The thoughts of an 'excitable boy'? It sure seems that way to me. I don't know if excitable boys should be given a permit for a gun.

You are incorrect. He used an assault weapon. Yes, a rifle was left in the car, and we've seen that footage. But no one who wasn't there has seen what was inside. Initial reports were that it was only handguns, but initial reports were wrong - imagine that. At this point, with all the "but he didn't use an assault weapon" nonsense, they should release pictures of the victims so you folks would lower your voices some.

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

- Adolph Hitler on passage of Germany's 'Weapons Act' - 1935 -

I'm confused, do we believe the first account "no assault rifle" was used or the second saying "an assault rifle was used" ? guess it depends how you want the story to read to the public (agenda's). Do you really think all the facts are in the public eye? If it's on the internet or in the news, it MUST be true. Doesn't matter anyway because, any gun can have multiple rounds in it. If you think mass killings will stop because guns are taken away your crazy; the nut jobs will move to mass killing with tools such as car bombs, pipe bombs, or other things objects.

"I'm confused, do we believe the first account 'no assault rifle' was used or the second saying 'an assault rifle was used?"

Exactly. I saw the interview with Newton's Police Chief when he confirmed that an assault rifle (planted?) had been found in the shooter's car trunk.

Maybe he and his police are liars. Maybe not.

For sure however, on the following Saturday Evening News with Scott Pelley, Pelly dourly announced---with no explanation---at the outset that the shooters' weapon was the assault rifle and not the glock pistols.

It was followed by an "interview" that was not an "interview" by David Muir with a fellow from the WH who simply repeated Pelley's announcement---again without explanation and, instead, Muirs' pleaing for gun-control.

No explanation and, by Muir, no questions asked.

Sort of like the WH announcing its gunrunning to Mexico (Calderon), was just an ATF "botch job" and, givenour objective investigative reporters, so it must be---period.

Similarly Obama's scapegoating Americans for the terrorist attack(s) on our embassies on 9/11/12.

Attacks (this case in Benghazi) that were reported (naming the terrorist group) and aired (even in Atlanta digitally) by "France 24" even prior (given the time difference) to Obama's lying Rose Garden Speech on 9/13.

"The thoughts of an 'excitable boy'? It sure seems that way to me. I don't know if excitable boys should be given a permit for a gun."

Then why are neaby police departments being given permits for guns?

AMEN! The best and only form of gun control that is proven to work AND is Constitutional. What part of "Shall not be infringed upon" can't people understand?

Me too second offense automatic death penalty, no exceptions.

No, easy access to highly lethal weapons by people with untreated mental illness is the problem. Why would we only tackle this issue from one angle (mental illness) when tackling it from both is likely to bring about much better results?

"No, easy access to highly lethal weapons by people with untreated mental illness is the problem."

As determined by who? A government which has sent thousands of guns to Mexico's gangsters?

True statement Vianen, and I do not disagree, nor would any pro-gun person in here; but there is a very slippery slope involved. Since the beginning of organized governments, "mental health" has been used as a means of coercion and retaliating against political enemies. The Soviet Union and the Nazi's made it an art form. It is extremely reasonable, and common sensical to say that if someone has been charged with an issue that lands them in a mental facility, or if they've been committed at some point, they're not a candidate for legal firearm ownership.

And to Don's point; he makes an incredibly valid statement. Our own government sent guns directly into the hands of Mexican cartels, the goal being to create a political platform on which to push its gun control agenda. This act, which the DoJ is desperately trying to cover up got an American Border Patrol agent murdered, and guns from this operation have seen 200+ Mexican innocent murdered using guns supplied by the US Government. So we're at a critical tipping point where the government is quite literally acting in a criminal fashion in its own right.

This makes the issue of using "mental health" as a barometer very tricky.

I agree. This is a mental illness issue and not a gun control issue. Having lived in New England, a mentally ill person cannot be committed unless they volunteer on their own. This was particularly disturbing as we were unable to get treatment for my father in law that was an avid gun collector (of all types). He went manic and there was absolutely nothing any one could do to help the situation. The police, by law, can only take action when there is a crime -- that's when people die unnecessarily as in the Newtown instance. We should be looking at the preceding events to the massacre instead of taking reactive measures. Unfortunately, that would point to law enforcement, healthcare and state laws that prevent those seeking help to get help. There is no gun control in that equation and the fact that gun control is the first variable to be analyzed is stupid in my opinion. If we want gun control reform, fine, but it's not directly related to this incident. People kill people and if guns weren't available the weapon would be something else - a car driven into a playground or mall, a bat, homemade bombs or whatever.

"And to Don's point; he makes an incredibly valid statement. Our own government sent guns directly into the hands of Mexican cartels, the goal being to create a political platform on which to push its gun control agenda."---Brian

While later true to a degree, I concluded long ago that the gunrunning to Mexico's gangsters was a sorry cover-up for a Contraesque provision of arms to Mexico's Calderon and Mexico's so-called police and military.

After the initial allocations of millions to Calderon by Congress, per the 'Merida Intiative,' Congress later refused to supply more money to Calderon for the purchase of arms and misnomered War on Drugs.

I concluded such not merely for the ludicrous ascertion by the ATF and Holder that the thousands of weapons run were to trace their dispositions to Mexico's cartels when such a tactic would depend on Mexico's so-called police and army to detect and report whatever weapons that would, then, supposedly be encountered.

If you believe that nonesense than you'd believe also, that the MxGov was actually "redfaced" recently for arresting and parading before MxCty's news cameras the wrong person---though the man was indeed the wrong person---as their and the US's most wanted Mx Cartel boss.

All that poor fellow arrested could have been guilty of was legitimate dissent.

And whatever happened to him?

"No, easy access to highly lethal weapons by people with untreated mental illness is the problem."
Vianen, I wasn't arguing against restricting access, just pointing out that the TYPE of firearm makes little difference. Thus my reference to the Texas tower sniper.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/struck-living/201212/armed-untreated-mental-illness-is-the-deadliest-killer

You are far mor likely to be killed by some one talking on a cellphone and driving, that is what needs to be outlawed.

@Ron Faulk, that is what's called a straw man argument. Just because you're more likely to be killed in a certain way doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to address another issue.

"Paranoia"?

You must live in a vault.

"These bumper sticker platitudes are growing old." Count Raoul

The US Constitution is no "bumper sticker platitude."

absolutely correct E Pluribus Unum... your comment is right on the money...unfortunately

Yes. Right on target, as usual.

I second Stephen's and your sentiment.

Such as the radio talk show host who believes that the shooting at Sandy Hook
were a hoax!

Wow. Amen. I'm tired of reading the extremist comments from the right. To me it's simple math. More guns = more deaths by guns.

So, "E Pluribus Unum", if I happen to disagree with you, you'll label me as an anti-government survivalist, a member of a para-military hate group, and a real wacko". And if I feel my rights are being infringed upon, your solution would be to have me evaluated for mental health problems. To me, that's just a threat to silence anyone who disagrees with you. This is extortion; intimidating others with threats against their rights and liberties. If someone is truly mentally disturbed, yes, they should not have a gun. However, expressing concern that our constitutional rights may be at risk, does not qualify as an indication of mental illness. I am open to a reasonable discussion on this subject.

What is your source or backup for your assertion that people back these measures? Calls are coming into congress 9 to 1 against.

Every one of these mass shootings were perpetrated in a gun free zone. Next time you face a criminal with a gun why not hold up copies of the executive orders and of course the criminal, who by the way will have a illegal weapon with as many bullets in the clip as he wants, will drop his weapon and run in fear. The housewife who shot the intruder in her home a cup,e of weeks ago was cowering in the crawl space and the criminals hunted her it. She emptied the gun into him and he still lived long enough to run away. What if he had an accomplice. I am sure he would have waited for her to reload 5 more bullets in her gun.

@Jeff Thompson: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-poll_n_2498840.html or just do a Google search. There have been tons of polls lately and they all show strong support for the types of laws Obama has proposed.

There isn't one thing in your post that is close to reality. You, and the rest of the people in this thread that agree with you are simply ignoring some very important facts. Law abiding gun owners don't have any issues with background checks. There are already over 20,000 guns laws on the books, enforce those. The rest of your comments are nothing buy vitriolic ad hominem that couldn't be further from the truth, as evidenced by the fact you can't back any of it up with facts or a logical argument. You also ignore reality that guns are used for self defense by people who ignore your laws, than used in crime. The rest of you cry and call names when you cannot talk in a echo chamber replete with people that agree with you. Call names, and fail at making a rational argument.

"The vitriol is coming from anti-government, survivalist, para-military hate groups, real wackos, who think they will be fighting a war to overthrow the government or "cleanse" the country in order to bring it back to white supremacy. "---EPU

Like the 9/11/12 attacks on our embassies were the work of passerbys incited by a movie they never even heard of until seeing Obama, Clinton and Rice scapegoating
Americans for it?

They have T.V.s too you know.

When, thanks to "France 24," the truth was already out even prior to Obama's lying Rose Garden Speech?

Obama would even later have the gall to declare that his Rose Garden Speech was an effort to tell Muslims that they must help Americans when, if fact, it was a Muslim militia of the Libyan government that had not only battled the attacking terrorists but had been naming the terrorist group to the embassy for a full week prior to their attack.

The Muslim miltia had been telling the embassy just who the terrorist group was since the group had crossed the border into Libya from Egypt. The embassy, in turn, pled with the USSOS to send an (escape) plane issued---but refused.

Fundamentalist crazies or not---AMERICANS---made convenient scapegoat by our own President---in fact fueling more violance---with his lies---agaisnt our embassies throughout the Muslim world.

Besides their nearly immediate interviews with the Libyan militia following the attack in Benghazi, "France 24" had also aired actual battle scenes that had to have been given them by the embassy from its own security cameras (linked to DC).

Miminmal battle footage aired in the US only weeks after Obama, previously petrified to speechlessness, and the last debate's moderator ("You have a 'transcript'"?) successfully set up the American electorate (in their unsucessful attempt to set up Romney) and his, nonetheless, election.

Obama and ("They didn't tell us") Biden must be impeached.

Thank God, Rice has been removed from the line of succession leaving Kerry.

'There have been tons of polls lately and they all show strong support for the types of laws Obama has proposed."

Check out last night's Evening News with Brian Williams.

The majority supports the NRA's position not Obama's

EPU:

Per Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 29 regarding the militia (capitalized emphasis my own):

“Yet is is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This appears to me the only SUBSTITUTE that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.“

Do note that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), , the SCOTUS said that our Constitution presumes that every able-bodied ordinary citizen is part of the "militia."

"So, 'E Pluribus Unum', if I happen to disagree with you, you'll label me as an '-government survivalist, a member of a para-military hate group, and a real wacko'. "---Lucy

It's a script and tactic traceable on the usenet to proactive censors of the MxGov.

"E Pluribus Unum"

'United' it wins.

they were stupid way before this James...

Insults are not a valid argument.

But your mama is really into us.

Sorry James, but "Well Regulated" at the time meant "Well Functioning" as in a well regulated watch was one that kept good time. It did not mean government regulation. Read a few scholarly papers about the topic before you spout off next time, and this should inform your 'sixth grade' thinking on the matter and lend a little credibility on your attacks on the south.

"Why is it that any well-schooled Sixth Grader can parse the phrase "well regulated militia",...

I had it parsed by the 4th grade. Place Long Island NY.

"....yet the putative adults in the room can not?"

Such as yourself?

Obviously you have never lived in the utter hellhole a country is when only its police and military have guns.

Something you should not be demanding for others much less children anywhere.

"Sorry James, but "Well Regulated" at the time meant "Well Functioning" as in a well regulated..."----Jeff

Still is at times.

:-) Not that a good dose of castor oil might prove it.

Laura, is this a serious comment or are you making a joke? Perhaps you want all hunting illegal, all gun sports illegal (like target pratice, trap, skeet). At $1000 a shell it would be virtually impossible for honest Americans to enjoy their guns.

Move to Cuba Laura, they have very strict gun control and socialized medicine, it would be like papadise for you.

You are more likely to be killed by second hand smoke than you are by a gun. I say we put a $100 tax on every single cigarette and limit people to five a day.

So Laura under your plan, you don't want gun owners to be able to learn gun safety or practice safe shooting? I'm hoping you're just joking. You also know that people can and do make their own ammunition at home right? It's called reloading and it's pretty popular. Seems that the people with the strongest opinions often know the least about the topics....

The right to bear arms implies the right to even manufacture them.

Or would you have it, that Freedom of the Press, can also be infringed by simply excessively taxing the manufacture and distribution of paper?

Nice reality check, Scott.

which means nothing will happen...sigh...

and if I recall correctly, the NRA trotted out their lunatic director and every gun "enthusiast" in the US is tasking full advantage of this crisis to get their views heard as well, ie "Gun Appreciation Day".. could anything be less compassionate and more inhuman about a bunch of dead kids?

Stephen, re your comment about the NRA taking advantage....come on. The NRA is playing defense to Obama's offense. They are under attack! They are like the football player the throws a punch in response to getting kicked in the nuts first. The second guy always gets the flag. Do you expect them to sit back and say, "Yeah, it's a pity about those kids. Let's kill the 2nd amendment!" ??

"Obama and his pals trotted out children..."

It's a script and tactic traceable on the usenet to proactive censors of the MxGov and implemented relentlessly by the stateside MxGov.

For example: if the children of illegals are returned to Mx, along with their illegal parents, somehow they must be "a family divided."

As it is: We 'divided' on the delibierate nonesense, and it (the MxGov) again wins..

"Stephen, re your comment about the NRA taking advantage....come on. The NRA is playing defense to Obama's offense."---Joe

Not unlike when Obama attempted to put the onus on those who opposed Rice for SOS by daring them to come after him instead.

As if it were those who oppposed the nomination who had nominated Rice (indeed put her on the frontlne between themselves and Obama to insulate Obama) and not Obama himself.

The script and tactic being yet another adapted from elsewhere but for similar purpose..

"Vitriol"---A Decatur Mom

As concocted and deliberately fueled per:

Revenge of the Register? « Hot Air
hotair.com/archives/2012/10/25/revenge-of-the-register/

Oct 25, 2012 – Barack Obama, Univision radio interview, October 25, 2010. ... calling Americans who disagree with him “enemies” who should be punished.

PJ Media » Univision Breaks New Details of Obama Admin's Fast ...
pjmedia.com/.../univision-breaks-new-details-of-obama-admins-fast-...

Sep 30, 2012 – On Sunday night, Spanish-language station Univision— one of the only ..... to have been revenge (even though we're pretty sure some of the ATF .... radio and asked for “enemies” to be punished, that was a dog whistle.

On Nov. 2, a reckoning for Democrats: Obama wants enemies ...
www.nydailynews.com/.../nov-2-reckoning-democrats-obama-enemi...

Oct 29, 2010 – In a radio interview that aired Monday on Univision, President Obama chided ... 2, a reckoning for Democrats: Obama wants enemies punished, but left ... to exact political revenge on their enemies - presumably, for example, ...

Its really easy to "shoot holes" in someone else's plan.. SInce you seem to have the pulse of the founding fathers and know both sides so well, what would you do?

Here is the problem---

we have an epidemic of mass shootings lately in this country. Gun violence has escalated year after year in the US and we (the people) would like to address this issue within the confines of the constitution and in a rational manner that would have some impact on reducing the number and severity of these senseless acts while giving due consideration to every side of the argument. (sort of like what the President did)

What is your suggestion?

I guess the "well-regulated" part was merely rhetorical flourish... a stylish embellishment to charm the reader and delight the constitutional dilettante.

There was no standing army, it was to protect the gov and the country. The founding fathers were all well off, so they wanted stability. They had things to lose. That why it talks about militia not just the people will all be armed. So citizens could come to the aid of their country.

Brian, that is spot on.

Fourth Ward, your comments are founded on the premise that those seeking to pull off a bad act...large or small in scale...will actually follow whatever laws regarding gun purchase, registration, training, licensing, etc. Do you really think that a drug dealer downtown, or any of the 450 gun-shooting murderers in Chicago got their weapons at Dick's or Walmart? Seriously?

And speaking of Chicago, Obama's home town, run by Obama's former Chief of Staff and home to Obama's chief political brain...these are the smartest people in the land, right? And they are concerned about gun violence, right? Do you realize that there is a muder by gun every 17 hours? 1.4 a day? 450 in 2012? That is a Newtoen EVERY SINGLE MONTH!

And most of the victims are "young" according to the Washington Post: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-21/national/36017398_1_gun-violence-homicide-rate-national-gun-debate

Why haven't the smartest, most compassionate and most powerful people in Chicago and Washington not fixed this problem? PS...Chicago already has the toughest gun control laws in the country.

Brian, the red herring is the argument you make. Trying to compare knives, fists, cars, etc. with guns is absurd. These assault style weapons are not designed to butter your bread; they are designed to kill large quantities of people.
Had someone walked into Newton School with a steak knife and fork, are you going to try to claim that 26 people would have paid the ultimate price for this?
You talk about your right to bear arms, but what about my rights? Hypothetically, let’s say someone steals you assault style weapon, and uses it in a crime. Should you not be liable for allowing that weapon to fall into criminal hands? What about my constitutional right to life? My right to life far exceeds anyone’s right to bear arms.
There needs to be a comprehensive rational discussion on what weapons the average citizen should have. Most Gun Control advocates are not trying to take your hunting riffle away. However, the lethality of some of the weapons preclude them from any average citizen needs to possess them.
Guns are not the only issue, nor will any gun law solely resolve this issue. But the lethality of some of the assault type rifles plays a part. Mental Health and society attitudes at large need to be addressed too.

Brookhaven4u. You talk about your right to life, then you defeat your own argument. The items you call my red herrings are used in more violent crimes than an AR15. And, AR15's are used (as are all firearms) far more in any given year in acts of self defense than they are violent crimes. So if your argument was truly about your right to life, you'd have made a logical statement. You have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens with firearms of any type. You are more likely to be bludgeoned, stabbed, beaten, or run over than you are to be harmed by an AR15. BTW: an AR15 is not a military weapon, and a "style" doesn't make it anymore deadly. The AR15 round is not a large round. Your comments unfortunately speak to a huge lack of knowledge on the topic, bolstered by an irrational fear of people and objects you have no reason to fear.

Brian, I do support some of your comments, but must comment on your take on violent crime. For murders by gun (the main component of violent crime for this discussion), the U.S. is way ahead of the U.K., and the U.K. is much safer than most if not all of Africa. I realize that reporting varies by country, but in 2011 the U.S. had approximately 9,400 murders and the U.K. a reported 14. South Africa about 32,000 and Zimbabwe about 600. In the U.K. they report most crime as violent - much more crimes are included than in most juristrictions in the U.S.

My point: statisitcs can be bend any way you want, but the U.S. has much more murders per capita than the U.K.

I do not believe restricting legimate gun ownership is the answer however.

"My point: statisitcs can be bend any way you want, but the U.S. has much more murders per capita than the U.K. "

Where the police do not bear arms---also.

Have you read "More Guns, Less Crime" by Dr. John Lott, or the accompanying peer-reviewed academic studies by Kleck? I think you might be surprised, as Kleck was a strong anti-gun guy before he actually did the research.

I'll give that some thought, Brian.

Almost - "Well Regulated" at the time meant "Well Functioning" as in a well regulated watch was one that kept good time. It did not mean government regulation.

"@James: "well regulated" applied to what existed of the standing Army at the time. The standing army at the time was weak, and was supplemented by 'the people'.---Brian

You really have to re-study American History 101.

There was no "standing army". The militias were "The People" (as minutemen and later state militias').

The fact is, Americans wanted no "standing army" and in fact feared the concept and thorougly believed the "well-armed"* militia (as per above) would serve to protect the citizenry from the rise of any tyranny either home-grown or (as we are experiencing today from MxCty) abroad.

They thoroughly believed a "standing army" would support government and not "the People." The transition from a "well armed" yeomanry in England to the "standing army" of British Kings had served ample warning even prior to the American Revolution.

It wasn't until well after the ratification of the US Constitution when Alexander Hamilton successfully lobbied congress to create one. A very minimal one to essentially collect import duties at US seaports and guard against Citizen Genets.

* "well-armed;" as per the Federalist Papers: to be armed no less than any "standing army."

Annie, you are so right. Obama collects 93% of the black vote. And besides throwing money at them for various "social" programs, what, exactly, has he done to help them? Obama's own home town Chicago...the district he represented as a State Senator for 7 years and a US Senator after that, has a Newtown every month, and has had one every month for years, and where has our "leader" been?

Absent.

All this gushing by Obama and politicians about guns and children is BS. Whenever a politician says "It's about the children" it's never about the children. It's about politicians and politics.

Brian, you're clearly on e one side of the argument and incapable of realizing that you might be wrong about anything . It would not be possible to have a rationale discussion since you are so smart and I am so stupid. right? That seems to be what I read with my dumb ole hick brain...:) anyway, I find it fascinating that this issue is so immediately polarizing when the effects of dong nothing are so plainly visible every day in the news. It also seems like the President was lambasted for "making law through executive order" etc.. ad nauseum, and then when he did the rationale thing he is now being bashed for not doing anything significant through executive order. The gun nuts just want to bitch. SImple as that. Any reason they can come up with to help the country and this administration fail is fair game.

"So if the 2nd amendment, the one written to expressly keep the federal government in check is subject to such discussion; then so must be the 1st amendment, which assured our ability to express political thought."----Brian

And the most neglected, and to date underminded, 5th.

To protect dissenters from brutal repression.

There was no government organized militia at the time. The term 'militia' meant all able bodied men.

To your other question, the government is limited by having ordinary citizens armed.

"Question:
How is the reach of Government limited by packing its militia with well-armed citizens?"

The Executive Branch has long exceeded its Constitutional limit on not only overly centralized and all-pervading federal government but also the balance of powers on the level of Federal Government.

The command of the State Guards (the "militia" as it legitimately evolved) must return to the states' respective governors.

The Cheif Executive's Department of Homeland Security and its (his) virtually total control of virtually all police forces in the USA, must be dissolved.

And, while we are at it, the check and balance, of the CIA to function abroad only and the FBI at home only must be restored.

"Should murder be legal?"---Krik

What a bizarre question.

No interpretation or passing of statute law can legalize that which by long precedent is illegal.

Sort of like, no interpretation of US statute law on dual-citizenship can allow officials and employees of a foreign government who have, somehow, been allowed US citizenship also, to involve themselves in voter registrations and elections in the US.

Similarly allow any public office holder in the US, on any level of government in the US provide them, allow them to keep and use even our voter registration forms.

Well, if you read the 2nd amendment you will see that it related to bearing arms. Bear means to carry, arms means firearms. So C-4 is not a firearm, and neither is a stinger missile. History shows that armed populaces have overthrown governments that were better armed many many times. Check it out yourself. Education will help the debate quite a bit.

Jeff correct again. Kirkwood resident, here is where your premise does not work. "The troops" (which I am a veteran of), and law enforcement, are the very gun culture that new gun control laws seek to limit. The military, cannot, and would not, turn on the populace, nor would law enforcement in part because of what I just mentioned. But at the big picture level: military bases are supported by civilians, logistically, and from a law enforcement perspective. Civilians do most of the mechanical work on vehicles and weapons. Military personnel live in the communities that surround military basis, as do their families. Likewise, law enforcement families the same. The military is sworn to the defend the Constitution, not follow the leader; and they are required, by military law to disobey illegal orders. And obfuscation of the 2nd amendment is about as illegal as an order can get. The military would become the militia.

The red herring about c4 and stinger missiles is nothing more than hyperbole. Those are weapons with specific application, and not really applicable to self defense. That said, to Jeff's point, look at what the fight the dirty living taliban present in Afghanistan. Then consider that there are more combat veterans alive in America at any time in our history. All that training, experience, and expertise, turned upon the people who'd try to circumvent the Constitution. US Veterans comprise one of the largest standing armies in the world; and we love our guns.

And we never truly get out of the military. We stay friends with our peer who still serve. Do you think that if it ever went bad, that the tools we know how to operate, would not end up in veterans hands? All that combat insurgency experience, demolitions...

Oopsie... I suppose that's why our government placed all veterans on the terrorism watch list. That, in and of itself should tell you something about this governments intent.

"What are they? Anarchists, survivalists, and white supremacist "revolutionaries" waiting to overthrows the government."---EPU

For a very long time you have been playing it close to the vest by pretending open-mindedness. Even declaring that you had been undecided in the imposition of this City of Brookhaven.

For example: on the National Voter Rights Act not being invulnerable to abuse by officials and employees of a foreign government, having somehow been allowed dual-citizenship, using it and the NVRA to impose themselves and government on even the registration of voters for our own elections and referendums.

For quite sometime, like a sleeper agent, you fell short of acutally stating that you would throw out the baby with the bath water: throw out the US Constitution and its not empowering any foreign government including Mexico's to, by flagrant default, empower the MxGov to involve itself in our elections and referendums.

With the actual establishing of the Cityof Brookhaven however, you went hog wild demanding subordination to it and even now relentless press this tired script to assure continuned empowerment of Mexico's governance in the US.

Even to the displacemnet of our own laws, governance and very sovereignty.

You strive not to protect the US and our government from being "overthrown" (your term not mine) but, instead, to protect the MxGov in its sly overthow of the US. Constitution and, thus, the US itself.

P.S.:

On this matter, as I do see it and have experienced it, you are obviously not alone though others (of C4ND & B'Yes) being far more transparent in bludgeoning all discourse to assure no rationale conclustions and, instead, smother any to impose, for only one example, the 'corporatist' governance---a la Mexico's---that this City of Brookhaven is.

Using tactics and scripts, again, originating and honed over many years on the usenet. Especially, but not only, at alt.politics.immigration.

In this case, again as I do see it and have experienced it, by two perceptible censors for the MxGov. One mostly responsible for having developed and stockpiled the scripts and the other, along with even 'capture-stages', their continued implementation to, one way or the other, eliminate all oppostion.

I'm sorry Larry Pratt.

"http://www.ajc.com/videos/news/police-tank-patrols-south-fulton-neighborhood/vm6bL/- Police tank patrols south Fulton neighborhood"

Just prior and during the same week of the Newtown shootings, local evening news was reporting the bust of "three slot machines" by a SWAT team in a town near to Brookhaven.

The cameramen had already been alerted to the bust and were in situ with required equipment to record the following as it did enfold scence-by-scene:

1) The arrival of the SWAT team in convoy with the most extraoridinary vehicles.
2) Their armed and armored approach to a storefront ("Mi Casa") appearing every bit like a raid on a terrroist hold-out in Kabul.
3) Without knocking or presenting of any warrant, the, instead, immediate smithereening of the storefront's glass front door with a battering ram.
4) A, then, extreme close-up of the alleged "three slot machines" with--as the purported evidence---their mechanical cards spinning.
5) A, then, shot of the alleged culprit walking away from the store---unescorted---to, presumibly a waiting paddy wagon off-camera.

Leaving the question begging: Just how much of this was staged?

Only that much or all?

Assault Weapons are used in less than 2% of gun crimes, hammers and sticks are used more often to kill people. I wonder why so much focus is on these so called 'assault weapons' when the real problems lie elsewhere.

If the young mother here in Georgia had tried to fire her husband's gun when the assailant was stalking her in her house, and the gun had hand recognition technology, she and her two children would probably not be here, alive, now.

Ben and Jerry's has killed more than Smith and Wesson.

So you're pointing this out because you want to make sure you're able to defend yourself against members of these groups?

"Kevin, anyone could do their own research and find very quickly there are over 1,200 "active" hate groups operating in the U.S. today.----EPU

Says who?

Joe McCarthy?

"...This seedy element of our society..."---EPU

"Calling names."

Automatic weapons are already illegal. 90 day waiting periods have caused problems in cases where women were being threatened with violence from ex-boyfriends and husbands - some have actually been murdered while waiting in some places. Besides, most background checks are now completed in less that 10 minutes. I think if you move it to 90 days you're just going to cause people to buy from an individual with NO background check at all I'm afraid.

Brian is correct, also, if you watch the news there are quite a number of politicians that are talking about confiscation. I think we are a long way off from that, but there are countries that had weapons confiscated that didn't think it could happen there either.

Well, if you read the 2nd amendment you will see that it related to bearing arms. Bear means to carry, arms means firearms. So a tactical nuclear weapon is not a firearm, and a tank is not a firearm, and youcertainly cannot carry or 'bear' a tank or a cannon. In light of the plain reading of the amendment, your argument makes very little sense. Education will help the debate quite a bit.

The nuke comments are such red herrings that they're barely worth giving any credence to via response. Most countries can't get nukes. And when one does have one, the maintenance is a b*tch. So not a good analogy.

If someone has a tank... awesome. But again. Be real people, the cost of upkeep, and maintenance is insane. Even if someone has a cannon, I don't fear the cannon, its an inanimate object.

You anti-gun folks have no reason to fear we law abiding gun owners. But you do need to fear the hunting preserve that you are trying to create. Disarm gun owners, and you're chances of being a victim become much higher.

Think about the children people! Spoon control now!!!!!!

Spoons cause genocide!!!!!

Ya know, all of this really speaks to soooooo many people in our country who are so deathly afraid of taking responsibility for themselves; yet they believe that they have a right to the responsibilities we take seriously.

I'd submit that they're manifesting their own fears of firearms, and own fear of responsibility. Then making the assumption that since they, themselves cannot be responsible, they assume that nor can we.

Food is not the enemy. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE.

Let me tell you who needs armor-penetrating rounds. Someone who might be assaulted by a criminal wearing body armor would require that his bullets penetrate armor, that's who. Again, an American being attacked by someone with "more than a rifle" would NEED the ability to defend that threat in kind. Next, it is not about "Needing" a weapon; it about one's constitutional right to have one. And last, criminals don't give a you-know-what about the greater good. They care about themselves and how they can kill, wound, rape, and steal from others. You may be from AU, but it sounds like you are from Oz. Remember this, I repeat: You are responsible for your own protection. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

This is a very ignorant comment. The myth of 'armor penetrating' bullets lives on, despite no one wearing a bullet resistant vest being killed by these mythical bullets in the past 20 years.

Hey now... Liberals love using children as political props (interestingly enough, so did Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Unless of course, it's at a pro-choice rally.

And what about this hypocrisy: A doctor is not allowed to ask a woman about her decision to have an abortion, because of her Constitutional right to privacy. But Obama, the communist in chief, is going to try and require doctors to ask children and patients if there are firearms in the home; totally disregarding and attempting to subjugate the 2nd Amendment.

People in this country are so fat, lazy, and complacent in their freedom that they fail to realize that it is not guaranteed. It must be fought for. The Soviet Union used doctors to spy on people, and put millions in gulags under the guise of "mental health" issues. I cannot fathom the liberal mindset that begs for a government run utopia. That is a deadly fantasy.

"Liberals love using children as political props (interestingly enough, so did Hitler, Stalin, Mao). "----Brian

Interestingly enough also: the MxGov and its proxies (willing or not) stateside also.

So true! Like a criminal is going to say...I'd better not use a gun to rob or kill because its illegal. haha!

Brian check your facts on gun violence:

Great Britian has homicide rate by firearms of .003 Per 100K residents. The US is 3.2 per 100. Only Mexico has a rate higher than the US. Switzerland, Sweden, France, Canada, Germany, Australia, Turkey, Japan all have a rate under .5.
Only Mexico has a higher rate than the US, but than Mexico hardly has a credible central government. This is based on 2010 data.
So looks like the strict Firearms laws work fairly well in other countries.

Brookhaven4u, Sure, but Great Britain has an overall much much higher violent crime rate. So the conclusion that the 'laws are working' is a bit wrong, if your goal is to reduce violent crime.

James, no one is against background checks. Not even gun owners. The biggest point of all this is that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to assure that citizens of the United States, shall not have their human right to self defense, and defense against a tyrannical government infringed.

And secondarily, gun control doesn't work, because it only affect people who obey the laws. The highest violent crime rates in the country are in the areas with the strictest gun control. You people call me extreme for stating that fact, and the facts about the Constitution, while being unable or unwilling to contribute rationally.

Brookhaven: I will dig into official law enforcement stats for you; not the political ones you're using. Also, you're conveniently being legalistic. You're calling for a ban on military "style" assault weapons, then using over all firearms stats. That doesn't work in the context of your argument.
According to the FBI: 323 AR15's were used in a violent crime last year. And those were illegally acquired arms that came via drugs routes or gangs. When considering that there are millions in the hands of law abiding gun owners, the meter doesn't even move.

Moreover, the application of you stat is incorrect in its overall usage. First of, the 3.7 per #, is 3.6 per 100,000. Not the 3.6 per 100 you sited. And the 3.7 number applies to homicides, which is not necessarily illegal, it just means death. The stat you should have used is murder by firearm, which is 2.75 per 100k. Your entire premise is flawed.

More: BTW data date 2011.
37 illegal homicides (aka murder) are committed with an illegal weapon a day.
Approximately 2200 people are saved everyday via lawful use of a firearm
Roughly 85 million gun owners didn't kill anyone today.

Please bear in mind: US Law enforcement does NOT agree with more, new, or tighter restrictions. Simply because they are never at the scene of a crime until after its over; and an armed law abiding populace makes their job easier. The National Association of Police Chiefs has been very emphatic in stating this. Police Officer Magazine polled its officer subscribers and overwhelmingly they're in favor of an armed populace for the reasons stated above. I cannot comprehend why the people who rail for more laws (Over and above the 20k we have), refuse to listen to the people who maintain the law. Especially when they say, and the Supreme Court validates the fact that police cannot, nor do they have a duty, to protect.

"Mexico hardly has a credible central government."----Brookhaven4u

So incredible in Mexico that Mexico can rightly be deemed a failed state.

Yet, even more incredible, that government, nonetheless, so succeeding in the USA to subordinate our own.

From the very top level of our governance to the most local.

Even to invent new local governance to suboridinate areas not having been sufficiently subordinated.

Thank you.

Warning= Troll!

You couldn't stomach the video, huh?

@Brian: I'll leave it to others to assess the content and tone of your response against that of my 1:29 comment. I'll have nothing more to add.

Regards:
JamesMichael

Tim, it's a very valid comparison, especially if you're going to use the gun crime stats. Regardless, in every place where gun control is very strictly enforced, violent crime goes up.

Any law enforcement entity in this country will also tell you overwhelmingly that they almost always arrive at a crime scene after an act has occurred; and that armed citizens make for a safer community and less crime.

Direct quote from the Association of Police Chiefs: ""facilitate the violent crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community." The law enforcement community also will contend that without a gun for self defense, a citizen is but a victim to a criminal. The law enforcement community wholly disagrees with you pro-gun folks on more, and tighter restrictions. It only makes crime worse. Why you refuse to listen to the people in the arena, from your seats in the ivory tower, is astounding.

Brian, my point is 9400 gun murders in the U.S. in 2011 (approx) vs 14 in the U.K. is not a good comparison, and does not support less gun control. Statisitics can be twisted any which way, and on this thread there are a lot of ones used that are not very valid, and I wanted to point that out.

Personally I do not see why this is so complicated. Just enforce the existing laws, extend background checks to gun shows, and increase the mandatory jail terms for crimes where guns were used. Then move on to the real problem: jobs for people so they won't comit crimes.

Thanks for the response Tim. Well done. I do see the point that you're driving at. I'm coming at it from the practical side of it, sans stats. When guns are removed as an option for self defense, violent crime goes up, every single time, every single place its tried. Regardless of population size or sample.

That said, I agree with you 100% on enforcing the laws we have, background checks = no problem, and actually punishing violent criminals. That is all every pro-gun person I know wants. The folks that want "more", "new" laws are simply not going to get their desired outcome.

Thank you for the excellent discussion by the way.

Well, Elvis, just in case you're missing it, we're becoming less wealthy ($16T in debt and counting) and less of a republic. Here's what I find interesting (disturbing) about the current drumbeat from the Obama administration: a big appeal to emotion and rushing to pass a bunch of new laws without really airing the facts. You (should) know full well that all these gun control plans were just waiting in the wings to be trotted out after the next sensational shooting. ... And why didn't they make this big push after the Aurora shootings? Simple : that was before the 2012election, they didn't want to risk their political gains to be had.
An honest skepticism of politicians and well financed Hollywood types trying to rush a bunch of laws into place is a healthy thing. Lets enforce the laws we have first. Several years ago an effort was made in Richmond, VA to get really tough on enforcing existing gun laws. The result? A dramatic decrease in gun violence in that area.
Bigger government = more control over the people. That leads to an erosion of liberty. Also ask yourself: in a country of 300million people, do you honestly think we can completely eradicate crime and acts of violence? We can decrease it, for sure. But not by putting restrictions on the vast majority of law abiding people. Focus on the criminal element like they did in Richmond... Don't do like they do in Chicago. Chicago, with its strict gun laws is a failure.
Use your head, please.

Elvis, this sounds like something you have thoughtfully researched. With that assumption, I'm sure you will have no difficulty sharing some of your data, such as:
1) in a given year, what's the automobile accident rate per 100,000 cars on the road?
2) in a given year, what's the firearm accident rate per 100,000 guns owned by the public?
Is there a similarity in the numbers? That might begin to answer the validity of the idea you presented. Remember liability insurance is only for accidents; it does not cover criminal activity. But I'm sure you know that.

Of course we haven't even addressed the fact that the right to drive a car, ride a horse or donkey is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, like the right to bear (not just own) arms. I wonder why the founding fathers didn't include horseback riding in the bill of rights?

Liability insurance is not required for keeping your car on private property.

"....included mandatory liability insurance for owning a gun..."---Elvis Beeg

And just what insurance company would make and issue such insurance policies?

Or would this have to become part of Obamacare?

Todd, your comments are completely incorrect and not speaking from an educated POV on the topic. Civilians cannot purchase military weapons. There was law enforcement when this country was founded, but that wasn't the point of the 2nd amendment. The point of the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to protect against a tyrannical government. Self defense is a natural right of humans, as access to the best possible means of self defense. Law enforcement in this country agree with this; and now with you. Law enforcement can virtually never be at the scene of a crime when it happens, civilians experience criminals first; and should be armed as the police are to defend against those criminals. That is law enforcement stance on the topic. As far as owning a semi-automatic weapon; the comment is so ill informed that it doesn't deserve a response in this limited forum. You also speak from an uneducated stand point about self defense and pistols. The real world isn't like Hollywood and how it portrays shooting, and the use of firearms. Sometimes, pistols are not nearly enough. Besides, firearms, (the evil semi's) are used millions of times per year in vile acts of self defense; and only 322 in the use of a crime. So you'd rather millions of people become victims, because of the act of 322? That's completely irrational, illogical and just plain wrong.

Completely baseless and incorrect statements Brian. Nice try. Bring REAL facts to the table next time. You call everybody else out, yet throw facts around that are so far off base my kindergardner would call your bluff. Just plain wrong indeed.

@Cory: Not a word I said was incorrect, or un-factual in the least. I do not mind being "called out" because I haven't said anything incorrect. Just to prevent you as a parent from humiliating your kindergartner, stop using the child as a shield and you prove me wrong. If I'm "Just plain wrong indeed", show me. What in my post was incorrect exactly? What I said about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is correct. What I said about law enforcement's stance is correct. What I said about rifles being used in crime is correct. What I said about millions of people using these arms for self defense is also, "just plain" correct, and easily verifiable.

Instead of silly posts like the one you just made, and since you're so sure of yourself, prove me just plain wrong. Before you do that, read the rest of the thread. Every bit of what I said can be verified; and most of where to find that info is listed in this discussion. What's not here, I will get for you. And NOT from a "news" source, or political website. But from law enforcement itself, and the writings of the Founding Fathers on the topic. And you? HuffPo? NBC? CNN? ABC? that would just be embarrassing for you if you use them as your source. After all, NBC just had to recently admit that is mis-reported on the Sandy Hook shooting. Specifically, that an AR15 was used. One wasn't.

I will look forward to your elementary response. Typical lib, hiding behind children.

Then once you've used your elementary logic to show me where I'm wrong, how about you tell me why, I, as a law abiding citizen, US Army Infantry combat veteran, and former law enforcement officer, who would harm no one as long as they intend no harm to me and/or my family; should be disbarred the best possible tool for self defense? Law abiding citizens pose no threat to you; why do you seek to disabuse them of their rights? And why would you seek to make millions of people into victims by taking away their best possible tool for self defense? Because firearms are used far more in an act of self defense, than a crime. Fact. Civilians see the same criminals that police do; but the police only see those same civilians and criminals after a crime has been committed. An armed citizen, stops a crime in its tracks. A method preferred by law enforcement.

If you would like to contend that the Founding Fathers "did not intend" or "did not invision" AR15's; then you must also extrapolate that logic to items like the 1st Amendment. The Founding Fathers did not envision, cable or satellite television, telephones, radio's, and this big evil Internet.

The Bill of Rights was to limit the size and scope of government. It expressly was intended to limit government, and assure that "the people" always stayed empowered. The government is supposed to fear the people. Any government that fears, armed, law abiding citizen's, should be recycled. (don't read into that, peacefully recycled)

Almost to a person, every anti-gun person I've ever met, or talked with has almost no experience with firearms. None. So I'd submit that those people project their own fear, and inability to handle the responsibility of a firearm. They seem to think that gun owners take some sort of empowerment and power trip out of owning a firearm; and that speaks more to that anti-gunner than it does the gun owner.

Sounds like you're a real expert on self defense and firearms, Todd. Why don't you enlighten us further on hunting weapons, and self defense? What you think I 'need' means nothing to me. I will choose what I have or don't have and don't need to justify it to you or even to that poor excuse for a president we have.
But, YOU get real: there are millions of semi auto weapons in the possession of the people today and 99.999% never have or will be used to 'slaughter humans' as you put it. Also no law the gun control crowd passes will ever eradicate gun violence..or even have a major impact on it. .. Other than to limit the people who never would pose a threat in the first place: law abiding, responsible citizens.

@Brian Oravetz: Your comment that semi-automatic ("evil semi") weapons are used "millions of times" per year in self-defense is just plain wrong. You can throw around a bunch of words without rationalizing the concepts behind what you are saying, however you are not changing anyone’s mind. Just so you know. Probably the only thing that you are actually doing is putting yourself on a "watch list" for when FULL background checks are the rule, not the exception. Good luck getting a weapon (of any kind), when someone sees the way that you are ranting and raving on this thread. Wow, take a breath.

I was not hiding behind my child, or children. I was simply stating the obvious and using a hyperbole for effect. I shouldn't have to explain this or defend my child, however ...

Here are MY facts. I was shot once during a snowball fight. Two friends were killed inadvertently, one when cleaning a weapon (age 14), another when climbing over a fence hunting (age 13). On friend shot in the foot while shooting “birds on a wire”. One mother that I know shot in the side when her toddler pulled the trigger on a weapon in their bedroom. Zero (0) friends or acquaintances used a weapon for self-defense. My house was broken into when I was younger, my mother was the only one with her children, she called the police, and made the criminal aware that we were there, no one was injured, the criminal was looking for an easy target and we weren’t. Pots and pans, and a phone call were our self-defense. Criminal captured, and no one was injured. Real and rational. I am not afraid to live in my home without a weapon.
Statistics have proved that YOU are more likely to be injured or killed, than am I. YOU can take those risks, YOU can own a weapon. It IS your RIGHT. No one is talking about taking away YOUR RIGHT. Some people are just wanting to change the types and amount of damage which can be done. The shooter that was involved in the Gabby Gifford’s shooting was stopped by a 61-year old lady with no weapon as he attempted to re-load his weapon. I ask you @Brian Oravetz, why not have this opportunity? I know, I know a car this and a car can do that, etc.. rhetoric.

Cory, I would not carry a gun near you.

@ Cory: I am a US Army Infantry combat veteran, I am a former law enforcement officer, and my professional life see's me interacting with federal law enforcement and the intelligence community. I've held a security clearance, and have background checkd performed on a routine basis. I teach close quarter combatives to law enforcement and military as a hobby. I know of what I'm speaking from a professional, and factual stand point. I'm not saying anything extreme.

You on the otherhand, failed in an attempt to call me out. The fact is that firearms are used in acts of self defense every year is backed by the FBI. Instead of having a tantrum and hiding behind your kindergartner, instead of simply saying I'm wrong; prove me wrong. I'll wait.

@Cory, sorry that you got shot. That sucks. Been there myself. But it doesn't change the reality that gun control is going to do anything but further restrict law abiding citizens from owning the best possible means of self defense. Your comments are emotional in nature, they do nothing to show that I'm "wrong". Nothing.

In fact, the more you speak, the less knowledgeable you show yourself to be on the topic. Your comments about a pistol being "good enough" show that you do not understand the first thing about a high tension situation that pertains to self defense. I teach an entire course on what "that" is, and we don't have the space here to get into it. I'll gladly take it to email with you if you're open to the discussion. None the less, the facts that I stated stand my friend.

"Common sense" is using the laws we already have on the books. Banning "semi auto" rifles will do nothing to lower the crime rate, they were used in only 322 crimes last year, and thousands upon thousands more in acts of self defense. A terrible situation like the one you describe does nothing to change that fact man.

"Bring REAL facts to the table next time. "---Corey

As in Todd G's "When this country was founded it was a lawless society with no police force."?

Never in world history had 'lawfulness' 'rights' and 'criminal justice' been delved in than when "this country was founded." "In fact" resulting in the first written Constution in world history.

And never in US history has our laws, criminal justice system, very 'rule of law' and even Constitution been undermined as it has in the years beginning with the MxGov imposing itself, agenda and proxies on our own governance.

Never in US history have our laws been systematically undermined and displaced to, "in fact," serve a foreign power.

Including "gun control."

Wake up.

don G, I certainly am happy that you are arguing your point so incoherently and wildly maniacal for the opposition.. I wonder what facts you want me to bring? My point was proven when Brian backed down from his 'millions of times' to 'thousands upon thousands' within the same post string.. any facts that I have stated are either my life experiences or my opinion (of which I am entirely entitled to). I am a 25 year veteran. I have long served my country.. can I not speak freely as a result? You can continue to spout your 'hell in a hand basket' mantra.. I will continue to live my life.. happily.. so enjoy.

Cory, Cory, Cory... You shouldn't have used your kindergartner as the standard by which you chose to disseminate your "facts". It sets a low bar in regards to the level of critical thinking that you are able to apply to this discussion.

That made the statement that I "backed down" from "millions" to "thousands upon thousands" of firearms used per year for self defense. Your inability to think critically on this topic (as reference by you stating that life experience and opinion combine to make a "fact"; it does not) shows that you're not intellectually prepared to have this discussion. Critical thinking, non-emotionalism required. I said that AR15's are used "thousands upon thousands" of times per year for self defense; and that guns over all are used millions of times per year in self defense. You invalidate your own "points" with the inability to think rationally on this topic. You're the one thinking "wildly" and irrationally, all the while failing to articulate one "fact" that would make a reasonable case for why millions of people a year should lose the ability to defend themselves; simply because of your irrational fear of firearms. You have no case.

Brian.. The funny thing is, is that I am almost emotionless with regards to this topic. I most certainly have NEVER said that you should NOT have the right to defend yourself (using a gun). It is typical for someone like you to assume that. I am not afraid of a gun. I shoot regularly, for qualification purposes. I am a military member as well. I know people like you. You are defined by your ability to carry a weapon. It is who you are. It is not who I am. If I cannot carry or own a gun, I could really care less. It is not a priority for me. You on the other hand, you would be lost without this thing that defines you. I am detached, you are entrenched. Who has the better perspective for critical thinking my friend? I have NO irrational fears (thus proven by my not needing a weapon), my facts are indeed my facts, and my opinion, which is not a fact (nor have I ever claimed it was), is MY opinion.

@Cory, I'm not the one that's saying "experience" plus "opinion" = "fact" as you did. And you went on to say that your kindergartner could tear apart my statements; which neither you nor your kindergartner were able to do. That equals emotionalism, hyperbole, conjecture. I didn't post anything that isn't a vetted "fact" by law enforcement itself. Furthermore, you couldn't even think critically when you were unable to see the difference in the "thousands upon thousands" v. millions statement. You haven't been able to do anything other than through conjecture into this thread; nothing remotely quantifiable.

You also assume that firearms "define" me; and like the rest of your assertions, you're wrong. I don't even carry. I own firearms, I practice for proficiency, but also because I like the sport. I'm an Infantry vet with over 30 years experience, a firearm is a martial tool to me. Just like my hands, elbows, knee's and shins. A gun defines me no more than any of those weapons.

The failing is that you cannot fathom how people can view this issue differently than you, hence your assertion that your opinion = a fact. Nor can you fathom the original intent of the 2nd amendment. Interestingly enough, law enforcement in this country disagrees with even your opinion.

Brian, don't waste your time knocking down straw man arguments. When people run out of facts and logic, they just attack the person, and that's what happened here.

"Never in US history have our laws been systematically undermined and displaced to, "in fact," serve a foreign power."---don G

"I certainly am happy that you are arguing your point so incoherently and wildly maniacal for the opposition.. I am a 25 year veteran. I have long served my country...You can continue to spout your 'hell in a hand basket' mantra..."---Cory

And I am a "25 year veteran" of being an "undocumented NorthAmerican" in Mexico. A "25 year veteran" of being the victim of a government (a condition worse than slavery) and its "paracaidista" with offices of the MxGov long here also.

Being provided still untold numbers of even our voter registration forms because of "veterans" defending their fellow Americans and country" like you.

I am also the victim still---and brutally so---for having blown the whistle with a valid election complaint made to both the SOS of Ga and USDOJ.

The very right of redress of grievance has become a malicious farce.

Because of even "verterans" like you.

Note even now just who is the very speech writer, the MxGov, for "verteran" John McCain (worried about "election races") himself?

On MxCty's deliberate colonization of the USA as so-called "immigration."

But what should an American know?

When the MxGov and its stooges is telling you what to know?

I want to give you some credit for maybe serving "Roger That", because the name implies some military knowledge. If that is the case, your follow on statement is wholly ignorant. If you know anything about the US military, it isn't full of robots who only "follow orders".

Moreover, this day and age it is even more than important to have a defense against oppressive government, simply because the moves this government is making is blatantly showing signs of becoming oppressive. More importantly, there are more living combat veterans alive in this country today, than ever before; and it is far more than enough to stand as an insurgency against an oppressive government. Lastly, the US military wouldn't turn against the people. It couldn't; and the reasons have been explained earlier in this thread. Well prior to your irrational entry to this discussion.

dude, bri, come join us

theoutdoorstrader.com

slim pickings right now, but things should lighten up when the new bill fails miserably.

"...they have much more effective means than slinging lead...."---Roger That

You should know.

The AR-15 and the M-16 are not the same, not even close.

"They further make comparisons between guns and other tools that can be used to kill others."---Brookhaven4u

Tell us. Do you support women "having the chance" (as the news is putting it) to fight in combat?

How deliberately PC of the long-coopted media to frame the issue as only an equal opportunity one.

When, if anything, there are already too many people---male and female---fighting in combat.

"Same goes for the mental illness argument..."---Brookhaven4u

Apparently you missed or ignored the questions:

"According to who"?

"A government that [illegally] sent thousands of guns to Mexcio's gangsters"?

A country where its nationals haven't even the right to protect themselves?

To bear arms?

How "sane" is that?

Tell us. Which is the less"mentally ill":

Believing, not even a few, but literally ***thousands*** of guns were required to, somehow, trace the guns to Mexico's gangsters?

Or, the majority of Americans having been dumbed down enough to believe it?

Your comments and positions are for the most part reasonable, however in all of your thinking you have to realize that some laws that intend to curtail gun violence create a comfortable area for criminals to do their business. Peer reviewed studies show that firearms are used 2.5 million times in this country, often with no shots fired. Even waiting periods have killed people - often women with threats coming from ex-husbands and boyfriends. While you say pro-gun folks ignore the 'saving some lives' argument, we feel the anti-gun folks ignore the largely unrecognized benefits of gun ownership.

@Jeff Thompson: you missed the whole point that @Brookhaven4u was stating. Most people in favor of "gun control" are not advocating abolishment of the Second Amendment. They are NOT in favor of taking your guns away. They simply want common sense applied. Why can the woman receiving threats not protect herself with a pistol, why does it have to be an semi-automatic weapon?
I completely agree with the sentiments @Brookhaven4u is stating. This is not, and will never be, a zero sum outcome, it is a sliding scale that we need to move further towards the center.

Cory, most pistols sold today are semi-automatic. So again, your comments are uninformed. To answer your question, a woman cannot protect herself with a pistol if she is waiting to get it, and does not have it due to a waiting period, which was my point. This has happened many times.

Brookhaven, all you need to do is look at where violent crime is the worst. It's where they have draconian gun laws.
Also, please explain why these sensational mass shootings have ALL occurred in so called "gun free zones". That pretty much tells the story.

if I were to choose to buy one or a hundred AR's and thousands of rounds of ammo, nobody has anything to fear from me. That's because I'm not a criminal. Nor am I crazy.

"Brookhaven, all you need to do is look at where violent crime is the worst. It's where they have draconian gun laws."---BlueRidgeMan

It's amazing that the same people who insist prohibitions on alcholhol, drugs, etc. breed even more crime refuse their own argument when it comes to firearms.

@Todd, there are many many politicians calling for confiscation. Do a simple google search and you will see their quotes. Your "No one" argument is BS. Let's bet $500 that you're wrong. Let's meet at a coffee shop, I'll bring my laptop.

Well it looks like Todd G is driving the discussion down to the 6th grade level. I will not participate in a juvenile discussion with him. Just talk to yourself, Todd. You will then have a worthy discussion partner.

BrokebackMountianMan desires the ability to drive a Corvette or VW Bug. "Nuf said. Keep something stashed in your house to defend yourself and your family, and obtain a license to carry something to protect yourself and those around you.

I have had attempts on my life and used a firearm to protect myself without firing a shot. Would they have stopped if I had not brandished a weapon capable of terminating their life? I don't know. I don't want to know.

Be responsable and keep our rights sacred.

It may, or may not surprise you to know that the media is not exactly portraying the story correctly. Chris was not shot at a "gun range". He was shot at a charity event, on a resort that has a small range; but they were not on the range. The range was merely on the property.

Moreover, the term "PTSD" is getting broadly applied. The guy that did this was an armorer, he was not a combat arms troop. I'm a former Infantry guy, I know what kind of stresses come with that job; and an armorer doesn't have them. That term is getting generically applied much like "ADHD". Some cases are serious, some are not; but definitely over used.

Again. What was a mental patient doing (in, on, near, within, without, about, around) at a gun range?