By Josh Marks

Men Armed With Assault Rifles Intimidate Moms At Gun Safety Rally

March 28, 2013 7:33 pm Category: Memo Pad 246 Comments A+ / A-

gunrally

Gun extremists brought loaded assault weapons and handguns to a rally of mothers calling for common-sense gun laws to protect children and adults from mass shootings and daily firearm fatalities and injuries. A local chapter of Moms Demand Action was gathered for the event in Indianapolis as part of Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ National Day to Demand Action. The event was aimed at keeping the need for new gun laws at the forefront of public attention and pressuring senators and representatives to stand up to the National Rifle Association and pass stronger gun measures that the majority of Americans support.

ThinkProgress reports that “at least two or three men showed up at the rally site before the event began and engaged in a discussion about gun regulations with the group…The armed men — who were later joined by another man carrying a handgun and a woman who runs Indiana Moms Against Gun Control — insisted that they had a right to carry the loaded weapon.”

A local news report showed video of a man from the gun control group asking one of the armed men, “Who goes on a hunting trip with this?” as he pointed to the loaded assault rifle slung over the man’s shoulder. Another armed man answered, “Lots of people. It’s legal in this state to hunt deer.” The man from the gun control group said he didn’t know anyone who goes on a hunting trip with a military-style assault weapon, before asking the man with the assault weapon if he went hunting with it, to which the armed man responded, “This firearm is not about hunting for me… it is my right to have this firearm and I don’t have to defend or show a need for this firearm to own it.”

Gun safety groups held events similar to the one in Indiana all over the country, including at the White House, where President Obama made an emotional appeal for Congress to act on stronger gun laws. “The entire country pledged we would do something about it and that this time would be different,” said the president. “Shame on us if we’ve forgotten. I haven’t forgotten those kids.”

Photo: Indiana WTHR 13 News

Men Armed With Assault Rifles Intimidate Moms At Gun Safety Rally Reviewed by on . Gun extremists brought loaded assault weapons and handguns to a rally of mothers calling for common-sense gun laws to protect children and adults from mass shoo Gun extremists brought loaded assault weapons and handguns to a rally of mothers calling for common-sense gun laws to protect children and adults from mass shoo Rating:

More by Josh Marks

Profiles In Cowardice And Courage From Our Shameful Senate: Mark Begich And Mark Kirk

On Tuesday 45 senators — mostly Republicans, but some Democrats — made cynical political calculations by choosing to protect the NRA gun merchants over America’s children, betraying the families of Newtown, CT, and the nation in their failure to pass stronger gun laws. It was expected that the right-wing Republicans in the Senate would reflexively

Read more...

Gabrielle Giffords Takes Gun Reform Push To Capitol Hill

On the sixth anniversary of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history at Virginia Tech, former congresswoman and Tucson shooting survivor Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, headed to Capitol Hill to meet with senators in a final push to gather the 60 votes needed to add an expansion of background checks to

Read more...

Georgia Rep Says Romney Right About ’47 Percent’

Apparently Republican representative Rob Woodall of Georgia didn’t get the memo about his party’s “rebranding” effort to avoid offending half the population, or at least avoid getting caught doing it on camera. Woodall, who sits on Paul Ryan’s House Budget Committee, said last month at a town hall meeting that Mitt Romney was right in

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • Sand_Cat

    Obviously, this is what they “need” these weapons for.

    • idamag

      What? To protect themselves against a group of concerned mothers.

      • Siegfried Heydrich

        Hey, these were DANGEROUS signs those mommies were wielding! They had the right to defend themselves from those dangerous housewives! I mean, who knows, they might have had deadly frying pans hidden and were just waiting for the chance to use them!!!

        • neeceoooo

          Haha, yeah, they just cook something up.

  • Siegfried Heydrich

    Hey, it’s obvious that only REAL men need to carry weapons like that when confronting dangerous housewives carrying loaded signs. After all, without their guns, they’d just be guys on the street having a discussion with the mothers, and they certainly don’t want THAT!

    • neeceoooo

      It is the need to feel superior.

    • BDC_57

      It makes them feel like real big men but all they are cowards

  • old_blu

    Whether or not you are for better gun control (and I am) people like that don’t help their cause, when you walk around looking crazy you don’t help your cause. I don’t know why they can’t see that.

    • plc97477

      Mostly because they don’t just look crazy.

      • old_blu

        Hahaha you are right about that, my kid went to a gun show last weekend, he was trying to sell an AK and a group of guys (he looks like what they needed they said) came up to him and ask if he would put on some camo and bring his AK to the state house to make a political statement and he ask them why do you think the politicians want to know you’re nuts.

        • neeceoooo

          They will do anything to get the media on their side

  • Michael Kollmorgen

    Actually, I hope they keep this sort of crap up.

    Keep this up and eventually the “public” will get disgusted with the entire gun craze and ban every single gun, all the way down to a pellet gun.

    With a little luck, we might even abolish the 2nd Amendment. So, go ahead, enjoy your stupidity while you can.

    • Paul Zhaurov

      You would love to see that wouldn’t you, ya schmuck. While we’re at it, let’s just abolish the entire bill of rights. Freedom of speech? Who needs it. Someone might get offended. Freedom of religion? Nope. Freedom to be secure in your possessions? Naa, let’s go full police state.

      You’re a moron. Your backwards thinking is what millions of people from the former USSR fought tooth and nail to escape. My parents lived through your ill-conceived gun control. You know who had guns? THE SOVIET REGIME. You know who got shot? THOSE WHO DISSENTED.

      Guns aren’t there to go hunting for deer. They are there to allow the people to resist tyranny. They are there to give us teeth. As our framers rightly pointed out, only a regime that wants to control it’s people, is afraid of trusting them with guns.

      Nevermind all the statistics that show conclusively your gun-banning ideology is false. Just consider the fact that what you advocate, is in direct opposition to the ENLIGHTENMENT. That’s right, you read about that in school? Doubtful, considering the abysmal state of our education system, and the fact it churns out useful idiots like you. But, the ENLIGHTENMENT, is where all these fancy notions of FREEDOM and LIBERTY actually came from. You know, when people began to wake the hell up, and say to themselves, HEY, I’M TIRED OF BEING A SLAVE TO THE REGIME. I’M TIRED OF THE KING TELLING ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE.

      We live in America, not a monarchy. The Revolution started because the British came and tried to confiscate our guns at Lexington and Concorde. You bet your candy ass there will be another revolution if the useful idiots (read: you) try it again. And rightly so. Who are you to take away the freedom millions have paid in blood for? If you despise the second amendment, go live in russia. Idiot. I’m sure there’s someone there who would be happy to trade places with you.

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        Paul:

        I honestly don’t care one way or the other whether guns are outlawed, or is allowed for every single person on the face of the earth.

        I do feel that “some” people are taking this gun craze to extremes. Sooner or later, this is going to backfire on them. Like all situations, it is a very small minority of people who screw it up for everyone else. These people in the article are the ones that will force society to change our laws, maybe even the 2nd Amendment eventually.

        At the rate things are going, your days are numbered. Control your own people before the control you thought you had, you won’t have anymore.

      • old_blu

        I don’t think Michael said he wanted to ban guns he said you guys keep acting crazy and they will ban them, and you sound just like them crazies calling people names, and it’s my way or the highway attitude.

      • neeceoooo

        You are another paranoid fool to think you are resisting tyranny with your assault rifle.

      • Siegfried Heydrich

        Sure . . . you and your good ol’ boy drinking buddies / weekend warrior GI Joe badass dressup militia wannabees who are all patriotic, flag waving, bible thumping yeehaw rednecks are going to start a revolution. Uh-huh. Yeah . . . of course you are. Keep stroking your hard, hot, long piece as you tell yourself that.

        So, who are you going to shoot first? The local cops? Maybe bomb the local FBI office? Shoot up the post office? Take over the state capitol and set up your own gov’t, perhaps? Declare independence from the rest of the country? Create the sovereign nation of BillyBobistan according to strict biblical standards? Set up concentration camps for the liberals?

        Hey, why don’t you all get in your pick’emup trucks and drive to Washington where I’m sure the troops stationed nearby will be all intimidated with your fearsome firepower and patriotic fervor. And think of it . . . after it’s all over, you’ll get an extended Caribbean vacation down in sunny Gitmo, where it never snows or freezes. And, of course, as traitors, under the Patriot Act, you don’t have Habeus Corpus or anything like bail, so you’ll have a nice, long time to work on your tans! And a military tribunal in a few years, maybe . . .

        Sure. The gov’t is quaking in its boots because of the power of loudmouthed yabos. But, hey, what can I say . . . if you’re feeling froggy, jump!

        • Michael Kollmorgen

          Yea, I just love what these idiots think they are going to accomplish.

          It ain’t gonna happen. If anything on that nature ever were to really break out, the very first thing the government would do is declare Marshall Law. Step out of line even a little bit, and your dead.

          These Weekend Warriors could never resist a regular military attack. Besides, they all quiver as it is when the wife demands him to be home for supper. Don’t listen to her – no piece tonight.

          If I ever have to arm myself against anyone, it would be to guard myself from these types of nutcases, not the government.

          • plc97477

            I kinda wonder how many of them even went into the service when they could. I kinda think it wasn’t many of them.

        • jgsoliveira

          Spoke and said. Well done!

      • plc97477

        Is someone a bit paranoid.

      • jgsoliveira

        Just by reading your crap I can tell you are a Willy Billy Republicon and you must look like these fools out there. And besides, we are talking about assault rifles, you ass hole! So, eat shit and die!

        • Steve_In_Indy

          Brilliant and well reasoned response. Does your mother know what you’re doing with her computer?

      • http://mohammeddressup.com/ I Zheet M’Drawz

        No one wants to abolish the bill of rights, just revoke YOUR rights.
        Crazies with guns in public…let me think now; could they be charged with assault (placing one in fear of their safety)?
        I think so.

      • idamag

        Be careful. The black helicopters are coming for your guns. Keep vigilant. After all, it is a mean, scary world, isn’t it?

    • neeceoooo

      I agree with your thoughts, the more the crazies come out such as the assault rifle toting idiot at the rally, the more chance we have of getting things changed.

    • plc97477

      If they keep this up they may even have trouble keeping water pistols.

      • neeceoooo

        Hehe, good one

  • Paul Zhaurov

    Typical brainwashed Americans. “DURR, MORE LAWS WILL STOP GUNS, YOU DON’T NEED THAT ARMALITE-15, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAKE IT FROM YOU.”

    They weren’t intimidating anyone. Those were law abiding citizens carrying firearms, as is their right in this country. You idiots wanting gun control, go read the Nazi gun control act of 1938. Study your history. The bill of rights is a BILL OF RIGHTS. Not a BILL OF NEEDS. It’s not about what you need or don’t need (although there is definitely plenty of reason to need the same weapons the military has). It’s about what your right as a free person is. If you can’t handle freedom, and the responsibility it entails, just go kill yourself or move to some dictatorial shit-hole, where the local regime will happily instruct you how to best serve the state.

    • idamag

      You need to study history from a reliable source. Hitler only forbid certain people to own guns. The German people have always been gun people. They hunt. Their guns were never taken from them. Facts – please.

      • Siegfried Heydrich

        Actually, Hitler seriously expanded gun rights, encouraged shooting clubs, and believed strongly in private gun ownership. For good Germans only, of course. Jews were expressly forbidden to own firearms. There were severe gun ownership restrictions imposed by France and England under the terms of the surrender, and it was largely a reaction to those restrictions that Hitler encouraged der Deutsche Volk to keep guns.

        This crap about how ‘Hitler came to power because he took everyone’s guns away’ is ridiculous. He seized power through political machinations, treachery, and brutal murders, and after that, the people were totally behind him until they started losing really badly.

        • Steve_In_Indy

          True enough, but taking guns away from the Jews most certainly made it easier to kill them off wholesale. He made sure they were powerless to fight back, then he rolled right over the top of ‘em.

          • http://www.facebook.com/BaronSieggy Siegfried Heydrich

            It’s not that it was a case of ‘taking the guns away from the Jews’. The Jewish culture has never placed much of an emphasis on gun ownership (actually, Europeans don’t fetishize guns the way Americans do, either). And seriously, had the Jews been armed, it just would have meant that when the brownshirts kicked in their doors, they would have been carrying guns themselves rather than truncheons, and they would have been killed at home rather than being shipped off to camps.

            What made killing the Jews so easy for the Nazis is that they had spent years ginning up the anti-semitism that was seething below the surface of German culture. The population enthusiastically cooperated with the roundups, and anyone expressing any opposition was likely to wind up in a camp as well. There wasn’t any option of ‘armed resistance’. Look at the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as an example of how futile that was. . .

          • Steve_In_Indy

            I’m not exactly disagreeing with what you’re saying overall, but I do have two very simple questions – which were my point:

            Did Hitler ban ownership of guns by Jews?

            If the Jews had guns could they not have made it more costly for Hitler to exterminate them?

            You’ve already written the essays trying to dodge those points, now just say YES twice and let’s move on.

            I’d rather die fighting than begging. Futile may be futile either way. Ultimately the point is that it would be much more difficult to do this to an armed people.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            This is the fallacy of the usual NRA Platform.

            Believe me, all these guys that are armed to the teeth won’t matter if the government does become ultimately Tyrannical. Corporations are already to a great degree.

            I don’t hear of anyone from the gun groups demonizing these Corporations which have bought and sold most of out elected officials even before they get into office. IF anyone is going to control what you do, it will be the Corporation. The government will be just another handy tool.

            These people’s intended targets is the wrong group of people. WE all should be going after these Corporations, their CEOs and their supporting legislators using the power of the people. These political and business creeps will more than happily ship every single job we have, our technology and our country’s wealth straight to China.

            They ALL should be tried for TREASON! You want to save America? This is the only way we’re going to do it, hopefully first by the vote. Get these Bastards out of office.

          • idamag

            It is not the people lobbying for gun regulation. You are right. It is the corporations that have sullied our democracy.

          • idamag

            Hitler did not allow Jewish people to own guns. When he started persecuting them, they thought the German people would not let Hitler do what he did and was in denial until it was too late. That is human nature. We have groups that are dangerous to the American society. We are not believing they could take our government away from us. As hitler used propaganda to brainwash the people, we have factions that are using hate and propaganda to brainwash our people.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            The way I see it you are one of the brainwashed. You work to empower the government to engage in tyranny saying all along “they won’t do that”. When the government steps over the line you say “they deserved it”. That’s close enough to what the Germans did for the differenced to be totally insignificant.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            The Jews were Pacifist. I doubt any of them at that time had any intentions of arming themselves to the teeth.

            Now, its a different story though.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Irrelevant. There are two points at hand: Hitler made sure they were disarmed and as a result they were unable to fight back.

            So what do you think, do people who will not fight for their own lives deserve to have others die to save them?

        • idamag

          Yes, and hitler used fear and hate to manipulate the people. There are factions, in the U.S. who use fear and hate.

          • BDC_57

            Like the tea party idiots

          • idamag

            And the NRA.

    • old_blu

      Nazis did not seize power by force of arms, but through their success at the
      ballot box (and the political cunning of Hitler himself). The 1938 law was just an extension of the1928 law. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves.
      There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories
      about Nazi’s seizing guns.

      • neeceoooo

        Very well said, that is what I like facts not just BS.

        • BDC_57

          All they do is spread BS around with out any facts.

      • howdidisraelget200nukes

        Sort of like how our government operates today. master manipulators like those pesky weapons of mass destruction were.

        • old_blu

          We are the government whom ever we put in office works for us. If we put someone in office that doesn’t have the best intrest of America in mind, it is our fault. So when you have people in office that worry about what other people (Koch brothers, tea party, Norquist, and the NRA) think then we need to get them out of office.

      • idamag

        Hitler also used voter intimidation.

    • plc97477

      Oh were you there?

    • jgsoliveira

      did you finish High School? How old are you?

    • Barbara Morgan

      You bring guns of any kind to rally like these women were having is is intimidation and alll that showed up with their guns should have been arrested for intimidation and bringing guns in a gun free zone which the women were in when they were at the courthouse. All you people that keep hollering the 2nd amendment gives you the right to carry weapons of all types when you get ready need to remember that you are not the only people that live in this country and that the rest of us have rights too.There so many guns and mental people with guns that no one is safe where we go because there are to many hotheads and people that drink alochol when they are carrying their guns that it isn’t funny and no one is safe especially when a drunken gun permit holder decides he is going to catch a crook but shoots 4 or 5 unarmed people.I felt safer before people started buying up guns like there is not going to be a tomorrow. Something else all the guns that people have today won’t help you defend yourself in your home unless you have great hearing or a burglar alarm to wake up so hopefully you can get all your guns together before your house is invaded by a bunch of thugs and when they invade they are coming after your guns more than anything else and gun owners are the biggest reason that criminals have so many different types of firearms and ammo, you had them in your home and they took them when you weren’t home or took them when they took you and your family hostages.

      • Steve_In_Indy

        Intimidation requires an actual threat. It is perfectly legal to carry a long gun in Indiana, therefore there was no threat, therefore there was no intimidation. This article is an inaccurate distortion that does not honestly portray what happened.

        The rest of your comment is troubling projection. You believe that you are incompetent so you assume everyone else is. Barbara, I’m sorry you’re so frightened of the world. Frankly, your irrational fears are really your own issue and should not be the basis of the way I am forced to live.

        Perhaps you should watch a little less television. Keep in mind that the movies aren’t real. Please, never, ever, buy a gun. It seems clear from the crazy things you say that you wouldn’t be able to handle the responsibility. Above all, seek help.

        • Barbara Morgan

          I don’t watch TV. I can remember a time when it wasn’t unusual to see pick up trucks running around with rifles and shotguns in racks fastened to their back windows and the drivers parking their trucks with their windows open and go into places to do business and not worry about their guns disappearing because no one would brother them and I was not frighten by these men and their guns, because they used their guns to put food on the table and didn’t carry them to just be carrying a gun because they had a right to do so. I am not incompetent I am afraid of most of the people that carry guns because there are to many hot heads in this country that think the only way to settle an agurment is with a gun and have settled their agurments with others with guns. So don’t patronize me with your smart aleck words. I had a gun and gave it up because I am one of those people with temper that shouldn’t have a gun so I do know what I am taking about which is more than I say for you. A case in point a man was shot point blank in Tennessee when he and an man got into agurment because the 2nd man thought the 1st man had parked to close to his van on purpose, the 2nd man took his legal gun from his van and shot the unarmed man point blank and is now serving a prison term, in Florida when a group of teenagers didn’t turn down their music when ordered to to by a man, he took his legal gun out and shot up the SUV the teenagers were riding in killing one of the teens that was in the back of the SUV. These are two of the incidents that made national news but there have been others that don’t make the national news just the local news where legal gun owners have shot each other while disagreeing with each other and where innocent people have been wounded by some one shooting at a target. That is the reason this senior citizen is afraid of legal gun owners more than she is the criminals.

          • idamag

            Barbara, well said. It is the caliber of people, needing loaded guns, everywhere they go that is disturbing.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            You admit that you are not sufficiently responsible to possess a weapon. You then assume that everyone else suffers that overwhelming shortcoming. You need to seek help. The problem appears to be yours.

            I’ve owned guns for over forty years. None of my guns have ever shot anyone. Ever. I’ve been in arguments while armed. It never occurred to me to shoot the other guy. Ever.

            You tell me you don’t watch TV, then you tell me about stuff claim you’ve seen on the news. Seems you’re not only prone to violence, but you tend to be a bit fast and loose with the truth.

            I’m a lot more afraid of liberals who think everyone is out to kill everyone else than I am criminals. I’ve been robbed at gunpoint under the gun free zone sign at a local college campus, so criminals come next. A guy who simply has a gun and is otherwise behaving isn’t even on my list. Why should he be? I know I’m not going to just up and shoot someone, why should I assume someone else is going to do such a thing?

            Again, Barbara, seek help before you harm someone around you.

          • Barbara Morgan

            I do not need to receive help, I read the news from several different sources and do so every day and I watch the news on my computer instead of TV. I was refering to not watching movies on TV in answer to your smart aleck remark about them not being real. But if you are thinking about the two shootings I posted about those were on the radio,, on the internet and in all the news papers where I live. I am not prone to violence, I do have a temper that I had to learn to controll because when I reached a certain point in being mad and started to cry I was dangerous and I realized that before I did hurt someone and have control of it now but I will not own another gun because there have been to many deaths in this country that didn’t have any thing to do with criminals shooting each other and innocent people but with to many people being willing to use a gun to settle a dispute or want their 15 minutes of fame for killing a lot of people. Like the men that showed up with their guns at the anti guns rally, they wanted publicity and to scare people when they showed up with their guns despite what you and they would like the rest of us think. They are the ones that need help.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            You bring up an interesting point: their 15 minutes of fame. What do you think, would this stuff happened if the crazies never got their fifteen minutes of fame? How many of these people are trying to outdo the last one? What if the media never made these guys famous in the first place?

            The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law abridging…” That left plenty of room for the States and even Municipalities to abridge as they pleased, and they did. That’s actually where the notion that the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not limited came from. Not all of the Bill of Rights are phrased that way.

            Shouldn’t we seriously consider laws banning what is essentially gossip? How many lives would be saved by a little bit of discretion among media outlets? Do you really need to know? Is your lust for sensationalized gossip setting up the next tragedy?

            Oh, and Barbara, everybody at that rally was looking for publicity. Everybody.

            One point you keep ignoring: all those evil guns and nobody got shot. Shouldn’t that have been impossible? Those guys went to show that guns alone are not the problem. The way the antis argued it was clear they weren’t intimidated.

        • idamag

          Up against the wall, red neck mother.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Your mommy must be proud.

          • neeceoooo

            hehe, pretty funny.

      • neeceoooo

        Thank you, the bottom line is we have right too. The right to go into a restaurant and not see someone toting a gun or attend a rally and witness the large gun that this person brought.

      • plc97477

        I don’t know if it will make you feel any better but gun ownership is going down with each and every shooting.

        • neeceoooo

          I hope you are right, the red state I live in doesn’t look as promising.

      • idamag

        And trying to intimidate a bunch of unarmed mothers is bullying.

    • idamag

      Be careful. They are out to get you. I hope you have a bunker to go into when the drones come. Is your heart pounding? How about that sick feeling in your stomach when the sun goes down?

  • http://www.facebook.com/carl.ziegler.35 Carl Ziegler

    they think they are helping, and all they are doin gis the exatopposite. People have a fear of weapons, openly carrying them is not one way to cure that. It is education that is needed, organise days at ranges allowing people to come and see for themselves that the weaponsa ar enot all held by idiots like this. I have taken several paople who did not like fire arms to a range and taught them to safely use them, most have enjoyed it and now understand why many of us shoot, and it has nothing to do with the constition but pure fun.

    • old_blu

      That’s what I’m saying don’t look like a crazy and try to get your point across to me, it won’t work.

    • idamag

      I don’t think people are afraid of guns. They are afraid of the nuts that carry them. Paranoid, scared people are not exactly what you want toting guns around in public. There are people denied drivers’ licenses because their driving could be hazardous to other people.

      • BDC_57

        No we are not afraid of guns just the nut who carry them. There a lot of idiots that think it';s cool to carry guns that should not have them.

  • howdidisraelget200nukes

    I like people that are only interested in protecting their own interests.

    Too bad gun ownership is a Constitutional right. Perhaps if you dont like the fact that we are free to own weapons, you should move to China where nobody owns them. Including the police.

    I get concerned when I see police chiefs walking around with stars on their collars like they are generals or something. I also dont like the fact that the police wear military uniforms and use the same weapons as the military, something that is illegal according to our Constitution which prevents the government from using the military in the Continental United States. The government is using the police as a de-facto army with “homeland security” and whatnot.

    We have the right to bear arms for multiple reasons. One is to prevent the government from becoming over bearing which is exactly what they have become with the subversion of the Constitution.

    The other is to protect ourselves.

    You are free to determine who you need to protect yourself from or weather or not to own a gun.

    Myself, I think that many of the mothers protesting are probably terrible drivers yet I do not attempt to take away their right to drive.

    • old_blu

      You do know that the amount of deaths by an automobile is about to be surpassed by gun deaths. Right?

      • montanabill

        Truth and non-truth. Only if suicides are included in gun deaths because they outnumber murders by almost twice, and only if motor vehicle deaths continue a downward trend. Otherwise, auto fatalities are three times the gun murder rate.

    • neeceoooo

      If you truly believe that the government is trying to take your guns then you are more paranoid than anyone thought. No one is trying to take your gun, it is the assault weapons and large magazines that are the issue and need to be off the street. The sole purpose of these types of weapons is for mass killing, pumping multiple rounds of ammunition into a body whether it is a deer or a person. If Adam Lanza had not had these types of weapons, 20 children would be alive today.

      You have every right to bear arms but you do not have the right to take the life of one innocent person and your right to bear arms also makes you responsible for the death of someone who was killed with one of your weapons.

      As far as mothers who are terrible drivers, there are just as many fathers who are terrible drivers and I am sure the ACCIDENT that killed your quoted 45,000 people can be traced back to the vehicle and the driver. Can you guarantee that the weapon used to kill someone be traced back to the owner whether it is the original or subsequent, I think not.

      • old_blu

        Very well said neece, your last two sentences was the best.

      • howdidisraelget200nukes

        Last time I checked, assault weapons were also guns. If Adam would have had care for his mental condition and if his mother had not provided him with an armory, this would not have happened.

        You should attempt to try to understand what the word “responsible” means.

        As far as your last statement goes, you are clearly delusional.

        • neeceoooo

          What if, what if, what if… If Adam Lanza and his mother had not had the assault fifle and clips, 20 children would be here today-bottom line. You sir, are the one delusional (or maybe you just need to get your head out of the sand).

          • old_blu

            Sand??

          • neeceoooo

            Well I was trying to keep it clean.

          • jgsoliveira

            He meant ass!

          • old_blu

            Hahaha, I thought so.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Yea, what if, what if. What if Adam wasn’t even born? What if his mother wasn’t born? What ifs can be forever.

          • Special Snowflake

            Adam Lanza did not have any “clips”. What he had were magazines.
            Magazines are metal or plastic devices for holding bullets in the gun.
            Clips are strips of metal for loading bullets into guns which do not use
            Magazines, or for loading the strips of bullets into magazines. Big
            difference (do a quick bit of internet sleuthing if that is not clear).

            Point
            is, the guns, and bullets, and magazines (not clips) are in animate
            objects. They don’t get up and go do evil. Evil people do evil. The same
            guns and magazines you demonize, are the same guns and magazines that
            officers bring to protect you when something bad happens.

            They
            bring high capacity magazines, and “assault rifles” because those are
            the most useful tools to keep you safe. It is the same reason that
            protection details for the president and important government officials
            are all armed with high capacity magazines (though, they also often have
            fully automatic guns, not the semi autos that most civilians are
            limited to).

            This is because the high capacity guns are
            useful tools. Police carry “assault weapons” (modern semi auto rifles
            with high capacity magazines), to protect them selves, and to protect
            you.

            I am no less important, or deserving of
            protection than you, or the officers who are issued military style
            rifles. Indeed, I feel that my family and I, and even my neighbors, are
            more important, and of much greater worth to society than you are.
            Shoot, I feel that even applies to important political figures. If I had
            to trade the life of my family for that of all the politicians in the
            world…………..I don’t think they would like how that decision ends.
            I would probably even feel bad about the few politicians that I
            actually respected and liked. My family is no less important than the
            police, or those they use their issued AR’s (AR-15’s……semi auto
            versions of M16’s) to protect.

            You call the police
            to come make you safe. I simply cut out the middle man. I call the
            police to respond once I am sure my family is safe. Shoot, I could have
            another person in the house call while I make them safe. Multitasking!

            When
            you call the police to come protect you (or your neighbor, or child),
            they arrive carrying high capacity magazines, with two or three spares
            for their handguns. If the situation is serious (ie the bad guy may be
            armed), they will grab their high capacity modern sporting rifle (read
            assault rifle), and go respond.

            When they arrive
            10 minutes later, the bad guy may have already killed you, or your
            family, or your children. Owing modern firearms (with scary high
            capacity magazines) allows those who are not afraid of the same rifles
            (you hope the police are carrying) to cut out the middle man. It takes
            seconds to put your hands on the gun near your bed, or that you carry
            concealed (if you have passed a background check and been issued a carry
            permit). You can protect your self, your own family, or neighbor if you
            are not too scared to do so. Or you can call some one else who is not
            afraid to carry a gun, and then whisper a prayer that they show up
            before your are killed.

            Listen to any 911 call.
            The caller through tears and shaking, will demand “Please Hurry. Please,
            God, Hurry. They are breaking in. Oh no, they are inside!” Response
            time in my town (which is pretty good), can be 10 minutes or more. I can
            pick up my gun, and be ready, and then dial 911 after I have assured my
            family is safe. If you are content to wait for the police, because you
            cannot bear the thought of handling the dangerous gun (which you
            fervently pray the officer has ready when he finally arrives), that is
            OK with me. Just don’t try and make me a ready made victim, because you
            abhor the though of dirtying your own hands with a “horrible, evil,
            nasty gun” (which again, you pray the police officer will have when they
            finally arrive.

            Ask any police officer if he
            would rather have his own gun handy at home, or be forced to wait for
            the response time of his own police department as his only means of
            protection.

            If any of the teachers had been armed, 20 children would not have died by Adam Lanza’s hands. When he shot out the window to get in, an armed teacher (or other security) could have been waiting. If the school zone was not advertised and enforced as a no gun zone some one might have been ready to stop him (which is what they called police for when he began shooting. “Get here, Please hurry, some one is shooting us” But officers were not there, and by the time a good guy with a gun got there, the bad guy with a gun had already killed 20 people.

      • cmb

        Cars are not designed to kill. They are machines/tools used to transport people and goods.

        http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf

        There were 10.8M car accidents in 2009 w/36,900 deaths or 3.42%

        Guns are designed to kill – some at greater distances and rates than others. Guns are machines/tools with no other purpose than to kill. According to the FBI, in 2011 guns were the preferred tool for murderers.

        Information collected regarding type of weapon showed that firearms were used in 67.7 percent of the nation’s murders, 41.3 percent of
        robberies, and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults.
        (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rape.)

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

        In 2011, an estimated 14,612 persons were murdered in the United States.

        . . .

        Nearly 44 percent (43.6) of murders were reported in the South, the most populous region, 21.0 percent were reported in the West, 20.6 percent were reported in the Midwest, and 14.8 percent were reported in the
        Northeast.

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder

        The South – where guns are easier to get – contributed 44% of the nation’s murders. But the Midwest, including scary Chicago & Detroit, where gun laws are stricter – accounted for only 20.6%.

    • jgsoliveira

      I don’t like to see people use the same weapons as the military too. I have a 22 semi and try to brake into my house! I do not need assault weapons or a bazooka to take care of a criminal. Besides, why do you say women are bad drivers?

    • old_blu

      “I like people that are only interested in protecting their own interests”
      You must mean like the NRA?

  • idamag

    Bullies, they are.

    • neeceoooo

      Paranoid bullies

      • BDC_57

        Chicken crap paranoid bullies.

  • montanabill

    Just keeping up the language that calls semi-auto guns, “assault rifles”. Until people want to start using correct terms, they come off uneducated yokels. All the flap about weapons, but none about the real reason for mass shootings: nut cases who have access to weapons. Kind of similar to attacking illegal boarder crossing by granting citizenship to those who make it. To solve a problem, you have to address the real problem.

    • cmb

      So, if “nut cases who have access to weapons” is the problem, why do you think GOTP Senate darlings (Cruz, Paul, Rubio) are pledging to filibuster the Background Checks bill?

      • montanabill

        If background checks are done as well as they are under current law, it will make no difference. A law that isn’t enforced is the same as no law.

        • cmb

          Why are you assuming that the Background Checks bill would make no difference? If you really believe that then it shouldn’t matter if the bill passes.

          But if, as you said, nutcases w/access to weapons are the problem and you reject Background Checks, what do you propose to address the problem?

          • montanabill

            Didn’t say that. What I am saying is that we have checks already in place that are not adequately followed. Until they are, what is the real purpose or usefulness of giving more power to government.

          • idamag

            The background checks, we have in place, have loopholes in them. Each state determines their own and some are as useless as the paper they are written on. Dealers at gun shows are required to do background checks. Individuals selling guns are not. An individual can bring 100 guns to a show and not have to do a background check.

          • montanabill

            Just which states do not use NCIS to do their background checks?

            Out of curiosity, do you know how many people have been shot in the last decade by guns purchased at a gun show from individuals?

          • idamag

            You know the controversy is out there with facts. You study both sides and decide which you believe in. The actual figures are 40% of guns are sold without background checks. Background checks are required by licensed dealers, but not individuals. The loophole does not limit the number of guns unlicensed individuals can sell. Out of curiosity, what does my personal knowledge of gun victims have to do with the national figures. I live in a state that does not have that many gun deaths and most of them are personal. The most dangerous group we have is the tea party.

          • montanabill

            I responded to this, but unfortunately I quoted politifact and included the dot com, which will probably get it blocked. In summary, the ‘40%’ number widely used by liberals was based on a survey nearly 20 years ago of 2500 households with only a 10% response. Not what I would call a very complete or accurate survey.
            I can tell that you know nothing first hand about the tea party, so just what leads you to believe they are the most dangerous group unless you simply don’t believe the Constitution should be the law of the land?

        • jgsoliveira

          That does not answer the question: If nut cases who have access to weapons is the problem, why don’t you say what you think about the Republican’s treat of filibuster background checks? after all, WE all want to keep guns out of nuts hands, right?

          • montanabill

            If BAT doesn’t do the background checks as required under today’s law, why should we give them more power? And that does answer the question.

          • plc97477

            todays law does not require back ground checks on guns purchased anywhere but in a gun shop.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Totally untrue.

            Any individual who buys and then sells guns for a profit must become a dealer through the BTAFE process. All dealers are required under penalty of law to use the NICS background check system, no matter where they are when they sell the gun.

            It is also illegal for any private citizen to sell a gun to an individual who may not legally possess one.

            You know, you could actually look this stuff up, rather than simply making it up as you go. It’s not really all that hard since it’s Federal Law..

          • neeceoooo

            If a gun is bought at a community gun show, there is no back ground check. If the person purchasing the gun marks “no history of mental illness”, who is going to question that. No one!

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Sigh. I’ll type it again, more slowly this time.

            If any gun is sold by a business, no matter where, even at a gun show, the seller must do a standard background check through the Federal NICS system. There is a Federal form involved and falsifying the information on that form is illegal. That’s a fact. Period.

            It is illegal for a private citizen to sell a gun to someone that person knows to not be legally allowed to possess one. That’s a fact. Period.

            Can people break the law? Yes. Are there penalties for breaking these laws? Yes.

            If you are arguing that people break the law, could you please explain to me what another law will accomplish?

          • Barbara Morgan

            I don’t know what gun shows you go to but all the states my newphew and his son have gone to gun shows there is no background check done if you buy a gun or several guns at a gun show, the NRA made sure of that when the first ban was made on certain guns under the Brady act.and got the gun shows exempted from doing background check.You need check your information source about there being a background check done at gun shows. because they aren’t.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            I don’t know how I can make this more clear. If a gun dealer sells a gun the gun dealer must, by Federal law, perform an NICS background check and get an ok to sell the gun. It’s Federal law. If you catch a gun dealer selling a gun without an NICS check turn them in. They are engaged in a criminal act. Period, Barbara. Period. Only private sellers may sell without a check. That’s the law. Say it as many times as you want, there is no “Gun Show Loophole” for gun dealers. You need to check your information source. I’ve already checked mine.

          • plc97477

            The operative word there is dealer. Guns can be sold by others and who is to do the back ground check then?

          • Steve_In_Indy

            I won’t disagree that buyers in private sales do not face a NICS background check. On the other hand, it remains illegal for anyone to sell a gun to someone they know may not own one. If I were to sell a gun (Which I won’t be doing – I don’t buy stuff to sell, I buy stuff to have and use.) I would require that the buyer show me his license/permit. That way I would know that the individual has passed a background check. This is, by the way, very common practice among non-criminal gun owners.

            Do try to keep in mind that criminals are the real problem here. There’s one fundamental detail about criminals that seems pretty universal: They do not obey the law. All that what you’re arguing for actually does is cause inconvenience for the law abiding, who are not the problem to begin with. All you guys are really doing is punishing us for stuff we didn’t do.

            The real problem I have with the whole Universal Background Check concept being pushed right now is the notion that it would require a background check every time a gun changed hands. How would that work? Should I take my grandson, who recently returned from Afghanistan, to a gun shop and have pay to have a background check so he can take my gun to the range, then do it all again when he brings it back? I’m legal, he’s legal, why is my letting him borrow my gun a problem for you? Would such a check be required to let a guy shooting in the lane next to me at the range fire my gun? Another for me to fire his? I have a couple of very nice, rather rare, pistols. Other “gun nuts” ask to shoot them. I practice strict safety, they practice strict safety, what’s the problem? Why should we have to go through all this to cater to your need to solve a problem that your solution won’t solve in the first place: criminals with guns.

          • plc97477

            The biggest problem is not criminals with guns it is crazies with guns. And back ground checks would help us keep crazies away from guns. And I don’t have any problem with you letting your grandson use your guns as long as you can promise he is not insane.

          • neeceoooo

            40% of the guns sold are sold without a back ground check.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Got a source for that. As I understand it, that one has been soundly disproven.

          • Barbara Morgan

            I am saying what I was told by my nephew who has no reason to lie about how he has bought guns in other states without a back ground check and you don’t know all the gun laws in all the states and if you had read all the different sources writing about gun shows and background checks you would have read that when the Brady gun law was put in place that the NRA was able to keep background checks from being done at gun shows.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            I got my info from a lawyer with direct links to BATFE documentation, which I verified. It’s Federal law. Your comment is entirely false, and based upon a misunderstanding of the law.

            Perhaps your nephew doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Perhaps he bought from a private seller. Either way, if you see any gun store selling without an NICS check, by all means turn ‘em in. It’s illegal no matter where it takes place.

            Seriously, Barbara, it doesn’t matter how many times you say this nonsense, it’s still not true. Perhaps you should look it up.

          • idamag

            Why are you against background checks/ Hmmm

          • BDC_57

            Probably he could not pass one.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            I’ve passed several NICS background checks to purchase guns. I’ve passed a State background check for my license to carry in Indiana. I passed a major investigation to obtain a Utah non-resident carry permit. I’ll bet you are the one who can’t pass a background check. Hmmm?

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Do criminals even bother with background checks? Certainly the current system has caught a few people who were not qualified to own guns, but as a percentage of those who have applied that number is extremely low. Why do something that doesn’t really work?

            Then there’s that little “..shall not be infringed.” thing. All current gun laws represent infringement. Does the Supreme Court allow infringement? Yes it does. Is that bad behavior? Well, it represents saying that no can mean yes when it’s convenient for the entity that was told no. Ask your Dad how he would feel if you told him yes could mean no simply because you wanted it to really really badly. Looks just like bad behavior to me. (I’m sure you know what the Constitution says about SC Justices and bad behavior.)

          • idamag

            Since every law, on the books, is being broken, why not do away with all laws?

      • plc97477

        Maybe because they are nut cases.

    • Michael Kollmorgen

      OK, tell ya what, next time someone talks about banning semi auto, lets rephrase it and call it exactly what it is, a Military-styled, semi-auto rifle, human killing machine.

      The Keywords here is Military-Styled and Human.

      Now, let’s see you wiggle out of this one:)

      • montanabill

        What do you mean by ‘military styled’? Does that mean it has rails for mounting scopes rather than old style scope mounts? Does that mean it has a way to mount a flashlight, like almost any other gun? Does it mean that it has an adjustable shoulder stock as opposed to a more fixed adjustment pad, as you might have with a shotgun? By the way, many of the ‘military looking’ guns, don’t have adjustable stocks. Is it military style because it uses detachable magazine as opposed to a tube that holds 20 shots? The vast majority of us who own guns of all stripes never view them as ‘human killing machines’. But like a butter knife, if it needs to be used for that purpose, it can be.

        • old_blu

          Word trickery again bill? You and everyone else knows what we are talking about.

          • montanabill

            Suppose you clarify it.

          • neeceoooo

            I don’t understand you narrow minded concern with what we call this weapon/gun/rifle, whatever. If it can fire multiple shots in 5 minutes or less, it needs to be off the street. What is the purpose of this type of gun in your little community of peace loving neighbors. Are you going to shoot a deer?

          • Steve_In_Indy

            It isn’t really narrow minded to recognize that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            A Revolutionary War musket or rifle can fire about three rounds a minute, assuming an experienced shooter. Even a matchlock (of course you do know what those were, right?) could be fired much faster than once every five minutes. You planning on putting us back in caves? Some civilization that would be. There you’d be, screaming to ban sticks.

            I have no real desire to shoot a deer. I own the weapons I do because they are fun to shoot and they can be used for personal defense. The Supreme Court has stated that the police have no duty to protect or defend the citizens. As we go about our lives we are on our own.

            The President, the Vice President, and Mayor Bloomberg have armed guards. They all want to disarm me even though I can’t afford to hire a room full of armed men to protect me and mine. Know what that means? We’re still on our own.

            Not all of my neighbors are peace loving. Some of them are criminals who would rob, rape, and commit home invasions. You will not force me and mine to be their victims simply because you are afraid of facing the harsh realities of life.

          • idamag

            Would you please share that ruling – date, time, and wording, with us?

          • Steve_In_Indy

            I responded with a link awaiting moderator approval. You can google for supreme court no duty to protect and find the answer. If you care enough about the truth to try.

          • montanabill

            Whether I want to legitimately go deer hunting, shoot at steel targets or participate in organized shooting events, it is my right, granted by the Constitution, to have such weapons. FYI, some of the people very near me and my peace loving neighbors, are not so peace loving. And, it is people like you who don’t see the danger of letting the government grow until it believes it can control every aspect of our lives. At some point, like in Cyprus, when the government wants something, it will simply confiscate it. Without an armed populace, it is certainly much easier.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Ahh, this is where the crux of the issue really is, isn’t it? Afraid of your neighbors?

            Honestly, I would be too IF their intent is to enforce their view of how they would want me to live upon me – IF they had the perfect opportunity to do so.

            And, it is these groups who seem to have the most horrible weapons. The more firepower they have, the more impressive they appear to like-minded people. This is where the biggest danger is too. It is self-perpetuating and evidenced by all the latest data from the FBI and Southern Poverty Law Firm, which shows a dramatic growth in hate groups, anti-government weekend warrior groups in just the last 6 years or so.

            Yes, you and everyone else should be scared to death over these people. If given the perfect opportunity, THEY would impose their version of what they deem their version of freedom and liberty on everyone else, except for themselves, of course.

            .

          • montanabill

            I’m not afraid of my neighbors, but we are wary of visitors from nearby neighborhoods. There is a good reason why our neighborhood hires full time security, puts up cameras, and watch out for each other. Those we are wary of, are not from hate groups or weekend warrior groups, either.
            The only weekend warriors I know of in this area, are civil war re-enactors, who, by the way, use a lot of your product.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Good, tell em about my business. Seriously, I’ll send you a Commission Check for any potential customer that leads to a sale:)

            But, I don’t consider these legit War Re-enactment groups as Weekend Warriors. I have a few very good friends in some of these groups, organizations.

            Mansfield, not far from where I live, once a year, there is a Revolutionary/Civil War Collectors Show. Wonderful stuff. Funny, when they shoot off their Cannons (full size and the real thing), they don’t set off car alarms. Mine does:)

            I worry about these self-professed anti-government military-styled Groups. These Hate Groups are in the mix as well. These are the people who can do the most damage to our democracy IF given the opportunity.

            There is a huge difference here.

          • montanabill

            No doubt about that. I used to live in Idaho and, of course, still have a home in Montana. Never ran across any of the supremacy groups and I don’t know if any still have compounds around. Most guys my age are cowboy shooters. At least those who didn’t get tired of competing against two hand holders with .38’s barely loaded with enough smokeless powder to go pop. Most of us are also long range silhouette shooters. In Montana, you can have 1000 yard ranges.

            My grandson is one of those re-enactors and they have a couple of full size cannons. Lots of noise and smoke, but not nearly the noise as if they were actually shooting a ball. Doesn’t set off alarms or scare the horses.

            I will tell them about your powder. Have you got a list of stores on your web site?

          • idamag

            They’re coming to get you in their black helicopters. Keep alert. Always watch behind you.

          • idamag

            I think you have a right to go deer hunting and shoot at targets. It is not people, like you, who is the problem. It is the paranoid, scared nuts with guns.

          • plc97477

            Only if you want ground venison.

          • old_blu

            Bill you are a very smart guy, (you know what I mean) you can read my rant above to Steve I hope that helps.

          • montanabill

            Not quite sure which rant, but I am assuming it was about the loons who dressed in camo and showed up with guns at a rally. I would be all for authorities confiscating their weapons. It is the loons on both ends of the spectrum that do a great disservice to our country.

          • old_blu

            You are absolutely right about that bill. You may want to book mark this to use against me later because it is one of the only times we agree.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Sorry Bill, but what they did was perfectly legal in Indiana. Had the police confiscated their weapons it would have been theft. Are you sure you’re in favor of the police stealing? Kind of makes it hard to tell ‘em from the criminals.

            Bear in mind that I do not exactly approve of what they did, though I do know a couple of them through an online forum – I commented to them that it would probably be distorted by the press and as a result would be used to show the pro-gun people in a poor light. Sure enough, that’s exactly what happened. Not so much as one pic of the hugging and good will the whole incident ended with. I’m sure that’s an oversight on the part of the always honest and aboveboard press. (I trust you can find the sarcasm in there.)

            I’d also like to point out that even though scary looking people showed up with scary looking guns nobody got shot. Nobody brandished (which is a crime in Indiana). Nobody was actually intimidated as defined by law. Nobody was actually threatened. Seems to me this proves that guns aren’t really the problem.

          • montanabill

            Points well taken.

          • idamag

            They were so cute, weren’t they?

          • Steve_In_Indy

            The (mostly) women who staged the anti-gun rally thought so. They and their kids posed for photos with those guys. There was a moment where they came close to singing kumbayah.

          • idamag

            Suppose you clarify it. General Crystal was on television one day and he said the same rifle used at Sandy Hook would completely destroy a man’s head at 1000 yards. I would consider him the expert here. One little boy, at Sandy Hook School, was shot 17 times. What do you think was left for his parents to bury? Do you want to visit his parents and tell them he wasn’t shot with an assault rifle? If they were using that gun in the gulf wars, wouldn’t that qualify them as an assault rifle?

          • montanabill

            I agree it was a terrible tragedy performed by a mentally deficient boy. However, that gun and one’s like it, were NOT used in the gulf wars. There is a difference between ‘assault rifles’ which can be operated fully automatic, like a machine gun and semi-automatic rifles that look similar but cannot be operated in a fully automatic mode.
            Yesterday, many other children were killed by errant automobile drivers.
            Do you wish to ban automobiles today?

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Word trickery? You mean the way the anti-gun folks call multi-purpose sport rifles “assault weapons” to make them seem more scary?

            I certainly know what you’re talking about. You’re talking about the sad fact that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Want to tell me about those evil hundred round clips? What would that be, six feet long?

            Inaccurate language indicates that the user is up to something devious. So what sort of cowardly back-stab are you guys up to again?

          • old_blu

            No actually I mean the way you gun advocates jump on someone because they don’t know the wording whether it is an assault rifle or not when it really doesn’t matter we all know what they are talking about. BTW do you genralize much, because I have many guns and I enjoy shooting them, but it doesn’t mean I’m not smart enough to figure out the status quo is not working, and we need better background checks I know bill says there are already background checks but only if you buy a gun from a licensed dealer you can and I have bought guns before from people that don’t even know your/my name let alone whether you are a felon or not, and that my closed minded friend is wrong, and you know it.

            I’m saying that is a pretty stupid argument that we shouldn’t do anything because someone doesn’t know what kind of gun they are talking about. We have to do something.

          • neeceoooo

            Great words, thank you.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Criminals break the law. Precisely what will one more law do to prevent that? After all, a law against illegal gun purchases and smuggling to Mexico did nothing to stop Obama and Holder from doing exactly that.

            Should you have to pay a gun dealer a fee for a background check to loan your gun to your son (assuming both of you are perfectly legal citizens) so he can take it to the range, then pay again when he brings it back?

            Obey the law. Enforce the laws that are broken. Make the penalties count.

            As I look down the comments here I find it amusing that you would call me close minded.

          • old_blu

            One more law may not do anything, but what if it did? I know not trying at all is not working. And now you’re bringing in the Obama hate card. Really? This story of a bunch of crazy looking guys invading a peaceful demonstration of Moms has nothing to do with Mexico, but way to bring up your own agenda.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            But what if it did? It didn’t the last time. Why try something that failed yet again? Are you expecting a different result? Didn’t Einstein call that the definition of insanity?

            You mean pointing out that even the President and Attorney General do not obey the law? Seems relevant. Is pointing out that the President has broken the law hateful? More hateful than punishing innocent citizens for the actions of a few crazies? Look at it this way, I didn’t mention that Obama authorized drone murders of US citizens without due process in clear violation of the Constitution and his oath of office. That, of course, would have been completely out of line. None the less, it still wouldn’t be hateful, just honest. You have a problem with honesty?

            The problem is that there were no crazy looking guys at the protest. It was really all quite friendly. They did not invade. They did not harass. They did not intimidate. The protesters and their kids even posed for photos with them. The photos were taken by the protesters themselves. That’s hardly the action of people who have been terrorized. This article is inherently false and misleading. Another good reason to discuss curtailing gossip hiding behind the First Amendment. It’s outdated, you know.

            Finally, allow me to point out that you making fake cannons has nothing to do with the protest either. Now you want to complain about others doing what you’ve done? Golly, that sure seems fair. Right?

          • old_blu

            What are you talking about? There never has been a law to have a background check when you buy a gun from an private person, I’m not for a ban on anything, you’ve got me mixed up with someone else, although I don’t see a reason to have large capacity magazines. *whispering here* I never told anyone about the cannon. (how did you find out?)

          • Steve_In_Indy

            No, you are right. There is no law stating that a private citizen must check the background of a person to whom they may sell a gun. None the less, according to Federal law it is illegal for anyone to sell a gun to anyone who may not legally own that gun.

            If I have mixed you up with someone else, my sincere apologies.

            30 round magazines for ARs and 20 round magazines for Five-sevenS (to name just two examples) are actually the normal sized magazines for which the weapons were originally designed. Further, magazine capacity is pretty much irrelevant to operation. Experiments have been done that proved that a magazine change does not afford anyone enough time to take the shooter down. In one test an individual with a backpack full of five round revolvers simply emptied one, then grabbed another He was able to fire at a rate that equaled an AR with a 30 round magazine.

          • BDC_57

            if you cant hit a deer in ten shots you need to quit hunting.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            But what if there are several deer and they’re coming right at you?

            Actually I don’t hunt. There’s a grocery store right down the street. Not to mention that’s not what the Second Amendment was for in the first place. (See Federalist 29 and Federalist 46 for help understanding that.)

            I target shoot and carry for the protection of self, family, and those around me. That will remain my Natural Right, even if the Congress ignores their oaths of office and make it illegal. Frankly, I don’t care if you want to lay down and become a victim. I’m not interested. Thanks anyway. Back when Uncle Sam insisted I drop everything and go to war to protect your grandparents (God knows I hope you’re not a grown-up with an argument as shallow as that.) they taught me to make the bad guy lay down and quit, not to do it myself. I listened. I learned.

            This isn’t about hunting. Never has been, never will be.

          • BDC_57

            I have been hunting never seen a deer run at you they always seem to go the other way.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Yea, they don’t like getting shot anymore than we do.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Michael, seriously. You didn’t get it? Really? I guess I’m going to have to type more slowly for you guys.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Sorry about your sense of humor, or lack thereof. Would it make you happier if I just trolled like you?

          • idamag

            State your studies. An example is the shooting in Tuscon. They were able to disarm the shooter when he ran out of ammunition and was trying to change the clip. Another incident out of that shooting: I was watching the aftermath on television. The reporter was asking bi-standers about the shooting. One man said he was in the Walgreen store when he heard gun shots. He took the safety off his gun and ran outside. He saw a man with a gun and drew a bead on him. Someone yelled in his ear, “That is not the shooter.”

          • Steve_In_Indy

            I posted an answer to this that contains a link and is awaiting moderator approval.

          • idamag

            As usual, some dip has to turn the argument political.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            The argument is political. How can you not understand that?

          • idamag

            Criminals break the law so let’s not have any laws.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Or just maybe enforce the laws we already have rather than making more to ignore when convenient.

          • idamag

            You aren’t afraid of background checks because you have no reason to be.

          • neeceoooo

            Please, if you guys would get off this insane notion of what we call it. It’s only purpose is to kill many people in the least amount of time.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            What you call “it” is wrong. That shows me you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. Why should I not point that out?

          • idamag

            I would say you are the one who doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. Go lock your doors against society. People are dangerous you know.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Thanks for the laugh. I’m the one suggesting that words actually have meaning. But hey, don’t let that keep you from making inane statements for purposes of self aggrandizement. In fact, I hope it works for you. Clearly you need all the help you can get.

            I know people are dangerous, I have to admit I’ve been surprised at the number of liberals who appear to have a murderous bent. Before all this started the idea of shooting someone over a simple difference of opinion never crossed my mind. Since then I’ve had several antis make it clear that such a thing has crossed their minds. Sure, the realization that liberals would be so quick to kill is mildly troubling, but I’m getting by. ;)

            By the way, your irrational projection is showing. I don’t need to lock my doors against society. I’m prepared, and if you passed me on the street you wouldn’t even know it. Unless, of course, you tried to do me or mine bodily harm. Then I would be fully prepared to tell you “No. Bad.”

          • BDC_57

            like the little green men he sees

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Thanks ever so much for elevating the discussion. Does your mother know what you’re in the basement doing with her computer?

          • idamag

            You are just one of the angry, scared, paranoids. I should pity you, but people like you with guns are dangerous.

        • Michael Kollmorgen

          Ahhhh, yea, a semi auto rifle that can hold 10 or more rounds, has multiple purposes? Hunters are going to hunting with it? I……Don’t……Think……So!

          In the state of Ohio, where I unfortunately live, you’re not even allowed to use a Rifle to hunt with, other than Black Powder. Even with Shotguns, you have to put a “plug” in the holding tube to limit the amount of shells you are legally allowed to use while hunting. From memory, I think you’re only allowed 1 in the chamber and 3, maybe 4? in the tube.

          That’s ok though, the Russians are importing a 20 round magazine for certain shotguns. Get em while ya can:)

          There is only one use for these weapons and designed for only one purpose – to kill as many humans as you possibly can in the shortest amount of time available. These weapons are basically the same “type” of weapons the Military uses, only civilians get the watered-down ones that are semi-autos. Also, let’s not forget, some of these can be converted to fully-auto.

          Actually, you guys are getting ripped with these high prices to boot.

          • montanabill

            Did you ever own a .22? Plugs in shotguns are generally required for duck hunting, but not for upland birds. Ohio may have their own rules, however.
            Your contention that semi-auto weapons are designed only to kill humans is in your mind. I’ve owned such weapons since I was old enough to have a hunting license and never once did it occur to me or any of my friends, that our guns were intended kill people. It never even occurred to us that we should even aim them at people, loaded or unloaded.

            Oh, current laws make it illegal for a dealer to sell a semi-auto that can be converted to full auto. If that is possible, it would certainly take a special license.

            And FYI regarding Black Powder, I can load a 44-40 Colt shell with black powder that will give my 1873 revolver almost 50% more power than a smokeless 45 ACP (for 1911 semi-auto Colt pistols). We also regularly load 45-70 shells with black powder for shooting at steel buffalo targets at 1000 yards with guns made in the mid-1800’s. They are pretty accurate too!

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            I am familiar with Black Powder. I am a manufacturer of Black Powder, Blank, Breech-Loading Signal/Salute Cannons from 12 Gauge to whatever caliber someone might want. Don’t believe me? go to cannonsusa(dot)com. Just send me whatever caliber you want and I’ll chamber the cannon for it.

            But, by Federal Law, I can not legally manufacture a cannon that will shoot a projectile. For this, I’d have to get a FFL. And, I don’t want to haggle with the paperwork and the legal requirements. So, I don’t.

            Sure, you certainly can do this. You can even overload and get a heck of bang out of it. OH yes, Black Powder Rifles can be extremely accurate. I like the Flint Locks. They even have the newer bolt actions. I love em:)

            Listen up, I’m not demonizing the right to bear arms. Not in the least. But, these guys were just plain stupid. They are not furthering their cause.

            Peace:)

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Cannons only exist for one purpose – to kill large numbers of people with each single shot. That’s the purpose for which they were designed. The ball is skipped through crowds of people killing many with each shot. You are clearly glorifying a murderous hobby by fueling the interest of deranged cannon nuts, inability to fire a projectile notwithstanding.

            Get the picture? While my statement about cannons is true, the comment about your intent/action is intentionally distorted to make an ad hominem point. Much like you, and most of the other people on this forum. I apologize, but I felt the need to make a point.

            Your previous comment did most certainly demonize the right to bear arms. Is there some part of “shall not be infringed” you don’t understand? Have you not read the Federalist papers? Are you expressing opinions without any basis in fact?

            I have an idea! Let’s do something about crazy people rather than getting distracted by the tools they use.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Glorifying?, I don’t think so.

            I’m not going to argue with you. You make some valid points. But, throwing everyone in the same pile of crap doesn’t serve your purpose.

            Yes, I think the right to bear arms should be supported. But, infringed upon is correct and justified under certain circumstances.

            These people who wrote any of these documents, including the Constitution are long dead, their thoughts just as antiqidated as 300 years ago proves them to be.

            We can’t keep trying to adopt 300 year old viewpoints to serve our modern age. Our society has become way to complicated. It’s like trying to get someone with End-Stage Altzimers to tell us what to do. It ain’t gonna happen.

            We have to look towards the future, not the past. We have to learn our history of what was good and what was bad. If not, we are doomed to repeat it over and over again.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Aren’t you guys throwing everyone into the same pile of crap?

            So you really don’t understand the “shall not be” part? That’s like “no” only longer. How do you react when your kids tell you that no can mean yes when they find it convenient?

            The First Amendment is just as antiquated as the Second. There was/were no TV, cable, internet, or high speed presses. If we need to scrap the Second should we not scrap the First? I know I really don’t need the constant inane prattle of professional gossips.

            Also, please note that the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…” leaving plenty of room for the States and Municipalities to make laws against the very things the Feds were denied the authority to abridge. Meanwhile the Second says “..shall not be infringed.” That’s pretty absolute.

            You want to learn from the past? Really? Ok. According to the FBI the previous weapons ban accomplished exactly nothing. No crime statistic changed in any significant way. Meanwhile Columbine took place smack in the middle of the ban. It didn’t work, yet we should do it again? Why?

            The guys who do these evil things are beyond a doubt crazy. Where’s the call to do something about that? There are over 300 million guns in the US About 0.00003% of those guns are used by criminals to kill people in any given year. You’re right back to throwing everyone in a pile of crap over the actions of a very few.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            I am not throwing everyone in the same pile of crap.

            Nope, not gonna do that. But, there is a pile for that group, Over there is another pile. Oh, yes, there’s one over yonder too. There ARE various levels of crap that just about everyone could fit into though, including myself.

            I’m an equal opportunity Crap Stacker. As far as I’m concerned, just about everyone fits in one type or another – one way or the other.

            “How do you react when your kids tell you that no can mean yes when they find it convenient?”

            First off, I don’t have any brats and I don’t ever think I will. BUT, if I did, I’d tell them, they are typical Politicians and probably Republicans. Yes, Democrats are good liers. But, Republicans get away with it better.

            NO, I don’t think we should entirely scrap the Constitution. I used to think we should at one time. We should take it apart piece by piece and improve parts that need changed and modify everything else. Sooner the better.

            “We the people” don’t mean anything anymore. I question if it ever did. That’s another huge pile of crap that needs to get De-Skunked.

            Our recent Supreme Court just trashed it when they gave Corporations virtually the same rights as humans. They’ve basically stated that Corporate Typewriter over there has the same rights you are I have.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            And there I thought Democrats were better liars.

            Actually I rather dislike both parties. Feel free to rant about Republicans to your heart’s content. I’m not one, so I’ll be glad to join in.

            So, it would seem that if a child did try that no can mean yes argument you’d consider it bad behavior. At least I think that’s a reasonable translation of what you said above.

            The Constitution is actually a very sound document as written. Note the “as written”. The whole point of my no can mean yes comment is that the Supremes have made that argument, though usually the long way around. In the end it remains bad behavior. If you drag out that Constitution you seem to think so little of you’ll find that it states that the Justices of the Supreme Court hold their offices in perpetuity under good behavior. Since they have functioned on the bench in bad behavior shouldn’t they have to go home in shame? A couple of the founders stated that the one thing they felt they did not dwell upon enough when writing the Constitution was the Supreme Court. They left too much of its job up to the Justices themselves. I believe the Justices have failed us.

            Personally I’d like to throw out all case law and start over with the Constitution as written.

          • idamag

            If you study the Constitution and all the arguments for and against before the final document was adopted, you will find the Constitution was meant to be amended.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            I recommend you start your studies with “The Great Rehearsal” by Carl VanDoren. You can also read the Federalist papers. They were the sales pitch by Madison, Jefferson, and the guys when the anti-federalists raised objections to the new Constitution. By the way, the Bill Of Rights are Amendments written in 1791 in response to the anti-federalist’s concerns. The Constitution was written in secret in 1787. They were supposed to be ratifying the Articles of Confederation under the Continental Congress.

            You can read an explanation of what Jefferson thought about citizens owning guns in Federalist 29, and what Madison thought about this subject in Federalist 46.

            Of course you doubtless already knew this, which is why you felt the need to tell me something painfully obvious. Not to worry, I’ve already read all that stuff.

          • plc97477

            No one (at least no one who matters) has suggested we scrap the 2nd amendment just fix it so crazies can’t do horrible things to many people.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Come on. How do you fix the Second so that crazies can’t do bad stuff without cancelling it altogether? Which would simply make it safer for the crazies who want to do bad stuff. Which wouldn’t be fixing it at all.

            Gun Free Zones do not work. Protect yourself. It is your obligation.

          • neeceoooo

            Your image of a cannon skipping through a crowd and killing as many as possible sounds like what was done in a movie theater a few months back. And yes, he was mentally ill and so was Adam Lanza and Seung-Hui Choi and Jared Loughner but for some crazy reason, they were still able to obtain an unbelievable arsenal for creating carnage. Keeping the weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill is obviously not working.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Yet again you show that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Cannons were used to literally bounce a large metal ball through a crowd of soldiers. Bullets, on the other hand, do not bounce along the ground taking out a dozen people at a time.

            There is almost no effort whatsoever going into dealing with mental illness in this country. That’s a major part of the problem. Are you trying to deal with that? Nope. You’re mindlessly vilifying folks who aren’t crazy. That’s just crazy.

            How many mental services facilities have been closed? Was that a good idea? Shall we talk about a real problem or would you rather just run in circles and panic?

          • neeceoooo

            You’re right, we do need to deal with the mentally ill but your wonderful president, Ronald Reagan, closed down the mental institutions and cut the budgets that left these people out in the street to fend for them self.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Ronald Reagan was a New Deal Democrat who called himself a Republican to make more money. I did not vote for him, though I did vote in that election. I have never supported his policies.

            That would be a swing and a miss.

          • plc97477

            No, you are right. Reagan closed the state hospitals because he couldn’t give the wealthy their tax breaks if we had to pay for keeping crazy people off the streets.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            The Cannon Balls you mention are at least 200 years in the past. Most Cannon Shells now explode either on contact or above a target, usually throwing out thousands of smaller steel balls, intended to do the most damage.

            Yes, you are right, there is very little effort to do anything about the mentally ill in our society today. What services there are is mostly lip service. Most are put in Prison (if found guilty of a crime) where treatment is really nothing more than, once again, lip service.

            Mental Treatment Hospitals need to be re-opened again. Those with severe mental disorders should be tracked for life, even the so-called non-violent ones. A National Database of all current and past people who either were seeing or currently are seeing therapist should be listed by their attending doctors – no exceptions and mandated by law. No one under or were under treatment should not be allowed to own a gun of ANY type, or have access to one.

            Anyone seeking to own a gun, and maybe current owners should submit to a full MMPI Psychological Screening Test to test for current psychological problems. The biggest question here would be; who would judge the test results?

            Anyone using any gun while committing a crime gets an automatic Death Sentence, no appeals either. Any Accidental Shooting that result in death – they get life in prison, no exceptions……………

          • Steve_In_Indy

            I’m not sure I’m ready to give that much power to a branch of medicine that is little more than “Witch Doctoring” and that appears to be a part of the problem. How many of these crazies were on, or had recently quit taking psychotropics? And then there’s that whole patient information issue. They wouldn’t sound a warning before, why would any legitimate shrink do so now? And seriously, can you pass that test? Are you sure? You do presumably move among us.

            As to your comments about automatic death sentence – wow. After all these years of liberals screaming to let criminals off easy now you want to just kill ‘em. Kinda blood thirsty of you, isn’t it? (This aspect of the liberal mindset has come to surprise me less and less as this argument has progressed and I’ve read what passes for liberal thought.) Does that mean you’re ready to give criminals real sentences for their crimes? What do you propose to do about the “Woops” factor. It would seem to be kind of hard to bring someone who was wrongfully convicted back to life once it’s found they were innocent. A huge number of annual gun deaths are suicides. What’s your master plan for punishing them?

            Seems like a lot of trouble to resolve an issue like mass shootings that are not really as common as being hit by lightning.

            There’s a funny thing about knee jerk reactions. They’re seldom well thought out. Maybe we need to work on all this just a little more before rushing off and passing a bunch of crazy laws. (Just a thought.)

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Yes, I am extremely liberal. However, that don’t mean I don’t have very conservatives views as well.

            The only viable solution I can see to quell this gun violence is extremely strict laws in regards to offenses involving the use of guns.

            Yes, you bring up a valid problem, what about the ones that were wrongly convicted? It has happened too many times in our justice(?) system.

            Hah, there are laws outlawing Suicide. I’d like to know how they are going to enforce this crime when the person is dead. This is just one example of all the stupid laws we still have on the books.

            Unfortunately, this country operates on Knee-Jerk reactions. It’s a Status Quo Thang.

            As far as doctors being Witch Doctors goes, emmm, they said that during the Dark Ages, usually by the Church. Are you implying that we should trust the Church in deciding who is and who isn’t a danger to society? IF that’s the case, we’re in it up to our Eyeballs. Someone with education has to make that decision. So, doctors are the final answer then. But, keep politics and religion the hell out of it.

            Would I pass that sort of test? I’ll be honest – probably not. I have too much anger and frustration to own a gun. At least I know it and fully admit it to myself. But, that sort of test would weed out that ones that don’t or won’t deal with their problems. And, you can’t lie on that test unless you are a pathological lier.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            My point about witch doctors was that mental health medicine is still not a very sound “science”. It’s little more advanced than using leeches to bleed the patient’s bad humors. If the patient lives he’ll feel much better. Or not. They prescribe medicines for depression that can cause thoughts of violence and suicide. How many of these shooters were on, or recently quit taking psychiatric drugs? Could psychiatry have helped trigger some of these evil events? Don’t bother, you really don’t have the answer to that one either.

            Certainly this is something we need to look at, but is it really ready to be made pivotal? Aren’t pathological liars an example of the very people one might want to keep away from guns. Doesn’t that bring into question the actual value of the tests? Shouldn’t it?

            In the end your whole argument revolves around punishing people for things they haven’t done yet. You haven’t gone crazy and killed anyone with a meat cleaver. Yet. Perhaps we should apply some prior restraint and lock you up, just in case. Or is that an idea best applied to someone else?

            Thanks for not being armed. Not meant as a wise crack. Seriously. I appreciate the responsibility that represents.

            Until I started discussing this issue in various places the notion of shooting someone over a difference of opinion had never entered my mind. Since then I’ve learned that there are an alarming number of liberals who seem to be very violently disposed. Certainly this worries me, but I don’t see giving up my guns as a sensible solution to their problem. What if one of them goes over the edge, which appears to be much closer than it should be. How am I to defend myself? Could this be the entire point? Hmmm.

            From my perspective your (liberals in general) arguments seem to be pretty good arguments to not accept your arguments.

          • idamag

            Assault rifles are the replacement for cannons. The person who is going to run in circles is the scared person, like you.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Not really, but so what if they were? Most of the cannons used at the beginning of the Revolutionary War were privately owned. More than half were privately owned at the end of the war. Seriously, you need to study some history.

            I’m not scared. You guys, on the other hand, seem to be trembling in your little bootsies.

          • idamag

            My guns are locked up. I have never even thought I might need them for protection. I have walked the streets some of the largest cities in the world and the U.S. without so much as a pocket knife. So who is scared here?

          • plc97477

            And you seem to forget the “well regulated” part

          • Steve_In_Indy

            No, I’m not. In 1791 “well regulated” meant well trained. It did not mean well controlled by the Federal Government. Statements made by Madison and Jefferson among others show fairly detailed examples of this meaning of the term. The notion of the Federal Government having the authority to regulate everything within the nations borders is quite new and is a construct of the Supreme Court not actually found in the Constitution. The Constitution as written very seriously limits the authority of the Federal Government. Seriously, you can look this stuff up if you try.

            Perhaps you’re forgetting that the Second Amendment says “the right of the people”, not “the right of the militia”. The phrase “the people” was used several times in the Constitution. In none of those places could it have been replaced with “the militia”. It clearly referred to the people as individuals, not as a group of any kind.

            Militias have two forms: active and inactive. As of 1903 all active State Militias were combined as the National Guard. Absolutely nothing has changed about the nature of the inactive militia. According to the Indiana Constitution that includes all persons above the age of seventeen. No upper age is given. That means I’m a member of the Indiana inactive militia. If you’re above the age of seventeen you’re probably a member of your State’s inactive militia, even if you don’t know it.

          • idamag

            The words, “regulated” and “training” have different meanings.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Today, yes. Then, no. Seriously, why do you try to lecture on things you clearly know nothing about? The Founders spoke about regulation as training often in their papers, all in direct reference to the militia. I know because I’ve actually read them. Based upon what you say it’s clear you have not.

          • idamag

            If our founding fathers had known the country would be overrun with anti-government paranoids, they would have been more explicit with the second amendment and they would have closed loopholes.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Federalist 46 and Federalist 29. Read ‘em and cry like a baby.

            There are no loopholes. “..shall not be infringed.” is pretty clear.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            I think if our founding fathers had a view of society as it is today, the “shall not be infringed” statement would have been modified greatly. They never thought that a gun could be as powerful as it is, or be able to be so accurate as they are, or shoot as many rounds as some can.

            I’m sure they would have thought that in the hands of some, it could become a threat to everyone else and of the government itself.

            Don’t make any mistakes, these people were thinking of the future of the country. But, they didn’t think far enough in the future. And, we can’t base our views on their lack of knowledge. We have to deal with today and our “current” problems.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Sorry. Still wrong. At least you’re consistent.

            Franklin was an inventor. He knew about the progression of arms from matchlocks through wheel locks to flintlocks. I ROTFLOL at the silly notion that more progress would have never occurred to him.

            Read Federalist 29 and Federalist 46.

          • montanabill

            I cannot argue against the stupidity of those guys.

            On another note, I will point out that cannons, such as those you can make, were available at the time the 2nd Amendment was penned. It does not prohibit or place restrictions on the populace to own cannons, which would be considered ‘arms’. Therefore, any restrictions passed by Congress on owning or operating cannons, would be unconstitutional. It just hasn’t been challenged.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Well, the ATF has fully approved my designs for general ownership by anyone, of course above the legal age. And, if a cop tells you can’t, they’re full of crap.

            The Black Powder Hobby is full of funny little laws. In my particular product, it is classified as a Signal/Salute Cannon with the only sole purpose is to make noise. The size and dimensions of it is why the ATF approves it. Their reasoning is that it would be too big to take into a bank and try to rob it.

            People can argue that it can be a weapon, meaning able to shoot projectiles, which they can under certain circumstances. But, when someone purchases one of my products, they must sign a Disclaimer Form specifically agreeing that they won’t. If they do and someone gets hurt, the full responsibility is on their heads, not mine.

            The vast majority of my sales have been to Schools; High Schools, ROTC and Military Academies, These are used during their Football Games. I’ve also sold to War Re-inactment Clubs, one recently to a Funeral Parlor and a Car Sales business. I’ve had former Police Officers purchase them as well.

            The only thing that prohibits its use is local and state noise abatement laws. Here, in Ohio, there are none.

            It’s an interesting Hobby and Business. But, I don’t sell a lot of them, only recently due to the bad economy. Things do seem to be picking up a bit however. It’s a long story how I ever got involved with it. Sometimes I wish I hadn’t.

          • neeceoooo

            So you say you own semi auto weapons and yet it has never occurred to you to use it against a crowded theater or an elementary school classroom but can you guarantee that this semi auto rifle will not be used by one of your children or a relative who can get access to it. Do you keep them under lock and key?

          • montanabill

            All weapons, indeed, are kept under lock and key, whether late model semi-automatic or 1800’s single shot. I also cannot guarantee that sometime in the future they won’t be used against a tyrannical government or to protect someone from a violent break-in.

          • plc97477

            Apparently Nancy Lanza’s guns were not kept under lock and key.

          • montanabill

            It was her misguided attempt to connect with a child who had severe mental problems. Any competent therapist in the field would have strongly recommended against her actions.

            I recommend watching this:
            http://adask dot wordpress dot com/2013/02/22/common-sense-on-gun-control/

          • neeceoooo

            Somewhere in that comment I got a sense that you might be a little paranoid of our government. I think you might need to have a little therapy to overcome this.

          • montanabill

            Try this:

            http://adask dot wordpress dot com/2013/02/22/common-sense-on-gun-control/

          • idamag

            Try this: Instead of sending people to a web site that reinforces what you already believe, try reading both sides arguments and try to understand the other side.

          • montanabill

            Actually, the web site reinforces the law. A point made was that, in order to change the law, a new Amendment is required, not unconstitutional law by the legislature.

          • idamag

            A semi-automatic assault rifle is only to kill as many humans in as short a time as possible.

          • BDC_57

            You are right they made for killing deer they made little 6 and 7 year olds.

          • montanabill

            A flawed opinion on your part. I have semi-automatic rifles and pistols, and I have a great many friends that have them also. Not one of us has ever considered them for your scenario. You have tarred millions using the actions of less than a handful of mentally deficient people.

          • idamag

            Only 1% of the population is criminal. The laws aren’t made for the majority. I know a person who collects guns. He has around 200. Some of them are assault rifles. They are locked in a temperature controlled vault. I am not afraid of him owning guns because he respects them, but is not obsessed with them. He never carries loaded guns in public. However, everyone who has guns is not sane like him or you. As you can gather from posts, some are afraid and have them for protection. And, some are nuts.

          • montanabill

            And,readily admitted by those currently proposing new gun laws, none of the proposed laws would have had any effort on the Connecticut shootings. So why aren’t they proposing legislation that would have had an effect rather than law simply trying to further enlarge the scope and reach of government? Not one single idea toward helping those with mental disability.

          • TruthFinderXXX

            Don’t confuse them with facts, their brains bleed

    • old_blu

      I’m including suicides by automobile as well. It doesn’t matter it’s a death.

      • montanabill

        I don’t think you have any numbers on suicide by automobile, but since two thirds of gun deaths are suicides, what leads you to believe those people would not have simply chosen another means?

    • neeceoooo

      Your comment has hit the blog before and it looks to me like you are merely trying to muddy the water. Actually, it looks more like smoke and mirrors to me.

      I am not a gun expert, in fact I don’t own a gun and never have and never will but I do know that if a gun can explode multiple rounds into people or peoples or children, it is an assault weapon. The fact that he shot off 155 rounds in 5 minutes is unfathomable.

      • old_blu

        neeceo you don’t have a gun? How are you going to survive the zombie apocalypse, the government take over, the gang banger attacks? That is sarcasm BTW.

        • neeceoooo

          Thanks, I did pick up on the sarcasm

        • BDC_57

          Yeah a bunch of chicken shits don’t they.

        • plc97477

          We are just going to put our tin foil hats on really well.

      • montanabill

        Actually, I’m trying to add some clarity. Your definition of an ‘assault weapon’ would fit almost every gun ever made. However, the main focus of the discussion should be on the mental condition of those who perpetrate such acts, not the weapon, since almost anything can become a weapon to someone as mentally unstable as the shooters in Connecticut and Colorado.

        Since you don’t know what an ‘assault rifle’ really is, you are being mislead by those who claim to want to ban assault rifles. Fact is, they are already banned. The ‘assault rifles’ by their definition is filled with lots of shades of gray and lots of possible unintended (or intended) consequences. Think of it as being told that a 32 oz soft drink is more dangerous than two 24 oz soft drinks.

        • plc97477

          Assault rifles were banned but someone let the ban expire for some stupid reason.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            Do you know what that “stupid reason” was? According to the FBI the previous ban didn’t change anything. Let me type that again since so many of you guys have trouble understanding. It did nothing. In fact, Columbine happened during the previous “Scary Guns” ban. So, here’s a great idea: We should do the thing that didn’t make any difference all over again, hoping for a different result. Oh wait, no, that’s still a stupid idea. Einstein called that insanity.

          • neeceoooo

            The reason the previous ban did not change anything was because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and the NRA is in their back pocket. Over the last three decades, gun activists and lawmakers have purposefully hindered the ATF and carefully molded the agency that enforces gun laws to serve their own interests, stunting the ATF’s budget, handicapping its regulatory authority, and keeping it effectively leaderless. The bureau we are counting on to lead the gun control push is a disaster…by Republican design.

          • Steve_In_Indy

            BATFE is in the NRA’s pocket?!?! That’s nothing short of insane. Seriously, you should seek mental help. Really.

            Rag on the Republicans all you want. I think they’re just as crooked as the Democrats.

            “..molded the agency…” That would be funny if it weren’t so pathetically sad.

            No “Evil Black Guns” were manufactured here or imported during the previous ban. None the less Columbine occurred – and they didn’t use so much as one “Assault Weapon”. According to the FBI nothing changed, even though the ban did exactly what it was supposed to do. It was a misguided idea then, it’s a misguided idea now.

            Seriously. Seek help.

          • montanabill

            You really don’t understand what an ‘assault rifle’ is. Real assault rifles are still banned except for people with very special licenses.

          • neeceoooo

            There you go with the word games again

          • montanabill

            You might consider it word games, but I consider it not knowing what you are talking about.

      • TruthFinderXXX

        O. K. if he had used a shotgun without a plug, and only fired 5 shots you would be good with that? 1 shot shell of #4 buckshot has 27 pellets do the math and you get 135 projectiles, and that shotgun is what we use every year for hunting ducks, geese, pheasants and deer.

    • idamag

      Oh, come off it. Trying to prove how many angels can fit on the head of a pin is silly. So it picking straws. Semi-automatic rifles are assault rifles.

      • TruthFinderXXX

        I hear you, but you are mistaken.

  • jgsoliveira

    Such a big gun! Such a small fuse!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gerard-Heck/690768795 Gerard Heck

    The only thing that gun control legislation is intending to do is to keep powerful weapons off the streets and out of the hands of those who who have tendencies to commit mass murder in public areas. It is a complex solution but needs to be done and soon. Anyone trying to say otherwise is not focused on the problem….indifferent, non-empathetic, self centered and out of touch and not supportive of the victims of violence. We should do what we have to do to protect our society from gun violence and that is probably something of a balanced solution where banning certain weapons, background checks and increased security are probably part of the solution. Personal security is probably part of the solution also but carrying loaded assault rifles to a rally with housewives with signs is a self centered show of ignorance to what the real problem is.

    • old_blu

      I absolutely agree with what you say, the ones that are doing this must think the status quo is working and it is not, and something must be done. Background checks for everyone is a good start, it sure can’t hurt any of the “responsible law abiding gun owners” if they have nothing to hide.

    • TruthFinderXXX

      Do you realize that just a few years ago you could buy a semi auto copy of an AK 47 for $99.00 at a gun show.

  • Steve_In_Indy

    I know several of the counter protesters. This article is a huge distortion of what actually happened. Nobody, save perhaps one person, was in any way afraid. The entire situation was fully respectful and safely handled. The families posed for pictures with the counter protesters. The lady who organized the event stated that they simply had a difference of opinions.

    The comments here seem pretty much normal for the anti-gun crowd. Nothing but mindless insults. How very mature of you.

    This took place in Indiana. It is perfectly legal to carry a long gun in Indiana. The people with pistols were all licensed, meaning they’ve been investigated. Before you offer back a snotty comment, have you passed an FBI investigation? I have. The counter protesters have. I’ll bet the protesters haven’t.

  • USSA

    “pass stronger gun measures that the majority of Americans support.”
    A majority once supported slavery too.

  • http://mohammeddressup.com/ I Zheet M’Drawz

    Looky here…these guys are all suffering from penis envy since theirs no longer work.

  • Red_Ruffansore

    Why would they show up armed at a cackling hen fest? Near as I can tell, all there were clueless beyond any measurable boundaries. Read what the founding Fathers thought and understand why EVERY amendment was important otherwise someday somebody might not like your favorite amendment…say the first amendment, line you up against a wall and shoot you. Communists are known for that, first they disarm the populace, then they trim the herd. Seriously, crack a history book and stop watching Oprah.

scroll to top