so, for one issue, you'd have everyones other rights abused?! why not work toward legislation seperate from "gun control"? you have to see, this is how he gets you good sensitive people to go along, just ad in one piece to the unconstitutional puzzle, and you think it's a good thing. things can be done, but in a sensible LEGAL way. let's go after the real problems, not my firearms, which have never been usedin a crime!

This portion of his speech has been needed deperately since they reduced or eliminated facilities across America. They either can't access assistance or they have no shelter for security, all in the name of equal rights. If court ordered doors should be shut with maintenance from an outside source to prevent abuse. But there should be more access to voluntary submission that can accommodate the indigent.

It's a complete waste of time and seriously infringes 2nd amendment rights. Obama is playing with fire on this one.

Neither do your spelling skills....................

I think it would work if we had a consistency among all states. Doing nothing is no the answer. Why is it more difficult to get a drivers license and to buy and sell cars. We can't just give or sell our car without filing the proper paperwork. I was astounded to find out nothing is required when selling your gun to someone else. Now that is insanity! And no one needs any firearm that is capable of killing so many in such little time.

Alice, to start with they give you the answers to all the questions at the DMV.
2nd you do not have to do any paperwork when you sell a car.
3rd, in Illinois if you sell a gun to someone with out a F.O.I.D. card both are guilty of a felony. Evan at a gun show.
So do not believe everything senator Durbin says.
Some people get drunk and use a car to kill people, maybe the government should take all the cars.
It is the same logic.

How do you know?...It's never been been seriously tried in this country.

You know what really doesn't work?...Twenty first graders dead at the hand of a mad man....That's what "doesn't work".

@ brian

Where from your fertile mind do you come up with this stuff? The murdering that took place at Sandy Hook is not about crime prevention, its about how easily apparently disturbed people can get a gun. What's the connection you are trying to make about criminals have guns and we are all defenseless? You want a gun, then go buy one. what's your complaint specifically?

Buying into the nanny state mentality requires suspension of disbelief.

It's not logic that drives this desire to disarm people - it's a deep desire to live in a fantasy world where nothing bad ever happens to anyone and you personally don't have to deal with the reality of human nature and the fact that evil exists.

Just hide your head in the sand, keep turning over ever increasing amounts of money to politicians who will feed your fantasy of a future utopian world where you personally don't have to do anything - everything is done for you.

It's a nice fantasy, but it's a bunch of BS.

It didn't work for Neville Chamberlain and Woodrow Wilson.

Mao tse Tung: "power grows out of the barrel of a gun"
Wayne Lapierre "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,"

That's a hard reality but lemmings would rather believe in the fantasy that Barrack Obama and Dianne Feinstein can just pass some laws and the badness go away.

Or, maybe, just give everyone free marijuana and maybe not so many people would care about owning guns. ;-)

or no libs.....

And no more gun loving nuts

ms. campbell, maybe you should re-watch the press confab. during it his highness said he wants congress to pass the senates assualt weapons bill. that is the diane feinstein proposed bill; in that bill it calls for the confiscation of legally owned firearms, and not just "assualt weapon looking" guns. please become an informed citizen.

@ S. Sloane

Once something becomes illegal it is no longer legal and can be confiscated. Booze is an example. Things can an do change, get use to it.

Timothy McVeigh killed 19 children, he murdered 168 people total and injured over 800.

Those people didn't die because he had a magazine capable of holding 30 rounds... He didn't use an "assault weapon"

This is not about making our schools safer. Nothing in what Biden, Obama or Feinstein are doing is making our schools safer.

They are using a tragedy to engage in agenda pandering while not doing a single thing of significance to make our schools safer.

wrong madam. i voted for mr. romney, so much for your assumptions. try looking up history, and not assuming again, it was the u.s. supreme court in the 1960's that ruled crazy people could not be held in mental fascilities if they weren't criminal. that's why funding was cut, mental homes closed, erc. that was done by a very liberal court!

well 3 cheers for your 3 sonds.. what wrong with the other 2? i have 4 kids and all are serving, so what?parenthood has nothing to do with this issue, it's a red herring you libs like to throw out to confuse the issue, typical! i served in the army, and am damn proud of it, i'll toast your brother later as a fellow serviceman, as i understand him more than you do. but again, another red herring! just because YOU don't want an "assualt looking rifle" doesn't mean i can't have one! to each his own lady!

FYI: In Illinois our DEM Governor Pat Quinn recently cut many services including mental health facilities as well as state employment offices that helped people seeking jobs. So lets not be so quick to blame the GOP over such decisions. Face it folks; DEM or GOP, there is no "party of the people."

Thanks, Carolyn...I see the gun nuts are out in force, and however the two groups overlap, I must say you are right on the Obama Haters; This man can do nothing right by them, the joke being, if he ended World Hunger, the Right would accuse him of promoting obesity.

Clearly, we need more gun safety laws and EVERY poll available shows that the majority of Americans are in agreement. Even Seventy Five percent of NRA members agree with the idea of banning assault weapons and high capacity gun magazines. As for hysteria regarding the proposed bans on these weapons, the opponents to these laws need to realize that such restrictions are NOT new and that there is NO reason that hunters or recreational gun users need them These are weapons of WAR and have no place in civilian society. The complaints that that the president is focusing only on high powered weapons, are blatantly false, as improved mental health monitoring and research into the causes of these massacres form a substantial part of his proposal.

As to the supposed "right" to own mass killing machines, I'm afraid that is greatly surpassed by our right to be safe in our movie theaters, our shopping malls, and, above all, the schools in which our children study..

Crazies???? You're right there at the top of the list!

what flavor is that coolaide you're drinking? and what color is the sky in your world?

AM Kelly. Sadly you are right in there with the rest of the people who just don't get it. This is a Constituional Republic and this has to do with the Constitution NOT "gun nuts" as you describe people. And of course this tragedy and the children will be used to try and more damage our rights. If you look at this tragedy in Connecticut you will see that this mentally ill young man was the son of a "gun nut" as you would describe her. As a parent she was simply a careless person. Take responsibility for your kids and your actions instead of blaming everyone else for once. The fact is this will do NOTHING, zero to stop crime or murders. I invite all of you do gooder "nice and civilized" people to take a walk thru Englewood at night and see if you think more laws will help. The people committing over 500 murders in Chicago in 2012 are not legal and responsible firearm owners. Do you think they will suddenly change their ways and become responsible, law abiding citizens ? Chicago has the toughest unconstitutional gun laws in the country. The 2nd amendment was written for the purpose of the people being able to protect themselves from government tyranny. Not hunting. There are plenty of "laws" on the books already. Lets ENFORCE them and hold criminal responsible for their actions. Go to jail for your crime and actually complete your sentence. But that would be common sense which is not politically correct.

I agree with you Elizabeth, god watch out for POTUS, because no one wants Biden in charge.
O wait the libs pushed God out of the schools and are trying for every where else.

no, we needed a family member to make sure she tok her medication, we also needed a brave soul with a gun at the mall to shoot her in the head and stop her! obama, in his speach the other day, said that, none of these thing would have stopped sandyhook, or any other of the mass shooting, but we have to start somewhere. don't you see? he knows none of it will do anything but eventually try to take our guns away from us law abbiding citizens.

And just how is gun control suppose to stop Syvia Seegrist from becoming violent? Ok you say well if she used a knife or a baseball bat there would have been less casualties. But does that really matter? Especially if that one casualty happened to be a loved one of yours? Its not the gun it's the lack of respect we hold for each other. It is the casual inattentiveness we have for our treatment of each other. It is the all mighty do gooder who's son comes home and says they are picking on me and then says "aww that's terrible honeybunny I'll go to school and tell that school I will sue if it isn't stopped." How about telling that child that those words are meaningless and help direct him on how to find some good friends for a peer group. Tell him to suck it up because there will be many times in his life when people will try to drag him down to elavate themselves. How about allowing each child a special time in the beginning of the day to say a prayer of guidance in whatever avenue of beliefs they follow. How about more viligent teachers, (those people who have taken at least two psycology courses to get their degree. How about making it harder to access a school. I can't access my work without an id why should a school be any different. This isn't little house on the prairie any longer. How about communities where neighbors can count on the assistance of neighbors; Church and local government.

test2131313...Please.. Alcohol and any number of things may kill people but it's not DESIGNED for that purpose -- High capacity assault weapons ARE designed to kill people and NOTHING else.

Beyond that your "base" comment couldn't be sillier: A. The president doesn't need to appeal to his "base" anymore since he's not running again.

B. Alcohol consumption is hardly the province of one person or party's "base" -- John Boener, who worked in his family's saloon growing up, is said to have a healthy liking for the stuff.

Sorry what is alcohol designed for then? its poison.

Sorry but have you every heard for shoot for sport? Target shooting? Hunting?.......

and because both parties support it does not make it right.

Get real with that crap.

That's exactly my point, if this legislation was so sensible and good.. and we should "control" ergo punish the masses for the mistakes of the few... then we need to look at cell phones, and alcolhol..

FYI - I am adamently against all of that, I am simply pointing out, that our hypocritical government will only address issues that get them votes. my real point being that alcolhol kills, rapes, and abuses more than gun ever do, and it never even debated.

yes i read them, so i doubt you really did! they are not common sense, unless your plan is to make things more difficult for non law breakers and eventual confiscation of our property. i agree, people are stupid, and selfish (the texting issue you mentioned) but the answer is simple in both cases, punish the law breakers under the laws we already have in place! giving my a hassel over my firearms isn't going to do anything to stop the next shooting. an armed guard at the school, and the mall will!

Cell phones aren't protected by the constitution, but apparently they're killing people.

Why doesn't the president and his senile sidekick ban cell phones?

Alisk, I agree with you on the president's proposals, and on the whole, I think the American people are smart enough, but I wouldn't vouch for the intelligence and/or emotional stability of the gun nuts. They seem quite paranoid, and I say that as a victim of home invasion AND the owner of one old fashioned shotgun.

jon, you need to get out more and meet folks outside of your present circle, lol. the natl. polls as of yesterday are running 2/3 against the presidents ideas! talk about wearing blinders.

Jon, where on earth did you get your figures? The vast majority of our country???? What country are you living in?

Why does everything always come down to name calling? simple minded? And how do you know it is the vast majority of the country that believes like you? Because that is what you were told? It is your right to believe in whatever it is you believe in and I would not call you simple minded but your assumptions, blatent insults and mass generalities indicate that you are an oppresive, controling, closed type of individual that I would oppose tooth and nail.

Sane and logical folks are for gun control measures.

and the first amendment was in place before t.v., movies, computers, telephones, etc. but you want those protected don't you?!
yes we need these weapons! your problem is you are scared of the way they look! i would guess you've never even shot at a gun rannge, or served in the military. you fear what you don't understand.

The 2A was put in place to protect us against our government. Hunting wasn't even an issue since hunting was an everyday chore similar to washing the dishes.

At he time of its writing, the government troops did not have so called assault rifles and/or automatic weapons. Doe that mean we shold remove all their weapons and give them musket front loaders?

The point continues to get repeated by people who would rather be spoon fed their opinion than think. When the 1st amendment was written, there was no internet like we have now. Should we do away with it?

michelle michelle michelle. things progress, would you have us only use horses and buggys too? the first amendment was in place before electronic media and devices, but they are still protected! the second amendment was intended to protect the individual and the nation from forgein invasion, and tyrany at home, so yes we need actual military hardware.. but i'll pass on a nuke.

right on the Money....kudos.

Howard Brandston: I wouldn't worry about Obama's 'intellectural credibility", LOL, I'd worry about yours and a "significant portion" of the paranoid gun nuts in this country.

Um, Al?....Forget the "bows and arrows and sling shots". The president is NOT "taking away your guns". He's trying to put a ban on NEW assault weapons and high capacity magazines...Can you calm your paranoia LONG enough to read and comprehend that fact?

Now that is just ridiculous! Comparing weapons that can kill many people with swords and sling shots. That is why we can never have intelligent conversation, debate, compromise, and solutions any more.

Erratum: that should have read "16 good guys". However, I think most intelligent people can read beyond such typos. Sentiment remains the same!

so were missing the boat totally, the next time this happens, and it will this is wild west america.... the person will simply walk in this 10 loaded handguns and 100 round's or quick change clips... You cannot legislate against insanity. This isnt really a gun control issue, or a video gaming issue. Its a serious social issue, which everyone is afraid to mention. We have had guns in our society for 100's of years, but only lately are we seeing crazy acts of school shooting so frequently. People turn around and say its the guns, not very smart people if you ask me... A few pointers to help you out, latch key kids, single parents, lack of discipline in schools and home, lack of respect system,... No one was alive when prohibition was a law, but the net affect, was people found alcohol, and the market went underground, and if this law is passed it will for guns too.. criminals already use it, and by passing this legislation you are making their market place 100 times larger.. Finally the people who perform these acts, dont care about legislation, and expect to die doing it...

Good grief, you are too far gone in the liberal haze of weird.

Terri, why do your local town's police need AR-15s or 15-17 round magazines for their Glocks?

Don't they have access to those weapons so they can defend themselves and innocent civilians from criminals?

Why is it so wrong for me to have the same so I can defend myself and my family (or maybe innocent citizens), just until the police arrive? They do their best but they can't be everywhere at once. Why don't responsible citizens deserve the same chance as the police?

so sensible is take everyone else's right to protect themselves away, but i can have 8 guarded men around my daughters with Assault Weapons themselves... mmmm

This debate goes way beyond gun control, and people are not getting that.. like locking up crazy people, and making kids actually graduate high school, so we dont have degenorates running around society. but like always people are being reactive...

Misinformation is the order of the day. Take smith's mindless regurgitation of the anti gun control's group commercial that just came out.

First, the president HAS to have those guards around his children, it's not even up for debate. Bush had those guards for his daughters, but I'm sure that was different, right?

Secondly, even if he could opt out of protection for his daughters, why would he? He has been receiving death threats since before he was even nominated, and has gotten over 40,000 death threats since 2007. I'm sure the fact that he's black has nothing to do with it, but that's another story.

But it's really not, though. That he is black is a big part of why there is so much opposition to him. The republican power structurestated the day he got elected that their mission was to make him a one term president.

By the way smith, calling people with mental health issues "crazy people", and suggesting that we lock them up, is exactly the wrong way to deal with this. They only become crazy people when their mental health is not dealt with. Stop being such an insensitive prick, I'm sure that someone you know or love has mental health issues, even if they aren't the type that might end up in violence against others.

While I'm at it, stop denigrating our youth. Graduation rates are steadily increasing. But don't let those facts, with their liberal bias, stop you from bad mouthing and placing blame everywhere but where it belongs.

I'll tell you what, Smith, let's enact legislation that any and all gun owners have to have equal training and background checks to the highly trained Secret Service protecting the President and his children. That solves the problem the NRA has created around this issue.

Please stop repeating this nonsense about the Second Amendment and "not supporting the Constitution" and tell me WHERE in the Second Amendment it says you have the "right" to bear semi-automatic rifles with high power magazines?
Sorry, James, you will NOT find it. For God's sake, at the time the Constitution was written people didn't even have rifles, they had ONE shot muskets. The 2nd Amerndment says you have a "right to bear arms"...Rifles and revolvers carrying up to ten bullet clips are allowed will continue to be. If the founding fathers knew these murder machines were being justified in their names, they'd be rolling in their graves.

AM Kelly, that's as ridiculous as claiming the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and shouting in the public square. The right of self-defense is a God-given fundamental right, and using an ad absurdum argument just makes you look absurd.

Amen James

Gee, I read just a day or two ago that an armed security guard in a Michigan school accidentally left his gun in the bathroom.

74% of NRA members are in favor of universal background checks. It is the leadership of the NRA that is opposed because it would only cut into gun sales, the primary agenda of this front for gun manufacturers. Their only weapon is to incite fear.

Have you noticed that any time gun control is mentioned in our little local paper, we het tons and tons of new people we have never before seen commenting? Trolls, anyone?

James,, "5%of the people hide behind the Constitution" ,, thats the most UNAMERICAN thing I've heard. The Constitution is what made this country so great. If you dont like it, please feel free the leave.

Let me know then why gun crimes rates have gone down across the board in the US since the "assault weapons ban" was lifted? Just wondering....

Mr. Symula, there still is an assault weapons ban in Conn. the rifle that lady had fell inside the rules.
And any responsible person should have had that weapon secured.

What's an assault weapon?

Apparently it's anything Dianne Feinstein wants it to be.

A convenient label that can be expanded to include almost all firearms.

Don't buy the B.S.

If we applied gun graber logic to other things we'd be banning Ford Mustangs, Cameros and Corvettes because some people used them for getaway cars in bank heists

What will you do when several crazies want to attack you in your home? Hide under the bed and hope they only came for the Hot Pockets in your freezer?

Its also since drugs like xanax have been on the market, we can draw correlations like this all day long...

An since most of those were committed with handguns, not what you classify as
assault weapons', what is your point?

false, totally and completely fasle! where did you find that lovely piece of info? btw, the assualt weapon ban ended in 2004, not 2005. but that the heck, facts be damned if they get in the way of a piece of "feel-goodism" right?

Joe, can you cite your source of those "marvelous" statistics? Or did you simply make them up to accommodate your rant?

Joe, your "statistics" are 100% wrong, same as your made up "75% of NRA members" one. Wikipedia's article on mass shootings documents it quite nicely, go have a look.

Wha?

Is that what Dianne Feinstein told you?

And you believed her?

Hmmm maybe Obama is content with being a megalomaniac, ....for now?

Vortex: Quill pens and shouting in public squares don't kill people -- High power assault weapons DO.

this too is a phony statistic.

BS

74 percent of NRA members believe criminal background checks should be required of anyone intending to buy a gun, and 79 percent think gun retailers should perform background checks on their employees. - Actual quote from survey. Way to mutate the facts Joe. The quote is in regards to firearms stores only. Most firearms stores already require this anyway...which is why most NRA members are in favor of it...

si. being a canuk you were raised in a totally different environment, and mind set. we americans are the product of a much different founding than anyother country, except australia to a lesser extent. please also remember america has much higher crime rates in general that the rest of the world, you can look to our "inner cities" for the answer to the cause of all these stats! i'll be called a racist for saying that, but it is the truth.

how about another idea, if numbers of dead are a reason to abolish something, then let's ban automobiles, and airplanes. and let's not leave out 3rd term abortions, which kill many times as many people as firearms!

If one were to remove all the gang related and drug related gun crimes you would see guns are not a problem. And quite frankly, I don't have a problem with gang and drug dealers killing each other, I just hate when bystanders get in their cross fire.

Joe, a URL please? You are great with your quotes, but strike out on truth and reality.

Joe your right IS to carry it. You don't have the right to use it except for protection. Murder opposes self protection from those who couldn't give a DAMN or those too drugged up to recognize the damn. street drugs or pharmaceuticals

Or no drugs what so ever.

Thank you for proving my point, Bill. People like you are a huge part of the problem. I have issues with things our president(yes, he's your president too) has done, but comments like yours show that you have an ax to grind.

I'm sure you realize that Obama has expanded gun rights since he's been in office, right? He signed a bill into law that allows concealed carry in national parks, which are federal properties.

Sadly, he can't take away your right to be as ignorant as possible.

If I recall correctly, Obama was FORCED to sign that legislation because his veto would have been overridden.

It is not illogical. The leadership of the NRA is preying on the fears of the uninformed. It's how they are able to sell more guns for their gun manufacturing backers.

have to differ with you; the bill in the senate, that obama said he wants congress to pass, has the provision to confiscate assualt weapons.

so, jf, you were at sandyhook? that must have been very traumatic for you! i can tell, cause the rest of your post is utter nonsense!

It isn't called a clip... it is a magazine.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" What part of that is hard to understand??

i'll post as much as i feel like.. or don't you believe in the 1st amendment? oh wait, you're a liberal, of course you don't! only free speach for those that agree with you. how tolerant of you, lol
just as the 1, 3, 5, etc. amendments have grown with the times, so does the 2nd. when it was writen the people had the same weapons as the standing army, and i would like to see it still that way. at least for those of us that have received real military training, which something tells me you are lacking. btw, i am looking into getting a tank, as i am part of a federally recognized and licenced re-enacting group. bet that scares you!

After the gun bans in Great Britian and Australia, and still now, Their violent grime rates are 4 times what they are here in the U.S.

Okie Dokie SI you did it you got me to bite. You are way off the mark with this contribution. Am I correct your the guy from Canada? First. I agree with your statement that we should take better care of each other but just for starters Industrialized world doesn't even apply anymore it's all over in China. People get frustrated when they lose control. America is for the people by the people so help me GOD. Yes people get robbed yes in their own homes but to be honest I don't give that much concern if it happens in the rest of the world. That is why we are here and they are there. I don't own a gun. I know their capability and I would much rather use my words than a utensil to handle my disagreements..... BUT that doesn't mean that I want my right to grab one removed. I am German by decent. but I don't give two shits what the German people are afraid of in thier country. We are who we are because we refuse to be controled! oppressed! dictated to! It is that suspitious nature that weeds out the BS or some of it anyway. And if you haven't looked around lately their is a lot of BS to go around. soo although I respect your right to state whatever is on your mind it is not suggested that you trash a place that you are what possibly calling home? My friend that had cancer and she had to wait in line for an operation in Canada "that wonderful social medicine" No she didn't make it her time ran out before her ticket was called. Lack of money/or ins or right to get there?

Si, I agree with you about those Americans who would deny our need for common sense gun restrictions, and I'd join you in asking "What ARE you afraid of", because, as someone who's never lived in "the gun culture", I'm equally bewildered about that.
Having said that, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't characterize all of us, or even MOST of us as being "easily frightened" or "easily manipulated", as the fact is, those 300 million guns belong to a MINORITY of American -- 37 percent, to be exact. Sixty three percent of us, a clear majority, have NO GUNS AT ALL. You might want to think on that before lecturing us on our problems, as Canada has its own. My spouse worked for a Canadian based company for 11 years and is quite familiar with them..

School district I'm near has ONE PHD level psychologist for 2000+ students in the district. (I know the psychologist which is why I know the stat) It's sad. And we wonder why we have problems with kids that aren't going away and are getting worse...

Well then let's not make it any easier for them now.

not at all true! tottal hog wash. children being killed by firearms are highest in africa! my god, stop with the false facts!

Considering Brazil alone had around 34,000 homicides by firearms and the US had around 9,000 in 2012 from UNODC's survey rates - for that stat to be true that would mean that the majority of those 9,000 in the US killed would have to be ALL children and you're an idiot if you believe that's true...stop feeding people nonsense stat percentages...

France has a constitution you would prefer......move.

I love the us constitution stop trying to change what has stood for over 200 years.

So the Constitution says you can own a thermo-nuclear multi-warhead missile?

No the constitution does not.......just like free speech does not equal being able to scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

You should educate yourself. Your arguments hold no water.

You just made my argument, Q!

Again,,,,what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so hard to understand?

So John your right of owning a fighter jet "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? Where in the second amendment is the type of weapon specified?

mr rats, the constitution doesn't say we can't! economics are what really stops people from having that! that and zoning rules!

Well there you go then, constitution doesn't specify which means we can legally constrain certain weapons.

Actully mister Rats, ther are quite a few people that own military fight jets and fly them regulary. You need to get out more.

Maybe true, but does Canada have the gang and drug problem we have here in our inter-citys??

Japan has harsh gun control laws. However, look at the number of stabbings (and other crime rates) per capita compared to the US and I think you'll see why your logic is flawed...

That last big stabbing at the school in China...how many kids died again? That last shooting in CT....how many kids died again? hmmm. Having a gun vs having a knife seems to make a big difference in this case.

Si, Canada may have only about 200 gun deaths a year, but guess what?...Your population is less than TEN PERCENT of ours in the US....Does that put things in a clearer perspective for you?

Si, it's interesting how, in excoriating the United States for things your British Motherland did for centuries, you do persist, strangely, in using "we" and "you" interchangeably. What is it, Si?...Is it "we" or "you"?...Are you (correctly) including Canadians in some of the wars you lambast the US for, or are you a dual citizen?...Maybe you're just confused, but that's okay...It happens a lot to people who stick their noses into the business of others.

"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too."

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/2nd-amendment-and-slave-patrols-1.366251

Having 1000 homicides less is not insignificant. Nothing is gained by having 1000 less homicides? The parents in Newtown might have a slight issue with that.

joe, newtown was done using 4 hand guns, the shooter left his mothers ar-15 at home! geez man, get your facts straight!

I bet if we kept kids home and put them in a bubble there could be almost no deaths.......we should do that right?

Most dangerous thing you do is get in your car.....everyday.

here here

You might not belive in guns, and you might not belive in God, but when someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night the first thing you do is call for someone with a gun and pray they get there in time!

your sarcasm is inappropriate, and offensive in the extreme. and i here by accuse you of lying about being in the military. no military member would say such idiocy.
and it is you that needs to read what constitutes the MILITIA

Well stated, William! Funny -- in all the preceding ravings about the vaunted 2nd amendment, no one focused on the concept of "well regulated." Perhaps the 21st century analogue would be that all firearm ownership be licensed and tracked in the same way as cars are. Or that the modern day analogue of "well regulated" is the current National Guard.

Why do you call people sheeple and don't present a real counter argument to the following:

"The second amendment doesn't specify whether you can own spit balls, a Glock, a BushMaster, a tank, a submarine, an air craft carrier or thermo-nuclear multi-warhead missiles.

So I think the sensible solution is to restrict it at the Glock and limit magazines to 10 rounds."

More people get killed by hands than by assualt weapons......give up the nonsense.

Most gun deaths are by cheap handguns, not 1000 dollar rifles.

But keep following the mass distraction that is this admin. No budget for 4 years what do you expect.

So because most people get killed by cheap hand guns we shouldn't make an effort to make it harder to attain a fighter jet or an assault weapon?

No rats......we should make it harder for crimanals to get the cheap guns they buy ilegally, not stop law abiding people from buying a rifle.

The presidents recomendations acomplish non of that.

I know makes too much sense....

Yeah, you're going to need a citation for that. ::rolleyes::

And that's assuming you're talking about gun violence in the US, because your first statement is rather vague.

You also need to post the statistic oh how many people did (or could) saved lives because they could repel an attack. You also need to look at the spike in violent crime in England and Australia since those sheep allowed themselves to be disarmed. More Americans have been killed by alcohol, car accidents, and medical malpractice - what is your solution? Mass shooters are typically on psychotropic drugs. Why are you ignoring that detail?

and even more have died as a result of abortion, but that's legal. more have died due to car accidents, but cars are legal. it's not the tool, it's the person that is the problem.

The NRA has no intrest in what Gun sales are. As a matter of fact, Obozo has been the best gun salesman this country has ever seen. Have you driven by a gun store lately?? Or gone to Bass Pro Shop, Gander Mountain, or Cabbellas? Go on line and try to find ammo, everyone is sold out. Go to Wal-Mart, their cases are empty.

No one is talking about eliminating spit balls or guns just assault weapons like BushMasters and limiting citizens from purchasing tanks, fighter jets, thermo-nuclear multi-warhead missiles, and chemical weapons.

Mr. Rats, what part of what you call an "assault weapon" is it you don't like?? A adjustabe stock?? Don't golfers get their clubs fit to their size? A thumb hole in the stock? Have you ever seen the guns used in Olympic competion? A pistol grip near the front of the rifle? A rear pistol grip? The color Black? Oh, I know, it must be the bayonet lugs on the barrel !! God, I hate reading about all those poor people getting killed everyday with a bayonet! Or maybe its the flash suppresor. This is one case where it might look like a duck but it does not quack or walk like a duck. Its more like a kit car built on a VW frame and motor.

We should ban cars and booze......

Stop making sense.......the toughest gun laws for 30 years and one of the highest murder rates. How can that be?

What banning guns did not work? Stop.....that is not what MSNBC says.

Stop making sense, crazy liberal logic where abortion is ok......but guns are bad.

No one says guns are bad, just limit the ability to attain a tank, a submarine, fighter jet a thermo-nuclear missile, sarin gas or an assault weapon.

What planet you live on Rats?

Where can i buy a thermo-missile or a tank? More nonsense.

We are talking about law abiding people being able to buy a rifle that can shoot more than 10 rounds. These weapons are rarely used in crimes.

Now cut the crap.

So where's the line in the amendment Q? Is the line at the BushMaster? Why are you qualified to say where that line lies? Why can't that line be at the tank level?

Do some research Rats.....otherwise stop arguing points you know nothing about.

Well educate me Q, all I read from you is the some old crap of "don't infringe on my 2nd amendment rights!" or "don't infringe on my slave owning rights!"

Thats lovely but they knocked down Chicago's gun ban too.

Yup guns banned in mexico......but they seem to get plenty. Even from the us govt.

Let's do that for voting too

You really should step back from the computer.......if we made that argument to have kids, well......

I was going to say pro-creation but that's far too difficult to regulate.

It means all light arms. Most of the cannon used in the American Revolution were on loan from private parties.

that's crap......all the cops I know say get your self a gun. And they all laugh when you say ban assault weapons, they rarely see those guns used in crimes. Its the $200 Saturday night special sold from the trunk of a car they worry about and Obama does not even seem to care about those guns........the community organizer that could care less about the guns that actually kill his community.

White gun deaths are about that of Belgium.....

I work with CPD and those I know agree more people have been killed with their own weapon. However I don't know any officer who has a spouse who isn't trained in the use of their weapon. A gun owner needs to be informed, trained and responsible. I have asked cops and they don't agree.

Mr. Rats, "assault weapons" were banned in the 1934 National Firearms Act. What you keep talking about is something that LOOKS like a assault weapon!

Which would include the child killing Bushmaster

and last time I checked, Its not a constitutional right to Booze....

For the millionth time, not a gun ban Q, just an assault weapons ban.

and for the millionth time.....Assault weapons are not the issue.....less than 1% of guns used are Assault weapons.

Fine, we just ban Beer its doing all the evil, right?

Well you must not have read this article:

"reinstating and strengthening the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds"

more people killed by Knives than assault weapons.......I am waiting for your support for Knife Ban.

Dinner with Spoons and forks only.....

Q. Your analogies are getting sillier by the minute. When twenty eight people are murdered within an hour by alcohol, please to let us know, LOL

Please answer me why we need to impose another assault weapons ban when since the prior assault weapons ban gun crime has continued to drop significantly every year. No loony gun grabber has been able to answer that either. Just wondering...

its what the Libs want banned.... they heard it on MSNBC and Obama said so....

In legalese it has different definitions but for the assault weapons ban of 94:

"primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull."

A gun need only possess 2 features of of a Title II weapon to be classified as "assault". A pistol grip and synthetic stock would make an ordinary shotgun an assault weapon. It would also make it quite light and effective for duck hunting.

that's for the supreme court to decide not you......or Obama.

but my guess is somewhere between AR-15 (Bushmaster) and tank....but if you did a little research you would see that Tanks and beyond are banned already. So your over the top argument is Moot.

Oh I see the supreme court, so nothing is guaranteed by the second amendment after all. Thank you for validating my point Q.

Anyone else?

Rats, ignorance is not an argument.

Its pretty obvious you have no idea how our system works. so NO your wrong.

By rights having limits does not equal a ban.......MSNBC is not your friend.

Your line is between a bushmaster and a tank. The majority of the people's line, including the president's, is between a Glock and a Bushmaster. No one is suggesting a ban on the second amendment itself, just specific weapons. So again the second amendment specifies squat. It's up to the supreme court to interpret what make sense in today's society and I'm sure the supreme court will get to reinterpret it again 100 years from now for that society.

wrong again......they sell ar-15s and 30 round mags today and have for over 10 years.

and thats the Lib line you mean......that accomplishes nothing. The same line that cant pass congress, again Moot.

Yea but Q I was able to get a 1776'er like you to actually admit that there are limits to the second amendment. Your limits are different the a majority's. But just to get a 1776'er to admit to any limit is an accomplishment.

you don't know me.....I am up for a lot of change when it comes to gun laws. just not banning things that are not the problem. More Hope and Change.....

Backround checks on all is a great start. No reason people can go to a gun show and buy a gun with no checks.

So I believe Q that you and I are a lot closer than the comments would suggest. All I'm asking for is a bit of (Thomas Paine) common sense when it comes to the second amendment.

BS Rats......checks and responsibility don't equal bans in my book. Especially bans that accomplish nothing.

Mr Rats, please back up your assertion that "the majority of the people's line" reference comes from. You can't.

JC being a Briton you realize the the EC just labeled Briton the most violent and crime laden country in the entire EC?

agree 100%......close the loopholes in the laws we already have.

and I can not see any reason that Alcohol is legal its kills people and there is no reason you should be able to drink it. I don't!

and the Constitution gives you no right to alcohol, I want it banned.

Kids abuse it and i don't like it. Drunk drivers kill people. More people than guns do.

Q you yourself admit the second amendment gives you no specific rights to a type of weapon. Let me quote Q about what line should be drawn about the types of weapons you can own:

"but my guess is somewhere between AR-15 (Bushmaster) and tank"

Are there specific rights to free speech? i mean now you are getting stupid.......typical liberal rant.

the supreme court knocks down the Chicago gun ban......I think we all know where the reasonable line is. Just like they needed an assault weapons ban ratified by congress to ban assault weapons.

Once again cut the crap,

Where is my ban on Alcohol? you have no rights to that.

A complete gun ban is unconstitutional. A ban on assault weapons is not as is a ban on owning sarin gas.

Dan, just to educate you and others.....Natianal Guard is not what is meant, neither your local police.

The term militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as an army composed of ordinary citizens[2] rather than professional soldiers or the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service to call for service in times of emergency. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term as a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency or the body of citizens organized for military service. It is a polysemy with multiple distinct but related meanings.

if facts are important.....

When they said "state" were they talking about a place or a position or a juxtaposition

Which fear JF? Fear of all guns (left) or fear of government (right)? Most people think both are extreme as I do and just want common sense second amendment interpretations for our society today.

common sense is not banning the guns that do the least amount of harm......move along. That Lib logic right there.....

Where is my Alcohol ban? and how dare you be against it!

Again, sarin gas hasn't killed a lot of people here either but it doesn't mean we shouldn't ban it from being purchased at the local chemical weapons show.

glad to see so many uneducated people in here......

Well Q if you think there are so many uneducated people then you would agree with my recommendations of making people take an IQ test before buying a gun. It seems fair to me.

Again just because abortions (my opinion), alcohol, ski lifts, knives, cars, walking under a ledge when a chunk of ice falls, dogs, Coca-Cola, sharks, hand guns, and etc... kill people every year it doesn't mean we can't ban sarin gas, therm-nuclear multi-warhead missiles and Bushmasters which have, all combined, killed a heck of a lot less people. Common sense Q

Banning Leukemia makes perfect sense too. No reason why people need to have it.

Good one McCloud!

Hi "The Q"

I would like respond to some of your comments. I guess the main question is "do I have a valid interest in whether or you or any else has a gun?". And my answer is "of course I do". Guns in the wrong hands can cause a lot of damage. So it is reasonable of me to want to have some regulation on who owns guns and the type of guns that they own. For example, we probably don't want ex-felons to own guns. There is no compelling reason why an ordinary citizen needs a high capacity magazine or a military style weapon or should not under go a background check when he purchases a gun. There is no compelling reason why a gun owner should not be required to alert the local police if his gun is lost or stolen or transferred to someone else.

I don't see what is wrong with these regulations. Suppose high capacity magazines are banned. Suppose you can't buy a 30 round clip. So what? What harm does that do?

Dan,

Felons can not own guns. If your gun is lost or stolen you must report it. You should educate your self on the laws.

And 95% of gun owners support back round checks for all but when you tie that in with an assault weapons ban then you get people fired up. And i really dont care if you dont like assault weapons, i don like alcohol but I tolerate it, its what makes this the USA.

Where is the harm in banning alcohol? or Abortion?

Well I like sarin gas and I don't care if you like it! That's why we live in the USA after all!

It's not irrational, JF, when we have a president who proclaimed when he was a state senator that he's against all private ownership of any firearm. Of course while he was campaigning he was all about protecting the second amendment "for hunters". Sen. Boxer is on Youtube stating that if she'd had the votes in 1994 she'd have gone for an all our ban. Two weeks ago legislators in Iowa and NY were in the news calling for confiscation. New York just passed a ban on magazines people already own (they have 1 year to get rid of them) and passed a 7 round magazine limit. Illinois tried to do the same during the veto session, and will do so again in 2013.

Do you really think gun owners are being paranoid? Irrational?

Thomas Jefferson please explain the word "alays". Please use one space after a period. In addition to your illiterate rant, KKk is incorrect as all letters are to be capitalized since the term is a proper noun. Also if you knew your history especially utilizing the name of a great American it was not the Republicans who formed the KKK. White Republicans were targets because of their stand on freeing the slaves both black and white. So please before you open up and challenge someone know your facts.

I disagree, I'm a life long republican and these born again 1776'ers have nothing to do with the republican party. I will admit we've taken a beating the last few years but it's all our fault for letting these arm-chair-patriots-disagree-with-everything-obama-says nut cases who are desperately afraid of the future hijack the party. No more, form your own loon Tea party officially and get the F out of our republican party. Centralist Dems and independents I ask you to give us a few more years as we reorganize and take the trash out.

Transform like how? Like abolishing slavery?

Can we also ban Diabetes? I'd rather ban that than the over 16 ounces drinks.

sorry but its called an Assault Weapons BAN for a reason........reading comprehension.

Q you're still commenting? I thought I had resoundingly beat you with my arguments. Your lucky championship football starts in a bit. I'm hoping for an all Harbaugh Superbowl. How about you Q?

thats funny Rats......but nice try.

I am heading to the gym. Got to keep my self in shape so I am not a burden to Obamacare.

Well then I wish you health and prosperity in the new year, Q!

22,000 gun laws regulate things already -- the NFA of 1986, the strict regulations on short barreled rifles and shotguns from the 30s. Mandatory background checks by the FBI (NICS) already exists every time someone walks into a gun store. Heck, in NY they spend millions a year maintaining a database of spent brass cartridges because some knucklehead saw an episode of CSI, and it's never been used to solve a single crime.

We don't need more restrictions. We need more criminals in jail and better care for mentally ill people.

you as well...

@ The Q,

To regulate includes banning, for example food is regulated and animal waste is "banned" from being in food. Its a broad concept, regulation, but its also noted in the Second Amendment as well. You should read it some time, the constitution as well.

well good GM lets regulate you down to 1 beer a week that should eliminate all DUI's right?

and no abortions after 2 weeks. See no Bans.

they are not talking about regulation (which is what is needed)......they are talking about BANNING......and in NY state they already did the BANNING and so much BANNING even the cops are not allowed to carry more than 7 round mags. O the haste....

right on point.

How is this going to work when you have moms on entitlement programs who don't check their kid's homework or even care much about whether they go to school or not? How is this going to work, when the money that they're supposed to be spending on their kids - they're spending at the cigarette shop, nail salon, casino and liquor store?

Jobs just don't magically fall on people - a person has to be employable.

Harm? Kind of like the harm that drug laws leave behind. An overuse of resources by law enforcement, to the neglect of other crimes, and the opening up of new markets for bad guys who want to make money. Why can't people see the real problem? Thousands of criminals walking freely every day out the jail, who use guns for bad reasons.

Dan, I don' t know exactly how others are pin pointing thier objection to an part of gun control but here is mine. I do think there should be as there is suppose to be today background checks. If someone has a history of a mental illness that is harmful to themselves or others they should be rejected. Problem now is it is just not known. Yes they can limit the the size of the magazine but really what difference would that make as you mentioned you just reload. What it is is that baby step to alter the constitution as we know it now and ignoring the wisdom of our forefounders. Our laws and law makers function and follow and create on precedent. If the precedent is set that the constitution can be altered what is to stop it from being altered again and again in small increments until it is totally unrecognizable. "NOTHING" because if we accept this small piece we will again accept another small piece. Knowing that we are a land of immigrants and would forever more be our constitution is the one way we have of preserving the intention of starting this great country. When others come to this country it is with the request that they meld in with the existing mass and contribute to make that better with whatever they can contribute. I personally do not want the vision of being free to persue whatever it is that I may want to or not want to. I don't want to file in with a high step because that is the cadence that the government or a group of influencials decide.

I know this sounds a bit extreme and dramatic, but I think we become kind of complacent and forget that what we have is unique. That it is worth fighting for and that it is always in danger of going away. Hell twice we have been attacked once at Pearl Harbor and again in New York. This way of life is not infalible as are we. I personally will settle for nothing less than complete freedom. how bout you?

I'm sure you know what I intended to say but " I personally do not want the vision of being free to persue whatever it is that I may want to or not want t" Should have read I personally do not want TO LOSE the vision of being free to persue whatever it is that I may want to or not want to.

So what is wrong with having to reload after 10 shots instead of 30? Isn't this just an inconvenience or am I missing something? - Well, why not just make it one bullet instead of 10 or 30? I mean, hey, you only need one bullet to stop an intruder right? Because when someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you're stumbling to get your gun in your pajamas you'll surely be a perfect shot and hit them in the pitch black when you're half asleep right? Because it's not hard to hit a moving target either right? Because all intruders stop with one bullet right? Yeah, one bullet should do it. Hell, you don't really need a gun since the police can stop that intruder when they get to your house right? Their response time is usually 3-5 minutes and you should be able to hold off an armed intruder for like 3-5 minutes in your pajamas right? Yeah, that sounds about right. Either one bullet or just don't have a gun at all and you should be safe...

Agreed.

JG?...The answer to your question is this: because my legal drugs, gay marriage or abortion does not infringe on YOUR life or liberty, and certainly does not have the capacity to KILL you....Get it now?

C0untZero: First of all, "illogical and stupid", is in the mind of the beholder. I find the objection to banning high power assault weapons illogical and stupid. The way that we, in a democratic republic deal with laws we view that way is through the voting booth and the political process.

As for the "inconvience" of having to reload after 10 shots instead of 30, yes, it seems you are "missing something", and that is, the number of LIVES that might be saved by making it "inconvenient" for a mad man trying to gun down as many people as possible.

Making murder "convenient" is not a priority in a sane society.

Stupid remark

@ C0untZer0

Where will the money come to chase down the 77,000 you noted? That's right since the solution is to stop spending, you and others will just do it for free, right?

@ GuitarMan

Governor Quinn didn't have any trouble finding $55 million in the budget to pay his inner city constituent's kids to pass out pamphlets encouraging everyone to be nice to one another:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/01/justice/chicago-crime-program-criticized/index.html

But Illinois democrats can't find money to indict actual criminals - is that because they'd be angering their constituents?

The guns aren't being messed with, you can buy a gun today. True, military models are being questioned. I'm sure every nut that thinks we are on the edge of "tyranny" has already bought there piece, including a 30 round clip. The rest of America doesn't see the edge of tyranny, they are more concerned with the latest smart phone or reality show. Get some insight.

@ C0untZer0

Where did you get the numbers? Provide the source, let me guess its a gun rights internet site. Most homicides that involve a gun take place between persons that know each other to some extent. That includes spouses, gang bangers, and drug dealers. That does not include everyone else. Your assertion is inconsistent.

Well, why not just make it one bullet instead of 10 or 30? I mean, hey, you only need one bullet to stop an intruder right? Because when someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you're stumbling to get your gun in your pajamas you'll surely be a perfect shot and hit them in the pitch black when you're half asleep right? Because it's not hard to hit a moving target either right? Because all intruders stop with one bullet right? Yeah, one bullet should do it. Hell, you don't really need a gun since the police can stop that intruder when they get to your house right? Their response time is usually 3-5 minutes and you should be able to hold off an armed intruder for like 3-5 minutes in your pajamas right? And criminals always act alone right? There's never like 3 or 4 of them that commit crimes at the same time, so one bullet should do it if you need bullets. Yeah, that sounds about right. Either one bullet or just don't have a gun at all and you should be safe.

Come on. Common sense tells you what a weapon of war is. Yes soldiers carry knives and hand guns but I think they rarely get into knife fights in the middle of a battle. Weapons of war are guns that can mow down dozens of people quickly or blow people and things up. None of these types of weapons belong in the hands of civilians in a civilized society.

@ C0untZer0

A gun originally designed and used for military use, and later adapted for consumers, or more correctly paranoid nuts that think we are entering pure tyranny, i.e. the days of King George. See how simple it is?

Good question!!! Who would know but they?

1. Why should alcohol or abortion be legal?
2. Why do you need more than 1 beer a week?
3. Why do need to have an abortion at 6 months term?

Alcohol and Abortion are not constitutional rights and they kill 50 times as many people......

when you answer my questions....I will retort

I'm confused too, How is it that you plan on eliminating 30+ bullets in a clip? A law?

Trying to teach or explain anything to a liberal is like trying to teach my dog multiplication.... It's a waste of time.

JF #1"Why do you need a Military-style assault rifle?" Just because something looks like an assault rifle does not make it one. Example; A Hummer looks like a military vechicle but it not one. 2. Why do you need 30+ bullets in a clip? The largest clip I have ever seen held 8 rounds. I have seen magazines that would hold 100 rounds though. I read a story late last year about a cop out east that caught up with a guy who had just robbed a bank. When it was all over, the cop had shot the bad guy 13 times with a .45,,,,,,and he lived!! My 9mm holds 19 rounds and I wonder if that is enough to stop 2, 3 or 4 bad guys that might try to break in.3. Does the 2nd amendment give you the right to own a shoulder-fired missile? Yes it does, but the feds have already banned that in the 1934 Firearms Act.

@the Q
Nothing like answering someones questions by asking others that are related in a distant degree or intended to deflect.
Alcohol consumption, after a certain point, is in some terms illegal. There are certain proofs that can't be sold in certain states or on certain days. If someone has too much alcohol and endangers others, it can become illegal. Abortion is such a different issue here that all you are trying to do is deflect. When a fetus is still part of the mother (ie if you removed it, it would cease to live without extreme medical assistance) the argument can be made that you aren't killing a human being. Late term things change for me personally. I'm not going to get into religious discussions here though because this is a gun issue.

If you are saying owning a beer and owning a gun are the same, then shooting a gun and drinking a beer would amount to the same. We all know that when a person drinks one beer in a crowded room, it only will directly affect the drinker. If one person shoots his gun once in a crowded room, it can directly affect a random person. Lets up it to 10 beers and ten bullets and see who is affected each time.

If you all want to get technical on the second amendment, can't we say then that it doesn't specify what arms refers to? Yes, they meant guns, but wouldn't it state to reason that they were referring to what the knew existed? Or do we interpret that everything should just be grandfathered in?

Well, why not just make it one bullet instead of 10 or 30? I mean, hey, you only need one bullet to stop an intruder right? Because when someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you're stumbling to get your gun in your pajamas you'll surely be a perfect shot and hit them in the pitch black when you're half asleep right? Because it's not hard to hit a moving target either right? Because all intruders stop with one bullet right? Yeah, one bullet should do it. Hell, you don't really need a gun since the police can stop that intruder when they get to your house right? Their response time is usually 3-5 minutes and you should be able to hold off an armed intruder for like 3-5 minutes in your pajamas right? And criminals always act alone right? There's never like 3 or 4 of them that commit crimes at the same time, so one bullet should do it if you need bullets. Yeah, that sounds about right. Either one bullet or just don't have a gun at all and you should be safe.

Tell that to the folks in NY......I mean what planet you living on with this crap!

Talk about naive....

I strongly suggest you read the Constitution ! and abide by that!

I'm constantly amazed by the left wing nut balls who have so little trust in themselves that they believe leftist politicians who promise to take care of them, they happily listen to the socialist politicians who tell the left wing lemmings what is and isn't good for them.

1) because its my right...more than your right to Alcohol or Abortion
2) because its my right...more than your right to Alcohol or Abortion
3) there not legal sheeple....

Now answer mine smart mouth lib....you making a list going to hunt us down huh?

I know when 10 laws dont work......make 20 more.

As long as you can get a press conference with 10 kids at your feet. He should sign all his spending bills with kids or wheel chair victims at his feet, it shows he really cares.

The kids thing works well, after all they are going to have to pay for some day anyway.

I wonder if he's going to use the same group of kids surrounding him if he ever has a press conference on abortion. Doubt it.

Good point on the abortion press conference. Now that we are all paying for them via Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, can we at least get a tax credit towards the death tax when we die?

Actully, alot of people do use them for hunting. Remember, a" military-"style" assault weapon" is a .223 caliber, basicly a .22 rimfire on steroids. "Standard" hunting rifles are .30 caliber and larger. (30-30, 30-06, upto 45-70) I personally use a .303 British, I guess you could call it a "real" assault rifle as it was used in WW2 in combat.

Thats because there is a difference between a violent crime and a attempted violent crime. 95% on the time when a bad guy sees a good guy with a guy, they take off. Good guys with guns dont always have to shoot.

I stopped a robbery just by lifting my shirt and showing the thug my gun. He ran, and I went about my business. Although I did not file a report, you would have a hard time convincing me that it was just a dream.

Not all crimes are reported - especially those that are deterred by a person by the use of a gun.

Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day:

Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

Didn't that article specifically say...if you are to believe him?

You may need to explain who this Thomas Jefferson fellow is to many of these folks.

LOL..

Man, that is no where close to a record...I thought we got somewhere near 1000 on a different gun message board here.

What you don't know id what the media didn't report

How many women today used a gun to stop an attempted rape
How many home owners used a firearm to protect themselves from home invaders

Magnification error - the media can create the impression they want by publishing only those stores they deem "newsworthy".

Wouldn't the recent mass shootings on our soil be acts of terror? I remember off hand that one was of Muslim decent and that occurred in a facility where everyone had guns handy.

Brian - the difference is that they "acts of terror" were not related specifically FOR a religion - specifically killing people "in the name of Allah"..

Are you sure these shootings had nothing to do with faith? And on top of that, terrorism doesn't have to be religious in nature...i think it is defined as generally political in nature. I get what you are saying and I get the parallel, even if it is distant. If you want to make the odd comparison lets make fantasy worlds where neither exist. In an imaginary world with no Muslims, we would still have terrorists...in an imaginary world with no guns, no one would get shot.

So tell me again how more guns on the market and on the street would solve the inner city gun problems? Or does the extreme right wing pundit who runs that web site not tell you what to think for working to fix that?

This opinion article throws numbers and stories that may or may not be true and are completely uncited. He seems to also assume that there were no murders in cities like New York from 94-01 with their Republican Mayor...or from 93-01 in L.A. Must not have been any gun deaths in Dallas either while they had a few different Republican mayors.

Look, banning all guns would never be the only solution. Much more needs to be done to stop gun crime from happening, and hopefully open dialogues across the country will help come up with great ideas on how to do it.

Why don't you tell me Brian how taking guns away from law abiding citizens is going to solve the inner city "gun" problems.

And BTW the iner city has a pretty serious problem with knives and bludgeons too.

If we focus more restrictions on sales of weapons, starting directly after they are manufactured, the number of guns held by criminals will drop a little, possibly more. It will take time, just as any other possible solution to the problem we have as a nation that is gun violence and death. I feel that those restrictions, along with other social programs, could make a difference in the cities. Find better ways to keep kids from entering into a life where a gang is their only outlet for "fun," family, or friends. More guns doesn't deter city violence. I would think most of those people shooting each other in cities have a good idea their intended victim is armed as well. So tell me again why you owning a gun would prevent inner city violence also. Or does it just mean instead of you dying, the other person dies?

And I have said on multiple posts here on patch, there should be steps that can be taken that would still allow you, and everyone who wants one, the opportunity to own a gun or keep most, if not all, of your guns. This shouldn't have to be an all or none discussion. It's true that I wouldn't mind an all out ban, but I understand it probably isn't the best or only solution. The problem on Patch is that the majority of pro gun folks don't really present possible changes to achieve solutions , they just focus on making sure everyone has a chance to buy guns whenever they want.

Yep, but maybe pepper spray would for those minutes that a person needs to get away or hail for help!

Blaming them is like blaming Ford and Chevy for drunk drivers. Your statment makes no sense.

I'd like to know why you think writing legislation will reduce the number of guns. I'd also like to know why you are disinterested in thousands of criminals who use guns and walk out of jails every day. Is it just me, or can you not think beyond the spoon fed garbage Diane Sawyer doles out every day.

As a matter of fact ,YES! For my wifes birthday last year we went out and she picked out a nice Sig Sauer semi-auto pistol for herself. And my son got his first rifle on his 12th birthday (20 years ago) just like I did on my 12th.

Everybody shares in the misery, that's only fair. It's Obama world. Nobody prospers, everybody suffers with his vision. I'm picturing Havanna as his vision.

John J. Unfortunately, you are exactly a perfect example of the selfish people who can't seem to OR don't want to see the damage guns do to families. They just want their rods to feel like big men. Please take a course in Logic 101 & learn the difference between an object designed for good (a car, medicine, hammer etc.) that by ACCIDENT causes harm & an object DESIGNED to do damage & does it too well. Please think for just a moment of those kids & their families before you tell me how proud you are of all your guns.

What is sad about that John is that you don't care that people are dying. Rather than say we should do what we can to keep kids out of gangs and off of drugs (if fewer are buying, fewer are dealing) you are just short of wishing they were all dead instead. Shining example of humanity at it's best. Have to make sure you think of yourself first and everyone else second. That guy might shoot me, I better shoot him first because I mean a lot more. Awesome.

So you both are good on banning alcohol? right.......if not, shut it.

@ Q, you love dealing in finalities here, so when you can tell me that booze was invented as a way to kill something faster/easier, I'll listen to that correlation. Sure guns have different uses now, but they were militaristicly invented to eliminate enemies

Booze is poison......plane and simple. You drink enough you die......and just so happens you get in your car and kill a bunch of others, so be it, right? Happens every day and they sell it on every corner.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But drink enough Alcohol and you will die. But you can smoke pot till the cows come home and zero deaths per year. But guess what its illegal.

Cut the crap.

Bruce you hit on the core problem. There would be no problem with gangs and drugs IF there was some kind of real family with parents that gave a damn! And by the way, if you look at the FBI stats from last year there were more people murdered with hammers than rifles!!

now with that same logic talk to me about Abortion?

I am listening.....you cant have it both ways?

So, I take it The Q supports abortion rights since you are against our rights being taken away from us?

I do support a women's right to choice....just like I support your right to Alcohol.

No matter your stance on abortion, the two issues are not related. When an argument can be made that a fetus would not survive outside of the womb, the argument can be made that it isn't alive yet. When someone is alive and they are shot, be it a one minute old baby or a 90 year old man, there life was ended by someone squeezing the trigger.

You want to compare guns to swords, bombs, grenades, etc, fine. All devices that hold the first purpose of maiming and/or killing a living, breathing human being.

really a 6 month old fetus is not alive???.......I mean your brain washed.

We allow 3rd term abortions in the US.

and guess who pays for all these abortions.........you do, thanks Obamacare!

Over 3000 Abortions a day.......9/11 everyday.

Bruce, tell me the teen had all his marbles. You cant blame an object because someone misuses it. Its not the car that kills, its the driver, its not the fork that makes people fat, its the person, the guns in my safe have never gone off by themselves, only when I squeeze the trigger. And by the way, 3 of the 5 that were shot at gun shows this past weekend was because a "trained" police officer mishandled a loaded shotgun.

I never mentioned late term, at a certain point the fetus can survive, generally with medical help. You are also assuming that every abortion that occurs is done at a free clinic.

Over 300,000 served per year from Planned Parenthood. Paid for by the US taxpayer. Mamograms zero.

I'm happy to believe you and personally have no problem with it, but where do those numbers come from?

55 million abortions in the US in the forty years since Rowe V Wade. 55 million.

So, just to clear things up. It sounds like many are on the "abortion is still murder" side of things. If murder in that case is wrong, why is a shooting someone who might be out to harm you ok? Just because someone breaks into your home or mugs you...or whatever..doesn't mean he was/is going to kill you. If you defend yourself with your gun and kill that person. You still took a life. Why do you get to carry out the death sentence?

Hey numb nuts---this is about guns killing innocent people---lets fight about abortions later!

So that's how liberals justify abortion........later. Just like paying our bills, huh?

I say its about FREEDOM OF CHOICE......just like my FREEDOM OF CHOICE to own and protect my family with an AR-15.

Hey Q, You better take your AK-whatever & go hide in the cellar---I've reported you to the BIG "O" so you're 1st on the list. Look for the black heliocopter any day now.
Your friends at the CIA/FBI/YMCA

John---the guy who shot 3 of the 5 people was a trained cop---and your point is????

where is the daily outrage.......???? these are not gang-bangers and criminals either.

And yet we do more and more to help prevent drunk driving from happening. Look up the numbers, they have had a continuing downward trend in fatalities for at least 30 years.

Since this was a gun discussion, I wasn't aware that I needed to laud tighter DUI restrictions as well. But since you asked, I am all for making a first time offender pay for and install the ignition interlock and breathalyzer for all registered cars at their household.

1200 murders in Chicago in 1991......just over 500 last year. try again.

Super, I saw only 931 in 91, but close enough. But again...trending
04-453
05-451
06-471
07-448
08-513
09-459
10-436
11-435
12-506

Yup...looks like a good downward trend in Chicago

Bill, I agree the key words are safety and training, not control. Potential,,, no,,,, If there are more guns in peoples hands there will be more accidents, its a number thing that cant be changed called the law of averages. That being said, it did not stop some states from making dope legal even though the "potential" was going to be more crack and herion addicits. There has never been a crack or herion addicit that did not start out smoking dope.

WRONG.....its about living in a free society. We tried illegal alcohol......failure. Just like our drug war. Nothing good about Abortion, but its about choice and this thing called FREEDOM!

Wake up.....stop following the MSNBC daily line.

The problem Bruce, banning evil looking guns wont change anything, even Obozo said it wont stop evil people. It has to start in the home. Society trys to blame someone or something for their troubles but never do they look in the mirror and say I screwed up. I'm fast approching 60 and I can tell you I've seen alot of freedoms taken away and some good things added too. People need to worry about themselves and not stick their believes into other peoples lives. I dont have to like or agree with what some else likes, but who am I to tell someone else how to run their life or what they should have or not have, what to eat, what to wear, what music they should listen to, or what time of day to take a dump.

So what laws do you like Q? Should we scrap them all except for the Constitution? The Bill of Rights were amendments (albeit added very soon after), those are still ok? What about all the other amendments added on? ...and who got to define Freedom? The framers did a great job on that. Slaves...yeah...that's ok. Men superior to women in the eyes of the courts? yeah...that's ok.

When do we stop making or changing laws? Technology doesn't quit. You can't keep antiquated laws when everything around them is changing. Yes, the 18th amendment didn't work, and an all out ban on guns probably wouldn't work either. But saying they have theirs so we need ours is a cop out answer to a larger problem.

I don't want to ban things that are not the issue.......Assault Weapons and 30rd mags are used in .3% of crimes. Like many of us have said close the loopholes on gun laws, we are all for it. Make the penalties stricter and enforce them. But that's not the message, the Message is BAN the Assault Weapons. Sounds great on MSNBC and you people eat it up.

Go after the criminals not us law abiding folks who like to have our toys and protection.

But when you spending 1.3T more than you are taking in.....MASS DISTRACTION works wonders. Focus on a budget, have not had one in 4 years.

We got lots of MUCH bigger problems that need attention, instead of curbing more FREEDOMS.

There are much bigger problems facing our country, but this happened to be the message board for a gun control article.

As I've mentioned before, i wouldn't be opposed to an all out ban but I am well aware that won't happen. My problem is that when someone brings up adding any more types of measures to keep that .3% from happening, others go ape. We haven't had a bomb detonated on our soil since when....96? People have tried and failed or been caught before they could even get all the materials. We watch for those guys now and one way is by tracking purchases. If a flag could have been raised before the CO shooter purchased all his online ammo, we may have had him in a mental hospital before he had a chance to carry out his plan.

You cant fix stupid! Any resposable gun owner knows that even a .22 rimfire can have a range up to 1 1/2 miles.

Did John J say "reposable gun owner". I guess the "reposable gun owners" are those that accidently shot 5 people over the weekend at gun shows. I wonder what "reposable" means?

ah just ban it

I said this before I say it again........Newton shooter committed over 15 felonies before he even got to Gun Free School Zone.

Tell me again about more laws and how it fixes the problem?

NOBODY wants to see a single child die of anything. So cut the we are uncaring crap. I have 3 kids and if scape a knee its hurts me.

I said this before I say it again........Newton shooter committed over 15 felonies before he even got to Gun Free School Zone.

Tell me again about more laws and how it fixes the problem?

NOBODY wants to see a single child die of anything. So cut the we are uncaring crap. I have 3 kids and if one scrapes a knee its hurts me.

I'm missing the point. Are you saying you can eliminate guns?

I'm saying as the majority of the people say---we must START to limit & control the tidal wave & easy availability of guns of all types. The sheer number of gun deaths of all types & causes is in one word---Outrageous!

Bruce I totally disagree. Take away all the gangbanger and drug dealer deaths and I think we have a completely acceptable number of gun murders concidering there are over 300 million people in the U.S. In 300 million people you are gonna have a certain number of crazy people that are gonna kill with or without a gun, you stop them all.

"we must START to limit & control the tidal wave & easy availability of guns of all types." You just don't get it, there are many laws that attempt to do this already. Do they work? Has Chicago become tranquil now that they started? What you should be doing is expressing outrage at the thousands of criminals who like to use guns and walk freely out of jails on a daily basis.

Hey Gun Fans---Just saw where another good upstanding citizen used his LEGAL firearm to kill his nasty ex-wife at his kid b-day party. Any comments???

You sound pretty happy about that, too much so. What good is another tragedy if a liberal can't exploit it? I'm sure if only those nasty Tea Party folks would have listened.

Hey Mc C. No I wasn't too happy about that guy exercising his rights But now that we have 3 or 4 more people shot in good old gun loving Texass I'm feeling giddy!!!
Same question--WHEN WILL IT BE ENOUGH!!! How many more have to die for your so called rights???

I'm sorry, but you are just a bit ahead of me. How do you plan on preventing these tragedies? Gun training, gun registration, gun restrictions on magazine clips. Presto, were done? Keep letting convicted gun users out of jail though.

Whoa, I re-read your lame comment. You snake dwelling liberals like the blood, if it works for the politics. You are the bottom man.

Bruce, I'm with you, but I think your going up against folks that don't read or spell ("reposable gun owners" per John J). Their only source of news is Beck, Hannity and R.L. (their leader and drugie)

McC YES all of those things & MORE. If you remember my points from several months ago (when we had other mass gun killings) I said stop guns on the street by sending ANYONE just caught carrying an illegal to 1 yr in jail no bond, no parole, just jail---tough love--we support police & judges & the ACLU can stuff it---see I'm not a liberal---I just hate gun violence!