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

All they are asking for is regulations.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

There is some truth to that.

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.

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.

“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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

duh rup de derp

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Get off it you argumentive little twit.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

“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.

“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.”

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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

Still deflecting Johnny?

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

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

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

Most unfortunately.

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”

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?

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”

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.

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!