RAF is calling me out by name - I feel special! :)

Information, only for those open to having all information (this excludes ford and most of the fringe left), about how our founding fathers knew full well about multi-fire weapons while wording the second ammendment. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Correspond...

Interesting how they never "banned" this future idea, they knew about, from the common man. Clearly they knew murder was already against the law and the intent of users were always more important than an object.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

"You are grasping at straws and you know it."
-
This is solely reserved for the left fringe and their current philosophy of do as I say not as I do...

This whole discussion has been fueled mostly by the Sandy Hook incident. You people all need to stop drinking the kool-aid (media/government "official story") and realize that Adam Lanza may been one of the victims of a crime perpetrated by our government. That changes the whole debate!
-
Before you kiss me off as a crazy conspiracy person, you should investigate the facts. Start here:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/14/...
-
There is more evidence that "hit men" did this that that Lanza did. WHO were the three strange men in black and camo the police detained and then let go? Where did the strange car come from and is there really a Christopher Rodia? Show me a security camera photo or video snippet of Adam Lanza alive anywhere on the school grounds and I'll believe the "official story." Until then, I'm increasingly afraid of our government and saving my pennies for more ammo.

TCB - you are getting as bad as RAF hiding behind his mom as they drive their 1967 Chevy II off to war....

...and shooting projectiles has what purpose? You are grasping at straws and you know it.

Dwight Eisenhower – “It'll be a sad day for this country - both at home and abroad - if school children can safely attend their classes only under the protection of armed guards."

Mongo -- The point is not what you are or are not comfortable with. Comfortability has nothing to do with the discussion. The constitutional right to bear arms does. There is no specific limit in the constitution. Nothing. Once that right is removed or restricted -- what is to say that the same thing could not happen to free speech. The arguement by the far left is that they do not hold the constitution as an absolute docuement and want to water down its wording and meaning. That is what we are dealing with. Any legislation is nothing but feel good politics and does nothing to solve anything.

fordfan,

Guns are designed to shoot projectiles. Not kill people. Soldiers are trained to kill people and defend themselves with weapons-sometimes even guns.

If you wish to further legislate against inanimate objects-go ahead-see how it works. Then read John Lotts books "More Guns = Less Crime. Do exhaustive research and then tell me why more gun legislation is good.

The kids who killed the children in CT broke 40 existing laws. He murdered his mother who legally and lawfully owned the guns. She broke no laws. Im sure mental illness had nothing to do with this. THough I am not a clinical psychiatrist - its just a guess.

This whole charade against "mass murder" is just that- a political charade. The fact remains, 41 children were killed by televisions (which is an inanimate object) in 2011 and there is no outrage against this. I wonder why?

TCB - for you through me from RAF. Show me a TV that is designed to kill and then come back with a rational argument. You can't just pick words that you do not know the meaning of or understand and fool anyone into think you are intelligent (except another rightie of course)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation...

When are we going to address the number of young children being killed in Milwaukee while sleeping with their parents? I guess that cause of death isn't as 'sexy' so they will stay away from it. #embarrassing

Darrell Scott, father of Rachel Joy Scott who was killed at the Columbine School said it best when he addressed Congress. He stated the obvious problem with man. Man will not and cannot correct this problem as described by Darrell Scott. If you all are unfamiliar with his testimony, search it and read it, it's beautiful and to the point, and true, which I know is a shock to some of you in this day of relativism.

Ford,

Televisions falling on children kill more children than mass murderes going to schools shooting them. The CSPC has this data. 41 children needlessly killed in 2011 alone-80% under the age of 9. SHould Obama and Biden form a commission on television violence to stop these needless deaths?

After all-no where in the constitution is there a right to own or watch a television.

Very typical ford, I have stated a number of times my thoughts. As with most fringe lefties as your points are refuted it is time to declare the discussion over because you are unable to look at all information instead of regurgitating what you have heard elsewhere.

Obama said he will use executive orders to deal with some form of gun control. Abridging the second amendment by executive order, however, is an impeachable offense. Why is the first amendment more important than the second amendment?

Guns are not the problem, it is the people and our society for violence that is the problem. Video games, Rap, the whole gangster lifestyle thing is the problem. GUNS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROBLEM!!!!

RAF - I can see that you only want to parse words and do not want to discuss or share your thoughts on how to address this problem with slaughter by guns in public place. This is pretty much as I thought but wanted to try one more time. I appreciate that you were able to take your mom to war driving your American built, unarmored car, but I have no time to get into a pointless discussion with you if you do not want to have a rational discussion.

Please parse this post and then we can be done with this discussion.

Ford stated "please give me a reference to the armed forces taking an auto/car, a mobile home or their moms to war to protect them."
-
All armed forces use some type of vehicle in war and in training. Currently more deaths are realated to faulty outcomes from vehicles than from fire arms. In many countries people even decide to use these as devices to carry explosives.

As far as Mom's to protect them, the majority of industrialized world (the ones you want to compare us too, or so you say), have women in uniform; many are mothers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_th...

"The fact that gun control legislation is being debated should indicate to most people the necessity for greater gun control. These debates wouldn't be happening if there were not problems with the manner in which firearms were kept."
-
I disagree with both your points. Just because it is being discussed in no way means more gun control is needed, that is just one side of the discussion. The problem has never been with how weapons are kept it has always been with people deciding to act against the law, murder has always been a crime; as is assault.

ford your causation logic falls far short. More people are killed by auto's every year than guns. Declaring design as the reason is inherently faulty logic since the intent by the user is the main aspect that determines the outcome. Why is it you have a difficult time discussing outcomes? How exactly is the outcome of one death any more important than another? How can you justify saying one item being used to kill an innocent person is worse than another?

ford once again you provided the non-sequitur "(remember the “NRA” answer if this is your answer – will save us all some time)."

Please explain, fully this time, where I have provided anything from the NRA. Take your time, I'll wait..........

"OK, so 3.8X more likely if the child is from a single parent home. I can’t do anything about this. Are you suggesting forced marriage? "
-
Wow, more jumping to conclusions. Providing more data for you is confusing I see. To this point your whole argument has been to remove weapons because we have more, per person, than any other nation; your implied assertion being removing this will reduce violence. The facts of many studies have shown your conclusion is faulty. There are many reasons for violence and many common traits shown of victims. Pointing those out is hardly a conclusion or a fix. Finding common ground, on a solution, is impossible when the left fringe is not interested in seeing the whole picture.

Catch the red herring.....

ford stated "I still say that anyone other than the far right, thinks the USA is a better nation and a more civilized nation than South Africa, Columbia and Thailand and we object to being dragged to that level like the right wants to do."

Please list those that stated the US is not a better nation than South Africa, Columbia and Thailand.

Debating without rhetoric is a problem for many on the left fringe.

RAF - again
CNS News & Front Page News – the “Right Views”. I believe these two links referenced the same DOJ report (one published on 1/11/13 and the second on 1/13/13). OK, so 3.8X more likely if the child is from a single parent home. I can’t do anything about this. Are you suggesting forced marriage? I have only had one spouse in my life and have provided as stable of a home environment to our kids as possible so what more can I do? I am not an advocate of forced marriage or staying in an abusive relationship just because of this statistic. Being from a broken or single parent home does not, however, make these children less of a child or one that is less loved by at least one parent. They do deserve to grow up in as safe of an environment as they can. I fail to see what this has to do with the debate. Also the rate of assault crimes was more prevalent with knives than with guns and that was nearly equal back in 1994. This discussed assaults – not deaths. I know that the right immediately tried to draw a false equivalency with a knife attack in a Chinese school right after the Sandy Hook murders with high capacity guns. In the Sandy Hook shooting, 20 students were killed (never coming home) but in the Chinese school knife attacks, I believe there were 22 students that were injured but none died that I know of. (If I am wrong, please provide the link). I am using: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20... So my question to you is, do you prefer a person to be killed in an attack or injured/seriously injured?

Finally from your last link:
“Dorsey told them and they not only caught up with the suspect, but they started shooting at him.” This person that was robbed was no longer in danger and the robber had left…you really advocate people shooting down a street to try to stop a person that had just robbed another person? BTW – this shooting all started on the word of a stranger so it was not the brightest decision in my mind.

Now, again I ask, what is your solution to all of the violent gun deaths in the USA (remember the “NRA” answer if this is your answer – will save us all some time).

RAF
Causation - autos, cars, homes & mothers…are these designed for or have a purpose to be a tool to kill like guns are? There is my causation. If that is not a good enough causation, please give me a reference to the armed forces taking an auto/car, a mobile home or their moms to war to protect them. The military takes a weapon to kill if required and the most basic weapon is a gun (at least I was never heard of training on missile launching, mortar firing, RPG firing, pilot training, etc. until after basic training, but I did qualify on the M-16). Not a valid argument on your part but you are free to clarify if need be.

I still say that anyone other than the far right, thinks the USA is a better nation and a more civilized nation than South Africa, Columbia and Thailand and we object to being dragged to that level like the right wants to do. That is why we need to be compared with other industrialized nations. I stand by my previous argument on this that we need to compare similar societies to have an accurate comparison. I believe you have presented an invalid argument here. But I will debate this some more if you really wish.

“Buy back programs” – I have serious reservations about the effectiveness of buy back programs. They do not even make a dent in the number of guns in society and solving the real problems which are not hunting weapons or home protection weapons (I do not consider high capacity magazine/clip weapons to be required to protect your home) so I am in agreement that these programs are not effective. More “feel good” than effective and quite expensive.

German --
1) Locating the guns in facilities is again -- against our constitutional rights.
2) This does not provide individuals with the right to use those weapons to protect themselevs and their families. Nor can one protect others.
3) If this is true and we see something like a weapon that should be stored, what prevents the government from determining that an individual, or a race, is threatening and should also be kept in a facility -- oh we already do that with criminals, but we are talking threats -- not penalties for crimes already convicted for.

Ultimately -- the constitution does not include any controls and was worded as such. Any laws or changes would be re-writing the constitution and determine intent and with intent we all lose our rights.

one of the problems in discussing this issue is that no one can get a clear definition of what the topic is pertaining.

start here: What is an "assault weapon"?
if you go by the military definition you are missing a key characteristic: selective fire (semi, burst or auto) so therefore we are not concerned with true assault rifles. If your only concern is magazine capacity then there are many more issues. If I only have 10 round magazines for my AR then will everyone sleep better? But wait! it can still accept larger magazines....funny, so can my WW1 98 Mauser bolt action (look up 20 round Trench magazines - issued in WW1) plus the 7.92 cartridge is far more powerful than any puny .223.

even if you made 30 round magazines dissapear overnight, consider just how long it takes to change a 10 round magazine.

this entire argument reminds me of Monty Python..."We found a witch, may we burn her"?
"How do you know she is a witch"?..."She looks like one"!!!

It's not even clear the young kid did the Newtown shootings. He may have been just a patsy and there has been no evidence provided to prove differently. They never explained what the three other men dressed in black and camo were doing there or who they were.

Also, there's evidence that the Aurora theater shooter didn't act alone, but that's been covered up. He may not even have done the shooting. Eye-witnesses and real-time police transmissions indicated more that one shooter, and the "suspect" was found drugged/unconscious and locked in his car when police arrived.

Something is very fishy with all of this. If there is a "consensus emerging," it's that the Government has been lying to us about lot's of things and we need to demand straight answers on these and other similar issues.

The fact that gun control legislation is being debated should indicate to most people the necessity for greater gun control. These debates wouldn't be happening if there were not problems with the manner in which firearms were kept.

The way I see it, there are people who realize that guns are weapons designed specifically to inflict potentially lethal damage to a target; thus requiring an exceptional level of respect and caution. Fortunately, most gun owners are this type of person.

Then there are those people that see firearms as something else. The type of person that falls into to this category can vary greatly. There views can range from guns creating empowerment to flat out recklessness. These types of people, like criminals, should have their access to guns restricted.

Now, with that said, I am for some form of gun control legislation; pertaining to guns instead of people. Since one of big issues is 'assault' weapons, perhaps some things can be done to curb the use of these weapons inappropriately; while preserving the rights of law abiding citizens.

Since much of the suggested legislation aims to restrict the access to semi-auto rifles and large capacity magazines, why don't more of these gun owners come together to do that themselves? Why not have these type of weapons restricted to areas that can provide better security? As I see it, gun clubs would do a much better job of regulating the use of such firearms than an all out prohibition would. And, since this type of rifle generally serves little practical purpose, restricting access to where it will be used shouldn't be much hassle.

Sure, such requirements wouldn't be without any downside. But, the level of protection that could be offered by moving such weapons, from the home to a facility regulated by peers, is most likely worth it. Doing so would reduce the likeliness that such weapons would fall into the hands of those that shouldn't possess them.

I'm sure there are going to be those who disagree with this idea. But, I put it out there because this is the type of debate that needs to be happening. Pointing fingers hoping that the issue will go away won't help. Instead, we need sensible precautions to prevent future tragedy.

The positive that could come out of MORE gun laws, is that a background check could be done on Obama, since he is in close proximity to guns 24/7.

RAF...your rapid fire, copy and paste way of posting reminds me of a guy squirrel hunting with a 100 drum on a assult rifle. Maybe you should learn how to AIM first.

Thanks RAF - I will read your links and get back to you. I have a busy day planned so may not get back until later tonight. Appreciate your links - though I may not agree with everything :)

This is what liberals want to stop, people protecting themselves when police can't.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Robbery-v...

"The study—“Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994-2010”–also discovered that American youth who were victims of a serious violent crime in 2010 were six times more likely to have been attacked by a perpetrator wielding a knife than one wielding a gun."

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield...

"DOJ: Children of Unmarried 3.8x More Likely to Be Victims of Violent Crime"

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-chil...

"Buyback campaigns more often than not end up with hunting rifles or old revolvers from someone's attic than with automatic weapons that criminals might use, analysts say."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...

Ford here is more information, you need, to form a more INFORMED decision based on YOUR stated numbers.

The following lists the countries with the highest murder rates with firearms http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mu...
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032

The following is where those countries placed in ownership of weapons; since you think being number one on the list is the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_g...
Rank Countries
# 50 South Africa
# 91 Colombia
# 39 Thailand

Ford you have presented interesting numbers but no causation. This country also has a very high rate of owned autos, cars, and homes yet this is no causation either. I am sure all those murders were done by a person with a mother again this is not a cause. If you want to play numbers games at least have the ability to show a link between your numbers and a cause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation...

The city of Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the nation, so they also have the most law abiding citizens weaponless. Using your implied numbers game this should be one of the safer places to be.

The latest school tragedy was performed with a shotgun do you also want to remove these weapons from all citizens?

The problem has never been with those that respect life and follow laws. Pretending another law will stop something that is already illegal, murder, is insane.

I'm sure that Biden and his furor will come up with some illegal policy. I hear that the new trillion dollar coin will have an image of an assault rifle on the back of it.

You mean like saying we are 28th, right? Still haven't heard a good discussion point...

You can cherry pick statistics to put any slant you want on something. Only problem is you aren't making a comparison anymore when you do that. That is nothing more than dishonesty.

Shopiere - I said "4X higher that any other industrialized country". I do not believe that we shoud be compared to Somalia, Irag, Afghanistan, etc. Include these and you are correct but then that would be a right wing slant to make the arguement that we could really stand a few more guns and killing in the USA. I have long thought that if people want to be like Somalia with lots of guns, limited government and only the string survive, they should load up their Bushmasters and go and try it for a year before committing the USA to that type of government.

Other than the interpretation above, where did I lie?

Here we will now expose you readers to truth, not left wing slant and lies coupled with cute word games.

Actually the USA is 28th from the top in firearms murder rate. This is with the USA far exceeding any other country in firearms ownership. Here is a link. Later I will show you where the USA is way down the list in overall murder rate from all methods.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/...

RAF may need a topic to discuss so let me throw this one out. Given that:
- The US has 5% of the world’s population and 35-50% of the total guns
- About 70% of the homicides in the US are committed with guns
- We currently have 89 guns per 100 citizens in the US
- We have a homicide rate that his 4X higher that any other industrialized country

Discussion questions:
Why do we have such a high gun homicide rate and what is your solution to fixing the problem. (If you want to use the NRA talking points, just type in “NRA” and we will know that the status quo is fine with you and you really do not want to discuss this issue).

OK RAF - discuss real issues. I am waiting...

I see the rhetorical fringe left has neither the ability or desire to discuss real issues, just echo flaming ignorance from others on msDNC, huffpo, and dailykos...to name just a few.

Too bad these folks couldn't spend the same amount of time thinking for themselves as they do reading what to echo.

"common ground" is like the mythical creature known as "bipartisanship", to those on the left.....its where the rest of us agree on how much of our rights we give away.

moo how funny you dislike the "addict" phrase that you love to post; must just be more of the same from the sheeple of the do as I say not as I do fringe left.

To address your idiotic claim that I don't want to meet common ground why not step up and PROVE, just once, one of your WILD claims. Then TRY to come back to a discussion and drop the rhetoric and debate ideas...until then...

Let's all breathe a collective sigh of relief knowning Joe Biden and his puppet master are on the job!

Still waiting for one anti 2nd amendment addict to show a consistent position.

And the left continues to gleefully tap dance on the graves of innocent victims in yet another attempt to promote their agenda, that being the disarming of law-abiding citizens. They have been at this for decades, they have a small amount of success, then they have a loss. The net effect is that the left loses. They will lose this one also. There might be a small, token something or another that gets legislated or decreed. Whoever is behind this will pay so dearly at the polls that they won't be able to even state their names. The Dems know this, the Rinos know this too. This is all mostly a show and an attempted power grab.

I am a gun owner,
but I am not crazy.
Just because a person thinks that common sense gun safety is needed,
it does not mean that they are against gun ownership or responsible concealed carry.
Some of those hollering the loudest are
probably among those who should not own firearms
and they probably know it.

The nut jobs without guns appear to be the scary ones here, casually and callously prattling on about grenade launchers, claymore mines and C-4 explosives. More evidence that Obama and friends should focus on the treatment of the mentally ill, in stead of depriving Americans of their Constitutional rights.

Of the 513 murder victims in Chicago during 2012, 55 were under the age of 18, and 50 of them were shot.
The data is available at:
http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/

Chicago has consistently fought to keep its law-abiding citizens disarmed, vying with Washington, D.C. for the title of Murder Capitol of the World. Apparently having his nose rubbed in that fact while a "community organizer" in Chicago, a state Senator in Illinois, a US Senator and President of the United States lording it over, er... I mean "serving the public" in Washington DC, hasn't taught Obama that banning guns will not prevent violence.

Perhaps he will issue an Executive Order granting himself a lifetime 3rd term in office to give him time to get a clue.

When ever someone asks the question "what does anyone need a thirty round clip for" I just ask them if they remember watching the la riots on the news. Where was your police and your government when L.A. was burning? I can remember when shop owners were standing on there roofs with AK 47s to protect themselfs. Now someone please tell me I'm paranoid and something like that can never happen again? Come on people do we really need more laws? The twin towers were brought down with box cutters! It's another way to tax the middle class. I bet my bottom dollar that part of the plan is to add a tax on ammo sales or raise the fee for back ground checks...MARK MY WORDS!

I would probably feel safer with Claymore M18s set at my doors and windows
to defend against groups of criminals.
It would help to thin the ranks so I would not have to do
so much killing by hand.
I wonder when Walmart will make those available.

I'm just waiting for Walmart to sell grenade launchers so I can protect myself against the ar15 people. Maybe F&F could have sales on some c4 and detonators? (sarcasm) Where do you put a stop to the "my gun is bigger than yours" sickness?

Yes Ezoner, everything is the other parties fault. I find it pretty funny that in your own comment you talk about people not taking responsibility and then you turn blame everything on one group of people. Any problems that we have as a society can not be fixed solely by one side, the same way that one side can't be blamed for every one.

The liberal focus is feel good politics. "Hey we did something" That feels good..... No matter that what they do or did had any real positive nor negative impact.... thats not their concern. They see an immediate item, its a round shiny item, they pet it, they stroke it, they take it home. Then -- when its dead they blame it on someone else.

garyprimer - assault rifle owners aren't talking about trying to stop a Marine Amphibious Invasion fleet coming down Rock River by fortifying the lagoon at Traxler Park. From my post about the Evansville gun show cancellation:

the American revolution didn't start with untrained colonists lining up in formation in bright red coats and going toe-to-toe against the British. They fired in ambush from behind trees and rocks - the original "shoot and scoot", giving General Washington and Baron von Steuben time to train the Continental army. Many of the volunteers had been members of the various Colonial militias - think of regular army units VERSUS former National Guard members, not WITH National Guard units.

Talk to veterans of Afghanistan deployments about their experiences with natives possessing Kalashnikov assault rifles. That being said, if it comes to armed rebellion in America, the smart rebels will emulate their forefathers. They will use their scoped, bolt action, deer rifles and take one shot at an occupying soldier, usually in an urban environment, preferably an officer or specialist, and run like heck. They won't be standing at the city limits sign waiting for the 1st Armored Division to arrive while holding an AR-15 in one hand, and waving a "Don't Tread On Me!" flag with the other.

Assault rifles are useful for defending your life, family, and property against groups of criminals. Looters and thugs usually "work" in groups and having a firearm with more useful range than a handgun and more rounds of ammunition than a shotgun can be a lifesaver. Ethnic Korean merchants in LA defended their stores from looters during the Rodney King riots after the police fled the rioters. The Koreans, armed with assault rifles, prevented violence and vandalism.

It's about time that people realize that those on the other side of the aisle ins't trying to destroy the country and take over, they just have different opinions on how it should be run.

garyprimer, I agree kind of like how the left does with wealth and taxes. It goes both ways.

Everyone for common sense gun safety does not hate guns and the Constitution.
That is the type of demonization tactic designed to discredit anyone with a different point of view
and dismiss any chance of having a frank discussion.

Hammer, one of the points in this article touches on your post about arbitrary definitions.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/10/re...

The term “Assault Rifle” is media term. This confuses the public masses. What we have is full automatic and semi automatic rifles. When the media uses the term “Assault Rifle”, which they like to use by the way because they hate guns and don’t like our constitution (another story), with the uninformed public it conjures images of Rambo holding down the trigger and thousands of rounds coming out of the barrel in a matter of seconds (exaggerated). When the media misleads the public in this manner it of course creates pumped up hype against any gun. The public needs more education, truth about the guns discussed.

garyprimer I agree it is the same paranoid thinking that happens on both sides of the aisle, the nuts on the right are just as nutty as the ones on the left. I am not in favor of sweeping gun control because it is simple individuals have the right to have guns and no invasive gun control will stop crazies from killing. On the flipside to use a government enslavement as justification for open gun ownership is just as delusional.

It is a extremely warped fantasy world
where a redneck with an assault rifle
takes on the USMC.
This is the kind of paranoid thinking
that can lead individuals to stage incidents.

SigmundFraud, could you please source your survey of 1000 active marines? I have looked around and can't find one.

Scary how many people in this country can name 5 winners of american idol but cant name 5 signers of the constitution. Just go back to your daytime TV and let the government take care of it because after all they have our best interest at heart right?

@bibledude- In a recent survey of 1000 active duty Marines 42% said the WOULD fire on american citizens if given the order. How successful would a clash of citizens with pistols Vs Marines with ACTUAL assault rifles turn out? A total massacre is how, so if you dont want to own one thats fine but dont try and take them away from the rest of us. Freedom isnt free and just because you arent willing to stand up for it doesnt mean theyre arent others that will on your behalf. I dont think turning us all into defenseless victims is really going to solve the problem do you? The so called assault weapons ban being proposed calls for the banning of ALL semi automatic pistols,rifles,and shotguns as well as forcing all who already own any to register them with the government and forcing businesses to record and report all ammo sales. Sound like commonsense legislation we can all live with? Sure look how well it worked out for Jewish Germans, but that could never happen, again.

concernedwi, bring up an interesting point that coincides with what I said earlier, each side is missing the overall issues and thus like most things nothing will change.

Ecartman, your going to blame the liberals for all of the moral problems?? There are no religious right wingers that have made bad moral decisions? Only liberals are single parents? You even make a comment about not having gun safes. Gun safes prevent accidental shootings, I bet those even occurred "back in the good ole days". It's not a problem that can be blamed on one side, it's our society as a whole changing. 70% or so of our society is still identified as "christian", only 15% claim no religion. 15% of the population sure seems to have a lot of pull....

ecartman, you bring up valid point, however like the people only focusing on guns it is one piece of the puzzle, I would like to add the issue of mental illness that has undoubtedly contributed to these violent and horrific events. Until we are serious about ALL of these and not just the politically expedient one, nothing will change. I am also 40 and I remember actually bringing guns to school in jr. high for hunters safety, we even had kids give demonstration speeches in 10th grade on how to clean them, never an issue. Those guns didn't shoot anyone because they don;t magically pull their own trigger and the kids bringing them were responsible level headed kids, there is a definite contrast from that to what we see now.

Be careful or they'll put y'all back in chains !

Y'all jes mad they ain't no mo Twinkies.

ECartman,,,you are so right on!

I believe what we have is not a gun problem, but a moral issue. Liberals have forced religion, discipline, and family values to the road side. Ask yourself why this was not an issue 20 years ago? It wasn't because there were no guns, or gun safes. This generation is growing up in over video gamed, single parent, no discipline, no religion, no responsibility homes. We have raised a generation of spoiled, over complimented brats. I am 40 years old, and when I was a kid, I understood there were consequences for my actions. Like a good backhand from Dad when I screwed up. You don't see that anymore.

wislady..that would be asking them to focus on things other than the topic du jour and coming up with knee jerk reactions. Budgets and federal debt are too boring for them.

If Biden and Obama worked as hard and campaigned as much on getting the Budget done, we would make some progress.

Hey Siggy- So if we ban the assault rifles there is nothing left to defend yourself with? By the way, there are a growing number of conservatives like me who feel the way I do.

janesvillecomments...excellent post! What they are doing now on gun control is a dog and pony show so they don't have to deal with the real problems facing us.

RAF- I know....right?.....How about Dateline or whatever it was last night about those motor vehicle homicides where they only got "X" days in jail.."texting", as it were.
Use the right murder tool and get away with ANYTHING.

Here is what the left wants stopped...people protecting themselves.

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-...

The Militia Act of 1792 states that all Military age men must own a "Military Rifle". In its first draft it said "Musket" but they changed it to Military rifle knowing that technology advances and you need to be equipped with the most modern rifle available. George Mason, Co-author of the second amendment stated when asked what he meant by militia that he was refering to every individual person. Get it through your head, disarming good people only encourages bad people to do more evil. Disarmed societies become nations of victims at the mercy of their rulers. On a side note , Were any of you outraged any of the dozens of times our drone strikes have killed children in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Children die here and its a moral outrage but we kill hundreds of children in the middle east and thats just foriegn policy? No child should be murdered anywhere but you libs are such uninformed hypocrites.

Speaking as a Libertarian who held his nose and voted for Romney, I'd like to see the "Yes We Can" Democrats try the "little things" first, like:

offer a truly balanced budget for the next four years.

produce a real plan for reducing our national deficit.

create a more favorable tax climate for businesses that hire American workers.

simplify the tax code.

change the laws and regulations to get energy companies using American energy resources instead of Arab oil.

create real campaign financing reform that reigns in the stooges bribing both the parties.

require political tele-spammers to restrict themselves to a database of people who have opted into the list.

decriminalize drugs to end the futile "war on drugs" and bust the cartels and Afghani terrorist groups funding.

cancel their current health care plans in exchange for whatever Obamacare is going to give the American people.

encourage the United Nations to relocate their headquarters somewhere closer to countries most in need, such as Somalia, Bosnia, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, or Tibet.

After they demonstrate some basic political competence with all those problems, then they may look into making changes to the Constitution. I'd prefer they institute term limits for Representatives and Senators, and change the Presidency to a single term, before they change my 2nd Amendment rights.

Is that too much to ask? (Take note, Republicans, you ARE the other half of the political problem in America.) Feel free to copy the above list and send it to your elected officials.

Speaking as a conservative who voted for Regan, Bush and Romney, bring on the gun control laws. This "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" Isn't cutting it anymore. Our founding fathers could never have conceived the kind of weaponry we have now. Right to bear arms- yes. Right to own the assault weapons used in mass murders? Why do you need them. The people who are against making changes in our existing laws are on the wrong side of history. If you are on the right as I am, think for yourself, don't be a sheep. I could care less if every one in my party sided with the NRA on this, I refuse to. No one should follow hook line and sinker what their political party endorses, think for yourself. This should not be a left or right issue, let's make America safer.

In a nation were murder is already a crime, abortions are tax payer funded, people who kill others while texting and driving get jail sentences under 60 days, this administration’s answer on this issue is focus on a tool used while ignoring the root cause. So very sad.

Why not have the NRA fund the guards? 100% tax on guns and ammo to pay for guards?

The Liberal approach as usual; READY....FIRE............AIM!!!

You folks would have no problem with the government,
your beloved president, commander in chief,
posting military guards throughout the country?
I can't believe what I am reading.

I am all for armed guards in every school,but if they do,i don't think it should be an added expense to the tax payer,why, because we already have the military that is suppose to protect us,they already get paid,so putting them in every school is a no brainer!

Coming from a presidency who had not cared or predilection about gun control in giving away free guns to mexican cartels it seems a bit strange them wanting gun control now.