By E. J. Dionne

Gun Sanity Needs Bipartisanship

January 10, 2013 12:00 am Category: Memo Pad, Politics 316 Comments A+ / A-
Gun Sanity Needs Bipartisanship

WASHINGTON — The first and most important victory for advocates of sensible gun laws would, on almost any other matter, seem trivial. But when it comes to firearms, it’s huge: Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, attention to the issue has not waned and pressure for action has not diminished.

Please don’t dismiss this achievement. Consider that until so many children were gunned down, the National Rifle Association and the gun manufacturers for which it speaks were able to block calls for a legislative response in the wake of one massacre after another.

After the shootings at a Colorado movie theater last summer, politicians were quickly intimidated into reciting bromides that drowned a real debate in blather. Nothing happened.

And nothing happened in January 2011 after the mass shooting at a town meeting in Tucson, AZ, where Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot in the head. Six people were killed and 13 others, including Giffords, were wounded.

Her gradual recovery has been a miracle of modern medicine and her determination. Now she and Mark Kelly, her astronaut husband, have been moved by the Newtown, CT, shootings to help lead the nation’s new turn on gun violence. They marked the second anniversary of the Tucson episode to announce the formation of Americans for Responsible Solutions, and minced no words in an op-ed piece in USA Today on Tuesday, criticizing “special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe.”

“Weapons designed for the battlefield have a home in our streets,” they wrote. “Criminals and the mentally ill can easily purchase guns by avoiding background checks. Firearm accessories designed for killing at a high rate are legal and widely available.”

Giffords embodies this embrace of a new attitude that one might call “solutionism.” It’s heartening that political leaders from states and districts with long histories of supporting gun rights are now breaking with the gun lobby’s extremism.

It’s also encouraging that Vice President Joe Biden, charged by President Obama with responsibility for proposing a comprehensive approach to the problem, is reportedly going big. He is ready to start with the necessary minimum — a renewal of a more effective assault weapons ban, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and extending background checks on private gun sales. The last really matters, since the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns estimates that perhaps 40 percent of all gun sales are made by unlicensed private dealers.

Pages →  1 2

Gun Sanity Needs Bipartisanship Reviewed by on . WASHINGTON -- The first and most important victory for advocates of sensible gun laws would, on almost any other matter, seem trivial. But when it comes to fire WASHINGTON -- The first and most important victory for advocates of sensible gun laws would, on almost any other matter, seem trivial. But when it comes to fire Rating:

More by E. J. Dionne

A Market Basket Of Dignity

WASHINGTON — Who knew that one of the best made-for-Labor Day speeches in American history would be delivered by a CEO? And who could have guessed that the summer’s major labor story would not be about a CEO saving the jobs of his workers but about the workers saving the job of their CEO? This

Read more...

2014 And The Limits Of Rage

WASHINGTON — The short-term future of politics in the nation’s capital will be determined in large part by which party ends up in control of the Senate. But for a sense of the long-term future of politics in the country as a whole, watch the governors’ races. The question to ask: Do voters begin to

Read more...

Obamacare, Beyond The Label

WASHINGTON — The Affordable Care Act was supposed to be a slam-dunk issue for the Republicans in this fall’s elections. Karl Rove told us so in April, writing that “Obamacare is and will remain a political problem for Democrats.” So how’s that Obamacare thing working out for the GOP? The most significant bit of election

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

    The most we can hope for is restrictions on the sale of firearms by individuals and unlicensed vendors, banning high capacity magazines and, maybe, banning assault weapons. Whether or not the new law – if there is one – is ever enforced remains to be seen. There is simply too much money to be made and gun ownership is to ingrained in our culture that even modest restrictions designed to prevent or minimize the probability of massacres like the ones we have been having with increased regularity, become unacceptable for those whose fears and prejudices take precedence over common sense.

    • old_blu

      Americans love their guns too much and we are too afraid for much to happen we can only hope that they.

      1. Keep a closer eye on who guns are sold to at all levels even gun shows and private sales, close those loop holes.

      2. Personally I would like to see a ban on high capacity magazines, although not very popular with the NRA.

      I really don’t think we will see much change though, the “crazies” are always going to find a new way to do mass shootings no matter what we do if it’s not at a school it will be a mall or a resturant. (who knows where thay are going to pop up.)

      • neeceoooo

        Your right old_blu, even with children that lost their life, we will not change any laws.

      • cats33

        You’re right, criminals will always have guns no matter what gun laws we have

        • Yappy2

          Yes there will always be criminals but that doesn’t mean we should not try to stop them.

          • TonyinMO

            By all means stop the criminal but not at the expense of the law abiding citizens.

      • Yappy2

        You and others repeating over and over again that nothing will get done and that nothing can be done is just what the NRA loves to hear. We need to change laws so military assualt type guns and people being able to buy a large amount of ammunition is not possible. It can be done.

        • old_blu

          I really do hope you are right, I agree with you I would love to see them get rid of the military like guns I don’t think anyone needs to be able to shoot 60 rounds a minute.

          I just don’t see it happening.

          • Yappy2

            We as Americans need to insist that something gets done. The NRA needs to stop hiding behind the second ammendment. No one is trying to take their guns away and they know it. My dad, brothers, uncles all went hunting,and I even have an aunt that liked to go squirrel hunting, but they didn’t need a military style weapon to hit their target. There’s a lot of money in guns and ammunition but htere is not enough money in the world that can buy a childs life and congress needs to stand up for our children.

  • wolfboi1970

    This anti gun crap MUST STOP, now im not a gun owner myself, never been a fan of them, HOWEVER, I am comforted, more and more every year…as our government is moving closer and closer to a police state, as our govt is taking away the rights of whistleblower journalists, that expose corruption…hell or own prez is targeting them, free speah, protests becomming forbidden and even illeagal, spying, wire tap, car tracking, internet invasions…to name a few…wiyh a government like this, stripping our rights away, one by one, now able to detain us indefinately, with now lawer and no rights…its just comforting to know that the government isnt the only one holding guns, the govt thats ordered 2 million HOLLOW POINT bullets two or three timed now…t how ats scarey im glad there are fellow americans out there able to fight back if nessessary, and maybe arm thise of us that are unarmed….hitler and all nutty governments like ours. Disarm the people first so they are easy to control and subdue…I feel safer knowing there are people out there willing to have weapons accessable…so I DONT HAVE TO….disarming society is STUPID…IRRATIONAL….AND ALL TALKING POINTS AEE HYPE, OVER BLOWN, OR JUST LIES.

    • latebloomingrandma

      I share some of your concerns about the “police state.” Did you register your concern when the Cheney/Bush administration put a lot of these things in place? After being attacked on our own soil by terrorists, and listeneing to Cheney/Bush go on and on about protecting America at any cost, and hammering Obama at the get-go that he was keeping us “less safe”, we have somehow engineered a perpetual state of fear, and now no one feels safe unless we can all shoot each other. What a mess!

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        It was during the Bush Administration that the Department of Homeland Security was formed.

        Yea, right, “home” land security my eye. My mother who was 86 at the time wanted to start another bank account in her own name. Because of new banking rules put on banks by the Department of Homeland Security, I had to co-sign for her.

        Talk about what party is quashing liberty. Hah, its been Republicans all along.

        • http://www.facebook.com/bob.brindell.7 Bob Brindell

          HOW RIGHT YOU ARE!!

        • TonyinMO

          It bothered me when Bush did this to the US I really had some high expectations when Obama rallied against the Patriot Act and it’s draconian laws.

          It was really disappointing when Obama who promised he would do away with it not only re-signed it back into law but made it even more draconian.

          There is really no difference between Bush and Obama.

      • idamag

        lateblooming, I think you have a point there. The fear has been built up and people are afraid. We don’t have a cohesive nation anymore. We have a splintered nation with a lot of people who only think of themselves. I heard of one study who said we have a lot of lead in the environment and it might be causing mental illnesses.

    • labrown69

      Thunderous applause for Wolfboi who has hit the proverbial nail on the head.

  • AlfredSonny

    Just wondering. Since the gun lovers and NRA protect their “rights” to have guns of any kind and claim that others should find ways to minimize the killings, shouldn’t the car lovers have similar rights by driving any speed they want and other drivers and pedestrians should find ways to minimize the killings, too?

    • montanabill

      You are perfectly within your rights to buy a car capable of 200 mph and they are for sale. In fact, almost every single car manufactured can exceed all speed limits. Are you saying you want to ban cars because individuals can use them to break speed limits?

      • AlfredSonny

        Follow NRA as a role model.
        No limit on guns. Armed good guys to be protected by bad guys with guns.
        No limit on speeds for cars. Armored cars to be protected by bad drivers.

        • montanabill

          You are confusing the tool with the tool user. Wise up.

          • AlfredSonny

            What we need to do is to be consistent. Regulate cars and guns the same way.

          • neeceoooo

            All they are asking for is regulations.

        • idamag

          Alfred, because it sells guns, the NRA wants our country to become a war zone.

          • cats33

            We need guns to protect ourselves from criminals,–AND the government. Same difference

          • idamag

            cats, as I mentioned before, I am the government. It is the government by the people, for the people and of the people. We don’t arm ourselves against the government unless we are subversive. Yes, there are things in the government that needs fixing. So, we fix them. As long as the whack jobs don’t interfere with our right to vote, we have a weapon against bad government. Scared people with guns are dangerous people.

        • Inthenameofliberty

          That’s funny!
          But montanabill has a really good point.

      • http://www.facebook.com/warren.nicholson.77 Warren Nicholson

        Billy, You are a typical example of the gun nut reader. You see the words gun control laws and you think gun ban laws.

        • montanabill

          If the rhetoric had started with conversations about the real reasons for mass killings, there would have been no alarm. However, we are all too familiar with ‘never let a good crisis go to waste’ and we know Joe Biden’s record.

      • idamag

        Montana, often we see things differently, but I have always thought you a good poster. I can’t believe that it was you who said those things. No one, never, nohow has ever wanted to take your guns away. We have regulations on automobiles and drivers, what is wrong with having regulations on guns? How will a background check harm your right to own a gun? Will limiting the types of guns, available, stifle your hunting rights? We are talking about man-killers, here.

        • montanabill

          I have no problem with registering guns. I register my post 1900 weapons, have a concealed carry permit and have a curio & relics license for antiques. Yes, limiting types of guns will stifle my rights. I have a right to buy and own any Class II and below. That includes semi-automatics which come in all sizes, calibers and descriptions. The problem I have is with people wanting to control ‘assault weapons’ and magazine sizes. First, anything that is really an ‘assault weapon’ is fully automatic and controlled as Class III material. A significant background check and authority approval is required to have a Class III license to buy or sell Class III material. It is not gun show stuff. Just because a gun looks like a ‘military type’ doesn’t make it any different than semi-automatics in wide use for hunting. And, yes, people do hunt with ‘military looking’ rifles and there are numerous types of competitions around the country where those style of rifles are used.

          I also don’t really have a problem limiting magazine size except that it is a red herring. It is exactly analogous to banning 32 oz soft drinks.

          All guns (and knifes and hammers and clubs) are man-killers in the wrong hands. What we should be concentrating on is how to keep the wrong hands from getting any item capable of killing.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

            I’ve been hunting for over 40 years, and I feel using a semi-automatic weapon for hunting is cheating. A true hunter doesn’t need a weapon capable of spraying bullets all over the forest. I’ve never needed more than 3 consecutive shots to bring down any kind of game. You name it, I’ve hunted it.

          • montanabill

            I don’t know whether you have noticed, but the Second Amendment says absolutely nothing about hunting.

        • Debbie10

          For the life of me I can not understand how you keep MISSING the point!!! The Law Abiding Citizens (EVEN GUN OWNERS) will ABIDE by the law! The CRIMINALS will NOT. So no matter HOW many laws hit the books, the CRIMINALS will get around them!!! They always have and they always will!!! So, to ban ANY guns or impose any new laws will ONLY affect the RESPONSIBLE, LAW ABIDING gun owners and will make the end result WORSE!!!!! Wake up and look around!!!

          • idamag

            Debbie, yes people will always break laws. Does that mean we do away will all laws?

          • Debbie10

            Well, that would just be STUPID now wouldn’t it? But we shouldn’t be trying to change the laws that will only affect LAW ABIDING citizens when we APPARENTLY aren’t even able to imprison the criminals that are already out there. (You know, the ones breaking all those laws and obtaining all of these guns that they are shooting everyone up with) yeah, THOSE laws!!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

            Where did these criminals obtain all of the guns they are shooting everyone up with? Not the Black Market.
            Yea, that’s right, you law-abiding citizens.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

            It is you that keeps missing the point, with criminals it is not about obeying the law. It’s about the availability of these weapons. When they are readily available to law-abiding citizens, they are readily available to criminals. For instance it is very difficult for a law-abiding citizen to get a machine gun, these weapons are not readily available, few criminals have them.

    • TonyinMO

      Isn’t it against the law to drive drunk? Are people still doing it?

      There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide. Does anyone really think more laws will keep lunatics and criminals in check?

      • AlfredSonny

        Like NRA said, arm the good guys. We are arming good guys to keep the drunks off the road. Then why cant we remove speed limits and let everyone have the right to drive at any speed like we do with guns?

        • TonyinMO

          You know people that drive gun? Got any pictures of that?

        • idamag

          Alfred, a drunk can get his driving privileges taken away. He can lose his license and have his car impounded.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/GGHNYPK4GNCRYZLXWVZ447WHJM Plznnn

          Alfred, your comments are idiotic. Responsible people are responsible gun owners as they are automobile drivers. All the laws in the world can’t stop irresponsible persons, or “psycopaths.” The Laws restrict the freedome of law abiding Citizens while NOT stopping the irresponsible or psycos, understand?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

            Laws DO NOT restrict anybody’s freedom, laws are a means to encourage law-abiding citizens to do the right thing. Much like locks, don’t really keep thieves out but they discourage otherwise honest people from stealing. Many of your so called responsible gun owners are very irresponsible, when it comes to securing their weapons. Like the man who left a loaded semi-automatic pistol on his car seat in his unlocked vehicle, because he had a right to.

          • http://twitter.com/GargrayGary Gary Graves

            Yes Alfred that is why we have laws to keep you off the street.

        • http://www.facebook.com/crzydancer Richard Holmes

          stupid

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YON5CEPPJAEFNBL3S52UI5BYHA Raymond

        The laws will keep dangerous guns out of the hands of killers. If they get them illegally, then those selling should get life prison terms. Yes, laws can protect us.

        • Inthenameofliberty

          Yes. Tell that to the armed gunman who enters into your house to kill your family.
          Laws don’t protect. People protect themselves. There is no way to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. It will not happen. I wish it could. Taking guns away from good people will not fix this. We need to fix ‘THE PEOPLE’. Then all this discussion will be moot.
          Do you have any concrete ideas on how to accomplish that?
          I don’t.

          • http://www.facebook.com/warren.nicholson.77 Warren Nicholson

            To use the driveing a car example. To get a drivers license, you have to have your eyes checked, to make sure you can see clearly, before you can drive a car. Now we could have a required license to own a firearms or in my case, five shotguns, three pistols, two black powder rifles and six lever-action rifles with scopes. Now if we required a license to own firearms, we could require a test that would check your mind to see if you could think. If you fail that test, then no firearms.

          • Inthenameofliberty

            That’s a start.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/RFEPMKNCBVGJYV2X7LBNDGRUEY William

            Let me see if I understand what you are saying. I have guns and I’ve had background checks in order to be able to buy them. Now you want me to get permission from a doctor too! The problem with people like you is you think you know whats best for everyone else. 80% of gun crimes are done with illegal guns, how do you’re ideas help stop gun crimes?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

            Bad people, for the most part, somehow get their hands on the guns bought by the good people. So if the good people didn’t have them, the bad people couldn’t get their hands on them. Ask any criminal, and they’ll tell you the weapons they use were legally bought, by somebody.

          • Inthenameofliberty

            There is some truth to that.

        • TonyinMO

          Laws are inconsequential to criminals. In most instances they don’t get them illegally. If the system had a way/law to track the mentally ill we wouldn’t be discussing banning inanimate objects. Instead the bleeding heart liberals in this country have passed laws to make that information TOPSECRET. They were told it would come back and bite them in the @$$ but of course they knew better.

          There you have it and there it is HIPAA laws!

          Yes laws can work against your protection also! Wake up and look at the big picture.

          • idamag

            Tony, so with that thinking, why not take away all laws and regulations from everything. Our prisons are full of people who broke the law, so to protect the prisoners, make no laws to break.

          • TonyinMO

            I never said to do away with all laws, why don’t you try reading what I post and quit making up this 5th grade nonsense as you go along.

            I said “Laws are inconsequential to criminals.” Make all the laws you like criminals won’t follow them. How about the war on drugs hows that working out? Oh that’s right it’s been a big failure, right up there with prohibition of alcohol.

            So what you’re now suggesting with guns is we follow the same process as prohibition. Congratulations you’ve learned NOTHING from history!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

            It’s not about whether or not a criminal will follow a law, we all know that is unlikely. It’s about the availability of the weapon in question. For example, it is illegal for a person to own an automatic weapon, so law-abiding citizens obey that law, severely restricting the availability of that weapon, few criminals have one.

          • TonyinMO

            It’s NOT against the law for a citizen to own a fully automatic weapon. It’s no wonder the country is so screwed up, it’s filled with uninformed people.

            There are currently 37 states here in the U.S. that allow the possession of automatic weapons. The requirements are that you submit an application to BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco &, Firearms & Explosives).

            Please go educate yourself before you misinform anyone else that might read your comments.

          • TonyinMO

            “Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. Preliminary numbers for 2011 show that the murder rate has fallen to 4.7 per 100,000 people. In fact, murder rates fell immediately after September 2004, and they fell more in the states without assault-weapons bans than in the states with them.” John R. Lott Jr., Ph.D., National Review, July 27, 2012

        • idamag

          Rasymond, we may not stop them all, but we will stop many.

          • Debbie10

            You mean like we are doing now?! LOL yeah, RIGHT!

        • Debbie10

          Unfortunately, the gun laws that we CURRENTLY have are NOT being enforced because if they WERE, the criminals would NOT have the guns to begin with. More laws will only affect the LAW ABIDING citizens as they do now.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

            Laws are not meant to stop criminals, they are meant to discourage law-abiding citizens from becoming criminals.
            Most of the guns used by criminals were purchased by law-abiding citizens (straw buyers) or from sellers who don’t bother to check the background of the person they are selling to (gun shows or online. We need laws to stop these practices.

      • rustacus21

        … genius perspective!!! I see your point exactly!!! We should all end this nonsense, buy even more guns & watch in mute silence as the barbarism escalates beyond even the laws ability to even handle! But implementing simple steps as background checks at gun shows, ending internet sales where background checks can’t be verified & requiring mental health screenings as part of “ALL” weapon & accessory sales, doesn’t at all seem unreasonable if it means keeping “BABIES” safe from those maniac’s we ‘seem’ resigned to enfeeble ourselves from putting more strict legal enforcements upon!!!

        • idamag

          rust, barbarianism is right. Every well developed civilization, in history, that was destroyed was destroyed by barbarians. And, is seems our own civilization is in danger.

        • mbee1

          Your comments just show how much a loser you are. Barbarians are people who want to protect themselves from governments run by would be Hitlers and criminals? What a definition. Than to show how ignorant you are you claim background checks on internet sales cannot be verified? If you buy a gun over the internet you have to pick it up from a FFL dealer who , guess what , runs the background check on you and whether you can own a weapon were you live which is determined by that background check. Keeping BABIES safe means you have controls on the government which has killed more babies than any of the maniacs you blah about. Bush Jr. killed thousands of Americans soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraq citizens based on a lie, how would you restrict him?

        • TonyinMO

          The fact that you’re irrational and use the typical liberal “save the babies” garbage makes it impossible to take you seriously. But I’ll give you a rational reply just the same. Based on fact not knee jerk emotion.

          “Since the federal ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. Preliminary numbers for 2011 show that the murder rate has fallen to 4.7 per 100,000 people. In fact, murder rates fell immediately after September 2004, and they fell more in the states without assault-weapons bans than in the states with them.” John R. Lott Jr., Ph.D., National Review, July 27, 2012

          I could go into digging up numbers on the small percentage overall of homicides that these guns were used in for homicides, but what’s to say that a murderer intent on killing won’t simply choose another weapon? When the UK banned all handguns a few years ago, knife attacks shot through the roof and trust me, you don’t want to be slashed and hacked to death, Google it, the images are much more grisly than you could imagine. On the other side of the coin, guns provide very real benefits to those who use them for self-defense, often times you don’t even have to pull the trigger to end a confrontation. The United States is known for having the most guns per capita in the world, we also have by far the lowest “hot” burglary rate in the world, meaning crooks don’t break into houses while people are home nearly as much; coincidence? I think not. Do I “need” a semi-auto rifle with a thirty round magazine, well for one, it’s up to me what I want or “need”, but yes, if I have a 300 lbs guy kicking my door in, I want maximum firepower as someone who knows about guns and their stopping ability, I know that handguns are ineffective manstoppers, at least in the time when it’s critical.

          Finally, the idea of a complete ban is wholly impractical (and extremely expensive) for government to enforce and intrusive on those who already own them, besides the fact that the legal trade of arms would simply be replaced by a black market, making them available to those who have made a choice to live outside the law. There are millions of weapons under this classification, millions that Americans paid a lot of money for, thousands of dollars and you think that people are just going to turn them over to be melted down? For what? The guns aren’t the real problem and the impact won’t be nearly as desireable as the proponents of a ban say they are.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

        It’s not the criminals who are committing all these mass murders, and you will find that most weapons used by criminals were bought legally

        • TonyinMO

          If a person takes a gun that was purchased legally by someone else they are a criminal. So yes it is the criminals who are committing these murders. I don’t care how legally purchased a gun is. When used to take someones life you are breaking the law, hence you are a criminal. FYI it’s against the law to kill people.

          More laws that only restrict the law abiding citizens do nothing to deter criminals, this only makes it more appealing to the criminals to know that they can harm defenseless unarmed citizens.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/3FP2MT54LOXYM6AY4UQU7QYWDA larryb

        No, but a loaded gun will keep the lunatic and criminal from entering in your home.

        • TonyinMO

          I don’t know if it will keep them from entering your home but it sure does even the playing field if they decide to come in.

          Now if the 0bama and Biden had it their way, all the criminals would be armed and you and I wouldn’t.

    • idamag

      Great analogy.

    • cats33

      All the gun control in the world is not going to stop the violence. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns. God changing mans’ sinful nature is the ONLY thing that will stop the violence

    • dalnb

      I was a member of the NRA for several years and I honestly believe the majority of members belong for their interest in the American Rifleman magazine and the sport of having guns. The small percentage that push the idea they should be able to buy, carry and use at will any weapon of interest is very few. Regardless of what the NRA leadership says I am sure an honest poll of NRA members will support reasonable controls over unnecessary ownership and use of certain weapons and related equipment. There can be no doubt NRA membership includes crazies that will ignore the best interests of the other membership but there will be as many outside that membership. NRA should not be identified as a demon – that is as long as they accept the fact they are a part of the problem and they are ready to do what they can to improve the safety and well being of all Americans; NRA member or not!

      • AlfredSonny

        Who is running NRA: NRA members or gun manufacturers?

    • Debbie10

      Yes they should!

    • http://www.facebook.com/fern.woodfork Fern Woodfork

      When They remove The Law That You Can’t Sue The NRA To You Can, Watch Something Get Done And Fast!!!

    • mbee1

      the german autoban has zero speed limits and their accident rate is less than here. Wyoming had an 85 mile an hour speed limit and they did not have any higher accident rates. You slaves to the state put in speed limits to make the state more powerful and lord it over you as you apparently are unable to understand liberty.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

        I just have to say this, you say the German autobahn has no speed limit. There are many cars capable of 200+ mph. Not even a FOOL would drive a car 200+ mph under the influence.

        • mbee1

          Why are you going on about under the influrence, driving drunk in Germany is a crime just like here. the problem is our laws keep letting the drunks back on the road including all those liberal politians caught driving drunk who pander to the citizens without a sense of liberty and self worth who think a piece of metal shaped in a certain shape is the evil from the devil.

        • mbee1

          Germany has laws against drunken driving but that has zero to do with driving 200+ on the autoban. I was on the autoban driving my volks at about 65 mph and cars were passing me like I was standing still yet somehow the autoban is not filled with wrecks.

    • mbee1

      I would also like to note that my problem is you folks think liberty is something in your grade school textbooks. Governments including our own can be evil and corrupt, you know that but just refuse to open your eyes. We fought a revolution against unjust and corrupt laws and a government that used arms to enforce those laws. We fought a second revolution to end slavery enforced by our own government and courts on about 15 percent of the population. If you give up you guns you are saying the government can do to you what governments always do, whatever the guy or gal in charge wants to do. In WWII our government and courts stole billions of dollars in property of Americans who happened to be from Japan or whose parents happened to be from Japan who lived mostly in California but not in the rest of the country. Why? the white Supreme court and a number of white people hated Japanese, even Japanese Americans. Another example, California and a number of other states said non whites could not marry whites and the Supremes said okay, destroying the lives of millions. Why do liberals who rail against injustice, happening to people in the USA today, disarm themselves throwing their future in the hands of would be oppressors. It is like they want to be slaves.

    • http://www.facebook.com/crzydancer Richard Holmes

      stupid

      • AlfredSonny

        Psychology 101: When Harry talks about Tom, actually Harry talks about Harry.

  • latebloomingrandma

    The 2nd amendment contains 27 words–2 words include “well regulated”. So what’s wrong with reasonable regulations?

    • neeceoooo

      There is nothing wrong with reasonable regulations but a large group of people think we are taking away their rights to own guns. I keep saying, thye are not taking away the right to own a gun or guns, just the weapons of mass distruction.

      • TonyinMO

        As soon as the government relinquishes it’s weapons of mass destruction then we the people will give up our guns.

        There are already laws that restrict citizens from owning weapons of mass destruction. History has proven that gun bans don’t work, during the 10 year Clinton gun grab nothing changed, why reinstate failed policy, that is just pure stupid!

        • neeceoooo

          All they are asking for is to pull the clips that produce more than 10 shots at a time and rifles that claim to be automatic rifles off the market and off the street.

          • TonyinMO

            No that’s not what they are asking. What difference does a 30 round clip or 3-10 round clips in the hands of a lunatic make?

            They are suggesting a whole list of things, automatic weapons are already illegal to sell, the average citizen can’t walk into a gun store and buy automatic weapons NOW! You really should go Google some of this and educate yourself before you post.

          • idamag

            Tony, FYI, what is prensently on the table is: Close the loopholes in background checks. ban assault weapons. Ban multiple round clips. That is all. Anything else you heard is not true.

          • TonyinMO

            Like I said Idamag, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Here educate yourself.

            According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

            Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

            Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

            Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

            Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

            –Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1941 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

            –Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

            –Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

            Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 transfer tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

            Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

            Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

            Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

            Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. But most of the guns on the list either wouldn’t be banned in the first place, or would already be exempted by other provisions. On the other hand, the list inevitably misses every model of rifle and shotgun that wasn’t being manufactured or imported in the years covered by the reference books Sen. Feinstein’s staff consulted. That means an unknown number of absolutely conventional semi-auto rifles and shotguns, many of them out of production for decades, would be banned under the draft bill.

            The Department of Justice study: On her website, Feinstein claims that a study for the DOJ found that the 1994 ban resulted in a 6.7 percent decrease in murders. To the contrary, this is what the study said: “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously.”

            “Assault weapon” numbers and murder trends: From the imposition of Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban (Sept. 13, 1994) through the present, the number of “assault weapons” has risen dramatically. For example, the most common firearm that Feinstein considers an “assault weapon” is the AR-15 rifle, the manufacturing numbers of which can be gleaned from the BATFE’s firearm manufacturer reports, available here. From 1995 through 2011, the number of AR-15s–all models of which Feinstein’s new bill defines as “assault weapons”–rose by over 2.5 million. During the same period, the nation’s murder rate fell 48 percent, to a 48-year low. According to the FBI, 8.5 times as many people are murdered with knives, blunt objects and bare hands, as with rifles of any type.

            Traces: Feinstein makes several claims premised on firearm traces, hoping to convince people that her 1994 ban reduced the (already infrequent) use of “assault weapons” in crime. However, traces do not indicate how often any type of gun is used in crime. As the Congressional Research Service and the BATFE have explained, not all firearms that are traced have been used in crime, and not all firearms used in crime are traced. Whether a trace occurs depends on whether a law enforcement agency requests that a trace be conducted. Given that existing “assault weapons” were exempted from the 1994 ban and new “assault weapons” continued to be made while the ban was in effect, any reduction in the percentage of traces accounted for by “assault weapons” during the ban, would be attributable to law enforcement agencies losing interest in tracing the firearms, or law enforcement agencies increasing their requests for traces on other types of firearms, as urged by the BATFE for more than a decade.

          • old_blu

            Nice cut and paste but TLDNR. Tony what would you suggest we do? Just leave it alone, because the status quo is not working something has to change.

            Keep in mind I have many guns and I don’t think anyone is going to take them. And tracking people with mental issues is going to be harder than tracking guns.

            Try to tell me without being as rude as you were to everyone else on here.

          • TonyinMO

            Sometimes cut and paste is necessary for people like idamag and yourself who are too inept to find the answer themselves.

            Speaking of status quo old guy we tried that made up assault weapons ban and tried it for 10 years , IT DIDN’T WORK try to catch up old guy!

            Anybody who starts off their comment to me telling me that the information I posted is “TLDNR too long did not read” then expects some sort of respect doesn’t get it FOAD!

          • old_blu

            So you just spew BS, and you don’t have a suggestion? You sound like you really don’t have a stance on this. And if you don’t have a dog in this fight why are you here?

          • TonyinMO

            If anyone doesn’t have a stance on the subject it’s YOU. Remember Old Fart my response to you was to long and complicated for your little pea brain to comprehend.

          • old_blu

            I see, still no stance and you can’t say anything without being rude good to know.

          • TonyinMO

            Have you taken the time to read the information I posted or is your stance to remain ignorant and hurl insults?

          • Inthenameofliberty

            Come on. I was with you until this post. Kids are expected to be respectful. Let’s all be nice and try to get along.
            I liked your cut and paste. But making enemies out of the people you are trying to enlighten isn’t going to help the cause.

          • Yappy2

            It’s a proposed bill and needs to be discussed in the Senate and ammendments made to make a it a workable bill. Something needs to be done so Americans are not killed by other Americans.

          • TonyinMO

            I agree something needs to be done but banning inanimate objects makes as much sense as banning automobiles because too many die on the freeways. You could ban everything back to a bolt action gun and crazy people will still kill others.

            Would you rather the nutjobs start using explosives instead of guns because they get more bang for their buck? (literally)???

            Look at the past few incidences these guys were book smart individuals the Colorado shooter had an advanced degree, hell he did bobbie trap his apartment with explosives. Be thankful he used a gun, had he used explosives 10 times as many people could have died.

          • Yappy2

            Yes ther are a lot of deaths on the highway from accidents but, unlike the military style weapons and ammunition, the main purpose of an automobile is not to kill. It’s for transportation. Now if you mount a military style weapon onto an auto then that’s a different story especially with the road rage that happens on our highways everyday. By the way in most states your vehicle must be be inspected to make sure it is safe to drive and you need a drivers license and insurance to be able to operate it. If you have more than one vehicle you need insurance on each one.

          • TonyinMO

            I own what would be considered an assault weapon along with many other types of guns. I didn’t buy one of them with the intent to kill someone. I’d say that is simply your opinion and there is nothing factual about your comment.

            It is not mandatory to have insurance on your vehicles unless you operate them on state roads, if you operate your vehicle on private property you don’t need a license, insurance, inspections or plates.

          • Yappy2

            I imagine that the automobile industry would not be too happy if they were making vehicles that only ran on private property, so of course I was speaking of insurance, license and inspections on vehicles that are operated on state and federal highways and I thought any intelligent person would understand that.

          • TonyinMO

            Yes Yappy but YOU aren’t an intelligent person.

          • idamag

            Tony, I was not tlking about Feinstein’s bill, but the proposals by Joe Biden. Feinstein’s bill will not pass.

          • TonyinMO

            Joe Biden has no plan he intends to use Feinsteins.

          • idamag

            Sorry, Tony, that is not what the meeting was about.

          • neeceoooo

            You need to do some googling yourself but keep an open mind while you do your research. A closed mind is a dying mind.

          • TonyinMO

            duh rup de derp

          • Yappy2

            Then how come Lanza’s mother was able to buy and register the semiautomatic gun that shot those children.

          • TonyinMO

            Because it’s a legal gun. The gun didn’t shoot those children a mentally disturbed person did. If it weren’t for the gun he would have used something else like a hatchet or explosives. Open your eyes people and quit being so stupid.

          • idamag

            Tony, You said a mentally disturbed person. That is a fact. That is something else we need to address: the huge amount of mental illlness that goes on unchecked. I wonder if we spent as much time and money on mental illness and find out it causes as we did on AIDS, if we would find some solutions there.

          • TonyinMO

            I don’t know that AIDS is such a good comparison but I do think it makes a tremendous amount of sense to pursue mental health illness instead of banning inanimate objects.

            We banned weapons for 10 years it had no impact on violence, all it did was inconvenience legal gun owners.

          • Yappy2

            So you are so smart that you know for sure that he would have used something else to kill those children. Maybe if he hadn’t felt so empowered because he had access to the weapon and the ammunition he used he wouldn’t have killed anyone.

          • TonyinMO

            Violence is not a new concept to the world we live in. People have been killing people since the beginning of time and if you take away these so called “assault weapons” or large capacity magazines, this will not change the the evil thoughts behind the person wielding the gun as he will find other methods. Take Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing for example…he did not use a gun to kill multiple people…no, he used a bomb planted in a truck and parked it outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and ended up killing 168 people in less than a few seconds. That would be the equivalent of almost expending 5½ 30 round magazines to kill 168 people with a so called “assault weapon” with a high capacity magazine, not to mention it would have taken more time.

            Take away so called “assault weapons” or high capacity magazines will not change the violence in this world…they will always find other means.

            Let me ask you one more question…we have banned the use of illegal drugs in this country….how’s that working out?

          • Yappy2

            Just because there has been violence in the world as long as people have been here doesn’t mean we should encourage more violence and the opportunity to kill as many people as possible in a matter of minutes. We should only do this when we are in a war. I didn’t know that this country had declared war on our children while they are in school.
            So you think it is alright for anyone to take or offer your children any kind of drug they would like.

            You said you own an assualt type of weapon but don’t plan on killing anyone. Why do you own an assault type weapon?I can’t imagine it would be for a sport of riddling an animal or target shooting.

          • TonyinMO

            Do people drive high performance cars? Why do they need them? The speed limit is 70 why should people be aloud to to drive Mustangs or Corvettes with high performance motors?

            I’ll tell you why. This is America and if I want to own an assault rifle and drive a car that goes fast as long as it’s a free country I will.

            You impress me as someone that is mentally unstable Yappy, go run your crazy train on somebody else tracks and quit wasting my time.

          • Yappy2

            Whenever you can’t give a reasonable answer to a reasonable question you always insult the questioner’s intelligence.

          • TonyinMO

            The problem with your theory is YOU have NO intelligence to insult.

          • Yappy2

            There you go again.

          • idamag

            Get off it you argumentive little twit.

          • TonyinMO

            My my you are an ignorant little clown.

        • idamag

          Tony, you are thinking like those people who would like to destroy our government. We are the government. It is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is ours and we are it. If there are problems, we should fix them,not get armed to destroy the government. That is happening in other countries. We used to be above that sort of thing until ignorance became a virtue. Are you ready for another civil war in this country? I am not. I love my country.

          • TonyinMO

            I’m sorry you aren’t intelligent enough to understand the difference between reality and whatever the he!! YOU are rambling on about. Just where in my comment did you come to the conclusion I wanted to destroy the government?

            I don’t know for sure but I’d bet YOU get all your exercise jumping too conclusions.

            Idamag you can crawl back under your bed and hide now.

          • idamag

            Tony, I never said you were trying to destroy our government, but plenty of times people who advocate arming yourself against the government have been on these blogs. I am not afraid so I don’t need an AK-47. I do have guns, but they are not guns that are made to kill people. I don’t want to kill people.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1374944526 Chuck Collins

            I have several guns that I use for hunting and target shooting and self defense yet everytime I mention “reasonable” regulations and “a well regulated militia” to a hard core NRA member and the fact that we really don’t need 100 round drum mags or certain weapons to defend ourselves or for hunting the reply I get is that we need these weapons to be able to overthrow a “tyrannical” government. Throw in a little talk about secession and you’ll have a hard time convincing me that a lot of these folks intend to seek a Constitutional Solution to their percieved threats to America.

          • idamag

            Chuck, those are the people, I mean, when I say gun nuts. I don’t mean sane people like you for sure.

          • TonyinMO

            But the guns you have are capable of killing people so I suggest you call DHS on yourself and turn your guns in. You do seem unstable enough to turn a weapon on yourself even if it won’t hold 30 rounds.

          • idamag

            tony, since my guns were not made to kill people, why should I turn myself in? People who buy guns that are made for the sole purpose of killing people are the ones you should be wary of.

          • TonyinMO

            All guns are capable of killing people. Do you ever read the nonsense you post?

        • neeceoooo

          Alright, then you explain to that grieving mother and father of a 6 year old, that if Lanza had only a pistol and then maybe their child would still be alive. There is a big difference in a automatic or semiautomatic rifle that shots 30, 40, 60 rounds in a matter of seconds versus a single shot pistol.

          Your statement about “history has proven that gun bans do not work” is one theory from one group of statitics but if you were to check other the groups you would find a different story and a different set of statitics.

          • TonyinMO

            Neeceoooo Lanza had no such weapon, when you are ready to discus the facts come back and post. Lanza had 2 pistols and a semi auto.

            You have only posted some made up nonsense.

          • idamag

            Tony what she said was, that if lanza only had a pistol, instead of an assault rifle, there would have been more survivors.

          • cats33

            If those teachers had been armed, all would have survived

          • TonyinMO

            Sorry that’s not what she said. Please supply me with proof that had Lanza used a semi automatic pistol instead of a rifle that there would have been more survivors?

            That is impossible to prove and we both know it. That would simply be your opinion of what she said had she actually said it.

          • Yappy2

            You should read again what type of gun killed those children in Newtown.

          • cats33

            If the teachers had been armed those kids would still be alive

          • Yappy2

            Are you positively sure this would have been the outcome?

          • Mr Wiseguy

            Unlikely outcome. Such scenarios have always resulted in more bloodshed. Most teachers I know, signed on to teach, not be armed security.

          • idamag

            Cats, I don’t think so.

          • Yappy2

            Another thought is if a person only had a single shot pistol instead of a semiautomatic gun he wouldn’t feel so empowered and maybe wouldn’t make the trip at all to a school to kill helpless children.

        • Yappy2

          You say nothing changed, but didn’t show any facts how that failed.

      • Yappy2

        Your comment makes a lot of sense.

    • TonyinMO

      There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide. Does anyone really think more laws will keep lunatics and criminals in check?

      • neeceoooo

        And in your infinite wisdom, where do we get the funding for the mentally ill. Your wonderful party has cut spending for the department as well.

        • TonyinMO

          neoconnnnn so exactly what party is that that I belong too? While you’re talking out your @$$ make it a whopper would you.

          • idamag

            Tony, let’s leave anger and ugly out of this conversation and also political parties. Those children who died in that school were not into politics yet.

          • idamag

            Tony when you use the same expression over and over, it becomes trite and shows a lack of imagination.

          • TonyinMO

            id10t, please provide the links where I have used this expression over and over. That’s right you can’t. However you do like to post the same nonsense over and over and deflect your own inability as a human being on others.

      • tobewan

        To Tony and others: Regulations to make a difference, need to start at the sources: Makers and sellers. Obtaining guns via Gun shows, Catalogs, and Online without regulation or background check needs to be highly, closely regulated or stopped, including overseas mail orders and the like. If the flow can be stopped and/or regulated, it would/should help. Because people will not voluntarily do this, we NEED government to take charge! And then people will complain of funds needed to do so. Catch 22.
        PS: Thanks for your lengthy posting – clears some of the air!

        • TonyinMO

          So you do believe more laws will make a difference?

          “Shakes head”

          I’m sure it will work as well as the war on drugs. Do you people ever learn anything from experience?

      • idamag

        Tony, I don’t dispute your word, but I want to know where I can see a copy of those gun laws and which states they are in.

        • TonyinMO

          Try using Google DA

          “gun laws in the usa”

          About 79,300,000 results (0.32 seconds)

    • http://www.facebook.com/bob.brindell.7 Bob Brindell

      The 2nd amendment applies the words “well regulated” to militia not gun ownership.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bob.brindell.7 Bob Brindell

      The second amendment reads regulated militia, it does not read well regulated gun ownership. The second amendment might need to be repealed in order to regulate gun ownership.

      • Inthenameofliberty

        And I pray that does not happen.
        History always repeats itself.
        It is time to fix people, not take away guns.
        Problem is our kids are a blank slate. And we adults keep screwing them up in our feeble attempts to raise them
        Maybe we need PARENT LAWS instead of gun laws.
        Stay with me here – if adults are the ones messing with the kids’ minds, then why isn’t someone suggesting schooling for perspective parents?
        Just asking…..just asking…….

    • Yappy2

      Right on!

  • montanabill

    Gun this, gun that, oh, and maybe mental illness played a small part. We will ignore the real cause because this is a perfect time to push for more gun laws, regulations, taxes. Let’s see if Chicago’s proposed ‘violence tax’ will end violence in that city. If so, then we will know that taxes can prevent violence.

    It also seems a bit odd that all the hand wavers in the current ‘gun sanity’ brouhaha are the same people strangely absent and silent during, and still, about ‘fast and furious’.

    • johninPCFL

      ‘Fast and Furious’ tracked guns legally sold and legally purchased to the Mexican border.

      What else would you have had them do?

      • TonyinMO

        Wrong they were not legally sold, the gun dealer working with the ATF agents were given one basic instruction: Sell guns to every illegal purchaser.

        A federal operation dubbed Fast and Furious allowed weapons from the U.S. to pass into the hands of suspected gun smugglers so the arms could be traced to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which ran the operation, has lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which have been linked to crimes, including the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

        • johninPCFL

          “suspected gun smugglers” are legal gun purchasers until they are arrested and the courts rule. They were completely legal purchases.

          • TonyinMO

            I take you have never legally purchased a gun. If I go to purchase a gun and you’re suspected as a gun smuggler I guarandamntee you that the feds WILL NOT give you a green light to purchase a gun, at the very best you get a 3 day wait. What they did was illegal and it was given the go ahead by the DOJ.

          • johninPCFL

            I take it you’ve never legally purchased a gun. In VA and AZ at gun shows there is no requirement for a background check. At the Crossroads of the West gun show this week in Tucson (just north of the Mexican border), they were just a-buyin’ and a-sellin’ with the police right there to keep the peace.

            No background checks. It’s how the cartels restock when they lose guns.

          • TonyinMO

            That is complete BS most dealers at gun shows run BG checks about 1% don’t.

            Gun shows don’t run every day of the week, it’s really cute when you talk about things you don’t understand Johnny.

          • johninPCFL

            There were a dozen gun shows last weekend. Maybe you should look around before spouting off on subjects about which you are so grossly misinformed.

            “most” is an amazing catchall. Every criminal wanting a gun goes to the ones requiring checks, right dummo? How about imagine you’re a criminal or gunwalker. Now at an AZ gun show, do you find the dealer that requires a check, or do you look for the one that doesn’t?

            Grow a brain and look around for a change. The view of the real world will astonish you.

          • TonyinMO

            Jeez Johnny are you in the 5th grade? You are clueless and wrong on everything, actually to waste my time responding to anymore of your nonsense might lend it credibility.

            Hey Johnny take into account that 99% of gun owners never break the law. The 1% that do are mentally ill, shouldn’t we focus on the problem or should we continue to beat an imaginary inanimate object?

            Do just the least bit of research – for instance Federalist Paper 28 by Alexander Hamilton – and it is clear that the Second Amendment was meant to ensure the right of individuals to bear arms. Just which part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is it so hard to understand? There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide. Does anyone really think more laws will keep lunatics and criminals in check?

          • johninPCFL

            So you contend that all criminals are mentally ill? Is that your fraternity?

            You missed the “well regulated” part, hmmm?

            Laws won’t keep lunatics in check. Laws could limit hiw many they get to murder before they have to stop and reload, which is when they are stopped. The two recent incidents where trained, armed good guys confronted mass murderers resulted in the mass murderer continuing his mayhem after shooting the good guys. Why? Well, the mass murderer had the required 30-round magazine, while the good guy had his 9-shot Glock.

            Why is it so important to you guys that the mass murderers get their 30 kills before a reasonable person can intervene and stop the killing? Why is it in your best interest that they get to murder 30 people before thay can be stopped? Can’t “well regulated” mean that you have to be trained to shoot before getting your gun (so maybe your mental disease can disqualify you), and that you only get to murder 10 people without restraint instead of 30?

          • TonyinMO

            I see you are still having comprehension issues Johnny, It would stand to reason a mentally stable person wouldn’t walk into a school or a theater or try to kill a Congresswoman etc, etc. and start shooting. But hey Johnny what did all these incidences have in common? They were all on psychotropic drugs. What do you know they were all crazy!

            If a lunatic want to harm another human being they will do so and all the laws restricting the size of clips and how fast it shoots isn’t going to stop them.

            Why is it so important to you to try to ban something that has absolutely no effect on the problem?

            Johnny it took 15 minutes for the cops to get to Newtown elementary, that guy could have done the damage he did with a CAP AND BALL GUN in 15 minutes you IDIOT!

          • johninPCFL

            You are just as sharp as a marble! Not all criminals go to mass murder, but all gun-equipped criminals have guns. Most get those guns from people who sell guns and a minority get them by stealing them. Those who sell guns sell them at gun shows too. Some of those who sell guns at gun shows don’t check backgrounds. The criminals who buy guns at gun shows buy them from dealers who don’t check backgrounds. See how it all fits together? Some criminals steal guns, some buy guns from street-corner thugs, some buy them from legal dealers at gun shows.

            Did you miss the part where “well regulated” (it’s mentioned in the Constitution, you may want to go look it up) should include making sure that the crazies don’t get guns? Or where “well regulated” could mean “trained in the proficient use thereof”? Or where “well regulated” could mean “capable of only murdering 10 at a time before reloading”? Personally, I’m in favor of all three.

            Lanza shot each of his 26 victims 3 to 11 times with his mother’s legally purchased rifle using her legally purchased ammunition in her legally acquired high-capacity magazines. I doubt that even you, as proficient as your imagination makes you, could dole out that much carnage with anything less than a semi-automatic weapon with high-capacity magazines. But I’m sure you could try it out and get back to us.

          • TonyinMO

            Doesn’t solve the problem, you’re a waste of oxygen go pound salt Johnny! You’re not smart enough to see that you can’t blame an inanimate object for a nutjobs behavior.

            Seek help Johnny the more you post the more I think you’re going to be the next Adam Lanza.

          • johninPCFL

            So not letting nutjobs have guns doesn’t work, limiting the number of murders that one can perform before reloading doesn’t work, and training the folks who aren’t nutjobs to aim and shoot properly doesn’t work.

            I guess it’s time for you to crawl back into mom’s basement and continue cowering in fear. Seems like that’s all you’ve got.

          • TonyinMO

            Johnny where do you come up with such nonsense, why do you insist on trying to put words in peoples mouths? The 5th grade crazy talk about mommy’s basement just shows how misguided you are.

          • johninPCFL

            When you wrote “that won’t work”, which words didn’t you understand, Tonie?

            Maybe you still haven’t figured out the steps yet, either?

          • TonyinMO

            Interestingly, the vast majority of people calling for bans of these “weapons of war” (as the anti-gunners like to call them) sees no problem at all with police having them (because police are apparently expected to fight a war now?). Some, in fact, go to the bizarre length of referring to the exact same firearm that they demonize as an “assault weapon” in a private citizen’s hands, as a “patrol rifle” when in the hands of a cop.

            We are expected to believe that police are simply more trustworthy and better qualified than the rest of us to handle guns in general–that police are the “Only Ones” to be trusted with guns. Astoundingly, some have taken this “reasoning” so far as to point to an incident last August in which two NYPD cops shot nine unarmed, innocent citizens in the process of killing their actual target, as “proof” that only police should be permitted to carry guns in public. From the New York Daily News

          • johninPCFL

            The police have the same ratio of psychopaths in their inbound recruits as the general populace, and manage to weed most of them out. They practice shooting proficiency the same way everyone except the military does – by shooting at paper silhouettes. Thus, in general, they react as badly as the average CC holder when somebody shoots back.

            SWAT teams drill differently, and would be much better at handling a mass casualty attack (I think.) The garden-variety cop just doesn’t drill with that situation in mind.

            There are several other famous shoot-outs where the police were ineffective. I think an armed, trained populace with limited magazine capacity has the most impact on the ability of crazies or criminals to inflict mayhem on the rest of us.

          • TonyinMO

            I agree with you right up to the size of the magazine, It won’t make a difference to a criminal. My pistol holds 15 rounds, why on earth do we undo what we have done? Now is my gun illegal? Do I have the added expense of purchasing a 10 round clip for my legally purchased handgun? Why is it the law abiding citizen is the one inconvenienced by the anti-gunners?

            The problem with smaller capacity clips is the only people that will use them are law abiding citizens. Criminals will continue to use 30 round clips.

            The bigger part of the problem is that you then put both of us at a disadvantage in defending ourselves against the bad guys. Is that what you really want?

          • johninPCFL

            Recent experience says that the mass casualty attacker is only vulnerable during magazine exchange.

            I don’t advocate doing anything besides stop selling 30-count murder magazines. Over a few decades some of those magazines will disappear (as the criminals are caught), and the others will not be sold to criminals (except by the odd individual) because they’ll be too valuable to the legal owners.

            Mass casualty criminals carry rifles. CC defenders carry pistols. Rifles are lethal over longer distances than pistols, and every single time a CC has gone up against the mass murderer, he’s been cut down.

            The only time the mass-murderer is vulnerable is during magazine exchange. Force more of them (by lowering the magazine capacity) and you open up more vulnerable periods. The mass murderer has to shoot lots to keep everybody’s head down (and kill folks), but the defender only has to get in one good shot while the murderer is looking someplace else (like down at his rifle while he’s exchanging another magazine.)

          • TonyinMO

            It takes 15 minutes for cops to get there again given that much time a shooter can change all the clips he wants, your point is moot.

            A Tulsa homicide detective, though, provides (perhaps unintentionally) a different perspective. From the Tulsa World:

            “It’s an easy gun to shoot,” [Tulsa Police Sergeant Dave Walker] said of the assault rifle. “I’m not a guy who shoots a lot. My handgun scores are very marginal. But I can shoot a .223 round 100 percent at a qualifying course with that gun up to 100 yards.”

            In a few short sentences, Sgt. Walker debunks at least two myths sacred to the anti-”assault weapon,” anti-armed citizen lobby. One is the supposedly vastly greater shooting proficiency of cops. A police sergeant with more than 30 years experience–a homicide detective, whose job is to catch killers–does not shoot enough to be capable of better than “very marginal” scores with a handgun.

            Second is the myth that “assault weapons” are inherently inaccurate–but “too deadly” for private citizens because they “spray fire” many shots quickly (a theme the anti-gunners sound over and over again, while simultaneously referring to the murderous creatures who terrorized Washington D.C. with a Bushmaster AR-15 in 2002 as the “Beltway snipers”).

            Sgt. Walker has, intentionally or not, made a pretty good case for the argument that if private citizens really are not particularly proficient with firearms, “assault weapons” are just what they need in a dangerous situation.

            Remember schools are gun free zones, for the most part. I think the common denominator here are schools and movie theaters. Ban the schools and everybody switch to Red Box all is good.

          • johninPCFL

            You’re comparing apples and bananas. If there is no one to defend, it doesn’t matter what the attacker brings.

            If the defenders are carrying concealed (and are normal) they’ve got 9-shot Glocks. If you limit the mass murderer to 10 rounds before he has to stop and reload, the Glock shooter gets a chance. If the Glock shooter stands up before the mass murderer has to reload, the past two incidents where that’s happened say the mass murderer continues on about killing right after he takes care of the Glock shooters.

            Stopping a mass-casualty attack is about aim, timing and patience. You cannot out-shoot a semi-automatic with a 30-round magazine (even if that’s what you have) until he stops shooting (to admire his work or to reload), at which point you can also defeat him with a 9-round Glock. But you can defeat a semi-automatic with 10-round magazine with the same Glock three times as often.

            Hillsborough County FL is now talking about putting armed guards in all schools. Not police, private security. They can’t afford books for all of the students, but $4MM per year to keep the bogeyman away is OK.

          • TonyinMO

            Johnny stop right here “If you limit the mass murderer to 10 rounds before he has to stop and reload”

            As soon as you can guarantee that criminals are going to obey the law, your point holds water.

            Thanks for the laugh.

            I never said you should put armed guards in schools, just let the teachers go back to carrying guns like they did before the last gun ban that didn’t work.

            I noticed that there were very few shootings before 1995. When I dug deeper, I ran into the “Gun Free School Zone Act, of 1990,”18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) that was ruled mostly unconstitutional. This law was illegally passed under the Commerce Clause of the United States.

            But Congress rebuffed the Supreme Court by passing the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995, which re-wrote the unconstitutional law and basically re-created it with slightly different language, and that is where our troubles truly began.

            Before 1995, there were three mass killings in schools. The first was a disgruntled man who blew up a school with dynamite in the Bath Township. The second was the Bell Tower shooting in 1966, where a veteran Marine sniped at people from a tower. The third was a shooting in California where a Viet-Nam vet shot at and hurt some Cambodian refugee kids. There is no law at all that could have stopped these killings. None. Even total disarmament would not have stopped them.

            The ill advised and useless gun ban passed congress and was signed into law, and all of the teachers and students who had kept guns in their cars on campus were force to leave them at home and the age of paranoia was born. But paranoia is rampant when you understand that the criminals are better armed than you are, and you are in a place where you are little more than a target.Those that would make a name for themselves by killing quickly pounced on the fact that no one would be able to defend the school. One shooting in 215 years was nothing compared to what was getting ready to happen now that the schools were elevated to prime targets.

            In 1998, Two boys shot and killed four girls and a teacher, and wounded 11 others.

            In 1999, Littleton Colorado – 12 dead.

            In 2002, Tuscon Arizona, three teachers dead.

            In 2005, Red Lake Minn, seven dead dozens wounded.

            In 2006, Nickle Mines, Penn, Five dead.

            In 2007, Blacksburg Va, 32 kids and teachers dead.

            In 2008, Dekalb Ill, Five dead.

            In 2020, Huntsville Al, Three dead three wounded.

            In 2012, Chardon Ohio, Three dead.

            In 2012, Oakland Calif, Seven dead.

            In 2012, Sandy Hook, 27 dead.

            The only response that is possible other than revoking this idiotic gun ban that has led to so many deaths, is to arm the schools, arm the teachers, or place police in the building. The better solution would be to file a state level lawsuit against the US government for violating the 2nd Amendment prohibitions on these kinds of laws, and for their placing so many kids in serious danger by banning self defense.The GOVERNMENT created this paranoia, the GOVERNMENT passed laws they are forbidden to pass, and the GOVERNMENT got these people killed.

          • johninPCFL

            “10 rounds per” and “obey the law”: refer to the earlier post. Once 30-round murder pots are unavailable, the criminals (and crazies) default to what’s available, the 10-round magazine.

            And you forgot a few incidents in your list:
            “On July 26, 1764, four Lenape American Indian warriors entered a log schoolhouse of white settlers in what is now Franklin County, Pennsylvania, near present-day Greencastle. Inside were the schoolmaster, Enoch Brown, and twelve young students. Brown pleaded with the warriors to spare the children before being shot and scalped. The warriors then began to tomahawk and scalp the children, killing nine or ten of them (reports vary). Two children who had been scalped survived.”

            “A boy who refused to be whipped and left school, returned with his brother and a friend, the next day to seek revenge on his teacher. Not finding the teacher at the school, they continued to his house, where a gun battle rang out, leaving three dead. Only the brother survived.” in 1868

            “Lester Betts, a 40-year-old mail-carrier, walked into the office of 33-year-old principal Carson Hammond and shot him to death with a 12-gauge shotgun.” in 1940

            From 1867 until 1923 there was an attack on a school about every 2 years. From then until 1960, the interval stretched to about a decade between incidents. From 1984 to 1989 there were multiple attacks annually. Most of those attacks resulted in a few deaths. The more modern weapons and high-capacity murder pots allow the body count to grow from a few per episode to dozens.

            Columbine and VA Tech had armed patrols or SWAT on campus at the time of the attacks. The Washington Courthouse and Fort Hood episodes occured with plenty of armed defenders around, and the attackers knew about them.

            Ys, it’s easier to murder more people when they’re undefended, but the crazies just go to where the people are to start their spree. If you limit the number they get to murder before they have to stop and reload, you can stop them with a lower body count.

          • TonyinMO

            As soon as you can guarantee that criminals are going to obey the law, your point holds water. Thanks for the laugh.

            Also please quit posting lies, there were no SWAT teams at Columbine that is a flat out lie.

            Usually there are only armed guards at the gates on most post and bases. The only armed personnel at Ft. Hood were civilian cops.

          • johninPCFL

            “As soon as”: you said that before, and the explanation I gave answers the objection. You seem to ignore words that you don’t like, so we’ll just let that pass.

            Once again, all of the words are important:”armed police or SWAT”. The Columbine campus had armed officers, to no effect. The VA Tech campus had an active SWAT team, to no effect.

            So, what you’re saying is that trained, armed civilian police were not able to stop an individual armed with semi-automatic pistols at Ft. Hood? “According to pretrial testimony, Hasan entered the Guns Galore store in Killeen on July 31, 2009, and purchased the FN Five-seven semi-automatic pistol that he was to use in the attack at Fort Hood.”

          • TonyinMO

            You never answered the objection and you continue to repeat the lies about Ft Hood and VA tech.

            The common denominator is that each and every incident had a crazy person with a gun. Guns don’t shoot themselves or do you have access to some magical gun the rest of us have never heard of. Eliminate the crazy person problem solved.

            You won’t eliminate weapons in this society, only a fool would believe otherwise.

            So I’ll ask again. Even if you could ban guns, when the nutjobs started using bombs, airplanes hammers and automobiles will you ban those too?

            Go to the cause of the problem not the symptom. All of these killers were on psychotropic drugs why not ban them?

          • johninPCFL

            Pay attention, loon-tony:

            If the manufacture and sale of all high-capacity magazines were banned, after about three decades, they would no longer be used by criminals because: a) most would be captured with the criminals using them and destroyed, b) the rest held by law-abiding owners would be so valuable as to not be sold to criminals. All of the words are important, so read them.

            Ft. Hood was perpetrated by a person judged sane in every year of his military service, who was not on drugs. So, unless religious fervor is a new mental illness, he was sane when it occured. Dylan Klebold was a highschool student desiring fame. So unless being full of oneself is a new mental illness, he would have been judged sane at a trial. Jared Loughner was not undergoing treatment until after his arrest: “It was after those treatments that Loughner realized that he had only wounded Giffords, whom he saw as the personification of a government the shooter said he hated, prosecutor Wallace Kleindienst said in his comments to the court.” How many other government haters shall we arrest? How about Rush Limbaugh?

            I’ve never advocated eliminating weapons, and only idiots keep repeating that refrain. I advocate training in their use before owning one, and control or elimination of the most useless but destructive components. I don’t think eliminating the ability to shoot 30 cans without stopping lessens the thrill of shooting, but it definately opens up the possibility of stopping a mass murderer early in his campaign of carnage. I understand why criminals and mass murderers want them to be available, why do you?

          • TonyinMO

            Yo DA Johnny boy ever heard of the black market? Did alcohol disappear after prohibition? Try learning something from past mistakes this country has made instead of being ignorant and repeating them.

            Violence is not a new concept to the world we live in. People have been killing people since the beginning of time and if you take away these so called “assault weapons” or large capacity magazines, this will not change the the evil thoughts behind the person weilding the gun as he will find other methods. Take Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing for example…he did not use a gun to kill multiple people…no, he used a bomb planted in a truck and parked it outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and ended up killing 168 people in less than a few seconds. That would be the equivalent of almost expending 5½ 30 round magazines to kill 168 people with a so called “assault weapon” with a high capacity magazine, not to mention it would have taken more time.

            Take away so called “assault weapons” or high capacity magazines will not change the violence in this world…they will always find other means.

            Let me ask you one more question…we have banned the use of illegal drugs in this country….how’s that working out?

          • johninPCFL

            Once more, READ ALL OF THE WORDS.

            High capacity murder pots will not disappear overnight. Over a 30 year time span, those used by CRIMINALS will be captured and destroyed. Those owned by citizens will continue to be owned by citizens. The murder pots in criminal hands will decline. The number of two and three person murders will not change. The number of ten+ person rampages will go down.

            Yes, criminals wll continue to use guns. The difference is that 30 years from now, the citizen defenders will have a chance to kill or disarm the criminal after 10 deaths instead of 30. Again, why is it so important to you that the murderer gets thirty notches in his belt before he can be reasonably taken down? Got a spree planned and just don’t want the bother of carrying a couple of dozen magazines instead of three?

          • TonyinMO

            Why don’t you try to take your own advice id10t.

            “Since the federal ban EXPIRED in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. Preliminary numbers for 2011 show that the murder rate has fallen to 4.7 per 100,000 people. In fact, murder rates fell immediately after September 2004, and they fell more in the states without assault-weapons bans than in the states with them.” John R. Lott Jr., Ph.D., National Review, July 27, 2012

            I could go into digging up numbers on the small percentage overall of homicides that these guns were used in for homicides somewhere around 2%, but what’s to say that a murderer intent on killing won’t simply choose another weapon? When the UK banned all handguns a few years ago, knife attacks shot through the roof and trust me, you don’t want to be slashed and hacked to death, Google it, the images are much more grisly than you could imagine. On the other side of the coin, guns provide very real benefits to those who use them for self-defense, often times you don’t even have to pull the trigger to end a confrontation. The United States is known for having the most guns per capita in the world, we also have by far the lowest “hot” burglary rate in the world, meaning crooks don’t break into houses while people are home nearly as much; coincidence? I think not. Do I “need” a semi-auto rifle with a thirty round magazine, well for one, it’s up to me what I want or “need”, but yes, if I have a 300 lbs guy kicking my door in, I want maximum firepower as someone who knows about guns and their stopping ability, I know that handguns are ineffective manstoppers, at least in the time when it’s critical.

            Finally, the idea of a complete ban is wholly impractical (and extremely expensive) for government to enforce and intrusive on those who already own them, besides the fact that the legal trade of arms would simply be replaced by a black market, making them available to those who have made a choice to live outside the law. There are millions of weapons under this classification, millions that Americans paid a lot of money for, thousands of dollars and you think that people are just going to turn them over to be melted down? For what? The guns aren’t the real problem and the impact won’t be nearly as desireable as the proponents of a ban say they are.

            Take away so called “assault weapons” or high capacity magazines will not change the violence in this world…they will always find other means.

            Let me ask you one more question…we have banned the use of illegal drugs in this country….how’s that working out?

          • johninPCFL

            Actually, according to death penalty info org the murder rate dropped from 9.5 per 100,000 in 1993 to 5.5 per 100,000 in 2000 (WOW, right during the gun ban years) and has bounced along up and down .1 per 100,000 until 2009, when it dropped another point over a two-year period. So much for the correlation to the gun ban.

            Yes, there was a Chinese criminal who attacked a school with a knife on the same day as Newtown. Hmmmm….20 children killed in the US, NONE killed in China. But you are FOR allowing the murderer to kill 30 before having to bother loading up again. Curious.

            So, as I gather it, your claim is that when a 300lb violent criminal breaks into your home, you’ll be running to the gun safe, opening it, taking out your empty weapon, loading in a magazine, (all the while never taking your eyes off the criminal or your family members) and in the heat of the moment, shooting the criminal without hitting any of your family members. OK, then. It’s a good video-game fantasy.

            Finally, ALL OF THE WORDS ARE IMPORTANT. READ THEM. A ban on guns or magazines will be ineffective for decades because so many are in circulation. The criminals who use banned weapons will have extra charges levied when caught (for using banned weapons) and those weapons will disappear. Just like the fully automatic weapons from the 1920s. How many of those are used today for mass murder? None. Why? Because there aren’t any available to criminals. As I have said a total of five times now to you, it will take decades for the effect to be seen, but eliminating 30-round murder pots will ultimately cut down on mass murder events.

          • TonyinMO

            Once again you avoid the facts and ramble on. I’m done wasting my time on an id10t like you. Post all you like I’m not reading it.

          • johninPCFL

            You mean facts like the decline in gun-related deaths that started during the gun ban that you conveniently avoid? You mean facts like there have been no mass murders using Tommy guns since the 1940s? You mean facts like fewer murder pots will eventually mean fewer mass-murder attacks?

            Grow up.

          • idamag

            Johnin, 60 minutes had a show one time, where they used undercover people to go to gun shows and see if they could purchase guns without a background check. One man went to one booth and said he had reasons he did not want a background check and was turned down. He bought several guns at other booths.

        • old_blu

          Suspects are not considered guilty in the USA.

      • labrown69

        Keep track of them maybe before they began killing our own agents?

        • johninPCFL

          Yep. They tracked them (still being carried by the individuals who legally purchased them) to the Mexican border. They had no authority to invade a foreign country. After the weapons went into Mexico, they were distributed to the cartels. The individuals who legally purchased the guns went home.

      • montanabill

        You are joking, right?

        • johninPCFL

          “”Gun walking” or “letting guns walk” was a tactic whereby the ATF “purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders.””

          Since the “straw buyers” were never charged or convicted of a crime, they remained “suspects” and all of the purchases were completely legal.

          • montanabill

            Just in case you have never tried it, walk into any gun store of your choosing and order Class III material. See exactly how easy that is for you to get those materials and/or get a Class III license. I think you’ll find that the government knows an awful lot about those with Class III licenses and the materials they buy. If those ‘buyers’ weren’t convicted on a crime, can you think of a reason why?

          • johninPCFL

            Because in AZ it’s legal to buy and sell guns. What, exactly, is the statute that you would be violating if you bought guns in AZ and sold them to a person on the Mexican border?

          • montanabill

            They were buying Class III (automatic weapons and silencers). No difference in AZ than in FL.

          • johninPCFL

            Odd, that’s not what the operation was about: “A 2009 GAO report on efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico notes that straw purchasing is not in itself illegal, although it is illegal to provide false information in connection with a purchase.

            The operation began on October 31, 2009, when a local gun store reported to the Phoenix ATF that four individuals had purchased multiple AK47 style rifles.[43] In November 2009, the Phoenix office’s Group VII, which would be the lead investigative group in Fast and Furious, began to follow a prolific gun trafficker. He had bought 34 firearms in 24 days, and he and his associates bought 212 more in the next month. The case soon grew to over two dozen straw purchasers, the most prolific of which would ultimately buy more than 600 weapons.[3][5][44] The effort would come to be called Operation Fast and Furious for the successful film franchise, because some of the suspects under investigation operated out of an auto repair store and street raced.

            However, other accounts of the operation insist that ATF agents were prevented from intervening not by ATF officials, but rather by federal prosecutors with the Attorney General’s office, who were unsure of whether the agents had sufficient evidence to arrest suspected straw-buyers.

            Altogether, 2,020 firearms were bought by straw purchasers during Fast and Furious.[3] These included AK-47 variants, Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifles, .38 caliber revolvers, and FN Five-sevens.”

            Which of those, beyond the Barretts, are class iii? Why do you suppose a customer with a fistfull of cash could buy a Barrett, and the store owner not be arrested?

          • montanabill

            AK-47s in fully automatic mode are Class III. Barretts are not Class III. They cannot be concealed and they are not capable of fully automatic operation. Yes, a customer with a fistful of cash could buy a Barrett as long as the customer was legal to buy any firearm.

          • johninPCFL

            They described “AK-47 style” weapons, of which the SKS45 is the most readily available. It is a semi-automatic weapon, so is not class iii.

          • montanabill

            Since AK-47′s are readily available, and I had previously heard reports of fully automatic weapons, I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of those AK-47 style weapons were real AK-47′s. All they had to do was fill out a form, provide fingerprints, a picture and approval from someone in authority (and $200) and wait for their approval.

          • johninPCFL

            I know AK47s are readily available in the world. My first thought on “AK47 style” went to the SKS because I have friends that own them. Several bought them after the “assault weapons ban” passed Congress in the 1990s but before it took effect. Others bought them in private exchanges during the ban period. I would be surprized that AK47s were the weapons sold in the Tucson area because the paperwork for an automatic weapon WOULD put you on the radar.

            The Congressional reports on “Fast and Furious” called out “AK47 style” weapons. Why do you believe they were automatics?

          • montanabill

            It appears you may be correct about fully automatic weapons not being part of the guns transferred. Some news reports are accurate and carefully describe the AK and AR weapons as semi-auto. Others refer to some of the guns being ‘assault weapons’. An assault weapon has a full auto mode. But it is clear that the writer using the term ‘assault weapon’ didn’t know that. That same confusion is being used now in the ‘assault weapons ban’ banter.

          • johninPCFL

            It aggravates the absolute crap out of me that the words can be looked up, but nobody does (well, present company excepted.) And then, I remember, “assault weapon” has no definition. This year’s ban language has new words in it that (as “tonyinmo” posted) have a much broader impact than the 1994 “assault weapons ban”.

            I don’t much like the idea that a description of the “look” of the exterior of a weapon is sufficient to make it objectionable. I don’t like it as a definition for pronography, and the Supreme Court rejected it, so I don’t know why restricting A2 rights can use an argument discredited for A1 rights.

            The proposed ban already contains such a general description that over 1000 exceptions are necessary to keep hunters from being arrested. The last time I checked, there were about 4000 different types of guns available worldwide, so having to specifically exempt 1/4 of the known types to make them legal seems absurd.

  • 426tt_64

    The 2nd amendment should not be under attack. Wise people can fix the issues we have and President Clinton proved that years ago, it is time to lock his fix back in so that it can not be unlocked again. However we also need to address mental issues at the same time, it has been shameful since Gov. Engler throw all mentally ill people out on the streets of MI to fend for themselves years ago.

    • TonyinMO

      Clinton proved nothing, his ban accomplished nothing, why reinstate failed policy?

  • labrown69

    Blah blah blah blah – the framers made abundantly clear why the right to own reasonable firearms, was not just because cops can’t protect us and many of those cops are corrupt themselves, but because governments throughout history who disarmed their populations are despotic. You clowns always insist “you don’t want to disarm” but those who are honest know that you do. The NRA is over the top and unhinged but so are you and that is why the NRA exists. There is no such thing as an assault weapon any more than painting your car in camouflage makes it more dangerous. “a militia is the entirety of the people”. An unarmed man is a slave.

    • johninPCFL

      The NRA exists so that the arms manufacturers can pool their money to affect legislation. Nothing more.

      The roots of the NRA (gun safety and shooting education) have long been abandoned. Those programs don’t keep LaPierre in the style to which he’s become accustomed. Like any good whore, he knows who has the money.

      • labrown69

        As is so typical of hysterical raving left wingers, your comments are simply untrue!

        • johninPCFL

          I’m not a “hysterical raving left winger” and the NRA is exactly as I characterized it.

          Idiots like you continue to pay dues into a front organization that has as much to do with gun safety today as popcorn does. Grow a brain, climb out of your mother’s basement, and look around.

          • labrown69

            John – does your knee hurt from all that jerking? As with most of your leftist buddies, your ad hominem “mothers basement, grow a brain” non responsive 3rd grade level comments are a smoke screen for your lack of veracity. Here are just a few of the NRA Safety Programs that Jack Asses like you say don’t exist.

            Education and Training
            › NRA Gun Safety Rules
            › Training
            › Instructors
            › Training Counselors
            › Coaches
            › Hunter Services
            › Youth Programs
            › NRA Shooting Sports Camps
            › Short-Term Gunsmithing Schools
            › Winchester/NRA Marksmanship Qualification Program
            › Certificate Templates
            › Request For Email Updates
            › Basic Course Training Form
            › Order Program Materials
            › Special Offers
            › Women’s Programs
            › Range Safety Officer Home Validation
            › Reloading Instructor Home Validation

          • johninPCFL

            And all of that pays ??? Try about .00000001% of the NRA lobbying cost, and maybe 10 cents of LaPierre’s salary.

            Grow a brain and look around. LaPierre is paid millions per year, and the NRA spends tens of millions more on lobbying efforts. Their gun show sideshow programs net them a laughably tiny fraction of that.

          • idamag

            lab, that used to be the NRA. It hasn’t been that for decades. You must have missed the Piers Morgan show. You must have missed the statement made by Charlton Heston about using guns to kill a legislator.

          • labrown69

            I hate to confuse ya here, but those programs are CURRENTLY OFFERED by the NRA and are readily available for your confirmation on line.

            Piers Morgan is a Jack Ass and a liar who says “semi-automatic weapons are actually machine guns” and does not know the difference or care. Without knowing what Heston might have said or not said, an armed population of the citizenry is precisely what is spelled out unanimously by the framers and most of us are willing to settle for nothing less.

            I am pro-choice, I support same sex marriage and social safety nets and I voted for President Obama as the lesser evil although on banking he is still running interference for the plutocrats but the point is, there are many like me who are liberal in every way but educated enough to reject all these frothy emotional arguments from those who tap dance around the truth and around reality. Guns are most often used by law abiding citizens to defend themselves and that’s a simple reality that some of us know.

          • TonyinMO

            Seriously John you should quit while you’re behind labrown69 has handed you your @$$.

          • johninPCFL

            Sure he did. I’m sure he has an explanation of how a few $100k worth of fees becomes $10s of millions of spending.

            Maybe the NRA is a government agency and has the keys to the treasury?

            You guys are really a laugh.

          • TonyinMO

            John what is you’re hang up with the NRA? Did they turn down your request for membership? If you don’t like them don’t join, if you don’t like guns don’t buy one.

            It’s you that is the joke, you liberals don’t like something, you think you need to ban the rest of the world from it too.

          • johninPCFL

            The NRA is the marketing arm for the arms industry. I quit them a decade ago.

            I have 6 long guns and 4 pistols.

            Idiots like you are so concerned about the imaginary threats to your rights, that the murderers have to get a pass.

          • idamag

            John, and they are suversives’ dream. they can be scared so easy.

          • TonyinMO

            Where have I said I’m worried about my rights? Where have I said I’m a fan of the NRA or a member?

            You ASSume a whole of things and say a whole lot of nothing, I guess that makes you the idiot. Johnny…

          • johninPCFL

            So why are you posting here in a thread about gun control? Just another Koch brothers troll?

          • TonyinMO

            If anybody is a troll here Johnny it’s you. Do you always deflect your own spurious behavior on to others?

          • johninPCFL

            So you are still trolling for the Koch borthers. Got it.

          • TonyinMO

            Still deflecting Johnny?

          • johninPCFL

            Still trolling for the Koch brothers? Got it.

          • old_blu

            It’s really easy to be right if he is on both sides.

          • johninPCFL

            Yeah, there IS that. Maybe trolling for both the Koch brothers and the Brady Foundation?

            Or maybe his particular affliction is schizophrenia. He may not know his other self is arguing with him?

          • idamag

            John is telling the truth. You should come out from behind your bunker and learn something. All the information is out there.

        • idamag

          lab, this is not a political thing. There are Democrats who are gun nuts, too.

      • idamag

        john, absolutely. They have turned the nation that once was the land of the free and the home of the brave to a nation of scared people.

      • Inthenameofliberty

        Sounds a lot like our two top political parties………..
        The roots of the political process (working for the betterment of the country at the will of the people) have long been abandoned.
        Both sides pay back those that give them campaign money with political favors. The money in the Dems and Repubs coffers works to keep those currently in office, in office, so that the politician can can be kept in the style in which they’ve become accustomed.
        All the while, we commoners toil and argue and get nowhere – because we don’t realize that MOST of the politicians on this country (thank goodness, not all) don’t care about us. At all.

        This is more than about the NRA. This whole discussion is bigger than that.
        We, the people, are a broken people.

        Still, why aren’t people stopping to ask WHY? So many of the killers have been on drug therapies. I don’t see anyone condemning the drugs and the makers of those drugs.

        Perhaps it’s time to shift the focus.

  • TonyinMO

    I am really tired of reading the anti-Second Amendment nonsense that The News publishes constantly. Do just the least bit of research – for instance Federalist Paper 28 by Alexander Hamilton – and it is clear that the Second Amendment was meant to ensure the right of individuals to bear arms. Just which part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is it so hard to understand? There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide. Does anyone really think more laws will keep lunatics and criminals in check?

    I also can’t understand why the left is going apoplectic over the idea of putting police officers into schools. This didn’t even originate with the National Rifle Association. I don’t remember liberals reacting this way when their beloved Bill Clinton announced grants that would put 400 officers in schools, and then requested an additional $60 million from Congress to fund more of the same. This is the height of hypocrisy, but what we’ve all come to expect from liberals at every turn.

    I also think that we need to find a way to identify homicidal lunatics and get them off our streets forever! Even when they identify themselves by bludgeoning a grandmother to death, we put them away for only 17 years, then let them out to walk the streets and ambush valiant firefighters.

    Finally, if one were really serious about solving a complex problem such as this, would you put the likes of Vice President Biden in charge of it?

    • idamag

      Tony, here is where you show your sources aren’t very good. The NRA and Faux news doesn’t tell the truth. I have a nephew who belongs to the NRA. Every election they tell him the Democratic candidate wants to take his guns away. The second amendment is not in jeopardy, but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been taken away by crazies who had easy access to assault weapons and multiple round clips. The second amendment is safe.

      • TonyinMO

        Idamag thanks for proving that liberals best facts are their imaginary friends.

        WTF are you talking about? If somehow the NRA is wrong in what they have pointed out about Senaturd Frankenstein’s bill? Please show all of us. Line by line and by all means even though FOX has nothing to do with this conversation but since you use them as a crutch when you lack anything factual to back up your side of the argument, go ahead and list where they have been wrong where it pertains to the gun ban argument.

      • TonyinMO

        You do understand you are blaming an inanimate object for these killings? I’m beginning to think you should seek help!

        • idamag

          Tony, addressing your following post: I am not a Democrat. this should not be a political thing. Inaminate objects do not kill people as long as they are not in a crazy person’s hands. Let’s limit those man-killing weapons and keep them out of crazy peoples’ hands.

          • TonyinMO

            OK so you claim to NOT be a Democrat, you’re just a nut what’s the difference? NOTHING! No need to split hairs.

            Why don’t we just limit the crazy people and leave the inanimate objects out of it.

            Based on your theory what’s next? Automobiles, Axes, Hammers, Air Planes???

  • ococoob

    Go back and learn your civics and American history will ya! ONE of the reasons why we have the 2nd amendment is that at the birth of this nation, we did not have a standing army like George Washington has written. Thus militias were set up to protect the fragile 13 colonies. NOT individual rights to own a ar-15, assault-style, military, multi-capacity weapons! Re-read your amendment.

    2nd Amendment:

    A WELL REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Key word here: WELL REGULATED!

    • labrown69

      No sir, I’m afraid “well regulated” is NOT “the key word”, nor are they ambigous except to pip squeaks like yourself who CHOOSE not to know:

      “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

      “…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) <—- NOT AMBIGUOUS

      "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) <—- NOT AMBIGUOUS

      "the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) <—- NOT AMBIGUOUS

      • ococoob

        Your sources does not answer the question, “well regulated.” And answer the damn question, why is there a need for AR15 semi-assault, military-sytle, multiple capacity weapons legal?

      • idamag

        lab, and, in those days, a mentally ill person, who was deemed dangerous was locked up.

  • labrown69

    The foremost statement ever on gun control and ownership by Ceasare Beccaria, the Father of Modern Criminology.

    “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

    Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty… and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree”.

    • old_blu

      No one is talking about taking guns away (because that would be impossible) they want a few restrictions maybe and I doubt they will be much, the way you talk you think they are taking them away from us, and they aren’t, that is just a scare tactic that you and the NRA spew so to sell guns, I don’t think that is your intention but it is the NRA’s intention.

    • http://twitter.com/MortAlcoil1 Mort Alcoil

      Yours is a straw Man argument; no one is talking about taking away your guns, no one is talking about banning guns. This is about trying to cut down on the utter carnage being perpetrated on the people of the USA, by SENSIBLE regulation and using background checks and other methods to stop weapon falling into the hands of lunatics, psychopaths and the emotionally/chemically unstable.

      Even a HAIRDRESSER needs a licence; we all have to pay insurance on our Cars and take a test of competency to drive. Something HAS to be done to make us safer from rogues, maniacs and those who are OVERLY fetishised as they relate to guns.

      • labrown69

        I support strong enforcement of gun laws, limiting magazine capacity and closing the loophole for background checks at gun shows however your comment that nobody is looking for an all out gun ban is false.

        Dressing hair is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

        • jstsyn

          Feinstien is pushing a BAN. She wants my guns destroyed when I die. That, is a ban no matter how you look at it.

          • ococoob

            Pay attention here, pal! Feinstien wants all ASSAULT-type weapons banned. Quit being paranoid and take some Haldol, will ya?

          • Inthenameofliberty

            yes, it is a ban. And she is a scary and misinformed lady.

          • idamag

            In the name, lots of scary people out there, huh?

          • Inthenameofliberty

            Most unfortunately.

          • http://twitter.com/MortAlcoil1 Mort Alcoil

            Outright lie and fabrication… She wants ASSAULT style weapons banned.. you can keep the rest of your arsenal, OK?

  • http://twitter.com/lawyerhank ralph h bauer

    I’ve attended about a hundred Texas gun shows over the last dozen or so years, and private sales without registration are probably about ONE PERCENT of total sales. To suggest 40 percent is ridiculous. I’m quite progressive on most issues, and agree with the NM most of the time, but the Left wrong on guns.

  • jnsgraphic

    In the wake of the Aurora and Newtown shootings, the tired refrain of the gun lobby and NRA that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a shameful and cowardly attempt to evade all responsibility. Guns in schools or “more guns = less crime” is NOT a solution. The radical NRA gun lobbyist and ‘Right Wing Gun Nuts’ call for more Government to protect the fanatical 2nd Amendment Zealots (NOT the Amendment) so that they can abuse these rights to do almost anything they want. The NRA has contributed to and created this desensitized society by providing access to and promoting violence. In the past, the NRA succeeded in intimidating lawmakers and our politicians were reluctant to propose measures to tighten gun violence and gun control. We need to do something about putting reasonable limitations on “the right to bear arms”, just like no other right is absolute. The 2nd Amendment clearly states its purpose as being to provide for a well-regulated ‘citizen militia’, which hasn’t been relevant for two centuries until these right-wing extremist came up with their paranoid conspiracy theories. Instead, this amendment is being abused by the gun lobbyists to defend unlimited availability of firearms = unlimited killing power. Restrictions on sales of assault-style rifles would be an initial, credible response to calls for more gun control. Strong leadership is needed NOW in the fight to prevent gun violence; hopefully Joe Biden, Gabby Gifford and ‘responsible’ gun owners will lead the way. We ALL must change our behaviors, stop financing violence, promote ‘rational’ solutions… and STOP ABUSING THE 2ND!”

    • TonyinMO

      The only people abusing the 2nd amendment is YOU gun grabbers! If you don’t want a gun don’t buy one and STFU.

      • jnsgraphic

        The paranoid ‘Crazyville’ radicals are smack out there stockpiling them, which is the reason gun control is needed TODAY!”

        • TonyinMO

          Do you have anything factual to back up that comment? Or is it you that is paranoid?

          My money is on YOU being paranoid!

          • jnsgraphic

            Do you listen to or read the news? Any talk of ‘gun control’ and the right-wing gun nuts are out there stockpiling them. After Newtown, gun sales of ‘assault-rifles’ increased with the fear that they would be banned. The point is NO ONE needs an assault-type rifle to protect themselves, and its an ‘abuse’ of the 2nd Amendment to claim that right.

          • TonyinMO

            Last time I read the news it was perfectly legal to buy as many legal guns as a person likes. Do you have a problem with law abiding tax payers exercising their God given rights? Maybe you should consider relocating to China.

            YOU claim “NO ONE needs an assault-type rifle to protect themselves, and its an ‘abuse’ of the 2nd Amendment to claim that right.”

            So what your saying is that the military and law enforcement should relinquish their assault type rifles as well? I believe they would qualify as “NO ONE”

          • jnsgraphic

            And the laws need to change… the 2nd Amendment clearly states its purpose to provide for a well-regulated ‘militia’, which hasn’t been relevant for two centuries until you right-wing gun extremist came up with your paranoid conspiracy theories. For those of you that live in such fear, I feel sorry for you. Irrational extremists should not share these same rights, being irrational is a form of mental illness.

          • TonyinMO

            You claim: “being irrational is a form of mental illness.” I truly believe YOU are speaking from your own personal experience. Only an irrational person would believe that banning inanimate objects will have some impact on the mentally disturbed killing others.

            Do just the least bit of research – for instance Federalist Paper 28 by Alexander Hamilton – and it is clear that the Second Amendment was meant to ensure the right of individuals to bear arms. Just which part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is it so hard to understand? There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide.

            Does anyone really think more laws will keep lunatics and criminals in check?

          • jnsgraphic

            We need to do something about putting reasonable limitations on “the right to bear arms”, just like no other right is absolute. We ALL must change our behaviors, stop financing violence, promote ‘rational’ solutions and STOP ABUSING the 2nd Amendment.

          • TonyinMO

            I agree that we need to quit abusing the second amendment, obviously for different reasons. Personally I would start by throwing people like 0bama and Biden in GITMO for treason.

            “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

          • jnsgraphic

            This is not strictly a Republican or Democratic issue… both sides have contributed to letting the NRA succeed in intimidating lawmakers, and our politicians have been reluctant to propose measures to tighten gun violence and gun control; both parties need to find common ground through ‘compromise’ a word most thick-headed right-wingers don’t understand. Restrictions on the sales of assault-style rifles would be an initial, credible response to better gun control.

          • TonyinMO

            I never said it was a R or D thing I don’t like either side, if you paid any attention you’d see there is no difference. You seem to be the one that’s real quick to blame “right wingers” Grow up and quit being a political hack, it’s impossible to take anything you say seriously.

            There are 20,00 laws on the books banning guns for this that or the other reason none of them have worked. Putting more restrictions on guns is the idea of a neanderthal.

            Guns don’t kill people, just like forks don’t make people overweight.

          • jnsgraphic

            Guns and forks, apples and oranges… youre just not rational! Guns make it easier for people to kill people; forks may make some people overweight, but there’s no crime in that.

          • TonyinMO

            Dude you’re an id10t. “forks MAY make some people overweight” Not to mention you’re clueless. Go run your crazy train on someone elses tracks. I’m finished with ya!

          • idamag

            jns, I don’t think the founding fathers foresaw what interpretations would be put on the second amendment or they would have been more explicit. In those days they didn’t need to be.

        • idamag

          jns, you are right. There have been some of those paranoid radical anti-government people on other posts. They do exist.

      • idamag

        Tony, I am going to cut you some slack. It just dawned on my that you are a young person.

        • TonyinMO

          Wadda tool you are. And not a very good guesser either.

  • jstsyn

    I have never, and never will destroy anything of value with a weapon. So I need to be punished?

  • TonyinMO

    .WOW what I’d like to know is what planet some of the people on this thread get their information from.

  • ococoob

    JUST IN: ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING IN BAKERSFIELD, CA!!!

  • TonyinMO

    You title this article ‘Gun Sanity” and have a pic of Joe Biden. Now that’s rich.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MQNHVKIWVASFAZYEKKUWENNXAQ jsgreen

    Guns need to be control, it alright the second amendment right but what about the first? It is very sick for a person need to have a stock of weapons in their home. the law should be pass not only thsoe sell weapons at gun shows. Law on a person that due drugs, take pain medicine and alchol which are depressing drug and motive strong behavior. People that own weapons should register them once a year. Restrict the number of weapons to own in homes.

  • jointerjohn

    Our job as citizens is to work for a safe and productive society. The NRA’s job is to sell guns. The NRA cares not one whit about our rights, the Constitution, nor anything else except helping their sugar-daddy corporations sell more guns and ammo. The sooner you members who have been duped into surrendering them your membership fees realize that the closer you will be to becoming truly free. They are playing you for suckers. Why else would they fill you heads full of fantasies like you holding the U.S. Government at bay on your front lawn. Think about it now, seriously. If the U.S. Government wants your dumb-ass dead they aren’t going to send infantry up you front walk! They will drop a smart bomb down your chimney and you will be shaking hands with Elvis before you even hear the sound!

    Your defense against the federal government is not found in your rifle, it is in your vote, and if you keep voting for representatives bent on starving you to death through the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, you will end up one skinny sick old dead man clutching a rifle full of bullets. Don’t be played for a chump.

  • Simpleisbetter2

    “We have these things called air craft carriers….” Oh.. hey, a quote by the President saying the way to handle bad guys with guns is good guys with more guns!! Glad to see Biden and Obama agree with the NRA, since Obama used it in his debate. I suppose if he doesn’t agree with that, we should just give our military single shot 22 rifles or beter yet, send them into combat unarmed to talk some sense into those bad meanies….

  • Simpleisbetter2

    AlfredSonny – I’m not a gun lover. I do however hate the idea of the bad guy having a bigger gun then I have all because I follow the law, and he doesn’t. When will the dumbies in Washington figure out that the laws apply to law abiding citizens, NOT to the bad people out there.

  • Inthenameofliberty

    johninPCFL wrote: ”

    The NRA exists so that the arms manufacturers can pool their money to affect legislation. Nothing more.

    The roots of the NRA (gun safety and shooting education) have long been abandoned. Those programs don’t keep LaPierre in the style to which he’s become accustomed. Like any good whore, he knows who has the money.”

    Here is my response:

    Sounds a lot like our two top political parties………..
    The roots of the political process (working for the betterment of the country at the will of the people) have long been abandoned.
    Both sides pay back those that give them campaign money with political favors. The money in the Dems and Repubs coffers works to keep those currently in office, in office, so that the politician can can be kept in the style in which they’ve become accustomed.
    All the while, we commoners toil and argue and get nowhere – because we don’t realize that MOST of the politicians on this country (thank goodness, not all) don’t care about us. At all.

    This is more than about the NRA. This whole discussion is bigger than that.
    We, the people, are a broken people.

    Still, why aren’t people stopping to ask WHY? So many of the killers have been on drug therapies. I don’t see anyone condemning the drugs and the makers of those drugs.

    Perhaps it’s time to shift the focus?

  • thebunt

    When is the USA going to ask some other country for help. Other countries have families. Other countries have bad guys. Other countries have restrictions on guns. Other countries don’t have mass killings every day of the week. Obviously we have a problem and obviously we can’t solve it. Why not ask someone who has shown they CAN solve it. We are the worst so we can pick almost any other country and ask for their help.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/LIOWPV3RG2BI6EUJVVKTE6KSQU Charles

    the hell with the NRA. OBAMA will by pass congress..Do and excutive order.Bann all hand guns. Watch it happened.

    • idamag

      chalres, watch out for black helicopters and listening devices on power poles.

    • http://twitter.com/MortAlcoil1 Mort Alcoil

      This type of paranoia is EXACTLY what makes people scared of gun owners. Please stop it.

  • dalnb

    When I grew up a single shot rifle and shotgun was the norm. Every kid from 10 years up had one and used it on a regular basis. We knew what guns were, what they were for and how to use them properly and with respect. We did not need massive amounts of ammunition. We did not have to lock them up or panic every time we saw one. I often carried one the grade school where I left it in the school office and hunted rabbits on the way home. We did not have the government or the NRA telling us what to do with them or supporting huge financial markets for people to get rich on them. We did not have state or federal governments making hunting and fishing laws that keeps the less fortunate people out of it. Today it costs a fortune to comply with hunting and fishing laws. When we were not so over-regulated we could take our kids out hunting, plinking and fishing; they knew and respected both. Now the cost is so prohibitive the kids never get a chance to get involved thus they do not understand what a gun can do, what using it means, and how to show it and people the respect both deserve.

    A vast majority of NRA members are there for the magazine. They are not shoot-em up fanatic nuts who want America to run around armed like a third world country. When the NRA speaks they speak at the head of a huge organization but not in a language all NRA members support.

    It is probably time a new organization representing sports hunters and firearms enthusiast took hold. We need sensible people making decisions; not radical highly financed people with special interests. All sides, the NRA, radical politicians and greedy money seeking industry CEOs have ruined a national heritage of firearms ownership and respect.

    • idamag

      dal, and you never even thought about using those guns to kill people.

      • dalnb

        I spent 25 years as a police officer and although I did find need to draw my weapon a few times I never found it necessary to use it agaiinst any person or animal.

        In my youthful years we were not afraid to say a nut case was a nut case and do what was necessary to protect those around us. If a person was deemed a threat we all knew it; we did not have to turn our back and hope nothing would come of it. We expected elected officials to concern themselves with the best interest of our neighborhood and our country. We did not expect them to buy their way into elected office through the wealthy of those who would prosper in their election and put more interest in getting a vote than in taking care of America! We did not have the drug problems we have today and we were man enough to take responsibility for our actions. We did not set our kids to set down to games of massive killing, screaming, shooting and blowing things up.

    • http://twitter.com/MortAlcoil1 Mort Alcoil

      Thank you for a sensible, rational post; we need more of this, rather than the usual raging and tantrum throwing we see in these discussion.

  • jnsgraphic

    We are both entitled to our ‘opinions’ and have strong opposing ones.

  • jnsgraphic

    Muskets vs Machine Guns? America has changed radically since the 18th century!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_55DD6VGXL4HWOEKYMF7AMSYQAY Laurence

    Just a thought, on average, in the United States, during a 1 year period, children between the ages of 1 to 19: Death by Firearm: 132. Death by Motor Vehicle: 6,683*. Using Biden’s reasoning Auto’s should be taken off the streets.
    *National Child Mortality Data

    • ExPAVIC

      Laurence, Laurence

      What a piss poor way of rationalizing a situation that does not deserve to be rationalized. Simple fact which differentiates the two examples you employ are that one case a choice was made for the victims while in the other that choice was theirs.

  • chrisconnolly

    It is absolutely absurd that we heavily regulate cars without any of these ‘anywhere/everywhere/no rules’ gun extremists crying foul, “you are taking my rights away, we need to be able to drive as fast as we can to protect our democracy!” Cars are heavily regulated because even though they were not designed to kill, they do. But guns, whose sole/soul purpose is to kill and kill efficiently, the NRA radicals claim over and over shouldn’t be regulated at all. No matter how many first graders, innocent bystanders, wives, commuters, college students, theater goers, etc. get gunned down, according to the NRA, guns of all stripes must be freely manufactured, sold, resold, owned, carried, used with no interference from the likes of ‘for the good of the people’. It is starting to feel like the NRA is preparing for a hostile take over of our government? Are they building their army of “militia” though NRA dues and membership? After all didn’t they just offer to station NRA volunteers around our schools? Are they just preparing us for what it will look like once they fully take over? The NRA needs to be seriously reigned in by the law.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=536170668 Charles Williams

    Upholding the Constitution is the first and only common sense solution. After that, deal with criminals and madmen as traitors to the Constitution. It really is as simple as that. Throwing away the Constitution because of criminals and madmen destroys our history and exactly what the founding fathers died for. I will HELP you do anything you want to criminals and madmen, anything at all, but first we MUST hold on to our foundations. Its what makes America America.

  • rustacus21

    … & yet, even “IF” we achieve a bi-partisan agreement on updating regulations on firearms, the industry will push a vendetta against any & all legislators signing on to it that will create even more acrimony than what we see currently. As remarkable as it was however, the fact that American’s rejected candidates bankrolled by the gun lobby, modernized & coherent legislation, like gun-show back-ground checks, banning of hi-capacity ammo clips & universal mental health profiles – an absolute necessity, considering the psychosis so pervasively obsessive that common hunting firearms will be confiscated (a notion as crazy as the psychotic, imagined ‘connections’ between Barack Obama & Stalin & Hitler!!!) & as only a preliminary peek into the minds of gun-obsessed maniac’s, means the extremists are so far removed from reality, the schism will so alienate even legitimate, responsible gun owners into either denying any association to such fanatics & their kooky positions or push more of them (those coherent gun owners) to the side of the crazies! But those of us holding fast to our Liberal/Progressive ideals should not relent, no matter the costs. As a reminder, nothing can bring those lost to the horrors of Sandy Hook Elementary back to their loved one’s. But it is to they and all those who have lost loved one’s to such mindless carnage, to continue to gather the strength to make this a long-term initiative, to wrest our very civilization BACK from the savagery which we are running headlong towards – of which money & guns are wickedly intertwined…

  • watchdog98

    Over 9000 babies are murdered every day by abortion. More people are killed by cars than guns every day. Let us stop these first, then see what happens to the number killed by guns. People will have guns no matter the laws, just as they drive without a license drunk or not. People also drive at any speed they chose. Better to have a gun to stop another with a gun, car, etc. If they are a threat.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Vishal-Jain/1110811994 Vishal Jain

    you can make as many law you can, but these things wont stop, all u need a gun which you can get anyhow if you want to. The only solution is fix the broken family culture of this country , If parents are too busy living their “ME & I” life, the child would go on a wrong path.

  • PatriotFighter

    When are politicans and liberals going to learn, gun control does nothing to stop criminals from getting guns. Washington DC has gun control, look at its crime rate, Chicago has gun con control, look at its crime rate, all gun control does is stop law abiding Americans from buying guns as is our right under the Constitution. Criminals can care less what the gun law is, they are criminals.

    The 2nd amendment was not put in the Constitution so Americans could hunt, they hunted every day just to provide food for their familes so they could eat, there was no walmart. It was not put in Constitution for target practice, gun power and lead was expensive, the 2nd amendment was put in Constitution to protect Americans from a government of tyranny.

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

    – Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
    - George Washington

    It is there to protect us from exactly what is going on now, a government trying to rule America through tyranny……….

    Maybe it is time the American patriots had a 2nd Tea Party, maybe it is time to not file our taxes in protest, There are over 65 million Americans who believe int he right to own guns as GUARANTEED to us under the Bill of Rights, what would happen if only 50 million Americans did not file their returns in protest….

    We will not surrender our rights guaranteed to us under the Bill of Rights, we will not go quitely into the night….

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/GGHNYPK4GNCRYZLXWVZ447WHJM Plznnn

    What we need is Comprehensive Reform to protect our Children from violence.
    1. Stop the violent movies & videos from Hollywood which influences Children.
    2. No Amnesty for Illegals when they murder many more children than at Sandy Hook every year.
    3. Allow prayer and morals back in our schools.
    4. Outlaw abortions for all instances other than rape, incest, or the health of the mother.
    5. Only then we can make sure gun buyers are stable. Even so, psycopaths will find a way to get guns………….

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YBYYIQHBLD7BZAU6L3DC7MS4YM Rodney

    Their rights under the second admenment does not nor has it been given to bare a gun. What it does gives me is the right to bare arms. Our govt. already limits what type of arms we as a people can have in our posession (t.nt. ganade,rocket luncher switch bladed knife).
    This is done without takeing away my right to bare arms .Their are some arms that we as a people say we don,t need to have. These guns that we are talking about are weapons of mass destruction as this is what they are they can be banned without any loss to my right to bare arms .That will be when the people we elect stop taking money from lobbist and start doing what we the people send them to wash. to do.

  • onedonewong

    Nothing positative will happen unless Dem’s agree that those who have mental illness must be prevented from ever buying a gun. Right now the “PC” crowd has made sure that those who are either mentally ill or receiving treatment aren’t entered into the national data base by medical providers. Its prevented by doctor patient privilege and those mental defectives account for 99% of all the mass shootings.
    rather than address the real problem Joe Biteeme is going to propose the usual liberal PAP that will do nothing to stop the carnage.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OVZ7REYDEJJTYU2TTQS4AEPU5I snoopie

    We do not, I repeat, do not need assualt rifles on the streets, we need to have stricter laws on who can own a gun. We do not neeeeeeeeeeeeeeee to arm Teachers. I would support more security, police officers, look out towers on school grounds, cameras on all hallways, metal dectors, no assualt rifles.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000624404633 James Curran

    What is the sense in talking beside making a show for the public.The only way to stop gun violence is to revisit and make changes to it.Our forefathers did not have the violence and automatic weapons to contend with when they wrote the second amendment and the constitution.

  • Miss J

    The NRA and its allies are only interested in $$$$$$$$$$, they are not concerned about lives

  • pogo_patti

    I am really interested that the law demands the penalty of those who break it…no first time offense, etc. , no second chance, no excuse, just close the barn door!

  • mbee1

    Sanity? The liberal would be slaves are begging to be made a ward of the government, never mind the states with the least crime are will carry states and states with the most guns have the least crimminal behavior, nevermind ever shooter in these cases was a known nut that the liberals refused to force into treatment.

  • mbee1

    The issue is not guns, it is what you liberals propose and do not propose to lower the nut shooter rate in the country. Life terms for using a gun in a robbery, NO NO, mandatory treatment for nut cases, NO NO, only if they shoot somebody, jobs for everyone, NO NO, that lowers the crime rate more than anything else, legalize drugs, NO NO, cannot take the money out of crime, Streamline the courts trial system, NO NO, have to leave the criminals walking the streets committing crimes, will carry, NO NO, never mind all will carry states have lower crime, BAN ASSAULT rifles, YES YES, never mind not a single actual new assault rifle has been sold or brought into this country in 40 years since congress banned machine guns.

  • http://profiles.google.com/vatonaught Carlos Nells

    Blah blah…some of their common sense ideas are so unconstitutional that they would require a suspension of the Supreme Court.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

    “Yes. Tell that to the armed gunman who enters into your house to kill your family. ”
    This happens about as often as voter fraud occurs, hardly ever. A person does not need a semi-automatic weapon to protect themselves or their

  • Debbie10

    Exactly!!! The VICTIM WAS A VICTIM. The CRIMINAL, killed her with her gun and went on his CRIMINAL killing spree. Are you really suggesting that it was this dead womans fault that she was killed?

  • Debbie10

    Well I guess anyone can be caught off guard. I am sure this mother did not think her son would kill her. But I can tell you this, The only person that will be dead in my house will be the one that doesn’t belong there. So, you go right ahead and live in your glass house, heck, why don’t you just put a sign in your front yard announcing that you live in a gun free zone! When someone comes in your house with a gun, I guarantee you, you will be saying a prayer and you will be praying that the ;people with guns get there quick enough. Hopefully, it will be one of your good neighbors because, that will be your only hope at survival.

  • Debbie10

    Finally, we agree!!! But we also need to have some type of safeguard in place for the mentally ill. I am all for privacy (HIPPA) but I feel like anyone that is interested in buying should be required to exempt their self for that transaction only so that information is released in that area. It won’t eliminate everyone but it will reduce a lot of it. There are always those that are not getting treatment that we could not know about. Just a thought.

  • Thomas Michael Thompson

    Just give us one reason why a crazy person who wants to kill kids will gare about gun laws ! This is another thing to help Obama get re – elected 2016 ! We tried to stop the killing they will say ! Then too, China took away firearms and the people of China are at the mercy of a power huingry government !When a killer walks into a school and there is noone to stop him then all the gun laws
    and there are already 20,000 ! plus in the Bible killing is against Gods law, well I write slowly and while I did this a person was killed . Eaither by a car , more than 40,000 a year or by a mently sick person ! Armed guards will stop killers in schools and at a low cost ! No ! They want to stop guns !

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000079950020 Tiffany Wilde

    Lets hope the Republicans will do their job and block any attempt and more gun laws. Guns are our Constitutional right and the right must be defended.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BYDAIVJTZGBZ467TOPBA7MAE6E olafaux

    This is our take:
    The inconvinient truth about gun control? FEAR. Clouded in the said fear, is deep racism. That one race because of past & continued blatant racism, will one day, dare to revolt. To physically demand their share. Slavery may have ended 150 years ago. Certainly, however, 1,500 more years is necessary to erase the sores. Instead, some thing else has backfired against their fears. N EWTOWN!
    God bless America!

scroll to top