the crime begins with an individual and not the tools they use. Drunk drivers, it is the drivers fault. Kidnapping, it is the kidnappers fault. Drug use, it is the drug users fault. Gun violence, it is the guns fault.

I need a Jedi Mind Meld with one of these fruits to see their way of thinking apparently.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED - I couldn't agree more. Johntho, your ilk just told you off. Deal with it.

@Newday.....Exactly.

Job seeker, listen up, air bags don't kill 20 1st graders, and 6 adults in a matter of minutes. I was wrong. You are the dumbest rock in the pile. The fact is doing nothing or more guns is not the answer. Never will be. We can look at history and see that guns do not make you safer, and more guns means you are less safe then ever.

Thanks newday these cowards always try to deflect from the fact that guns do not make us safer. Yes you have to be a coward to carry a gun.

A few morgs? a few, stupid is as stupid was, and your stupid. Take the gun out of it morgs and who died?

Johntho - 10 public shootings by 11 people over 15 years. What percent is 11 people out of 313,000,000? only a few.

Take the gun out and you are left with a person who should be behind bars. Replace gun with knife, swimming pool, curling iron and you are still left with a person who should be behind bars. Keep concentrating on guns you tool.

And you have the balls to call people stupid...

Yes, we do have a problem where we shop, too many criminals.... Where we pray, not enough people.... And in our schools, no protection for our children.....

If you're wealthy, your family is protected by private security.... the rest of us have to rely on a phone call and for the police to come......

I choose to protect my family by my own hand, with the tools available to me.... protected by my Constitution & my GUNS....

you have to be a coward to carry a gun.

@Johntho.....Don't call police and soldiers cowards. The true cowards are the ones calling people cowards on the internet and would not have the courage to do it to their face. Keyboard macho men.

@ Johntho

a few, stupid is as stupid was, and your stupid.

Um, "your stupid" should be "you're stupid" ... sorry for the correction, one of my pet peeves!

OR, the government could actually do their job and get some of the gang banger scum and career criminals off the street... it's not like they can't find them. they are everywhere you look. (another reason to have a gun in my opinion.)

we could enforce one of the oldest laws on the books, an eye for an eye. you kill without being in a self defense/life threatening situation, you die also. no sitting in jail for decades on end at taxpayer expense, no pleading to a lesser charge because the prosecuting attorney has a busy case load week. you die now!!!!

that would drastically reduce gun violence the same day the law is signed.

law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves, their family and their property.

Lil Michele, I don't think grammar is taught in school anymore.

I actually think universal background checks are a great idea. I would love to be second in line right behind our President. Like that's going to happen.

I actually think universal background checks are a great idea.

what is this universal background check again? Come on one of you eggheaded, wannabe libs care to spell it out.

law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves, their family and their property.

apparently not in libtopia...its ban guns, problem solved..until that criminal kills with a gun..then they'll blame Bush and Karl Rove

Ceasar, I was refering to starting with Obama by having a universal background check. I think there are enough laws on the books and to much government in our lives..

The Bloombers and Giffords can campaign for more gun control , but if the gun issue do not bring a whole solution to reduce crime , it will be a failure like it was before.

Ceasar, I was refering to starting with Obama by having a universal background check.

im trying one of the Uber smart liberals to define what a universal background check is

Gun control = Hitting your target the 1st time, every time

BTW, gun grabbers don't put people in boxes. For example I'm:

1. Pro-gun/pro 2nd Amendment

2. Anti magazine capacity limit/type of semi-auto rifle allowable to own (i.e. AR-15s etc..).

Not many own 100 round detachable magazines for AR-15s & the like because they are heavy, cumbersome, & junk (since they cause the guns to jamb all the time anyway). Changing magazines can be done in seconds in handguns/rifles that use detachable magazines, so limiting them doesn't solve anything.

As for type of firearm, all semi-auto guns (handguns & rifles) function the exact same way. Also they all have the exact same rate of fire (i.e. 1 round fired with each squeeze of the trigger, no more no less). The only difference is in the way they look.

3. Pro background checks for all (including private sales, though I don't know how you could get/force people to do this for private sales).

4. Pro harsh penalties for anyone caught making straw purchases of guns or anyone banned from owning guns lying about their background in order to get through the NICS background check

5. Pro making mental health records, if any exist, a part of the NICS background check

6. Pro abortion but it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control.

7. Anti late term abortion, unless the woman's health/life is endangered

8. Neutral on gay marriage. If that's what they want then let them do it, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. As long as it doesn't affect my life I really don't care.

9. Pro small government (federal/state/local) & low taxes

10. Anti physically/mentally capable people living off of welfare (i.e. tax payers). Help the helpless but not the clueless or lazy.

11. Pro making drugs legal, regulated, & taxed. That would put a big dent into gangs/drug cartels & it would provide a ton of revenue for the government. The 40+ year drug war certainly isn't working & is a huge waste of money. Try a different approach.

Put the money wasted on the drug war towards education/rehabilitation for drug addicts. It would also provide more room in prisons for violent criminals instead of being clogged up with non-violent drug offenders.

If someone wants to be stupid & wants to use drugs to ruin their health/kill themselves then let them.

12. Pro minding your own damn business & quit being a busy body trying to tell other people how they need to live their life according to your standards/beliefs. As long as what you're doing doesn't interfere with me or my rights/life do what you want.

Now go ahead & try to put me in a predefined box (i.e. Tea party, liberal, conservative, progressive, gun nut etc...)

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms should be a convenience store not a government agency

and Oneslackr, you'll be called a reichwing, knuckledragging, low info Teatard Rethuglican regardless.

Could be worse, you could be a liberal FR poster.

Ceasar, They don't know. They just want more government in our lives by attacking the law abiding gun owners. After all, you have your Gun Culture and you have your Thug Culture. Only one of them breeds criminals. Look at what's happening in Chicago, Detroit, New York and other major cities controlled by Liberal politicians. The murder rates are par for course for last years totals. Google "The Thug Report", this is why I carry.

I wonder how much money Gabby would want to get in front of a camera and state the fact that the federal government only prosecuted 44 people out of 80,000 for lying on the background check paperwork. I wonder if her and her friends have the guts to be honest?

They don't bother checking people out if they lie on their background checks so why the hell require more of them? If they ever get to checking at least 80% of the information that they currently get I might join the extra checks bandwagon. Until then, why require more?

I say - if Obama wants gun control, lets him put him to his word. Give up all the gun toting secret service that surround him on all his campaign trips. What's good for the citizens is good for Obama, eh?

government only prosecuted 44 people out of 80,000 for lying on the background check paperwork.

interesting since i just bought a scary gun yesterday and this past friday apparently one tried to lie on his background check. This is what the FFl told me. I doubt much came of it, dude probably went about his merry way after the NO GO TO PROCEED during the Brady Check.

So they do a background check, everything is fine. Two Days, weeks, years, later the person kills someone with the gun, what good did it do? Eric Holder sold guns, didn't keep track of them used straw buyers and someone got killed with one, he's still the god Da^ Attorney General, don't here the out cry any more.

I've said it before you want gun control. Any gun that self ejects and self reloads should be out law-ed, any gun that holds more than two rounds in the chamber should be out law-ed. Any weapon shorter than 24 inches should be outlaw-ed. That is gun control.

You want me to pry your gun from your dead hands OK! If the Government wants your guns, they will park an infantry division a few Abrams and a couple of Longbows in your neighborhood and take them, but they won't be prying them from your dead hand they will be taking your pop gun from you CRAPPED IN PANTS! Ruff talk from dead men with families!

Hey bubba - Park that Abrams out front? Kind of like they did in WACO? Or Ruby Ridge?

You go Gabby!

All us real Freedom Loving Americans, we all know that

"Guns don't Kill People"

but

"Teabagging, NRA and Ted Nugent "Gun-Nut" types,

with Guns, do Kill People".

Thank God, and I mean Thank God,

President Obama has Re-instated his 1st term "Obama Snitch Line"

so us peaceful real Freedom Loving Americans can Report on you "Gun-Nuts",

if you "Get Out of Line", if you know what we mean!

Wouldn't want to have to report your kind if you start acting like "Domestic Terrorists".

Drone Strikes are now Legal for all Domestic Terrorists,

so keep your Guns, Bibles, and your Pornography hidden in your Bedroom closets.

ok?

The gun grabbers idea of universal background checks requires registration if each gun in a national database. This is why if will fail.

Perhaps if the current instant background check were expanded to cover the so-called loopholes, it might garner more support. The problem is that the anti gunners aren't interested in that, they want universal gun registration so that they may be more easily confiscated at some future date.

LMFAO @ Bubba.

Using such a horrid tragedy as Sandy Hook to further a political agenda is shameful. I mourn for those as much as anyone, but to USE those deaths,,, well very sad.

So what will make the gun fearing liberals happy?

How about this: Let all the gun toting government agents strip guns from all the citizens... Will that make you liberals happy? This way, only the government will have the guns and nobody else will. You trust the government THAT much? You want the citizens unarmed... It worked out real good for other citizens in other countries when guns were taken away from them too...

JH Exactly!! Don't like it. Turn over you gun peacefully! I would not be blowing smoke through a window or wall.

The whole idea that the government wants background check to stop the crime is bull, the left is pushing for laws that made liable to sue not only the person that commit the crime, the shop that sold the gun and also the manufacturer of the gun even if it is for self defense..

Caesar, got to admit it is an idea. It would never fly. It would curb the amount of rounds that could be fired, the ability to conseal the weapon, you would have to carry your ammo a different way. If the Government was going to violate the rights to own and carry guns, you think the are going to take them by saying please! This is exactly what they would do, oh waite it is our Government, Sorry I was thinking what I would do. Like the Romans don't give em a chance and sack everything in site if they don't turn over their weapons a become submissive.

Jobseeker, shouldn't you be out networking or updating your resume or something rather than playing on this blog? If a child is secured properly in a car there should be no problem with the airbag. Chances are if you are afraid of the airbag you aren't putting the child in the car in a car seat facing the correct way and in the back of the car not next to the driver.

Liberals don't fear guns but we do fear out of control lunatics who think they need assault weapons for some reason or other. I find no reason for a civilian to possess one. I find no reason for clips of over 10 rounds on any weapon. If you are such a horrible shot that you cant hit the broad side of a barn with a shot gun 2 feet away maybe such a weapon would be for you, just consider the collateral damage of people and property in the process. How on earth did buffalo hunters, elephant hunters or other big game hunters take down animals with single shot weapons. Imagine Teddy Roosevelt out there hunting bison on the great plains using an assault weapon. What a sportsman!

If people cannot control themselves or others who like the same things, like guns, money etc. than to keep a majority from being victims of those out of control the government must step in. Guarantee that the NRA and those who own and use assault weapons can prove they can keep everyone safe if we don't ban such weapons and I'll back off. Meanwhile I have no problem with a rifle, shot gun and an open carried pistol (for those who want to look all badass and all that stuff), and I have no problem with responsible people having an arsenal of weapons like those when secured in cabinets and with trigger locks. I also believe that if someone steals your gun and you don't report it right away and they commit a crime with the gun you are an accessory to the crime. If you report it that is different. If you fail to secure your firearms and ammo and they get into someone's hands because they werent locked up properly you should be an accessory even if you do report the theft. I oppose straw sales and am in favor of background checks for the transfer of any and all firearms. I don't think I am being unreasonable. Common sense laws, enforced, can still allow everyone their 2nd Amendment rights but in a way that is safer for the whole community. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater or slander or libel someone. That doesn't mean someone's 1st Amendment rights are taken away but that anarchy is bad and a modicum of control must exist in a civilized society. If the society can't control itself than the government must for the sake of the general well-being of the community.

What this recent push for gun control all boils down to is this: Remove weapons from the citizens. When the citizens are disarmed, they can be controlled with ease. The resistance will be gone. Socialism does not impose itself all at one time... it moves in one little bite at a time. First comes regulation, then comes more regulation, then it's made harder to own weapons... remove the ammo from the public domain... which is happening right now... try buying it if you don't believe me... and then start the confiscation process. All the progressives/socialists need to do is convince the liberals to go along with this and enough pressure will ensue that gives the liberal government the go ahead. Conspiracy theory? Try buying ammo. I'm glad I stocked up last year.

Adler - I find no reason for clips of over 10 rounds on any weapon.

You must not target practice. My 9MM holds 17 rounds per clip. Reloading clips take time. If I had to reload after 10 rounds, target practice would be more time consuming. It would interfere with my aiming concentration. When I shoot 200 rounds, that would mean 20 stops to reload.

This is an aspect liberals do not understand. I use my pistol for enjoyment. Target practice is a great activity and enjoyable. Why do liberals want to restrict my enjoyment... are they that much into control they can't stand it when someone can actually have fun doing an activity they disagree with?

Adler-273784 - 11 lunatics in 10 public shootings in the past 15 years. Are those the lunatics you are afraid of? 11 lunatics out of 313,000,000 people? You want those 11 people to hold you hostage until a gun law is passed? You want those lunatics to dictate irrational gun control on the vast majority of the people just so you can not be afraid? Tough @!$%#.

Wow you pro-gun people are dense.

The government is NOT coming to take your guns away. The government is NOT restricting or abridging your right to own a gun. If you believe either of those to be true, you are lying to yourself.

There are those of us who DO NOT wish to own a gun. We have as much freedom of expression as those of you who DO wish to own a gun. We do NOT wish to walk the streets or be in a public place where we constantly have to fear those of you who are carrying a gun. We do not want to constantly wonder if you may decide to use it against someone else when you feel threatened..

If you want to have a gun on your property to protect your property and your family, that is your right. But with that right comes responsibility. Responsibility to register the sale, responsibility to be subject to a background check, responsibility to practice gun safety, responsibility to ensure that other gun owners do the same.

The reason you have these responsibilities is to avoid letting guns get into the hands of those who do are irresponsible, those with criminal intent. By identifying legal owners, we can weed out the illegal owners and users.

Your right does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you please.

Oneslackr

5. Pro making mental health records, if any exist, a part of the NICS background check

OK, I posted this yesterday and none of the anti-gun, anti-Constitution, anti-Americans answered my questions.

I know it’s a lot of reading, and God knows Liberals/Progressives don’t like to read, but I’ll try it again.

Maybe a Libbie will be brave enough to give it a try.

Why Jared Loughner was allowed to buy a gun

Despite evidence that Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner is mentally unstable, he was never declared mentally unfit by a court, so his name did not appear in the federal background-check database used by gun sellers.

Evidence is mounting that Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner was mentally unstable – and yet he was still allowed to purchase a gun legally.

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the possession of firearms by the mentally ill. So why was Mr. Loughner able to guy a gun?

The ability to own a firearm is a constitutionally protected right, and depriving someone of that right involves a legal process. Under the 1968 law, a person must be declared mentally unfit by a court or have been committed to a mental institution to lose his or her right to possess firearms.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required the establishment of a national database known as the National Instant Background Check System (NICS), where the names of people ineligible to possess firearms are to be entered.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, such information is provided to the NICS Index by local, state, tribal, and federal agencies.

A store selling firearms is required to check with NICS before making a sale. In Mr. Loughner’s case, when the 22-year-old went to the Sportsman’s Warehouse outlet in Tucson, Ariz., on Nov. 30 to purchase a Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun, a background check was performed and he came up clear, according to the store manager. That Glock was used in Saturday’s rampage in Tucson that killed six people and injured 13 others, including the critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) of Arizona.

Arizona, well known for its low barriers to gun possession, also prohibits the possession of firearms by anyone found to “constitute a danger to himself or others” and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored under the requirements laid out by state law.

The best-known evidence of Loughner’s mental issues comes from Pima Community College, where he was suspended last year apparently because of mental problems. The college informed him that he could return only if he obtained “a mental health clearance indicating that, in the opinion of a mental health professional, his presence at the college does not present a danger to himself or others.”

There is no known record that a court had ever declared Loughner mentally unfit or that he had ever been committed to a mental institution.

But even if that had been the case, there’s no guarantee that Loughner’s name would have appeared in the national database. Some states have been slow to report names that belong in the “do not sell” list, even after Congress passed a law in 2007 aimed at punishing states with inadequate compliance records and providing incentives to states with good reporting records.

The law passed after the Virginia Tech shooting that year, in which a mentally ill student killed 32 people. In 2005, a judge had declared the shooter, Seung Hui Cho, a danger to himself and ordered him into psychiatric care. But Mr. Cho was still able to purchase two semiautomatic handguns, because his name did not appear in the NICS database.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reported last Friday, the day before the Tucson shootings, that between Jan. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2010, the number of disqualifying mental illness records submitted to NICS by states and territories had more than doubled – from 402,047 records to 929,254. Adding federal records brings the total to nearly 1.1 million.

But the Brady campaign argues that “millions of relevant records” are still missing from the system. The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records, according to the Brady campaign.

In the wake of the Arizona tragedy, advocates of gun rights maintain that additional gun control is not the answer to preventing future violence.

"We have state and federal laws on the books that already prohibit persons who have been deemed mentally insane from owning and possessing firearms," Sen. Mike Lee (R) of Utah said on CNN's "State of the Union." "I don't think we're going to legislate our way out of the risk associated with people who are insane or people who are bent on performing evil acts to kill another person."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0110/Why-Jared-Loughner-was-allowed-to-buy-a-gun

So, despite having the back ground check done Loughner was still able to buy a gun.

More importantly as the article states,,,

The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records, according to the Brady campaign.

This is complicated by this statistic from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Mental Disorders in America

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Intro

Here’s the problem.

The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records.

But the NIMH states we have about 57.7 million Americans that suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder.

So, do we just ignore the other 55.7 million Americans that suffer from mental illness? Or do we require all those 55.7 million other Americans are included.

And if that’s the case, do all 313 million Americans have to undergo mental health testing to find those 57.7 million mentally ill people? If so, who is going to be responsible for testing this massive amount of people?

What if someone is tested and found to be mentally competent and then goes out and still kills a group of people? Who is responsible? The shooter? The Psychiatrist/psychologist? The gun dealer?

I don’t think many people understand the enormity of the statement, “Pro making mental health records, if any exist, a part of the NICS background check.”

What Adlers said, + lots of irresponsible cowards here, just call out their stupidity and it don't matter. You guys give the United States a bad name. You would be a lot better off in a country you could immigrate legally too. Take Somila, no government and lots of guns. I agree with Adler, no civilian needs a gun capable of gunning down 20 children in a very short period of time. Shooting them and 6 adults multiple times. No one but police and military should have access to those kind of weapons. If you cannot kill 10 people with 10 bullets you are not less of a man. The thing is, you are out numbered, Most reasonable people and a majority of responsible gun owners believe that those kinds of weapons are not needed by the general public and even a majority of NRA members want the gun show loophole closed and universal background checks for every gun purchased.

So pfffffffffff, to all of you gun toting children that never gave up cowboy and Indian, or cops and robbers.

Addled,

Rifles are only used in 2.5% of gun related homicides. If Obozo and his clowns really want do do something about crime why start here?

lots of irresponsible cowards here, just call out their stupidity and it don't matter. You guys give the United States a bad name

Says a progressive Marxist (who gives who a bad name Pinko?) who talks trash behind a firewall and monitor

I agree with Adler, no civilian needs a gun capable of gunning down 20 children in a very short period of time

Thats AWESOME...but the Constitution and the Supreme Court dont agree with adlers low info opinion on the matter.

Dont worry Jethro, when you're getting gang raped, I promise i wont use my assault .22 to defend you. I would hate to infringe upon your right to hate guns.

@ Caesar

Dont worry Jethro, when you're getting gang raped, I promise i wont use my assault .22 to defend you. I would hate to infringe upon your right to hate guns.

LOL. I guess if you ever encounter a situation where someone is being assaulted you'll have to ask them first, as they're getting raped or having their heads bashed in, if they are pro-gun/2 Amendment or not. If they say they don't like guns then you can just say, "Okay, see you later. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day."

@ Johntho

I agree with Adler (Adler = I find no reason for clips of over 10 rounds on any weapon), no civilian needs a gun capable of gunning down 20 children in a very short period of time. Shooting them and 6 adults multiple times. No one but police and military should have access to those kind of weapons. If you cannot kill 10 people with 10 bullets you are not less of a man.

The result at Sandy Hook would have been the same regardless of what guns he used because there was no one inside that school to oppose him.

For example, he could have gone into Sandy Hook with two Beretta Nano 9mm pocket pistols & the result would have been the same. The Nano only holds 6 rounds in a standard magazine or 8 rounds in an extended magazine.

As small as a Nano & its magazines are you could easily fit 2 of them & 4 extra magazines for each gun into regular coat pockets. That would have given the shooter:

6-round magazine x 2 guns + 1 bullet chambered in each gun = 14 rounds

& 8 extra 6-round magazines = 48 rounds (14 + 48 = 62 total rounds)

or

8-round extended mag x 2 guns + 1 bullet chambered in each gun = 18 rounds

& 8 extra 8-round magazines = 64 rounds (18 + 64 = 82 total rounds)

So tell me again how limiting magazine capacity is going to prevent another Sandy Hook?

Limiting magazine capacity = a shooter bringing more magazines & guns with them, the results won't change.

@ Adler

I find no reason for clips of over 10 rounds on any weapon

Well, that is good because as far as I know they only make 5-round clips & 10-round clips.

Clips are simple metal strips that are used to hold loose rounds together & then the clip is slid into a fixed internal magazine, usually in old rifles, to quickly load them. They're mainly used in old rifles like the WWII M-1 Garand & old Russian/Chinese SKS rifles etc... LOL

However, many modern semi-auto guns do use magazines that only hold 10 rounds. BTW, there are already & always have been a ton of guns (handguns & rifles) out in the market place that only hold 10-rounds or less.

There are very few firearms in comparison that hold 20 - 30 rounds. So magazine capacity isn't this huge issue you gun grabbers are making it out to be. Also AR-15 style rifles have been used in only a handful of murders. Trying to ban them isn't going to change anything or make anyone any safer.

The topic is gun control. Not freak accidents.

Gee, and I thought the discussion was about saving lives.

My bad.

.

.

More whining from the right, from their congressional "leadership" on down. Give it a break!

Getting Al to respond to me is almost as good as getting Seeking Sanity to respond. Two intellectual giants!

Getting Al to respond to me is almost as good as getting Seeking Sanity to respond.

What can I say, sometimes I will throw a bone to a stray dog. Glad to make your day!

Gabby, your 15 minutes were up, a while back though!

and, yet, her injuries are permanent.

Amy, thats true. But her injuries in no way make her an expert on this topic.

I love the smell of gun nut fear in the morning. It smells like..............victory!

Gun nut fear...I see you woke up and decided to skip having a meaningful debate today.

"but her injuries in no way make her an expert on this topic."

Really? I quite disagree. This woman was shot and has permanent injuries from GUNS! She has had an experience that many people do not survive, and that makes her an important witness.

When will you NRA nuts realize that your right to carry is not more important than the public's right to safety?

Passion plus guns equal disaster. It is far too easy to destroy lives because guns allow someone who is impulsive to carry out a plan of destruction.

Time to place limits on gun ownership. Only the irrational think otherwise.

right, let's silence all the victims of gun violence, the grieving families, the police chiefs who are calling for action to address the issue, the law abiding citizens who are sick of being afraid, and allow the gun lobbyists and Ayn Rand lovers to write the laws of this country. They are, after all, "experts" on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane, as their laws have shown over decades.

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

It’s sad that the NRA makes so much money from the gun manufactures, and that blood money is more important to them than the lives of our citizens.

It is amusing to hear a democrat use the words , "common sense".

As a party, you have so little.

It would be "common sense" to focus on CRIMINALS.

It would be "common sense" to focus on drug users and potheads.

It would be "common sense" to focus on the mentally ill.

And thus far,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no democrat has proposed doing anything except attacking the Constitution and the rights of the law abiding people who happen to own firearms.

Perhaps you should buy a dictionary?

No one is saying silence victims and families. Heck, I have had family members shot but I dont see that as a reason to give up our rights. The fact that you assume someone being a victim makes them an expert says you are doing nothing but driving on emotion and leaving your brain turned off in this debate.

And perhaps YOU should realize paid, that advocating for reasonable control on the access of all weapons does not preclude doing the others that you mention.

Of course, that would BE common sense, wouldn't it?

And the fact that you assume that a gun victim does not have an important message is testament to your worry about how effective that message will be.

Not up to you to determine the importance of a witness.

Bill, Yeah really!! She reads from the paper and I don't think she even knows why she's there. Hey it's terrible what happened to her but if she wasn't Gabby she would of had 5 minutes of fame. It's getting old.

SCOTUS Justice Anton Scalia: Guns may be regulated
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
http://israelsurvivalupdates.com/2012/07/29/scotus-justice-anton-scalia-guns-may-be-regulated/

I am just saying dont think that her being a victim makes her an expert. She can talk about her experience and share her view, fine. There are plenty of others with similar experiences who have the opposite view and they should be heard as well. I personally find the bigger issue with her doing this is that it goes against her former oath.

Define "reasonable control"?

Then explain who exactly, "resonable control" is allowed when your Constitutional rights clearly states, "the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

Lastly, "reasonable control" to rabid anti-gun, anti-American leftist is quite extreme and restrictive when looked at by a reasonable person.

no democrat has proposed doing anything except attacking the Constitution and the rights of the law abiding people who happen to own firearms.

Can you tell us what has been done to attack the Constitution and the right of law abiding people who owe firearms?

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 wouldn’t be having this debate.

Remember, these tougher laws 25 to 50 years ago would have stopped the people who should not have guns from getting them and passing them on to others.

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

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

Simple!

Wrong Job, completely wrong. Having a car is a privilege, not a right. You can create all manner of restrictions or prohibitions around that. Rights dont work that way.

Wrong Job, completely wrong. Having a car is a privilege, not a right. You can create all manner of restrictions or prohibitions around that. Rights dont work that way.

Really? Justice Scalia stated otherwise in the decision on DC v Heller.

Noid, he said no such thing. Not sure what you read but I think you misunderstood.

"it goes against her oath"

Really? Advocating a lawful position allowed by the Constitution is against her oath? You do know she is not serving? And it would still be lawful if she were serving.

And...paid, (is that like bought and paid for by the NRA thugs?) what part of a "well-regulated militia" do YOU not understand?

Define "reasonable control"?

both hands, perfect sight picture, perfect sight alignment. slow steady squeeze. fire on exhale.

Yes, it does indeed go against her oath. You assume she it taking a lawful position and I, and many others, disagree.

And to this well regulated bit, I am pretty sure the Supreme Court already settled that. You can whine and moan all you like but it doesnt change our rights at an individual level.

No one is trying to take away anyone rights. I myself own two hand guns and have a concealed gun license, and I support the Second Amendment. However, I don’t support the NRA because all they are trying to do is gin up their base with fear. So what if every proposal made by the President became law. It would not affect my rights.

It's sad that the children and teachers from Sandy Hook like thousands of others have every year have been denied, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, because we allow guns into the hands of people that should not have them.

What oath, Free. She is a citizen. Her position is lawful and would be if she were serving. The Constitution allows for restrictions on the Bill of Rights. Do take Civics 101.

As to your individual rights...I realize that NRA thugs are all 2 year old children engaged in a full tantrum, but limits can be placed on those as well.

No one is talking about a ban. But REAL AMERICANS understand the difference.

Noid, he said no such thing. Not sure what you read but I think you misunderstood.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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." - Justice Antonin Scalia, DC v Heller

Noid....none of that is what you claim he said.

Newday, you wouldnt know a real American if saw one. Your position is un-American, your views are un-American and I believe you are un-American.

Newday, you wouldnt know a real American if saw one. Your position is un-American, your views are un-American and I believe you are un-American.

LMAO

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

2474

But her injuries in no way make her an expert on this topic.

Wonder which song you would be singing if it were YOUR wife, mother or daughter who was shot instead of Gabby...???

The fact your so intimidated by Ms. Gifford's tells me all I need to know about how effective her voice is with people who are not certifiably bat @!$%# crazy!

@ Job 1

Driving? That is a good one. The drivers training that I took in the 70's makes todays drivers training look like Astronaut training school.

I don't know about where you are, or how they do drivers training there, but many don't even have you parallel park. Its pretty obvious how great the drivers training programs are today. Jusy follow a driver less than 30 years old

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

2474

That number would mean something if you actually showed how much of it was in the commission of a crime. You know, the part where current and proposed future gun laws. regs and bans fall short in controlling.

Just because something comes from the SCOTUS, it does not mean that it is either correct, OR final.

Remember that little thing called, Prohibition???

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato (423 BC – 348 BC)

"Throughout history, there have only been two groups of people that have never been allowed guns: Slaves and Conquered Nations. And which one are they trying to make us in America?" -- Sheriff Richard Mack

How many people have been protected by guns since New town?

According to National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University 1 every 13 seconds. So lets say it happened 60 days ago....24*60*60=86400 seconds in a day, 60 days since*86400 seconds in a day= 5184000 seconds since Sandy Hook, 5184000 / 13 = 398769 people have been saved by guns since Sandy Hook. What is the greater good here Job?

@ Job 1

How many have been killed by drunk drivers?

And how many limits are there on drunk driving? And how much has that reduced the fatalities..

Job1

How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

2474

how many in Chicago alone? what kind of people in Chi town are doing these crimes? oh yeah fvcking criminals..

And how much has that reduced the fatalities..

well, enlighten us

As always, 74% of the "deaths since Newtown" were caused by people with criminal records who had no legal right to possess a firearm.

And the Obama DoJ has the worst record for prosecuting gun crimes of any administration since 1990.

Gabby, you're 15 minutes are up

No, she certainly is entitled to speak her peace. I only wish we'd see more people speaking out about the tragedy of motor vehicle crashes, that kill about 100 people a day (and permanently maiming even more).

.

I am pleased to see that at least some people have the good sense to speak out against texting while driving.

But, we seem to have trouble acknowledging and addressing the damage of life and property caused by alcohol.

Finally, there's the failure to discourage abortion, which must remain legal (like alcohol and cars that can go 200 MPH, or those 4 cylinder crotch-rockets. Or even guns.)

Again, just because something is legal doesn't mean doing things to extreme.

.

Gabby sustained a very significant brain injury. That brain injury seems to have made her child like in her ability to communicate. She only reads prepared statements, usually with her hubby at her side, you have to wonder if she even comprehends what she is reading. I have yet to see her give any statements or interviews on this issue where she is ask to express herself on this issue without pre- written statements. She is being used to tug on people's emotions to advance the lefts agenda for gun control.

You do know that there is a difference between receptive and expressive language, and the capability of receptive language may be better than expressive?

Unfortunately, she is being manipulated. Perhaps if she is just allowed to heal, rather than being a cause...

Provide a reputable source to support your contention, 314159. Or do the NRA thugs wish to trash Ms. Giffords because they are fearful of how effective she will be?

Dear Dawning..., my eyes and my ears are my source. They drag her into public and the poor woman can barely string a coherent sentence together... Perhaps you see something different.

Your perception is skewed by your position on guns.

Could you please refer me to a video showing Ms. Giffords being "dragged" into public?

And again: receptive and expression language are different measures. One can be quite au fait receiving, while the area of the brain controlling expressive may have some damage.

It does not mean that Ms. Giffords is unable to know what she is doing.

Do quit being so insulting. It says more about YOU than her.

I don't recall stating my position on guns. Perhaps your perception is skewed by your position... She needs time to heal my dear friend...

So you would know Ms Giffords personally, be a medical professional, and able to make that determination?

Voting is a right, gun ownership is a right. If ID is good for one, it should be good for the other.

There are so man f*ing gun laws on the books that are not enforced. Also it is amusing that the cities with some of the strictest gun laws in the USA have an insane murder rate, DC, Chicago, Detroit..When was the last time a criminal thought, oh know I can't do that its against the law. Mandatory minimums for gun crimes;;1st offense 3 years., 2nd 8 years, 3rd life..Don't ban the guns , ban the behavior

Apples and pears. We have gun control laws now (just as we do immigration laws) that have little or no affect on what happens in the real world. I am all for background checks as if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Once again here in NC we are mulling the voter picture ID law that should have been passed (not necessarily implemented before the '12 elections) that was vetoed by then Governor Beverly E. Purdue (D). We now have a GOP governor and I think it will pass. That should give plenty of time for people to get on board prior to the '14 elections. Even those poor, old, and oppressed (giggle) should have enough notice.

If you libs don't think it fair to have to show ID as it is sooooooo hard to get, do like you did in the days prior to the '12 elections and round them up on a bus and transport them to get their official ID like you did to get them to the polls to vote.

To compare guns and voting, you're talking about IDs. You have to have an ID to carry a gun, and in most states, a requirement to identify to police that you are allowed. I support the ID for both. I even support the right to police to require you to identify that you are allowed to carry, so long as once it's shown, you are allowed to continue on unhindered.

There are so man f*ing gun laws on the books that are not enforced.

So if you are for enforcing the existing laws on the books regarding gun control. does that mean you want to see a new ATF director confirmed and that agency fully staffed so they can enforce existing law? If so, please tell your GOP senator to drop the filibuster of the ATF nominee.

So what you're saying is having no one in the post is worse than having the right person in the post. Got it.

Al, I haven't followed this one too closely. But I would say this... I would want to see all of that, but what assurances do we have that they will enforce the law? What assurances do we have that another Fast and Furious won't happen again? And personally, I detest that both of our last two presidents have led to that blunder, so I'll let my party take part of the blame too.

"...DC, Chicago, Detroit..."

Can't find a gun shop in Chicago? Don't like the waiting period at the gun shops outside the city limits or in Wisconsin? Geeze, the city of Chicago borders the state of Indiana! Holy cow! Two gun shops right on the state line! Wait for it... No gun license required! No registration! Background checks? They check your (fake) ID to make sure you're 18 and so they can enter your (fake) name in NICS.

Don't trust your fake ID? Just call a buddy in Gary, Indiana. Y'know that guy you spent six months in Juvi with. He's got no criminal record as an adult, so he can act as a surrogate buyer. Yep, he'll buy all the guns you need while you wait in the parking lot.

Bingo! Semi-automatic carbine, foldable stock! Need more stopping power for those late-night turf wars, how about the semi-auto 12-gauge shotgun?! Or right out of the Terminator movies, you won't find a more badass, faster handling pump shotgun than Browning's BPS!

And the No. 1 supplier of those weapons is just a short drive from Chicago, Chuck’s Gun Store in south suburban Riverdale. Nearly one in five guns USED IN CRIMES were bought at Chuck's. Chuck's Gun Shop where they play Hip Hop in their Indoor Pistol Range and every Tuesday morning is Gangbanger special (wear a hoodie and basketball sneakers, get 20% off, 30% off if you have gangsta ink).

Looking at THE FACTS leads all right-thinking people to this conclusion: nationwide gun control, one single database of all purchases and purchasers, active (not passive) NICS, mental health and Juvi linkages, strict prosecution of straw purchasers.

/some irony was used in the crafting of this post

What assurances do we have that another Fast and Furious won't happen again?

Over the past six years, the position of ATF director was unfilled. Perhaps had there been someone leading that agency, such felony stupid ideas such as F&F might never have happened.

Al in Visalia CA - But, but but, Bush started it.

Gun's Lost by Bush: 0

Lives lost by Bush's Gun Running: 0

Obama? Well we don't talk about such things on this website.

If you libs don't think it fair to have to show ID as it is sooooooo hard to get, do like you did in the days prior to the '12 elections and round them up on a bus and transport them to get their official ID like you did to get them to the polls to vote.

So, do you want to take away a persons right to vote? I have many friends and relatives that live in NC, and that state does not require an ID to vote, because of the well kept registration rolls. They tell me you do have to show and ID to resister, which should be enough.

So, we don't need to put citizens through these hoop jump, because voter fraud being committed by groups of citizens is a myth.

Voter fraud only exists in the mind of a republican-tea party folks, that can't get over the fact that there days in power are limited. Like I've said before, I was not worried about the intent of the people to re-elect President Obama. But, I was especially worried about Voter Suppression.

Don't ban the guns , ban the behavior

Which "behavior"?

...and are you volunteering to head up the "Thought Police"?

Job1 - Great logic. Let's use it in the gun debate. 10 nuts over a 15 year period have shot up some schools and other public places. This rate is even less than voter fraud. Should we let the few instances legislate how the majority acts? According to you, no. But typical lefty logic doesn't apply and you use your emotions to do what you think is right.

As I said, "Voter fraud only exists in the mind of a republican-tea party folks, that can't get over the fact that their days in power are limited. Like I've said before, I was not worried about the intent of the people to re-elect President Obama. But, I was especially worried about Voter Suppression."

10 mass shooting killed many family members and affected hundreds if not thousands of lives. Period! Voter fraud being committed by citizens does not exist. Why would someone risk getting into trouble over an illegal vote.

It's a myth made up to get the carnival barkers fired up!!!

Job1 - Voter fraud is real, it may not be at the same levels that the right claims but it certainly is real and it happens more frequently than mass shootings. Vote fraud, if it changes the outcome of the election affects thousands upon thousands.

You can see where I draw the link. Both affect people. Both have the potential to cost lives. Why is one more important than the other? On a straight number basis, voter fraud probably should be carry more weight than gun control. I think your Avatar explains why one is right and the other is wrong.

Like the Poll Worker that voted 6 times for Obama & saw nothing wrong with it? No voter fraud doesn't exist does it? 59 Precincts with 110% of the votes that went for Obama without at least 1 vote for Romney? Law of averages would tell you at least one person would make a mistake. But 110% , tell us how that works. Racist much?

Deerhunter,

Where is you link that backs up you report?

There was one county official that said more people voted in one precinct than were registered but a week later he had to retract that statement … he was misinformed (wrong).

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio - Do your own home work. Google voting fraud convictions or confirmed voteing fraud. Plenty of links for you to choose from.

"They tell me you do have to show and ID to resister, which should be enough."

That is exactly how fraud is committed. Once a person is registered, anyone can vote in their name without the ID...

Morgs74,

There is no voter fraud

Yes, as demonstrated clearly by the large, bold font... Jeesh...

Wisconsin alone....Each year between 12 and 20 people are convicted of voter fraud in Wisconsin - a state with 3.4 million registered voters, said Reid Magney, a spokesman for the state Government Accountability Board.

Plug your ears Dennis, drown out the facts, lalalala. Dolt. Seriously, what the hell? The facts are in front of you from various news sources. Follow that party line, the extremists on each side are a dying breed. Bye.

31419,

[Yes, as demonstrated clearly by the large, bold font... Jeesh...]

As noted by someone that isn’t even creative enough to come up with a name … I’m Impressed!

Morgs74,

Again just your claim … no proof !!

No, not my claim. This claim comes from the Government Accountability Board. If people sitting in jail on voting fraud convictions isn't proof enough there is no help for you. There is no more to be said to you.

Democratic Congressional candidate Wendy Rosen dropped from her race against Republican Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) in September after it was discovered she had been voting in two states in recent elections – Maryland and Florida. Rosen said she was saddened to leave the race in Maryland.

Classic Democrat.

Oh.., the burn... You should learn more my dear Dennis, as the numbers are my name... But perhaps you don't know that... Hmmmm...., interesting.

Morgs74,

You state a couple examples where no one has been arrested or prosecuted and you expect that there is a wide-spread problem so great that it has or could change elections … get real !!

314159,

[the numbers are my name]

Excuse me if I’m not impressed

Voter fraud is real, it may not be at the same levels that the right claims

NO, That is a proven Right Wing LIE. Period!!!

Believe it or not my friend but not everyone feels the need to impress others..., with their wisdom or their font. Have a great day Dennis and study harder!

In addition to no voter fraud, there is no crime or violence of any kind. Children are intelligent beyond their years and war has been eliminated. Politicians are all honest hard working people who are only there to serve. Energy is now free, in endless supply, and clean. Unemployment has dipped to 0 and disease is a thing of the past. They have removed the word hunger from the dictionary and everyone is treated with the utmost respect. We now live in utopia... Yes Virginia, there is no voter fraud..., period...

314159,

You forgot to say snark off

As a percent of all voters there is statistically no voter fraud … less than 0.0001%

Ah yes..., my mathematically challenged friend has made up a statistic. The same could be said about the percentage of the American population and bank robbery, rape, murder by strangulation, and a host of other crimes. Big deal. The fact that something isn't common place doesn't mean that it should not be prevented.

There is no voter fraud

LMAO...you're kidding right...Dennis said so, Dennis is the master of numbers (Fields Medal right in Statistics right?)

You can always go Strike with the teachers. then harass the subs. Loving Liberals...HAHAHAHAHA

Life be Irie

Dennis and Job, ok, I under stand that. Now use that same math to these numbers...10 public shootings done by 11 people in the past 15 years.

11 nuts / 313,000,000 =3.514376996805112e-8% So statistcally, these people will never exist again, no need to ban guns.

You are going to let 3.514376996805112e-8% of the population force laws on 313,000,000 law abiding people. Tell me where you priorities lie. That is down right un-American and I am embarrassed for both you two.

Sorry people die but you can't hold the rest of America accountable for their actions.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/02/southern-nevada-woman-arrested-suspicion-trying-vo/

it doesnt exist...

What doesnt exist is this pie in the sky Libtopia.

CA,

Come on, can’t you do better than 1 in a million (0.00001%)?

None of you can. Keep trying to make something out of nothing … what a joke!

morgs, your statistics mean nothing as yours is a straw man argument.

You are quoting only the mass shootings carried out by individuals whose sole purpose was to kill. If you are going to make an argument, you need to include all those who died by the gun. Those who shot themselves or someone else even if by accident, those who died from a gunshot during the comission of a crime.

Gun owners constantly tell us that they need their weapons for protection. The protection they seek is protection from criminals, not just those who commit mass murders. If you are going to use every gun death as your reason for protecting yourself, you must use every gun death in your statistics.

fielden - My stats show exactly what I wanted them to show. If i wanted to show a percentage of people affected by these nuts as you suggest I would have placed that info in my argument but that is not my point. My point is 11 people over a 15 year period have the power to force governance on us.

The woman was shot while performing her duties in office, her aide and constituents were killed, and this is how you comment on her push for background checks?

Darn right. She took an oath to defend the Constitution and now she is going back on that oath. What happened to her was tragic but it doesnt change the nature of our rights.

what part of well regulated militia do you not understand? It is certainly constitutional to require gun dealers to perform background checks on people buying weapons normally used in war.

Exactly the point, Amy. Reasonable limits are place on the Bill of Rights all the time. You are not free to defame someone, and your church cannot murder in the name of doctrine.

Reasonable limits can be placed on the Second Amendment too. It is not exempt.

We already have reasonable federal limits and many unreasonable state ones. Enough is enough.

And now it is time to take the NRA thugs out of the dialog and come up with effective limits.

newday, you are just wrong. Thugs? Really? The honest, hard working Americans who support their rights are thugs? And none of the limits being discussed are effective so scrap those, come back with new ones, and then we can talk.

Normally used in war? OMFG Are you kidding me? I do believe in backround checks but, that comment is hilarious

@Amy....She is not pushing anything. She is being pushed around in a wheelchair and being exploited by the left. Look at that blank stare. She now has the IQ and alertness of a 110-year. They tried to use James Brady the same way, but it's been a total disaster.

Job Seeker,

So, according to you, Mark Kelly is using, allowing his wife to be used for what ? Personal gain ?

As a retired astronaut he will never need for employment or money. He and his wife are gun owners that wish to protect their right to own guns but believe that some constraints are reasonable and needed.

FreeGecko, She is just one of many running around the country for Obama Tugging at your heartstrings. Bringing people on stage at state of the union addresses holding pictures. You know what it sucks what happened but I'm about sick and damn tired of how they want the VAST majority of us that own guns to feel Guilty like it was OUR fault this happened. If they want to point fingers and doesn't Obama love to do that THEN look at Obama he refuses to look at any reason for gun violence being anything other then the fact that law abiding citizens have guns. It couldn't be because he sets free 2000 illegal prisoners many of then felons. Let's people like Eric Holder get away with the fast and furious. For this president there are no bounderies no lines in the sand he truly thinks he is above the LAW.

Job Seeker: what cognitive testing instruments are you familiar with, and have seen regarding Ms. Giffords cognitive ability?

You owe her and her family an apology.

Yes, Free, NRA thugs. They have threatened Congressional representatives with their perceived power long enough. They do NOT own the Congress the Constitution and this country. Time they find that out.

FreeGecko... As pointed out, you're wrong.

And the word Scalia used was "unfettered". No Constitional right is unfettered. I'll bet if you thought about it for just a little bit you could come up with examples in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. through the BoR.

Allen,

NONE of the illegals that were freed were felons {period}

Eric Holder … Politico: Near mid-April, as reported by Politico, we will see the House make a Motion to Dismiss the Contempt of Congress charges against Eric Holder related to his refusal to comply with Congressional request for additional documentation related to Fast and Furious hearings.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/01/house-holder-may-near-deal-on-fast-and-furious-contempt-155525.html?hp=l1

Mark Kelly is using, allowing his wife to be used for what ? Personal gain ?

Possibly. I can't read his mind, but test pilots and astronauts do tend to be attracted to the limelight. And some even have been known to do bizarre things, i.e. Lisa Nowak.

To be fair here I dont believe Mr Kelly is doing anything, in his view, that would harm his wife or allow her to be "used". I disagree with his view and position and I personally think Mrs Giffords should be given some peace and quiet but it is wrong to assume ill intent on the part of her husband here.

"It is certainly constitutional to require gun dealers to perform background checks on people buying weapons normally used in war."

You cannot legally buy 'a weapon normally used in war' today anyway...

She is in no way proof of the need for more gun control. What she is proof of is the need to reform our mental health system.

60's . wow so when someone expresses an opinion contrary to yours you resort to childish name calling ? I thought you defended peoples right to freely express their opinions ? Glad that when I was in the US ARMY I didn't have anyone like you as a leader. Thankfully you are not in the military anymore.

How is Gabby living proof that there should be gun control ? Gabby is no more important than anyone else killed or injured by a LUNATIC using a gun. I served in Desert Storm, does that make me an authority on war, or Iraqis, or sand for that ,matter ? You libs are in favor of free speech, unless it conradicts your ideals...US ARMY 82-92, Desert Storm Vet,, 1/41 Inf 2AD(fwd)

Well spoken Bill. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

If you served in Desert Storm and are not an expert on sand, I would question your ability to learn from experience. : )

Bill: Thanks for your service to our nation.

J, thank you. It was a privilege to serve this country

Thanks for your service, 60's veteran. I do believe that Gabby Giffords and her husband respect the Constitution---both of them served our country admirably.

Steeler...I disagree. I think they both served admirably and commend them for that but their views have changed and they are no longer supporters of our Constitutional rights.

Well, FreeGecko---the actions Gabby and Mark suggest are within the actions permitted by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, written by Justice Scalia. Are you suggesting that Justice Scalia is also not supporting our Constitutional rights?

Bullcrap....Heller made no such allowance by name. You are trying to interpret it for your own benefit and thats not going to play here.

it is a problem with drugs, gangs, criminals and the mentally ill....who are armed with machines designed to inflict mass casualties with barely any effort.

AMY B,--- It is better (in your case) to remain silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt

Were you reminding yourself of that bill, because an objective observer might conclude that advice is best offered to YOU!

Amy, do you arrest a car for drunk driving?

If not, then why attack a gun for a crime? The gun is an inanimate object. It does nothing without a criminal attached.

Focus,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,try for once in your life to,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,focus.

Exactly, stopping blaming the tools and start blaming the criminal!.

Ummm, Free...cars are taken all the time for crime, drugs, poaching and others.

Guns are the problem.

If you believe guns are the problem then YOU are the problem. You refuse to address the criminal and the real causes of crime doing nothing but making the rest of us less safe. Your poor logic leads to nothing but failure for all of us.

So Free, you would say that you could point your finger, yell "bang bang bang" and create the same devastation that guns do?

Really?

I would say neither my finger nor my gun have caused anyone damage. My car has a much higher potential for harm than either one and I dont abuse that either.

And your car has restrictions placed on its use.

So do my guns. I cant use them to rob, rape, or murder. The same limitations on misuse are already there so adding more makes no sense.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED -

cars are taken all the time for crime, drugs, poaching and others.

For punitive damages, nothing more. Offenders are free to purchase another after they have served their sentence.

Bubblegum

Again. Cars are removed because of certain crimes all the time. Restrictions are placed on the ability to drive again too.

Ok dummy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,focus,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,try and focus.

Do you place the restrictions on EVERYONE IN AMERICA??????????????????????????????

OR, do you place them on the person who used the car wrongfully?????????????????

FOCUS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,try and focus a little.

Focus on this paid:

Restrictions about alcohol and driving affect ALL Americans. ALL.

Got it?

What restrictions are there on alcohol,,idiot.

What restrictions are there on cars,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,even bigger idiot.

You can walk into a car dealership and buy a car with no ID, private sales are allowed, anyone can drive them.

The "restrictions" are on the PERSON, you simpleton. The drunk driver loses his license, he goes to jail or rides the bus.

Democrats never whine about high horsepower assault cars, deadly black motorcycles or the dangers of killer 4x4 trucks.

No 5-day wait for beers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no fingerprints for liquor,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,no limit on consumption. 40oz assault beer is allowed in the hood.

Sweet Jesus, save me from the ignorant...they pretend to knowledge they do not have.

All right paid, let's play your little game, and we will allow others to decided who owns the epithet "idiot".

How old do you have to be to buy an alcoholic drink or liquor from a store. Have you been asked to provide ID? If you are found to be driving drunk, are you required to take a breathalyzer to measure consumption? Are there laws regarding how much alcohol in your system is going to send you to jail?

I just bought two cars, one brand new and one 2 years old for my son, both from dealerships.

Guess what? I had to show my driver's license, provide proof of insurance and title to the old car I was trading.

Are there age requirements to get a license to drive in all states? Are you required to have insurance?

If you imbibe to much alcohol, are you likely to go to jail? Can you lose your car if you are found to be transporting drugs in it or poaching?

God, mental midget does not BEGIN to describe you.

OK you semi-retarded loser, try and focus.

Alcohol, is it banned? Quantity limited? Nope, not at all. It is easily available to anyone with money in spite of your rants.

Guns are not as available. To buy a gun from a dealer.

1. You need to be 18y/o for a rifle or shotgun, 21y/o for a handgun.

2. Not only do you need a state ID, but it must have your current address on it and cannot be expired.

3. You complete whatever paperwork is required.

4. The dealer then calls you in to the National Instant Background Check system and verifies all of your information is correct.

5. Then you may take possession if the state laws allow you to walk away that day with your purchase. To have a carry permit, you had to have a background check, fingerprints and training in most cases and you pay for the license.

Buying a gun for someone other than yourself is a felony.

Lying on the paperwork is a crime as well.

Using any fake information is a crime. Your are not allowed to buy a gun if you use drugs, yet nearly all democrats who buy guns lie about that.

The states are supposed to add drug users and the mentally ill to the NICS check system, most states refuse. Almost no one is added annually from leftist states.

When you finance cars because you are a penniless democrat you must have ID and proof of insurance , we expect that from a car dealer.

You can however buy a car from pretty much anyone on Craigslist with cash and do as you will without insurance.

Since you are,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a complete and total idiot. I should remind you, CRIMINALS DRIVE WITHOUT LICENSES. They drive WITHOUT INSURANCE, they STEAL CARS AND USE THEM TO COMMITT CRIME.

OMG!!!!!!!!

The drunk who hit and killed my dad had no license, no insurance, an extensive drunk driving record going back 30 years and a pick-up truck. He could have cared less, he told the judge he was blameless cause he was drunk.

The drunk, driving criminal followed no laws.

Now,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,follow along stew meat.

A criminal with a gun is already a criminal, he got a gun to use in his next crime. He is already breaking the law.

When he shoots someone it is still illegal, he does not care.

Typically, about 3/4ths of the time according to the FBI, he is shooting other criminals. He does not care.

Why would making it illegal for an honest law-abiding gun owner to own a gun deter crime???????

Why will making a gun owner go though annual background checks, home inspections, seizures and various other leftist schemes stop criminals from using guns?

Why will taking guns away from people who do not committ crime, lower crime rates?

Will it inspire criminals to stop using guns?????

The answer is of course, NO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,nothing you propose will lower crime, NOTHING.

Alcohol, cars and whatever else criminals desire are freely available to them. Strangely you never demand we hold criminals accountable for their actions. Instead you blame the blameless.

Guns are protected by our nations Constitution,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,read it sometime. That makes them DIFFERENT. They are not a product for leftists to deny those they despise. Your demands are based on socialist reasoning and a hatred of personal freedoms..

In closing I would like to say a prayer for your parents,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,raising a complete idiot must have been tough. They must have crawled into bed every night hoping you would smother or drown drinking from the toilet.

You are seriosuly,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the biggest idiot I have ever seen walking upright.

I'll see your Gabby and raise you one LaPierre.

This is just a continuation of the lefts "never let a good tradgedy go to waste" campaigning to further their agenda. The irony here is that Giffords was shot by a mentally ill person using a weapon that no one is currently proposing to ban. The facts of her case would argue for better mental health problem recognition rather than gun control.

Kind of reminds you of actions leading up to the Holocaust doesn't it?

Kind of reminds you of actions leading up to the Holocaust doesn't it?

That is a bit of a stretch. Conditions in 2013 USA resemble in no way 1930s Germany.

Here's a thought to ponder when you are arguing against reasonable firearm regulation while worrying about the government attacking citizens. NoMoreTax's post above focuses entirely upon hardware while saying nothing about those who would be expected to use the weapons in the fashion implied by the post. Do you honestly believe the government of the US, who, after all are citizens themselves, would turn wholesale upon civilians? How much different is a concern for the government stockpiling weapons any different than concern for the almost unhindered access to weapons by civilians? Attempts to regulate firearms, no matter how sensible and in keeping with the 2nd, bring forth howls of protest. Apparently effectively unregulated access to firearms to the general population, is OK, but the government stocking weapons, that is scary. But why should it matter, it is just hardware - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Right?

NoMoreTax

I too have looked into this situation and done my own reading,,,, yes it makes one wonder,,, kind of scary. It is all fact and not hard to find the government articles on it...

Off topic - we are discussing assault rifles.

Notice the classic democrat. Ignore the criminal at all costs. Blame others unrelated to the problem.

Emotions before facts...

"I can only imagine the payoffs that took place to get some police chiefs and childrens groups to sign off on this flawed legislation."

Yeah? Twenty children get slaughtered by a nutjob with an assault weapon and you can't imagine why childrens' groups want to get assault weapons banned. Are you really that stupid?

And every day cops and other first responders enter unsafe situations knowing they might just be outgunned by some effing gun-loving nutjob with an AK-47, and you can't imagine why police chiefs want these weapons banned? Are you really that stupid?

You think it took a payoff?

Are you really that monumentally stupid?

Bob, thats BS. I used to be in law enforcement and still know many people who are. None of them are afraid of honest Americans having the firearms that are available to them today. The police chiefs are politicians first and cops second...they do what their boss tells them to do. There is a reason that sheriffs across the US are coming out against these proposals as they actually represent the people who elected them.

Law enforcement in Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, & Idaho are not in the least worried about any gun legislation.

Freeg... There are many alw enforcement personnel coing out in support as well.

I would argue (if you really were in law enforcement) that they're sworn to uphold the law first. If they're not doing that, they need to be fired.

There are Chiefs coming out in support but I have yet to see officers or Sheriffs supporting any of this non-sense. When someone who matters speaks I will be interested.

FreeGecko: "I used to be in law enforcement..."

I'm a retired cop, having worked at the local, state and federal level for 32 years. I've been bludgeoned, stabbed, shot and fed head first into an industrial meat grinder, and that's just since I hung up my spurs.

This is after serving in the military, where I fought at Chancellorsville, Amiens, Iwo Jima, Pork Chop Hill, Khe Sanh and Fallujah.

So I know my way around weapons and the men that use them.

You can use all the facts and science you like, but I say gun control will not work. You may have all that book learnin', but I've looked killers in the eye. Inner-city gang-bangers who would just as soon shoot you as pop open a can o' malt liquor. Red-neck white trash, sitting outside the trailer, just itchin' to empty a clip into some city fella peddling liberal books like the bible, or ideas like, well, ideas.

Trust me on this, son, gun control will never work.

/irony

itchin' to empty a clip-------- is that what they hold the roach with?

Uh, Bob....I was saying gun control wouldnt work so I think you misread my post.

Bribes...I see. What does that make Bloomberg's money pushing for gun control?

All violations of their rights and all will fail to make any difference in crime. The people should be outraged and I know many are.

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." - Abraham Lincoln

It is a perversion of the constitution to argue that the second ammendment is about granting citizen's unlimited access to arms. Every court in every era has said no.

Bob, I dont know what country you are from but here in America we consider people trying to infringe on our rights as the perversion.

Conclusion: Gun control works, if you get my drift.

I guess its time for you to head for the hills. Put some tinfoil on your head so that they cant read your thoughts.

That's a really stupid statement.

Mockingbyrd, shepherd Obama is calling you.

Hopefully someone will put you away before you do some harm, its obvious you are at least a half a bubble off.

This is what passes for logic from the right wing nuts. That everyone should put up a sign that they live in a gun free zone.

We could do that if so many of you gun nuts weren't armed to the teeth and looking for a reason to fire.

Iknow.......

you should read the 2nd Amendment, it was not written like todays laws that make them almost impossible to reed. That is why I do not understand all the wasted tall here and in Washington. (don't they have a buget to work on?) It all comes down to 4 pretty simple words, "Shall Not Be Infringed". This makes any restricktion on gun ownership a violation of rights, so now we ask what is the background check for? even if they find what ever in your background you as a person still have the right to bear arms. Also see the federalist papers!!! really people! If you give them background checks you are give up your right to bear arms. sooner or later they will find a way to deny you in a check Think before you act!

Newday....

Why don't you just shut up and read The four yours that show you have not tried yet. Shall not be Infinged. I don't like alot of @!$%# other people do but I do not try to stop them. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself and stop asking the Government to do everything for you.

More laws less liberty

"Shall not be infringed" means you have a right to own a gun. It does not need that firearms and ammunition can't be regulated. Boo Yah! Take that to the bank.

"Well regulated militia" what is so hard to get about that mayo?

"more laws less liberty"

Shall we have NO laws, would that suit you, mayo? That's called "anarchy" and is exactly the reason the Founders made this a republic and not a democracy.

new day no we should enforce the laws we have. I do not even see where you are going with the well regulated thing. try the feralist paper they explane what was meant by the laws that became the Bill of RIGHTS!!!

And which particular Federalist paper would you like me to read, mayo. I have a copy here.

Ah yes, friend mayo has disappeared. Let me give you some advice, mayo...don't use the Federalist if you haven't read them, those of us who have will recognize that immediately.

Let me help you with this: The Federalist, now termed the Federalist Papers did NOT "explane" (sic) the Bill of Rights, and in fact Federalist 84 purportedly by Hamilton argued against them, since he worried that those would be seen as the only enumerated rights that people had.

The Federalist set out reasons to argue for the ratification of the Constitution.

And if you read Federalist number 29, you will find that it talks about the definition of militia. Again, authored most likely by Hamilton.

Yeah yeah yeah...Since people still commit murders we shouldn't have laws against it.

WTF does that mean? I'll enlighten you genious. There are laws against gun crimes. They're just not enforced. Criminals are let out early to re-offend often and punishment isn't harsh enough. But by all means, continue to dodge the real issues here and bore the hell out of us with you're nonsense replys!