Bill how dare you and your personal attacks. Don't you understand only members from the party of, "do as I say not as I do" are ALLOWED personal attacks..please adjust accordingly.

Fertilizer, airplane fuel and trucks have primary purposes that do not include killing people and animals.

TIMOTHY MCVEIGH didn't use a gun. He killed 168 innocent people. 19 were children under the age of 6. He injured 600 plus more. They still sell fertilizer. They still sell airplane fuel. They still rent box trucks. Evil people will find a way to do evil things. With or with out a gun.

TIMOTHY MCVEIGH didn't use a gun. He killed 168 innocent people. 19 were children under the age of 6. He injured 600 plus more. They still sell fertilizer. They still sell airplane fuel. They still rent box trucks. Evil people will find a way to do evil things.

mteg, comparing assault weapons to "alcohol, fast food, smoking, etc" makes absolutely no sense. If you choose to drink, eat or smoke YOURSELF to death, that's your choice. How can you compare these things to a weapon that can kill dozens of OTHER people in a heartbeat?

Actually, you can own a machine gun if you have enough money and can qualify for the required permits, Prounion. Also, if you know where one is, you can steal one or you can buy one from a thief. Those 2 methods are the way that most criminals who have guns illegally acquire them, just as did the Sandy Hook murderer.

It's true, NVgrf. I don't have a Master's degree in Shooting Off My Mouth. I'll defer to your pre-eminence in the use of that device.

As for why your post was removed, take it up with Scott Angus. I didn't see it. But I'm sure that if it were up to me, I'd have left it up since I have no objection to letting the whole world see the quality of posts we can expect from the very highly educated.

I wonder, do all "gun nuts" oppose homosexual marriage? Do all "gun nuts" oppose abortion? Obviously not. I'd even bet (a penny or two) that some "gun nuts" are Democrats! Just as not all Muslims want their government involvement in who marries who and what a woman does with her body, even though it seems from the overwhelming amount of media reports that they all do. You don't suppose that the media has a bias against Muslims like they do "gun nuts" and "right wingers" do you? Isn't it disingenuous to knowingly promote a false image of a group of people for the a purpose of advancing a political goal? Certainly, the highly educated would say yes to that, wouldn't they?

Kilgore - why can't I own a fully auto machine gun? How will I protect myself from criminals with my crappy semi-auto assualt rifle?

How on earth did America ever survive for over 200 years without "Assualt Type" weapons?

KilgoreTrout said, "People have the right to defend themselves and their families with the same amount of firepower and magazine capacity as the criminals who may attack them. Case closed."

One can, of course, declare rights that don't exist and try to impart a minutiae of gravitas by exclaiming, "case closed." However, the constitutionality of restricting the types of weapons that people can own and bear is well established.

People have the right to defend themselves and their families with the same amount of firepower and magazine capacity as the criminals who may attack them. Case closed.

And as for your personal attack on me Billy, do yourself a favor and get an education before you shoot your mouth off.

Billy...There was absolutely nothing vulgar or obscene in my comment. I merely used the proper biological term in the following paraphrased statement. These gun nuts want no government interference with the already existing gun laws, but are quick to want government involvement in who marries who and what a woman does with her body.

Eysters headline box says "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Finally something I can agree on with him. No matter what side of gun control you are on this is part of our "liberties".
Start taking one away and how long before the next one goes? This is a slippery slope of which there is no good answers outside of "Eternal vigilance".

prounion - while I haven't decided which side of gun control I will land on...yes, Australia and Great Britain do have restrictions and little gun crime, but 1) they are islands where incoming shipments may be more easily monitored, and GB is far smaller than the US and 2) there are far fewer people in either spot than in the US. I'm just not sure the way they implement those regulations could really work here.

Here are 2 statistics that obuma and biden have failed to share. Out of all crimes committed, "assualt style" rifles were involved .03%. In all of gun deaths in US, it's estimated that less than 100 deaths a year can be attributed to "assualt style" rifles, less than 1%. "Assualt Style" rifles kill less people in US than lightning strikes. So if this is all about the children (Obama stealing the teacher union quote), then why isnt he focusing his gun control measures on 9mm handguns. It's faulty logic. As for the opinion of people not needing "assualt style" weapons, heres a list of things people don't need to own or indulge in that can kill:
alcohol
fast food
smoking
certain breeds of dogs-pits, bulls, mastiffs, etc (kill on average 30 people a year)
any car that can go over 65
motorcycles
swimming
non-protected sex
etc....
Aside from dog owenership, alcohol, and smoking most people would scoff at banning any of these...yet they kill far more people...than all gun deaths combined. but like obuma says-its all about keeping kids safe

Didn't Aulstralia prevent these types of slaughters from happening with tougher gun laws? They haven't had one since they instituted the changes int he 90's? Just doing some fact checking here.

poobah, May I add that these defenseless children were not just murdered, they were slaughtered. Little Noah Pozner was shot 11 times, as a result his jaw and left hand was blown off. That is the reality of this carnage that some choose to ignore. May we never hold witness to something like this again.

When you use a tragedy to peddle “solutions” that wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy, then you’re not really peddling solutions at all. . . .

There are more options than the one you mention, Poobah. For instance, we could mourn the needless deaths of those children without using them as excuses for instituting gun controls that people like you have wanted for decades. Opportunists such as our President in this matter are the disingenuous and disgusting ones. I'm not at all surprised that you try to portray my position as that. Deliberate mischaracterization always seems to be the way you react to posts you don't agree with.

Too bad NVgrf's comment was removed. I didn't get to see it but I'm sure it would have nourished his ever growing shameless, self-serving reputation. A reputation that Poobah is cultivating as well.

Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Guns are actually banned. Yet Chicago has the highest murder by gun rate in the nation.
Billnewbie at 11:59am makes some great points.
Regarding point #3, Vietnam vets raise your hand if you remember taping magazines together to facilitate a quick reload.
.
Hint. For a real evaluation of the Sandy Hook incident think short bus.

billnewbie said, "...the President and the gun control lobby have no problem whatsoever in using the dead victimized children of Sandy Hook as pawns..."

The comment is as disingenuous as it is disgusting. The other option, of course, is for people to ignore the fact that 20 young school children and 6 adults were murdered at Sandy Hook. In which case you and others would claim they were being insensitive and/or ignoring reality.

I saw today that President Obama's press secretary said "Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," in reference to an NRA ad pointing out that the President's children are defended at school with armed guards. I, for one agree. The NRA should withdraw the ad immediately.

However, Mr. Carney, the President and the gun control lobby have no problem whatsoever in using the dead victimized children of Sandy Hook as pawns (or should I say "martyrs", eh John?) in that very same political fight.

"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)

I'm actually pro gun, when it comes to our right to protect ourselves. Unfortunate as it may be, it's becoming more apparent everyday that we live in a time where you may need to protect yourself at the drop of a hat. I get that, and fully support concealed carry.

What I'm against are assault weapons. Weapons that can kill 20 people in under a minute. That gun belongs in our troops' hands in the Middle East, not in civilian hands here.

So what is the reason they should be here?

Not going to happen. Meaningless bans of this and that are pleasurable for the lefties to talk about. It makes them feel better. The politicians remember the aftermath from the 1994 ban. The Dems are the most strident supporters, if they did pass something, there wouldn't be a Dem elected or re-elected for the next 10 years. Most of the Repubs are at least intelligent enough to realize this, as are a few of the Dems.

The lefties and Dems are the best guns, ammo and accessory salesmen the world has ever seen. Stocks are depleted, the supply lines won't be refilled for months or years, this is putting a few people to work, at least. It is an amazing spectacle to say the least.

I love hearing opinions from folks who learned all they know from the movies...go ahead and ban clips that hold more than 10 rounds as my Garand only takes 8 rounds in a clip.

its an interesting concept that you pose Just. We should carry it forward and make EVERYTHING illegal then have to petition to have things made legal after we prove that they are justified. Dictators world wide would just salavate at the prospect of being able to reproduce your line of reasoning into the heads of their slaves.. I mean subjects.

Gun control opponents unwittingly support gun control with their citations of the Second Amendment militia reference. Conservative Supreme Court justice Scalia, writing for the Court in D.C. v. Heller, has acknowledged and supported the longstanding restrictions on gun ownership in America under the Second Amendment. "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [...] We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”" [ http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/upl... ]

I am sure many gun control proponents would support militia members storing their arms and ammunition in an armory, to be distributed as needed for the defense of the country.

I love all the supposed gun experts here who know exactly how many seconds it takes to change a clip.

Why must we say "it wouldn't have changed things at Sandy Hook"? That tragedy is behind us, and there is no way to change it. What about the next school shooting? Or the next mall shooting? How does anyone know that an assault weapon won't be used there? You don't.

I'd love to hear an argument as to why assault weapons should be legal, besides "it's my right".

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHAll NOT BE INFRINGED.

The question's been asked, would all of these new gun laws enacted or proposed have made a difference at Sandy Hook?

Let's look at a few and see.

1. Universal Federal background checks. No, background checks of any kind are useless when the shooter steals the guns he used as the Sandy Hook murderer did.

2. Assault Rifle bans. No, that wouldn't have helped either since the 2 hand guns the Sandy Hook killer had were just as lethal. Besides, there seems to be some dispute that the Assault Rifle was even used as there have been reports (on NBC no less) that it never left the murderer's car. The courts have sealed the evidence for a while yet, so we won't for sure until it is released.

3. Banning high capacity magazines. Sorry, this wouldn't help either. Limiting the magazine capacity to 10 rounds doesn't really do anything. It takes about 2 seconds to change magazines. A well prepared killer such as the Sandy Hook murderer would only have to carry 3 or 4 loaded magazines per gun on his person. They don't weigh much and they are easy to carry.

In short, They are whacking the wrong mole here. These "solutions" are what folks like John Eyster have been pining for for years. They are just being opportunistic. The proof of this includes referring to the murdered children of Sandy Hook as "martyrs". It's disgusting to see these murdered children used to advance a decades old cause that if enacted years ago would have not prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Aside from a larger mag clip (that adds 3 sec changing a 10rd one vs a 20rd one) none of the other so called cosmetic features of the supposed "assault style" gun had anything to do with the way a gun opperates. I personally find an adjustable stock and polyurethane grip more appeasing than a "1 size fits all" Oak 1 piece...that most rifles have.

Raffi, you are making a claim that cannot be proven or dis proven.

Didn't Australia get tired of the mass shottings and enact tought gun laws and experience an almost elimination in mass shootings? Do you guys have links to counter that bit of information?

Yet none of these changes would have stopped the Sandy Hook incident. But as long as you feel better...

Look at the statistics...Assualt rifles are use in about .03% of all crimes commited in us-accoriding to FBI. They are inolved in less than 100 out of 12,000 shooting deaths...I think Lightning kills more people than that.I suppose obuma's next step is to tax God...or try to regulate him with lightning strikes allowed, lol

Hell and no....Assualt weapons didnt kill the people at Sandy Hook...a mentally deranged person did. Why dont we just start banning other things that kill...like drinking, cars, smoking, sex, Mcdonalds...Heck lets ban or tax the heck out of obese people, ban fast food, etc...ban movies, ban video games, ban everthing that is unhealthy physically or mentally. It's a stupid arguement completely politically motivated...all capitalized on by obuma. to him it was both a tear of sadness and a tear of joy, being able to further advance his politcal agenda of trampleing the constituion and bringing us closer to socialism. If he really cared...if him and biden really wanted to curb gun violence, they would look at the statistics, and focus on the highest culprit...which would be 9mm hand guns. But liberal media doesnt really care about the hundreds of low income, poverty stricken, inner city, gang shootings...many of them kids...that occur daily. Nope, lets glamorize a school shooting in a nice area...tragic yes, but barly a blip on the number of gun deaths in America based on yearly total. Lets trample the rights of thousands of law abiding US citizens, because god forbid...we violate the rights of 1...a mentally deranged person that should have been forciblly and involuntary committed long before this occured.

Wow again the so-called man of higher education shows his ignorance. Come on eyester we don't need more feel good legislation, what we need is to enforce the laws that we already have and to quit coddling prisoners!!!!!! If someone is in prison for violent crimes make them do hard manual labor, take away their weight rooms and basketball courts, take away the luxeries that they are allowed to have. Make it so prisons are no longer considered no big deal I get 3 hots and a cot! Make prisons back to what they used to be and that is PUNISHMENT!!!!!!!!!

Sigh.....Just another loony liberal ......