How could I get by on one handgun a month. I want 30 handguns a month. Then ,as a law abiding citizen, I can give them to all my friends. I only have friends who are law abiding citizens. Don't worry I never buy bullets, only beautiful guns. It is too bad they make bullets. I am in love with guns.

How could I get by on one handgun a month. I want 30 handguns a month. Then ,as a law abiding citizen, I can give them to all my friends. I only have friends who are law abiding citizens. Don't worry I never buy bullets, only beautiful guns. It is too bad they make bullets. I am in love with guns.

You do realize buying weapons for others is illegal and will result in a lengthy prison time, something that you just admitted doing..

Takenaka,

Sam did'nt see your obvious sarcasm. I did. Little early for you Sam? Have a cup of coffee!

Better yet If a person uses a gun to commit a crime put him to death kill the @!$%# head then we take one less criminal off streets and out of prison saving the country tremoundious money. that will slow down the use of guns a lot better.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

^{Please keep America free!}

Please Rockyroad there has to be some balance in gun ownership, how many guns can one person shoot at the same time? How many bullets does one gun have to have? Do mentally disturbed, felons, people with a history of violence need military grade weapons? Where does it stop, RPG's, belt feed automatic weapons, missiles, or bombs? This is where the extremists want to take us. Virgina republicans are pandering to the extremists, its not the govt I expect to come knocking at my door its a well armed gang while my local police dept is not answering because the gang out arms them.

New tourism slogan: Virginia is for (gun) Lovers.

Rockyroad.......please read the entire second amendment, not just the edited parts that you like.

Rockyroad.......please read the entire second amendment, not just the edited parts that you like.

Were you telling him to read the whole thing or the Supreme Court of the United States that agrees it applies to normal citizens owning firearms?

@Rev- Very well put. A double thumbs up!!!

MM-584706

Rockyroad.......please read the entire second amendment, not just the edited parts that you like.

I have read it many times and I have come to the same conclusion as the US Supreme Court which has overturned gun control laws in several states and DC that prohibit possession of firearms by law abiding citizens.

So exactly which part are you referring to that says the US government or a state can deny a law abiding citizen the right own and bear arms.

FYI, The US Consitstitution and all the amendments are not restrictions on the citizens of this country, They are restrictions on Government. They do not tell us what citizens can or can not do but they state what Government can not do!

Rev, I agree totally with your view on how America looks today and I've been saying it since the reagan years but your last sentence means that Americans should start a revolution or a un-civil war. Is that how our country that I love will meet it's demise? Also, I have never played with a gun, that's a little childish in my view. We will go out with a whimper not a bang if it makes you feel any better.

The one industry that Obama has reinvigorated is the gun industry. With all the city lawsuits, dealers and manufacturers alike were about go out of existence. Now, prices of guns and ammunition are at an all time high. Popular guns are hard to come by. Thank you, Mr. President, for your fine work. And because of you, my family and I can carry handguns when we go to our national parks.

"Let me guess: you also support "right to life" anti-abortion policies and you are a religious conservative?"

So whats the opposite of that? Liberals believe guns kill people, yet its perfectly okay to murder children before they enter this world...al because mommy feels her body is special and her own? Discusting.

I support the right to choose on abortion... and the right to keep and bear arms.

Apparently one of the few people in the entire country that understands what civil liberties means.

Needless to say. It is unlikely a law like this is going to in any way affect the outcome of, or the rate of mass shootings. People who commit these things spend months planning them. 1 handgun a month didn't stop Cho at Va. Tech... so why do people insist on protecting an ineffective law.

The Va Tech shootings biggest problem was there was a mentally disturbed person who was ordered to seek counseling by state courts, and he never went and the court never followed up....

yet, for some reason this little tidbit was never flagged during the background check.

Dick-2100935

Depends on what you mean by free.

I have one female friend who used a gun to stand-off her violent husband who said he was going to kill her. She said he would have done it. Instead the gun allowed her to diffuse the situation, call the police, all without firing a shot.

I have another friend who was assaulted by 2 people in a rest-stop bathroom - they had knives - he drew his concealed firearm and was able to get out of there.

I myself have been in 2 particularly dicey situations where the gun, while never used, was sure to be of use if I had not been able to diffuse the situation by other means.

So I will tell my two friends that those guns didn't have anything to do with their freedom.

Mark the "right" to an abortion isn't a civil liberty and is not in the Bill of Rights. Abortion is murder, you shouldn't have the right to murder. Im glad my mother adopted me off instead of excercising her "right to abort."

Probe, so you thing you should have a "Right" to a home you can't afford, or Health care you don't pay for? That's what is wrong with this country. Everyone expects someone else to pay for what they feel is their RIGHT to have. Just as they blame everyone else when they make stupid mistakes.

Sorry, I was raised to believe you worked and paid for what you have. If you can't afford it, don't buy it.

I don't own a gun. Nor do I own a Smart phone or a 55" HD TV. I have no use or need for any of them.

Rockyroad @ 1.14

A bit of reality injected into your post

1) the law replaced a much STRICTER law that was put in place well before the Nazi's rise to power

2) it REMOVED the restrictions on long guns and rifles and only retained the restrictions on handguns

3) it actually EXPANDED the list of people who were exempt from needing a permit to include ANYONE who had a hunting license

4) it LOWERED the age at which you could own a gun from 20 to 18

5) it EXTENDED the life of a carry permit from one year to three.

It did however specifically exclude Jews from owning a gun.

Other than that your post is spot on accurate...

@kaybeetoys - Bravo!

Seriously folks.... One gun a month isn't going to prevent the Columbine, VA Tech or Giffords type of accidents and it's not going to stop any gang bangers from getting hot guns. Quit trying to fool yourselves. Limiting purchases also restricts free trade which is the basis of our "free" economy. Nobody should support that.

I am a gun owner in one of the toughest states to even acquire a license: Massachusetts

When I first went through the process of getting licensed, I was ticked off due to what I felt AT THE TIME was a completely unnecessary process. It took 6 weeks for my application to go through. Local background check, FBI background check, department of mental health background check etc.... But it was thorough and it weeds out many of the "unfit" persons who want guns. I support the process. Furthermore, Massachusetts limits ammo capacity to 10 rounds and every time you purchase a gun, you need to provide a PIN or fingerprint to run you through the state's accelerated background check to ensure you still qualify to purchase fire arms and that fire arm is instantly registered with the state by the gun shop. I fully support this process and it works.

In Ma, a good chunk of our illegal guns come from our northern neighbors in New Hampshire and Vermont. Why? Because all you need is a drivers license to walk out with whatever gun you want.

Make all states set up a thorough background and licensing process and enforce safe storage laws and require an annual audit of storage devices to ensure criminals can't walk out of your house with a weapon if they break in. Good luck to any thief trying to breach my 1200lb gun safe that is anchored to my concrete floor and lagged to the wall. Unless they come with explosives, they aren't getting my guns....

Enough with the toothless laws that do nothing but penalize responsible gun owners and dealers just because it makes the anti-gun crowd feel like something positive was accomplished. Set up a process that works and one that will make a difference. Instead of trying to control the guns, make sure the owner is in control of their gun.

thatguydownsouth

"Let me guess: you also support "right to life" anti-abortion policies and you are a religious conservative?"

So whats the opposite of that? Liberals believe guns kill people, yet its perfectly okay to murder children before they enter this world...al because mommy feels her body is special and her own? Discusting.

When a fetus is able to live independently outside the womb, then the fetus is a person, in my opinion.

It's a matter of opinion when life begins, but we have seen that some women (Casey Anthony springs to mind here) are not equipped to raise children.

It's wonderful when a woman (such as the birth mother of thatguydownsouth) has the emotional, physical, and financial capacity to bear a child that she cannot keep and puts it up for adoption. That doesn't always work out well either though (here I'm thinking about a little girl named Lisa Steinberg who was murdered by her adoptive father).

Women and their doctors should be able to make a private, legal choice. Abortion is not a good thing, but all too often it is the only choice a woman can make. It is impossible for men to understand this.

He added: "If you really want to get after gun crime, you get after people who use guns illegally. You don't punish law-abiding citizens."

Wow... what is that? Common-sense!? I'm shocked...

@Dick

There is no time, outside of the Revolutionary War, that guns in citizens' hands has made America free. And the Revolutionary War didn't make us free, ask any slave, but just created a country and changed governments. So in this respect you can say guns in civilian hands promote anarchy and rebellion - not freedom.

Oh. Dear. God. You took some history classes in school, right? Because your ignorance on the subject is astounding. I mean, the obvious additional example is the Civil War where state militias (read: armed citizens) were mustered en masse. There are numerous other examples in the French & Indian War, the Spanish-American War, the Texas Revolution (remember the Alamo!), and countless examples in the expansion of "civilization" into the west during the period now known as "Manifest Destiny." Please... do yourself (and all of us) a favor: either get an education regarding our country's history, or else stop pretending that you're some sort of authority on the subject.

For myself, I feel that this law (and any duplicate laws like it all around the country) are pointless. They DO NOT deter gun crime in any way-- and statistical evaluations of gun crime in states with these laws prove that. What about the "Wild West" sport shooters that want to purchase a pair of revolvers that are sold as a set? They have to wait 30 days between purchasing the one and the other? What purpose does that possibly serve? What about the man who wants to buy a handgun for himself, and another for his wife, for self-protection after a break-in at their home? In some states, even if the wife is present and the gun is being registered to her, if the husband is paying, it still falls under the same 1-gun-a-month restriction. And how about the sport shooter who purchases a specific model handgun in one caliber, but wants the same gun in a .22 caliber to target practice more cheaply while retaining the same weight and feel of the gun (this is a popular method of bringing down range costs)? The quote from the article that I posted above is spot on-- there is no purpose to be served by punishing/restricting law abiding citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

Sam: You do realize buying weapons for others is illegal and will result in a lengthy prison time, something that you just admitted doing..

You do realize your full of **** right. It is perfectly legal to buy a fire arm and give it as a gift in most states. However there are places like ILL, NY, CA, and a few others where it is illegal . To be on the safe side, inquire at any gunshop, and they can inform you of the local laws with regards to this.

Having just recently seen a thread where a zillion gun nuts railed at the screwed up job we did on that Mexican narco gun sting, I see they not have freely invited them to come to Virginia and load up the truck and take them back to Mexico.

A whole month! I can only picture them standing in front of the gun store, hopping back and forth from one foot to the other, mumbling hurry hurry hurry!

"I think Virginians deserve effective laws, and one handgun a month has been overtaken by technology and improved background checks," he said. "Criminals don't go into gun stores, stand there in the bright light, hand over their driver's license and stand there and wait for the vendor to see if they have a criminal record."

He added: "If you really want to get after gun crime, you get after people who use guns illegally. You don't punish law-abiding citizens."

Is he really that naive? Guns on the black market sell for a premium. People will be able to go into a store, buy multiple guns and then turn around and sell them online for a profit. When a private citizen sells a gun to another private citizen, there are NO background checks.

Is there any reason other than supplying guns to other folks, that somebody simply must be allowed to buy more than one gun a month?

kaybeetoys

Dennish928

Better yet If a person uses a gun to commit a crime put him to death kill the @!$%# head then we take one less criminal off streets and out of prison saving the country tremoundious money. that will slow down the use of guns a lot better.

"Let me guess: you also support "right to life" anti-abortion policies and you are a religious conservative?"

Kaybeetoys - I sure hope you don't make a living guessing. Otherwise, you must be starving right about now. I agree completely with the gist of what Dennish928 is saying...that harsh penalties are an effective way to deal with criminals who see fit to use firearms during the commission of a crime. However, I am an agnostic and I am anti-abortion (except in specific, limited circumstances), so I guess there is a VERY good chance that you are not any good at stereotyping people based on one comment.

Now I'm going to make a guess, based on one of your other comments, which was off topic anyway...

You said...

"When a fetus is able to live independently outside the womb, then the fetus is a person, in my opinion".

I am guessing that you are one of those damn spineless liberals (I know...that's redundant). I bet you agree with charging a murderer with 2 counts if he kills a pregnant woman, even though, by your own admission, the fetus is not a person in your opinion. That is called hypocrisy!

"When a fetus is able to live independently outside the womb, then the fetus is a person, in my opinion.

It's a matter of opinion when life begins, but we have seen that some women (Casey Anthony springs to mind here) are not equipped to raise children.

It's wonderful when a woman (such as the birth mother of thatguydownsouth) has the emotional, physical, and financial capacity to bear a child that she cannot keep and puts it up for adoption. That doesn't always work out well either though (here I'm thinking about a little girl named Lisa Steinberg who was murdered by her adoptive father).

Women and their doctors should be able to make a private, legal choice. Abortion is not a good thing, but all too often it is the only choice a woman can make. It is impossible for men to understand this."

That is a terrible argument that attempt to use emotional tugging to defeat logic. When life begins isn't an opinion. Abortion comes from the root word Abort, to put a stop to. You're putting a stop to life. Its alive. You can't argue yourself out of the fact that once you've put a swimmy into an eggy you have a living being. If you abort it, you're killing it. Murder. The baby can't defend itself or cast a vote in the decision.

While I don't agree that this law would have prevented another school shooting, I DO have a problem with the report that VA supplies 40% of the guns going to criminals in the Northeast. Obviosly VA wasn't doing enough background checks, etc. Really people when is enough enough when it comes to guns? Do you really NEED 30 guns for self defense? Really need to buy more than one gun a month? Wasn't aware people (other than criminals or black market people) actually buy more than one gun a month. Like someone said above, once purchased by a legit person, they re-sell to any and everyone without any records.

Never owned a gun and never will. Honestly wish it weren't part of our constitution, but it is. Hard to see the benefit when you look at crime figures and murders in countries that have very strict gun control and then look at us... gee owning your own militia really works... NOT.

Lastly, all you reps who keep dragging up the "fast and furious" fiasco, please move one... Seems every newsvine I read has this so must be you guys getting it from Rove or Limburger to keep harping on it. Guess what idiots. It went wrong. It was NOT some sinister plan to take guns away from americans. Bush had a very similar program that also went south... but they stopped it earlier. If I hear one more time that Obama caused massive deaths because of the program, I may throw up. ONE agent MAY have been killed (bullistics inconclusive), but do you HONESTLY think he wouldn't have been killed anyway? That the criminals would not have a gun had it not been for the program??? Friggin GROW up and stop the party line posting.

Sarah, you have called a spade a spade, and there's no trump left to beat your comment.

You've taken on the myths, and laid them low, without bad-mouthing either guns or gun owners.

Super posting. Thanks.

GreenTimer,

Well thank you back!

@Sarah-- agreed with Greentimer, nice post-- I want to add something to your statement here, though:

Crime prevention needs to be looked at through the lens of a hybrid social science that includes criminology, victimology, sociology, and psychology. You can't simply say, "Guns make criminals think twice." No, they don't. Crime is motivated by all sorts of different social and cultural factors, by all sorts of different individuals, and each crime comitted by each criminal is different. Guns would only make them think twice if each criminal and each crime was rational.

True enough, but based on a study done in 2000 by "The Journal of Quantitative Criminology," civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times each year-- so almost one million crimes are deterred, prevented or stopped each year by civilian firearms. I agree that there are a multitude of factors to consider when looking at the issue, but to me, nearly a million crimes stopped by civilian firearms is an impeccable (and oft unreported) statistic. Remember when that gal shot the home invader/rapist/assailant/would-be-murderer to protect her baby just a month or two ago? Things like that apparently happen a lot more often than you'd think...

You can read about the study and a lot of other great facts about gun violence and gun control here:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

When the NRA yells jump, politicians ask How High?

The NRA is in the business of getting people to buy guns. It scares you into thinking you need to protect yourself from all those criminals out there.

Ciiminals can now get their guns legally--thanks Virginia!

WMG,

I get what you're saying about the number of civilians using guns in defense, but they don't talk about WHO those civilians were. How many of them were totally innocent victims? How many of them were criminals themselves?

That's my point. If they work in some cases, which I'm sure they do, great, but I just don't like how some people discuss them as the be all/end all solution to a matter that's just not that simple.

And thank you.

I just don't like how some people discuss them as the be all/end all solution to a matter that's just not that simple.

Agreed. 100% -- and that goes both ways. People who think banning all guns will be the end of all the crime in America are similarly delusional. The answer, as it so often is, lies somewhere in between.

How about all the liberal gun grabbers try infringing on the criminals "rights" and leave us honest gun owners alone. Guns are NOT the problem..............criminals ARE the problem, easy hugh????

Don't worry about those "gun grabbers", when they try you can just shoot them and claim self defense.

When is the press going to learn? Where are incidents of mass shootings always occurring? In GUN-FREE zones such as schools! Ever see an idiot open fire at a gun show? Why don't the press and every other narrow-thinking person apply their gun control logic to other aspects of OUR lives . . . like cars! Far more people are killed in auto accidents every year than with guns, yet, you don't hear a clamor for a ban or limitation on automobiles . . . . . "Sorry, sir, but, because your car was totalled in the accident, you won't be able to purchase a car for another two years. But the State is offering a great deal on bus transfers!" Can they get anymore absurd? (rhetorical question)

Now Sarah, you know those liberal gun grabbers don't have the backbone to try to grab my gun themselves. They just keep trying to pass "feel good" laws and then claim they have "done something" about crime. Silly hugh???

Lady's and gentlemen, pertaining to my first post #1.44, I give you exhibit A...

Luis,

So are you making the argument that if we allowed school staff/kids to carry guns, this boy wouldn't have done this? That his motivating factor was that the school was a "gun free zone"?

Or, are you making the argument that he would have still done it, but one of the staff could have shot him? But then, there are still bullets flying, kids traumatized, and the perp still would have been able to get at least one of them. I mean, otherwise how would the staff/kids know to shoot him?

Yeah, more people are killed in auto accidents, but A; They're accidents. B; A car's sole purpose in life is not it's ability to kill humans. C; Cars are highly regulated, licensed, legislated, insured...

USA,

Ah yes, how silly of little 'ol me, I completely forgot that I have no spine. Let me tell you, it comes in handy when I have to wiggle by people on airplanes or get locked in small places, but what a pain sitting up straight is.

Christ, how many guns does one person need? Seriously.

Sarah,

The whole purpose of an armed society is to make it a secure society. Take Chicago for instance. No handguns allowed and the animals walk up and attack anyone with no fear.

This law was repealed and people started buying handguns. Thugs robbing and thugging started dieing. Now it doe not happen as often and is lowering in frequency daily.

Any one instance might not be stopped but it prevents others from using the model as a repeatable path to monetary gains.

Besides the law was unconstitutional. If SCOTUS says it is or not is another thing.

I was almost a victim of a strong armed robbery by an off duty cop. Caught him coming in my bathroom window with his gun sitting on the back of the toilet. When he grabbed the piece he received 5 x .45 rounds to his face. He died a death performing an illegal act. I lived because of my right to have firearms. So pardon me if I think your Liberal and Communist agenda is full of poop.

I always laugh at people who need a huge collection of guns. I wonder if they realize that they only have two hands... so at best, you can fire two at a time. So, technically, owning 200 makes you no "safer" than owning 2.

But if you need the self-esteem boost of feeling like Dirty Harry, by all means.

PRober -- You are, of course, referring to the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's on you to rent or buy a home, put forth effort in getting a good education, and to seek and get a good job that has benefits (or be self-employed and pay for them yourself).

In GUN-FREE zones such as schools! Ever see an idiot open fire at a gun show?

Really? That is what you want? To have every child armed to the teeth at school?

Are you serious?

You want children... who make all their decisions based on the emotions they feel at that exact second... to be armed with guns at school... where they can kill another child based on a split-second, emotional decision, that is fueled by raging hormones.

Are you crazy?

You think that will stop school shootings? Almost every school shooting ends with the shooter killing himself... do you know what that means, Sherlock? It means they are not afraid to die. It means that an "armed" school will not stop them. They will just start a shoot-out that leads to every kid getting shot, because that is what they want. They want to die and take out as many people as possible.

Seriously, it's bad enough that Republicans... who make every decision based purely on their emotions... own guns. At least most Republicans know that it is illegal to just shoot someone they do not agree with, even though they wish they could. But now you want to give the emotional basket-case, hormone-fueled teenager a gun? Now you want to give children, who never think of long-term consequences, the ability to kill each other?

I have no problem with adults owning guns, but Jesus Christ use some common sense.

To pedestrian -

Gun nuts want guns for completely irrational reasons. There is no limit to desire.

To gun nuts: you need to address the fact that the more guns available, the more easily they are available, the more criminals will have guns. Where do you think criminals get guns? North Korea? The policies you and the NRA favor inevitably lead to more death than necessary. And please lay off the crap about "law abiding citizens." It is patently absurd. Everybody is law abiding until they commit a crime. Then, in the case of guns, it is often too late.

And also, please lay off the crap about the second amendment - at least until you acknowledge the fact that it asserts the need for y'all to be well regulated.

Just in time for shooting season in New York , Boston, Philly etc. Virginia is no different than the Nebraska town that sells alcohol to Native Americans in the Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. What possible reason would any law abiding citizen have to be buying more than one handgun in a month. That's 12 in a year folks.

Mark. Nobody wants to take away your right to defend yourself. Nobody. Get over that particular talking point. I'm so sick of the constant fear-mongering from the right about this issue..

Sally

Leaving many comments collapsed for being off-topic. National politics and Nazi Germany have little to do with this article.

I know you are a moderator but all the same. I would disagree with you on the Nazi Germany. When Hitler and the Nazi regime came to power one of the first things they did was remove guns from the populace. That is as much a part of the gun control discussion as it gets. At least the comments weren't deleted. See post 2.6

I always laugh at people who need a huge collection of guns. I wonder if they realize that they only have two hands... so at best, you can fire two at a time

I always laugh at people who need a huge collection of shoes. I wonder if they realize that they only have two feet... so at best, you can wear two at a time......

See how silly you sound?

No doubt this Virginia legislation will surely infuriate the gun grabbers that think more gun control is better than less gun control, and the less rational the gun restrictions, the better.

Remember, gun control isn't about guns at all…. It's about control.

JNI,

Yes, but I need many shoes because I own many very cute outfits, and in order to compliment them correctly, sexy shoes are a must. Also, if you're speaking in terms of self defense, Indie's totally right. If a guns purpose is defense, than it is unnecessary to own more than the amount you can hold at one time. A shoes purpose is to make me look good, unless of course I'm taking them off and throwing them at my boyfriend (It could happen. Okay it did happen. Once. A long time ago).

If, however, someone shoots for sport, than of course owning more than two is reasonable. But that still doesn't make it reasonable to freak out about the necessity to buy more then one per month. That money would be better spent going to charity and helping impoverished people. Especially if crime control concerns you.

Mark,

Any one story told online doesn't mean anything. The gun people who get defensive always start rambling off stories or statistics (never any real sources or cites though) but they miss the point. If that's your personal story, then fine, as I said in some situations it works, but you can't than apply that as a be all/end all. Attributional bias is huge among some gun folks. And no one, NO ONE, is advocating outlawing the ownership of guns.

Pedestrian

What fear mongering? It is a Constitutional right. Evil is in our backyard everyday. I bet if you went outside you would find 2+ illegals with felonies in this country undocumented. If you live in a place like Chicago you are around the 10% of the population that commits 60% of the violent crimes. Have you been in High Schools lately? They have lockdown systems to protect students from students. Guarantee dude that starts beating on a weaker kid to show off will change his mind with a .38 slug in him. What right does anyone have to force their will upon another person when protected by a set of laws?

Americans need to stop being the kid that sits down and cries till the teacher says.. there there.

They need to take up their roots and protect their community from enemies foreign and domestic.

Ever wonder why kids in the 60s in neighborhoods went to the sandlot to play all day and now it is too scary to go outside? You can call it what you want... Liberal oppression... Communism... Reverse racism... whatever. Bottom line it is panty waistification of the people of this country.

The one stat that people should take note of:

What is the percentage of rape victims, violent crime victims, hate crime victims.... that feel they would still be innocent from these if they would have exercised their right to arms. Right up there near 100%

Oh for Pete's sake, some folks are absolutely paranoid about guns. When I was a kid, my dad was a part-time private gunsmith, hunter, and handgun sportshooter. There were rifles, shotguns, and handguns galore. He made numerous rifles starting with the stock. There was a variety of lead for making bullets. (No, people, white powder doesn't blow up.) Shotgun shells were re-loaded. Pistols and rifles (those that weren't for someone else) were for target shooting. We went to Camp Perry in OH for many a shooting match, and there were hundreds of shooters there. Rifles were for deer in Wyoming and shotguns for rabbits, squirrel, geese, pheasants. (No, some meat doesn't come in pretty packages at the grocer store.) Never mind a few collectible guns.

While I can understand that many people have a fear of firearms, it's often just not knowing what they are and why they're used. With others, I guess they're afraid they'll get shot. Hmm, careless use of motor vehicles is worse. Whatever. The founding fathers certainly had some great comments about guns.

But that still doesn't make it reasonable to freak out about the necessity to buy more then one per month

Actually, people are "freaking out" over that law being repealed. Just wait, soon we'll hear about the wild west and blood in the streets scenarios. And you know waht the effect of repealing this law will be? NOTHING.

Mark,

Your tin foil hat is showing.

What is the percentage of rape victims, violent crime victims, hate crime victims.... that feel they would still be innocent from these if they would have exercised their right to arms. Right up there near 100%

Where are your sources for that information??? Oh wait, you don't know, because that's not what acutally happened. You're guessing through the lens of your pro gun bias.

Guarantee dude that starts beating on a weaker kid to show off will change his mind with a .38 slug in him. What right does anyone have to force their will upon another person when protected by a set of laws?

Because the bigger kid wouldn't also have a gun, then? Or, you know, just take the gun from the weaker kid? This is a whole lot of speculation.

And by the way, those "illegals" you're so scared of, where are they getting those guns? I'm assuming you're implying they have guns, right? Otherwise are you advocating that we shoot to kill if you're here without any kind of documentation??? No Constitutional due process? I mean, you're all about Constitutional rights apparently and the Bill of Rights doesn't say "citizen" in it, it says "person".

Mari,

Read Mark's post, then read my post #1.44, and please tell us who's "afraid" or "paranoid".

JIN,

Actually, people are "freaking out" over that law being repealed. Just wait, soon we'll hear about the wild west and blood in the streets scenarios. And you know waht the effect of repealing this law will be? NOTHING.

Just like it was nothing when it was in place. No one's rights were being trampled by it. Hell most of you probably didn't even know it existed until today. And, do you really find it necessary to buy more than one gun per month????

God, I can smell the NRA fear mongering from here.

And to think, I've been able to make it safely to work, school, the grocery store, obviously the shoe store, and every other place I've been and thing I've done through out the ordinary course of life, during the last ten years, without ever once packing heat.

Who knew I was such a badas*??? I guess I'm 5'5 of pure intimidation!

Just like it was nothing when it was in place. No one's rights were being trampled by it. Hell most of you probably didn't even know it existed until today. And, do you really find it necessary to buy more than one gun per month????

God, I can smell the NRA fear mongering from here.

Never said I did. Do you really find it necessary to prevent someone from legally buying more than 1 gun a month?

Who's doing the fear mongering? Who is outraged over the repeal of a law that accomplished nothing?

"Do you really find it necessary to prevent someone from legally buying more than 1 gun a month?

Who's doing the fear mongering? Who is outraged over the repeal of a law that accomplished nothing?"

This is the truth. There is tons of paranoia about gun owners in the above posts. People totally miss the irony.

JIN,

It isn't about how I feel, it's about whether the government can pass strict scrutiny, and yes they can, because prior to this law being in place, VA was the hub of arms trafficking in this country. The government has a compelling interest in making sure that doesn't happen again. What's different about VA or the human mentality, that we're to believe they won't return to that???

And, how am I fear mongering? By looking at what actually happened prior to this law being passed? At least I'm looking at historical facts, with a legal argument to back me up, as opposed to rambling on about how 99% of rape victims wouldn't have been raped, and this ridiculous speculation.

Look, no one's coming for your guns, buy as many as you want, but normal people, who haven't been brainwashed understand why this law was in place both legally and historically, and they also understand that buying more then one gun a month is NOT a necessity for your safety, defense, or liberty. It is however, a successful legislative attempt to stop interstate arms trafficking.

I never said this law accomplished nothing, I said the people posting here, who think it was some huge, controlling, unconstitutional, issue, probably didn't even know it existed. Look at VA's history, please, and than say that.

Are women who vehemently stick up for their right to do what they want with their own bodies "Abortion Nuts"?

@trustveryfy - I agree with you about moderators - that moderator is best who moderates least.

But the nazi comparison is absurd. First, you didn't read and didn't deal with the hartvig lein post about the details about the nazi anti-gun law.

Second,in the long list of 478 Incredible Potentially Fatal Threats the USA faces IPFTs, pronounced IPFITS (the list maintained by the RedState website) nazism is # 476, ahead of only 477, the Mayan Apocalypse, and #478, The End of Days, aka, The Apocalypse of St John the Divine as revealed in, where else, Revelations.

Against the fascist danger we actually face, which you can discover in quotes from Mussolini, all the folks sitting around rubbing their little glocky-wockies offer no defense at all.

Sarah... saying that people that don't own guns are "normal people" essentially constitutes an ad hominem attack because it implies that gun owners aren't normal.

What's the point talking to someone like you if you come from the position that gun owners think that guns are the answer to all of our problems. It's rhetoric like yours that make us so unresponsive and recalcitrant to terms like "common sense gun control". It's usually proffered by "normal" people who aren't rational or reasonable at all.

Mark,

It isn't being pro-gun, or anti-gun, or pro-choice, or pro-life, or pro/anti anything that makes a nut. It's the extent to which you take it.

If your position is based on irrational speculation, fear mongering, paranoia, a lack of substantial evidence/facts and illogical arguments, THAT makes you a nut. Not the gun part.

Go read post 1.44 again. That's not where I think gun owners are coming from, but your subsequent posts have led me to believe that's where YOU are coming from.

And the abortion thing is completely off point, since pro-life people have no strict scrutiny passing reason, for their legal attempts to ban it. I could give a hoot about their personal beliefs.

Sarah-3043284
JNI,

Yes, but I need many shoes because I own many very cute outfits, and in order to compliment them correctly, sexy shoes are a must. Also, if you're speaking in terms of self defense, Indie's totally right. If a guns purpose is defense, than it is unnecessary to own more than the amount you can hold at one time. A shoes purpose is to make me look good, unless of course I'm taking them off and throwing them at my boyfriend (It could happen. Okay it did happen. Once. A long time ago).

Well there you go. You can't expect someone to carry a white pistol after Labor Day, and a pink one with evening attire would never do.

1 gun a month is a pointless law that wouldn't have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre. That's all I care about.

I wish the ATF would crack down on all of this black-market gun trading that we hear so much about... unfortunately they're too busy arming Mexican drug cartels with bungled stings operations.

There is no difference in my mind between Abortion and guns. These reflect rights that the government has very little business in the lives of law-abiding citizens.

p.s. don't get me confused with other "Mark-#####" you're talking to 2 different people at least.

Bassai,

Well there you go. You can't expect someone to carry a white pistol after Labor Day, and a pink one with evening attire would never do.

Duh, fashion faux NO!

I read 1.44 again.

I don't mean to "spout off" about self defense... I can only relate the first hand stories that I am several friends of mine have where a gun was present, or even an integral part, that prevented anyone from being hurt. In none of these cases was the gun fired - however, in two cases it created a stand-off that allowed the situations to diffuse.

You seem to think that a gun must be fired, to count as an act of self defense.

I'd never say it was a sure bet. But it's my bet to make, not the government. Guns are also only one layer in a series of steps one takes to defend yourself.

Mark,

HAHAHAHAH, OMG, soooo sorry! I thought you were like crazy manic for a minute.

Okay, that's rational. However, being a female, I can tell you the first thing you're taught is don't engage if you have other options. If you're going to pull a gun on someone, you better use it before they get it from you. See, that's attributional bias, you're taking your experience, and applying it to everyone. It doesn't always work like that. It's not that simple.

I get that you don't want the government telling you what to do, but they aren't here. You can still buy an aresenal if you want to, but the fact is, this law STOPPED guns from being trafficked into the wrong hands, it DIDN'T stop guns from ending up in the right hands.

Guns are also only one layer in a series of steps one takes to defend yourself.

The last layer.

If you ever have to pull a gun and train it on someone - you best be ready to shoot it and have all other options exhausted. If you're using your gun to scare/threaten - you're using it wrong and abusing your rights as a gun owner. Guns are meant to kill, and should be used only to kill.

Mark, do you live in Chicago?

I always laugh at people who need a huge collection of shoes. I wonder if they realize that they only have two feet... so at best, you can wear two at a time......

See how silly you sound?

Jnikolai,

That doesn't sound silly at all... in fact, I agree. You should hear what I say to my gf about her shoe collection. LOL. But her shoes make her legs look sexy and lead to activities that benefit me... so I can't complain too much.

But hey, if you want to spend money on 200 guns, be my guest. You see, as someone who has gone through combat training, I know that people like you are more likely to shoot yourself while fumbling between all your guns in a high-stress situation, than shoot a criminal. First there is the initial shock factor, and thought processing of realizing the situation you find yourself in, then there is the rash decision to rush to your guns in a state of panic, and things just go down hill from there.

But if your self esteem needs the ego boost of owning hundreds of guns, you go right ahead. I'm sure that makes you feel like a big tough man. The confident, trained person needs only one gun to get the job done... you need hundreds. Overcompensating for something?

Even as an avid sport shooter I can’t understand why anyone would be so threatened by such a law that they feel the need to have it repealed? After all would anyone make a fuss if we could only buy one car a month? Of course not. Who needs to buy a new car every month, unless you are reselling them that is. And as far as I’m concerned if I let any of my guns get stolen by not having them locked up in a safe then I don’t deserve to own one and I should probably have to wait a certain amount of time to buy a new one. The only people who should give a damn about these kinds of laws are gun dealers and gun manufactures. They know that a good deal of their profits come from guns that are bought legitimately and then are resold to people who cannot legally purchase these guns. It’s a fact plain and simply. Anyway I don’t care about gun laws one way or the other, but it does sadden me that there are so many rabidly paranoid irrational nut jobs in this country who somehow feel like their rights are being taken away if they cant buy their guns as easily as buying a hamburger at a McDonalds. God forbid they should have to do some extra paperwork or have to have a whole month to buy a second gun if they should loose the first one. Hell, even if I were a collector I wouldn’t mind a once a month law. It’s a real shame that half of the population of this country are paranoid yahoos without even the slightest capacity for rational thought.

Gun laws that make sense?

Nobody really is having that arguement. Its all 'Give me my guns no matter what,' vs. 'No guns including for the Army,' at the extremist lobbyist level. And therefore at the level of the House of Representatives.

This is why stupid arguements get made. Nobody normal is having the debate.

Then it gets garbles with everything else, like apparently sexy shoes. Sexy shoes getting licensed? I don't think so. ;) Some people are so dead sexy they could kill you though. Whatchagonnado?

Anyway, I'll be, as usual, throwing out the stone cold fume breather arguements and listening to the moderates. None gun control doesn't work. And yet, people have the right to bear arms, and in this modern society, that means guns, among other things that can kill your neighbor. Sorry if nobody can get along with that. But if you want to have a hissy fight over whether you can buy one or two guns a month, you already lost.

@JimD

And also, please lay off the crap about the second amendment - at least until you acknowledge the fact that it asserts the need for y'all to be well regulated.

Ah, another person with a poor sense of history and the grammatical construction of the English language.

The statement: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,"

is often misunderstood to mean that you need to be in a militia in order to own firearms. Well, point in-fact, every male of draft age who is of sound body and mind is considered a member of the "unorganized militia" according to the law, but that's irrelevant, because the second statement:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

is the important part. This statement is the crux of the amendment and ensures that the individual right to bear arms is not infringed upon. Now, the way this sentence is constructed (in total), the right of the people allows for the well-regulated militia. The militia is a byproduct of the right to bear arms, not a prerequisite. Here is the grammatical break down from the prof:

[ Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying " militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[ Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]

[ Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[ Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[ Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase " well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[ Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[ Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[ Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Got it? Good.

as someone who has gone through combat training, I know that people like you are more likely to shoot yourself

People like me? You know nothing about me. Did I say I owned "hundreds of guns"? I was replying to Sarah's post. Your foolish assumptions are your problem, not mine.

Overcompensating for something?

Grow up.

Derek,

Sexy shoes are ALWAYS relevant. Let's just get that straight right now. I have this pair of royal blue, suede pumps, my blue suede shoes if you will, they have these bows and, well anyway they are... TO DIE FOR.

Just saying...

People like me? You know nothing about me. Did I say I owned "hundreds of guns"? I was replying to Sarah's post.

Uhhh... you were replying to my post about the ridiculous need to own hundreds of guns when you can only use 2 at any given time (unless you have monkey toes). You know, you compared it to owning shoes.

Now that we cleared that up... continue raging.

Sexy shoes are ALWAYS relevant. Let's just get that straight right now. I have this pair of royal blue, suede pumps, my blue suede shoes if you will, they have these bows and, well anyway they are... TO DIE FOR.

No complaints here. The sexier a woman feels in her outfit, the more likely that outfit will end up on my bedroom floor... but feel free to leave the shoes on ;-)

For some reason I do not think guns would have that same effect. If they did, I would probably avoid that chick.

Derek,

Sexy shoes are ALWAYS relevant. Let's just get that straight right now. I have this pair of royal blue, suede pumps, my blue suede shoes if you will, they have these bows and, well anyway they are... TO DIE FOR.

Just saying...

Note: This post is full of WIN and worth +10,000 points. To use modern internet phrasing.

Also, lol @ IndieParty. I don't know if I'd really avoid someone with a gun just because they had a gun. Its the crazy look that scares me more. There's the sexy person with the shoes, or car, or gun. And then there's the person who you run away from, because they look at you with the "GOT SEXY CAUSE I GOTS GUNS! IN YOUR FACE!" Yes, that is someone to avoid....

Nevertheless, do not underestimate the power of things that make you look sexy. But please, be responsible with them. I really would prefer being emotionallly killed over by someone who looks sexy than actually killed by a bullet.

Well, I am a pretty Progressive person, but I have to say that passing laws like the one gun per month thing is just about as bad as the obscure ways those on the right attempt to address abortion.

If people are buying a lot of guns to traffic them, they are already breaking a law. If NY finds a lot of guns involved in crimes came from Virginia, then crack down on the traffickers. The original purchaser is easily identified. The trouble with a lot of gun laws is they get put in place because some other already existing gun law isn't enforced. There are plenty of other States that don't have a quantity restriction on gun sales. So if anything, the statistics seem to suggest that Virginia residents are more apt to violate laws than the other State's residents without restriction who don't traffic the guns. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. Who knows?

Some may ask the question, who needs more guns than one per month? Need is the wrong question. There are people who collect guns, just like there are people who collect other things. Who needs 50 cars or 200 pairs of shoes? It's not a question of need, but a question of desire and what you can afford.

There are many thousands of different gun models, each with their own uniqueness. Not so different than shoes in that regard. Some people who really get into the uniqueness and "qualities", want that variety in their collection. Now if you buy 100 of the same model, I'd say there may be some reason to question that. It would seem pretty strange to buy 100 pairs of the exact same shoes too.

But even then, there may very well be legitimate reasons. Guns tend to be a pretty damn good investment. Quality models go up in value at a pretty good return rate. For all I know that might be the case with some shoes too. The point is that legitimate purchases should be allowed. If someone is buying in quantity to traffic them illegally, then crack down on that practice which is already illegal.

My real point though, is that when we create laws as a reactionary measure in a veiled attempt to address some bigger issue, it's simply wrong no matter which side does it. We all know that the anti-abortion community would like to outlaw abortions, but constitutional law prevents that, so they create laws that dance around the edges attempting to accomplish the same thing. The same tends to be true with some gun laws. The ant-gun community would like to outlaw guns, but again Constitutional law prevents that, so they try to create laws dancing around the legality in an attempt to accomplish something closer to their goal. Both of these examples are flawed laws that use a very similar argument about saving lives. But in reality, the laws are more about achieving the bigger agenda goal.

I completely understand that guns in the wrong hands can be disastrous. But we have many laws in place already to address that. The law we are talking about here was only an attempt to double down on already existing law. Enforce the laws already in place. Don't create new laws because the law enforcement community and prosecutors don't enforce current law. Don't create laws as a reactionary measure that only serve to restrict law abiding citizens.

We have far too many of these restricting laws already in a variety of different legitimate applications. In my State we have a law regarding certain legal cold and allergy medicine that can be cooked up into illegal drugs. So if I want to buy some, I am subjected to what feels like a criminal investigation and if I want to buy several months supply, to limit the amount of times I have to be subjected to this process, I am not even allowed to do so. If I lose them or inadvertently drop them in the toilet, (actually happened once), I am SOL. All this because law enforcement can't effectively enforce the laws regarding the illegal cooking and sale of these converted, now illegal drugs. Seems to me that all the money spent on implementing this restriction based law, could be better spent toward enforcement of the laws already in place regarding illegal use. But this is a classic case of a reactionary law created because of an "epidemic" of illegal activity that isn't being adequately addressed.

Guns are a part of our society, like it or not. They have many legitimate uses. But like a lot of things, they can be abused with disastrous consequences. Unfortunately gun violence has also become a part of our society too, but I don't see it as having much to do with legitimate use. When we try to put restrictions on legitimate use in an attempt to prevent illegitimate use, we are simply taking the wrong approach. And when we do it with our eyes on some bigger agenda issue that we can't achieve because of existing case law, we are being hypocrites.

It is rare that I agree with the right wing, but I think they are correct with this one, even though their reasoning may be a bit flawed. I don't want to see a complete repeal of all gun laws, but let's not create new ones simply because we can't effectively enforce current law. And let's keep the focus on the criminal activity, not law abiding citizens.

Sarah-3043284,

All of your post and arguments about Exhibit A, Exhibit B, etc. are shot down the tubes as non anything with the US Supreme Court Ruling. Read the Whole Case, the Arguments you presented (posted) were defeated in that Case.

As far as this Article using stale information:

In 1991, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that 40 percent of the 1,236 guns found at crime scenes in New York had been purchased in Virginia.

We are talking about 1991, when there were not very many Computers with some form capability to even connect to anything for the Firearms Checks.

About the US Military (us) joining the US Government to do things like the Use of Deadly Force Against US Citizens. This too is not the 1990s when the Poll of the US Military indicated that most of the US Military would NOT obey an Executive Order or US Law to do so. As with the Revised US Insurrection Act (US Law) we either do so, or face Summary Executionsas "Traitors"; and even after our Summary Executionsour Families, Relatives, Friends, Co Workers, etc. are then facing Indefinite Detentions, Pre Empetive Detentions, Black Lists (no Work, no Money), Frozen Financial Assets, No Fly Lists, A Homeland Security Coding of SSS, Property Seizures, etc. as possible (suspected) Co Conspirators to our Treason. Those of that have been in the US Military for a very long time have seen the changes, especially after the Formation of US NORTHCOM, and yes, in the Contingency Plans there is Firearms Seizures, what you call "Gun Grabbing", as assisted by Federal, State, Local Law Enforcement Agencies.

As far as the Past History of what did and did not work and the current situation about "Freedoms" you might want to read ardent Bush Basher, Naomi Wolf's Book, "The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot". And the measures taken by previous Established Governments to create a "Closed Society", and as stated by others "Gun Grabbing" and Limitations of Ownership was one of the First Agendas. In relation to modern times look at what the Governments of Libya, Egypt, etc. did to attempt to stop the Revolutions. Or without much of the details you can watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

In response to the other arguments about Firearms in relation to Freedom, that is like arguing that the Unarmed "Colonists Rebels" should have just argued with the British Regulars during the Boston Massacre, or like your Legalese gone to Court. One of the First Things that was done by the British to suppress any possible Rebellion was to attempt to limit the Colonists to "squirrel guns", limit the numbers of firearms per household, stopped the sales of pistols and muskets (rifles) with only the sales of blunderbuss ("shotguns", "scatterguns") for hunting, when that did not work the British General Cornwallis and Henry Clinton (Ancestor of Bill) seized the "Well Armed Colonists Militias" Armories, essentially leaving the Colonist's Militias with nothing and having to flee the British Regulars, the British Bounty Hunters, British Loyalists, etc. along with the Founding Fathers (with Bounties on their Heads). This is when the "Minutemen" (individuals, and individual gun ownership) took up arms against the British until the First Continental Army could be formed. So there is your Historical Legal Precedence against your Arguments and Historical Examples that pertain to this Article.

So in relation to this article and to bring the Historical Legal Precedence Forward to modern times, do you honestly believe that what the US Politicians are doing are guaranteeing your Constitutional Rights? When you start to research "Pre Emptive Detentions", "Indefinite Detentions", "Material Support to Terrorist Organizations" (including Legal Expert Advice, Humanitarian Assistance, etc.), "Monitoring and Censorship of All US Communications", etc. then you are getting closer to finding out about the President Obama, January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (plural) that also extended the President Bush Patriot Act (Singular). And as a measure of self protection of US Government from the defeated as Unconsitutional US Senate S.1959 and US House of Representatives H.R.1955, the definition of a Homegrown Domestic Terrorist, "Anyone stating a radical change to (US) Government is a Homegrown Domestic Terrorist". In that the written or verbalized thought is the Crime also, as to why S.1959 and H.R.1955 were known as the George Orwell, 1984, "Thought Crimes Laws".

Again, Naomi Wolf, however, watch 04:43, that is a staged event on January 22, 2009, of President Obama signing his Patriot Acts (plural) what I mentioned above:

Naomi Wolf: 'Obama can lock any US citizen up without trial'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSeD19m3UE

So the obvious question after reading the above in relation to this article is simple, what happens when a Established Government becomes "oppressive". Do you think that the "Well Armed Well Organized" Government Militias (aka National Guard), or Military, the Armed Forces of Government will side with you? example: The First thing the Fundamentalist Islamic Taliban Government of Afghanistan did was to seize all Firearms, then massacred all the 20,000 to 50,000 Pro US Afghan Muhajeen, their Families, Relatives, In Laws, etc. (almost half the population of Afghanistan) after we abandoned US Ally Pro US Afghan Muhajeen that defeated the USSR 40th Army Occupation during Operation Cyclone. In relation to this article, would gun ownership have prevented, minimized, or stopped the massacres; YES. Now think about what is happening at Syria, President Assad's Established Government and Syrian Armed Forces.

So the question if very simple are you going to bring a knife or club to a Gun Fight against an Established Government's Armed Forces? It is the FEAR of an Established Government of the people being armed and kicking them out of power that keeps them in check (not in the same identical words, but content and meaning the same while the basis for US Law, the US Constitution, was being written by the Founding Fathers).

Then there is the matter of when I worked US Law Enforcement, do you honestly think it is in our job description to get shot? Or we are paid enough to get shot and leave widows and orphans behind? Do you honestly believe that there are enough of us to be everywhere all the time? Which leads to the question, why do you think we usually showed up AFTER and not during a Crime? How about answering this question, why do you think we carried two firearms (a Duty, a Backup)? almost forgot third firearm, "Off Duty" concealed. And by the way, who do you think trains US Law Enforcement (Federal, State, Local) in Firearms Safety, etc.; can you say the NRA.

To even say that what I am stating is irrelevant (as a dismissal of Facts) or a derail, is to also negate the posts that I have responded to.

Uhhh... you were replying to my post

My sincere apologies for not recognizing that the initial ridiculous post was ALSO yours.

My sincere apologies

You are forgiven... this time. Don't let it happen again.

Now run off to your gun collection, it will make you feel more manly and boost that self esteem of yours.

The people of Virginia need their guns, how else would the fat slobs living there ever get to feel tough and strong?

David,

I don't consider limiting firearms to one per month, in order to stop the domestic arms trafficking oppressive at all. I think that's common sense.

Any comparison in terms of colonial times to today, is well, ridiculous. That too is common sense. For obvious reasons, the needs in terms of firearms and the revolutionary war are so off point in terms of today's firearm needs and any modern day conflict involving the U.S. on U.S. soil, as to be nonsensecle.

I agree, the Patriot Act is bunk. But even with all of those words you used, you missed the biggest point. The state had a reason that passed strict scrutiny to enact this law. It worked, and no one's 2nd Amendment rights were even infringed upon. Length doesn't equal sense. It's as simple as that.

We're not in Syria, and you can not, legally or even logically, use your supositions in terms of what gun ownership could have stopped. We don't know. You didn't answer any of my questions, you just reposted them and than wrote what YOU THINK is in the minds of our military or our government and YOUR OPINIONS. You didn't post any historical or legal precedence. What happened during the Revolutionary War is off point.

Sarah -- "Guns make criminals think twice." No, they don't.

Wanna bet on that? Those little old ladies down in Dade County FL got themselves some .38's and some training and whadda ya know the mugging rate dropped in half almost overnight.

Burglars? Well, hell's bells, our small city here in southern NJ has a kazillion of them (well, hundreds anyway, that the guvmint dragged in). May we send you some to give you a clearer picture of civil-minded social skills? My daughter's neighbor smelled a rat and grabbed one of them breaking thru the back door and beat the daylights out of him; the cops got their turn too. My next door neighbor's house among dozens of others by the same two dudes was broken into and they proceded to shoot up the entire interior of the house. Years ago I had to lean into the front door to keep it from being broken in on me while I'm holding a butcher knive and trying to kick the wall phone down to me so I could call the worthless cops. Nobody drives into town after dark anymore because of all the gang fights, burglaries, muggings & downright beatings right on the street, attempted rapes, rocks thru car windows, purse snatchings, knife-point robberies at the mall, drive-by shootings, shootings into houses just for fun (no, they are NOT legal guns), forget the convenience store after dark, etc. Guess we the law-abiding citizens just have to go cower in the corner.

Think of a 9mm or a .45 or a shotgun as a big bull elephant. You gonna mess with it? I don't think so, either. They are marvelous equilizers and a lot of criminal-types tend to go where the pickin's are easier.

Now run off to your gun collection, it will make you feel more manly and boost that self esteem of yours.

Just can't keep from making those assumptions, can you skippy? Oh, and you forgot to mention your "combat training" in that post. If you say it enough times, maybe you can impress somebody.

Sarah, those shoes! so patently unfair *grins* .....

Some good arguments, and some total derp, on both sides.

I have just one thing to add: There is a gun lobby, and they are in it for themselves and not for the average gun owner. People are being frightened (there is no other word for it) into buying as many guns as possible to "protect themselves" from certain threats, real or imagined. But how many guns can you shoot at once? Realistically, unless you're a collector, do you need any more than a hunting rifle and/or shotgun, a .22 for cheap fun, plus a handgun and shotgun for self-defense purposes? If you feel you need sustained firepower to stave off an attacking army, buy more clips instead of more guns. It's just as effective. It's cheaper. But it also means smaller profits for the gun manufacturers.

And some people have a problem with that.

I love my guns. How else can you reasonably shoot at the moon when you get howling drunk on a Saturday night?

Make all states set up a thorough background and licensing process and enforce safe storage laws and require an annual audit of storage devices to ensure criminals can't walk out of your house with a weapon if they break in. . . . .

Enough with the toothless laws that do nothing but penalize responsible gun owners and dealers just because it makes the anti-gun crowd feel like something positive was accomplished. Set up a process that works and one that will make a difference. Instead of trying to control the guns, make sure the owner is in control of their gun.

SayWhat –

That’s all well and good, but there’s a huge problem with your ideas. How do think that any such set of laws—that is, strict licensing, storage with inspection, etc.—could possibly be put into effect? One gun a month is a lot less restrictive than the laws you’re suggesting, but the gun lobby has just successfully managed to get rid of that law. Over the past few years they’ve been chipping away at gun laws around the country and have even been pushing for laws that cross state boundaries by means of which a person denied a gun in one state for failing a background check could buy a gun in another state without a check and then LEGALLY carry it in the state where the permit was denied. At the rate the gun lobby is going, it’s quite possible that may happen some day. The gun lobby keeps claiming that we don’t need any new laws, we just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books, and yet they keep working to get as many laws as possible off the books. So, it would seem like your suggestions have a snowball’s chance as long at the gun lobby is able to get its way so successfully. In the meantime, putting some reasonable limits on the quantity of guns that can be bought at one time is almost certainly better than nothing since it would quite reasonably put a crimp in gun trafficking even if it did not eliminate it entirely. It’s actually pretty hard, OTOH, to imagine just how restricting gun purchases to one a month “penalize(s) responsible gun owners and dealers.”

It’s actually pretty hard, OTOH, to imagine just how restricting gun purchases to one a month “penalize(s) responsible gun owners and dealers.”

Not that hard, really, with respect to dealers: by limiting potential buyers you are limiting potential profit for the merchant. Essentially, a penalty/handicap to their business. That's an infringement on the free market, at the very least.

For purchasers, it's just needless hassle for folks that want to buy more than a single firearm at a time-- for example, a lot of hobbyists like to buy handguns in .45 caliber due to it's superiority for defensive purposes as well as being great fun to shoot, but at approx. 50 cents a bullet, that can be expensive to shoot frequently. So, they buy the same model handgun in a cheaper caliber like a .22 so that they can practice with it and still get the same feel for drawing and aiming while dramatically reducing the cost of a range trip. Buying them together makes sense. A lot of collectors firearms are sold in sets-- think about the old west stereotype of the cowboy with matching peacemakers strapped to his hips, the dual-wielding gunfighter. Well, these are popular sets, and the collector has to wait 30 days before he can get the second one that came with the set. That's just plain silly. So it penalizes them with inconvenience at a minimum.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

WMG

Your interpretation of freedom is reconciled with aggression. Just to touch on a few wars you mentioned: The Civil War was fought by an army (on both sides) not civilians the militias were in the south consisting of older unfit for combat civilians as home guard and they weren't defending freedom but slavery; The French and Indian war was more about the French fighting the English over territory, again nothing to do with freedom; The Spanish American war was not fought by civilians and had nothing to do with freedom in America but acquisition of land; The Texas Revolution was a revolution where Americans went to war to take a part of Mexico for their own, not for freedom; How in the world can you qualify America's westward expansion taking lands from the Indians as defense of freedom? You are confusing civilian defense with firearms with anarchy and aggression. Civilians have a natural right of self preservation to defend themselves even with a firearm. This future American right came from England which had it before America was established. America found the defense of freedom with a firearm useful during the British occupation of Boston and continued it. By the way the reasoning for Americans' right to bear arms was to protect itself from the military. Which at the time the American thought was, the military shouldn't exist in times of peace and was the biggest threat to civil liberties. Protecting one's freedom and being aggressive for conquest has nothing in common.

Oh. Dear. God. You took some history classes in school, right? Because your ignorance on the subject is astounding. I mean, the obvious additional example is the Civil War where state militias (read: armed citizens) were mustered en masse. There are numerous other examples in the French & Indian War, the Spanish-American War, the Texas Revolution (remember the Alamo!), and countless examples in the expansion of "civilization" into the west during the period now known as "Manifest Destiny." Please... do yourself (and all of us) a favor: either get an education regarding our country's history, or else stop pretending that you're some sort of authority on the subject.

The examples that I used described instances where militia's and/or armed civilians participated in conflicts on American soil other than the American revolution. Of note (with respect to your qualifier that they must engage in conflict on the basis of the preservation/extension of freedom), there were two sides to the civil war, and both mustered the militias of their respective territories. Yes, the south was "defending slavery" as you put it (there were other factors at work, but that is undeniably the most prominent), but the North was defending the continuation of a unified country-- the freedom of future Americans under a united nation. Both sides were fighting for "freedom" -- one, for the freedom to participate in slavery (i.e. states rights over federal government), the other for the freedom of the subjugated slaves. And despite your statement that the militias were comprised of old men unfit for combat, that doesn't gel with actual history, where the state militias were incorporated into the standing armies (i.e. called upon to participate in the war). Their incorporation into the greater established armies of the North and South did not dissolve their identity as militiamen:

At the beginning of the Civil War, neither the North or the South was nearly well enough prepared for war, and few people imagined the demands and hardships the war would bring. Just prior to the war the total peacetime army consisted of a paltry 16,000 men. Both sides issued an immediate call to forces from the militia, followed by the immediate awareness of an acute shortage of weapons, uniforms and trained officers.

Following the Confederate taking of Fort Sumter, which marked the beginning of the Civil War, President Lincoln called up States' militia to retake the seized Federal property and found that the militia "...strength was far short of what the Congressional statute provided and required."[

I should also point out that Militias were the law enforcement of the era, up until the Posse Comitatus act, which limited their role in that area. Surely you can understand how law enforcement defends liberty? The militia of Colorado was called to quell a violent miners' strike in 1914... as far as I know, that was the last time that a militia was specifically asked to assist with a law-enforcement matter.

And just who are "the morons" Dave? I would hope you wouldn't be directing your sophmoric name-calling at people like myself who carry concealed on a daily basis because they feel the need to have a fighting chance in the event that we would ever come up against an armed CRIMINAL. However, I can't imagine your comment is directed at the criminals, since by definition they disregard laws anyway - this repealed law had absolutely no effect on them, as they steal guns and/or purchase them from other criminals... it only served to limit the gun ownership of people who follow the laws in the first place. Geez. Tell you what - since I'm just a lowly "moron", you utilize your limitless genius to figure out a way to unarm all the criminals (and KEEP THEM UNARMED) and if you can, I'll gladly give up my guns.

If you don't want a gun then don't buy one.

Criminals never follow the law so this ruling does not affect them.

Law abiding citizens are the only ones being punished for such unconstitutional laws.

Please keep America free.

1573

Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons

11 November 1938

With a basis in §31 of the Weapons Law of 18 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p.265), Article III of the Law on the Reunification of Austria with Germany of 13 March 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 237), and §9 of the Führer and Chancellor's decree on the administration of the Sudeten-German districts of 1 October 1938 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, p 1331) are the following ordered:

§1
Jews (§5 of the First Regulations of the German Citizenship Law of 14 November 1935, Reichsgesetzblatt I, p. 1333) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§2
Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§3
The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in §1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§4
Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of §1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§5
For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§6
This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938
Minister of the Interior
Frick

Please keep America FREE

Please, don't be afraid to stand up for your second amendment right! Even if you do not have an inclination to own a fire arm, I recommend that every citizen take a course related to criminal justice, such as an unarmed security guard, get registered with your state, and become knowledgable about our right to bear arms. WE are our best defense.

Please keep America FREE.

Actually, Jockmama, the number of CCW holders is rising as more states pass regulations in favor of it. For every Ohio/VT/Columbine incident there are many, many more instances of people's lives being saved each & every day.

The most dangerous Americans are the ignorant voters, perhaps such as yourself, who vote for the stupidest reasons imaginable and non-voters who hope that people like you will make the right choices for them.

Let's face it, "gun control" is not about controlling guns. It's about controlling people.

Airlar, so you carry a concealed weapon, my question is why dont you carry openly. Dont you have the courage of your convictions or do you just like being a sneak?

#1 reason is to not make yourself stand out. Let's say you are in a store that is being robbed by an armed group of men. Who do you think they are going to want to neutralize first, the unarmed clerk/customers or the guy standing there with the gun on his hip? Giving up the element of surprise is an asinine thing to do.

#2 reason is all the unnecessary visits from police when people like you p!ss themselves at the sight of a citizen carrying a gun and call the cops.

What you anti's can't seem to understand is people that carry do so to protect themselves or their family. You portray gun owners as wanna be heroes yet can't site examples where they put the public in jeopardy trying to dish out their vigilante justice.

square dude -

Maybe open carry is not allowed in his state. It's not allowed in mine unless you are hunting otherwise you may get hassled for "disturbing the peace" because someone objected to it.

I don't know any "Rambo types" with CCW permits. They're all quite sane & pretty quiet & responsible. Maybe you've got them all in Colorado...or maybe it's your paranoia getting the better of you.

I too am a CCW permit holder and the whole reason I don't carry openly isn't to not attract attention, but rather I have been asked not too, and some places don't allow it. I was asked by local law enforcement not to carry openly as they do get too many calls from citizens that think just because I have a gun I am doing something wrong.

In my opinion, we don't need to strengthen requirements to get a gun they are decent; we need to strengthen the penalty for using a gun in a crime. Criminals rarely buy guns legally, and are already committing one crime by having it what is gonna stop them from committing another by using it?

squaredude

In Colorado we always had the right to carry in the open,

a few states do allow open carry and then pass laws that make it an indirect crime. I lived on CO for a while and the first person I saw open carry climbed out of a pickup truck that had seen better days. Nothing quite wakes you up over coffee at McDonalds at 6:30 a.m. as a filthy old guy strapping on a desert eagle. THAT is why people do NOT open carry. It is called inducing excitement/panic in legal parlance.

The concept of concealed carry is to keep the bad guy guessing AND to not excite/panic people. Do you REALLY want all gun owners to start open carry? CA recently REVOKED that right for the whole inducing panic reasons. Why is it the gun control folks "want a reasonable restriction" until they get it then want more restrictions?

To expand on what TNRebel said, the Police are reactionary. They show up after a crime has been committed, gather evidence, interview witnesses, and maybe sometimes actually catch the perpetrator of the crime. Crimes happen in seconds...Police are minutes away at best.

If you are fine waiting ten minutes for Police to respond when you are in a dire emergency then by all means continue to rely on them. I'm not fine with that. My life, and my family's lives are important to me. Forgive me for not entrusting their safety to those that, through no fault of their own, cannot be in all places at all times.

Airlar, so you carry a concealed weapon, my question is why dont you carry openly. Dont you have the courage of your convictions or do you just like being a sneak? In Colorado we always had the right to carry in the open, but folks like you didnt like to show they had a weapon, no they wanted to hide it. So now we have a bunch of Rambo types hiding guns, sure makes me feel safe.

Wow... Take a class, Square Dude. There are numerous reasons to concealed-carry as opposed to open carry. I live in a "gold-star" open carry state and have done so on numerous occasions, but concealed carry is the preferred, law-enforcement recommended method of carry for citizens for a number of reasons enumerated above by other posters. I'm not being facetious when I recommend that you take a class-- enroll in a gun safety class, sit in on a CCW course (if the instructor will allow you to without paying). You will learn a lot and, more importantly, your ignorance will be illuminated and in the light of knowledge will shrivel and disappear.

Rockyroad, what's your position on abortion and gay marriage, Mr "Keep America Free"? Nevermind, I know.

You're a hypocrite.

It's pretty obvious that the people who want unlimited access to guns are stoking fantasies of themselves as super-hero crime-stoppers who are keeping themselves alive and keeping the country "free."

You cannot reason with a delusion. So I'll offer a quote: "Daddy's gun tastes like pennies." Ralph Wiggum

I wonder if all of you whom would limit the number of guns purchased would have the same opinion if we had a new law limiting you to one alcoholic drink a month, one case of cigarettes per month, one fill of your gas tank per month,..... You can't possibly need more than one cigarette a day, can you? It's bad for your health. You can't possibly need more than one drink a month, it's a controlled substance. You can't fill your car up more than once, you'll hurt the environment. Great logic, eh?

More guns for morons. Yeah, just like more iPads for iDiots. If you don't like guns, don't support the industry. Don't buy them. Your iPad does FAR more environmental damage than someone purchasing a gun. Theirs took materials and methods to build- primarily steel. Your iPad takes heavy metals, scarce materials, metals, glass, etc. AND a constant source of energy. That energy, maybe it comes from coal or nuclear sources. When you decide, in 10 months that you've just GOT to have the new one, the old goes somewhere and likely eventually a dump- where the hard metals contaminate the water supply, and so forth.

If you go the "it only makes crime rise and more people die", you are wrong too. Government statistics show that violence and crime has gone down with the recent rise in gun sales. Feel free to look up where gun violence is in the Bureau of Statistics death rates and the FBI's murder stats.

@joe How old are you? Are you old enough to know that the incidence of crime is cyclic? What are you going to say when the stats start to rise?

And then, as long as we're muttering about statistics, there are all the studies that show that gun deaths per capita are higher in states with the most permissive gun laws, e.g.,

Top 5

#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50

#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50

#3, Alaska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50

#4, Arkansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50

#5, Louisiana
Gun deaths per 100,000: 19.9
Permissive gun laws: 23rd out of 50

And you can always look up the study at the U. of Utah - that widely known commie state - on gun death statitisics.

Here is one of the Colorado Rambos that squaredude is referring to.

Feb 29, 12:22 PM EST

Armed Colo. doc helps others flee from gunman

Advertisement

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) -- A Colorado doctor with a concealed-weapon permit said he grabbed his gun and guarded an exit at a medical building as dozens of people fled from a gunman who had taken two hostages.

Authorities in Colorado Springs said the hostages were released before police shot and fatally wounded the gunman Tuesday. No one else was hurt.

Police identified the gunman as Dominic Oliver, 28, of Colorado Springs.

A doctor at the practice, Jeff Ferguson, told KKTV he retrieved his gun from its storage place and protected an exit as an estimated 50 people fled down a stairway.

"If this guy opens this door, I'm going to have to shoot him," Ferguson said. "I was absolutely prepared to shoot him, yes."

Police said Oliver showed up with a gun at the Urological Associates office at about noon. He was angry at a medical office employee and took her and another person hostage, The Gazette reported.

"(Oliver) said, `Everyone get on the ground,' and it was chaos after that, as you can imagine," Ferguson said. "When you heard his voice, I was expecting any second to hear the shots ring out. I thought, `OK, this guy's going to start shooting people right now.'"

Some of the patients were in surgical gowns or partially undressed as they left the building, Ferguson told The Gazette. When Ferguson left, the hostages were still inside....

Ferguson said in an interview last night that once outside he went to the police and gave them as much information as he had about where and how many people were still inside. Maybe he should lose his Rambo card.

So... you're saying that the state with the most number of firearms deaths per 100,000, Louisiana at 19.9, falls squarely in the middle of the pack at #23 out of 50 for permissiveness?

Or could it be due to a wide variety of other social and cultural problems that affect those states? Such as the higher incidence of poverty, or the increased likelihood of depression?

Who's your source? What factors did they control for, what factors did they fail to acknowledge?

I have to laugh at all the Rambo wannabe's on here with delusions of grandeur. Yes, I am sure that if a bank robbery happened you would magically transform from a middle-aged, over-weight man with back issues, to John McClane. Then you could yell out, "Yippie Ki Yay mother f***er", pull the gun and shot every single bad guy in the head before they have a chance to react. And once the gun smoke settles, and all the bad guys are dead, you put your arm around the hot young clerk behind the counter, lead her to your '99 Corolla, and drive off into the sunset.

I am sure that reality will play out in that exact same fashion.

I have to laugh at all the Rambo wannabe's on here with delusions of grandeur. Yes, I am sure that if a bank robbery happened you would magically transform from a middle-aged, over-weight man with back issues, to John McClane. Then you could yell out, "Yippie Ki Yay mother f***er", pull the gun and shot every single bad guy in the head before they have a chance to react. And once the gun smoke settles, and all the bad guys are dead, you put your arm around the hot young clerk behind the counter, lead her to your '99 Corolla, and drive off into the sunset.

I am sure that reality will play out in that exact same fashion.

I'm sure that was your fantasy that you concocted to validate your own bias against gun-owners. I have yet to see anyone post anything even remotely resembling your "story." Most of the "pro-gun" comments on here have been valid statements about protection of life and property. Your statement is inane for many reasons, not the least of which is that bringing a firearm into a financial institution is against the laws in most states and any self-respecting CCW holder would know that.

WMG

I have yet to see anyone post anything even remotely resembling your "story." Most of the "pro-gun" comments on here have been valid statements about protection of life and property.

So you missed this comment...

Let's say you are in a store that is being robbed by an armed group of men. Who do you think they are going to want to neutralize first, the unarmed clerk/customers or the guy standing there with the gun on his hip? Giving up the element of surprise is an asinine thing to do.

This guy has basically played it out in his head. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have an extra gun duct-taped to his back... just in case a guy with an accent is holding his wife hostage in a high-rise.

I am not "anti-gun"... I just like to laugh at people like you, who get these delusions of grandeur because of your firearm. It's so sad it's funny. I own a gun too but I am not going around pretending to be in a Die Hard movie. I live in reality... I know that if you try to play hero, you might kill one bad guy before the rest pump you full of holes. These "bad guys" go into the situation knowing what will happen, they are on high alert... you go through the shock and realization stages... you are at the disadvantage. You play hero, the hostages caught in the cross-fire are on your conscious.

The truth is, if you go into a gun fight with someone else, chances are that you will BOTH get shot. People with combat training know this. Your obsessive gun crowd likes to think they will be the hero, in reality they will probably end up dead in that situation.

OK JimD, I'll play along. The source you noted about the top 5 gun death states, please go back and review what percentage of those gun deaths were "suicides", "justifiable", or "self defense". How'd you do...... that's right they don't compile those statistics based on the cause of the gun death. But how can you interpret them if you don't know how many were murder and how many were suicide or self defense? You can't. Btw- I noticed that you did your research on the "top 5 of everything" website. That's maybe not as good a source as I suggested (the US Bureau of Statistics or FBI records).

Also, as you noted those top 5 gun death states- per your premise they should also be 1-5 in gun availability...... but they aren't. Did you look up the top 5 cities?? They are NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, and Philly. If you stretch waaaay (#8) you'll find good 'ol Washington DC. But how can Chicago and DC have so many gun deaths if they don't allow you to legally have firearms??? That's interesting. So if the most deaths occur in these big cities, why is it that their states don't have the highest death rates? Maybe there is more to the information too.

See- Your stats are easily invalidated. Try some research on your own, brilliant one.

JoeNy

Just further support to your statements... Philly is a gun restricted city as well due to it being a "first class" city.

@Indieparty

So you missed this comment...

No, I didn't. And his point is valid, and it's something that is taught by law enforcement and is a subject covered in every CCW course I've ever attended. By advertising your gun (open carry) you put yourself at greater risk to being specifically targeted. The criminal element sees you as a threat, so they do their utmost to eliminate you first.

I am not "anti-gun"... I just like to laugh at people like you, who get these delusions of grandeur because of your firearm.

Now you're just assuming things. I haven't made any statements that would suggest I have any illusions about my firearms or my capabilities with them. I am no hero and don't intend to become one.

The truth is, if you go into a gun fight with someone else, chances are that you will BOTH get shot.

That's an odd approach to combat. I think that many a marine would find that laughable. Your taught to seek and find cover for a reason.

.

PRober #3.3

I have to ponder at why our neighbor to the north of us (Canada) has laws prohibiting the ownership of handguns and how many school shootings have they had? Zero I believe.

F.Y.I. - Canada has had at least four school shootings within the last six years.

2006 - Dawson College, Montreal, Quebec:
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-09-13/world/montreal.shooting_1_gunman-trench-coat-dawson-college?_s=PM:WORLD

2007 - C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute, Toronto, Ontario: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2007/05/23/shooting-school.html

2008 - Bendale School, Toronto, Ontario:
http://www.thestar.com/GTA/Crime/article/501316

2010 - Central Technical School, Toronto, Ontario:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/868627--high-school-locked-down-after-gun-fired

Ha! PRober got TOLD!

F.Y.I. - Canada has had at least four school shootings within the last six years.

Q: How many school shootings has the US had over the last six years?

A: 53 ... or about 13.25 times as many as Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#2000s_-_Present

culheath--

I'm sure it was an ACCIDENT that you left out the fact that the USA also has about 10 times the population of Canada. Which rough estimating means that the USA only has about 1.3 or 1.4 times the school shooting RATE of Canada, which is the much less misleading staticstic. Considering the drastic difference in firearms freedom between the two (Canada HIGHLY restrictive), and the fact that American children are more likely to come from a troubled home than Canada, it's not surprising that the US rate is a paltry 30% higher. In addition, the more-disarmed populace in Canada is far more likely to have their home burglarized than the United States, so other crimes are EVEN HIGHER the Canada: http://www.nachi.org/burglar-resistant.htm

The facts really aren't helping your anti-2nd amendment views here of stripping the rights of 300 MILLION citizens away.

And how large is the Canadian population? Oh yeah it's 34 million people versus 313 million here in America. Another interesting tidbit, as there have been more and more gun laws school shootings have actually went up not down. There were less school shootings 20-30 years ago with less restrictive laws than we have now. School shootings aren't a symptom of having guns, they are a symptom of a much greater problem at large.

And the US has roughly ten times the population of Canada. Would you like to quote any other statistics with absolutely zero relevance?

I believe that Canadians also say "eh" and eat more moose burgers than Americans.

Take this specific topic, is there really a need for the average citizen to buy more than a hand gun per month? How onerous was the former Virginia monthly restriction?

The problem wasn't that it was "onerous" it's that it was ineffective. After passing the law, there was absolutely no statistically relevant change in gun crime. None. Zip. Nada. All it did was infringe on people's rights (they obviously felt that way, hence the law being repealed) and restrict law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to curb crime. Ineffective laws that unduly effect the average citizen are almost always doomed. And besides, as the most recent school shooting has shown, as well as Jarod Loughner's assault and others, all you need is one gun. How does one-handgun-a-month stop these crimes? Answer: it doesn't.

Canada's gun laws are not the only reason there are less shootings in Canada. one of the biggest reasons are that Canadians are given an education from an early age in violence and bulling prevention and society there dose not exclude individuals.

The idea in the US that the individual has all of the responsibility to the society and society has absolutely no responsibility to the individual is not only wrong but it is also against the vary definition of a society.

You can see this mentality in certain posts railing against anyone who says something to the effect that their medical needs should be a right... Oh no! Society may have a responsibility to take care of its own! Oh man,the vary thought of that is whats wrong with this country!

No, whats wrong with America is not individuals that ask for free health care. The real problem is a society that thinks this is a handout issue.. It is not a handout to see to the basic welfare of the individuals in your society and it was at one point vary American to care about your fellow American.

You want to see shootings, stabbings and general violence decline? Then stop with the Society has not responsibility for the individual bull and understand that your truly worthless cash cant be put next to the life of your fellow countryman .

Why are Americans so paranoid about the world that we need to rush out and buy guns?

I'll tell you why--the NRA has scared us into thinking we need protection from criminals all around us.

What tends to happen, however, is that we buy a gun and our kid shoots himself by accident.

@Bart

See http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Of note, this:

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

So, violent crimes prevented by guns (almost a million) outnumber violent crimes committed with guns (about half that number). Strange, innit?

Prober got outed for making up statistics.

If you are going to make it up... google search to make sure it is a 2 step process to prove you wrong

Figure 1.1 Number of student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths, and number of
homicides and suicides of youth ages 5–18 at school: School years 1992–93 to 2009–10

The above shows that for the most recent year (2009-2010) the number is al it's lowest (33) since 1992 (57). It is from page 7 of the Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2011 report just released by the BJS. MSNBC had an article about it yesterday and according to the article even including this month's school incidents the trend is still downwards.

And as far as Canada goes holding up a country that considers poutines to be a delicacy does not help your argument. :p

Yeah, that's how it works. "All you have to do is..." What a ridiculous suggestion.

They are assassinating Americans overseas with no trial....

I can see this happening.

Hundreds of handguns for every man woman and child. Life is good!

We need a limit on the number of 200mph Ferraris people can buy because without it, people might buy hundred of these race cars every week putting every man woman and child in Virginia in the middle of a LeMans-style hell-on-earth!!!

My wife already does that, thank you. . .

square dude, probably a lot less than will die because Liberals kill babies....err fetuses I mean.

We need a limit on the number of 200mph Ferraris people can buy because without it, people might buy hundred of these race cars every week putting every man woman and child in Virginia in the middle of a LeMans-style hell-on-earth!!!

Excellent idea Floridaguy-1203070 and while you are at it maybe you can raise the price of a handgun to $250,000.00, solve both problems at once.

The purpose of the gun is to kill. It is not to wound, to scare or to enjoy target practice. The gun has no other purpose than to kill. I believe that most gun owners, by far, recognize this purpose. Those who see less lethal purposes for gun-ownership are ironically, providing cover for those whose intended use of guns is to kill people.

These gun-owners who see non-violent uses of gun understand that there should be no restrictions on the posession of a non-lethal device - I mean what benefit would derive from limiting the right of ownership of garden hoes?

The promulgaters of non-violent gun use choose to ignore that the Second Ammendment qualification to keeping and bearing arms is based on "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". The activist US Supreme Court majority has also abandonded strict construction of the Constitution's words by simply rendering the "well-regulated-militia" clause of the Constitution meaningless in Columbia vs Heller in 2008.

So those who do not recognize that guns are devices for killing now have the imprimatur of the Supreme Court to enable the easier killing of fellow citizens by pistol wielding criminals. They have accomplished this by simply trivialing the word "kill" in association with guns - with the mantra "Guns don't kill, people do".

The purpose of a gun is to kill. Its ownership and use in a civilized society demand close scrutiny.

And yet another militia to control the first 'constitutionally sanctioned' militia, and so on. Infinite regression = infinite escalation. My neighborhood is pooling its resources so we can purchase government-surplus Polaris missiles, not strictly forbidden by the Framers. Criminals/terrorists beware!!

@Takenaka, we already have handgun militia groups, maybe you find the nearest one and join them to become enlightened............

"My neighborhood is pooling its resources so we can purchase government-surplus Polaris missiles, not strictly forbidden by the Framers."

I went with the TOW missile launcher (no radiation threat) like we used on Saddam's son's. As soon as they finish with the miltary production I hope to have my own. Then getting my CWP and hooking that thing to a Hummer. You never know when you might need it! (/sarc).

Skipping most of these posts. Never seen any logic in any argument advanced by the NRA or their supporters. They have flooded this nation with guns and it will someday prove our undoing.

Quick every one of you nuts go out and buy ANOTHER gun. It looks like Obama is going to be re-elected! What a bunch of saps!

Tanaka: So... do you support the bill restricting law-abiding adults to one condom per month? How about one Big Mac?

No need to use the NRA, voxrationis. Here's the truth from the horse's mouth:

Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins. – Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, whose testimony convicted John Gotti

Eric the Well-Read

My neighborhood is pooling its resources so we can purchase government-surplus Polaris missiles, not strictly forbidden by the Framers. Criminals/terrorists beware!!

Yes I realize your comment is sarcasm..... Have you applied for your launch permit with the FAA? do you have your nuclear material handling license from the NRC? Did you obtain a building permit for the silo to house the Polaris from your local permitting office? Have you done your environmental impact study and filed with the EPA, both state and federal?

Do you belong to the elite paramilitary group...

The Eagle Scouts

Mark,

"Tanaka: So... do you support the bill restricting law-abiding adults to one condom per month? How about one Big Mac?"

Your analogy is incorrect, sir. One Big Mac per month is more analgous to the bullet. The proper analogy would be gun:Big Mac Fryer (griddle). And yes, I am perfectly fine wth a law restricting me to buying only 1 Big Mac Fryer (griddle) per month. As long as my local McDonalds (gun shops) can get as many as THEY need.

The Condom analogy is pretty close. And since I'm married, I don't have a need for more than 1 of those a month either.

LOL!! Dave, I'd give you +10 if I could!

dave

The Condom analogy is pretty close. And since I'm married, I don't have a need for more than 1 of those a month either.

unless you are catholic then you get none.

The bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms has a very active regulatory role. They audit gun dealers frequently, even here in Virginia. Apart from the out of control cowboys that were responsible for recent and past idiocy in the pursuit of headlines, the BATF actually does a decent job.

He doesn't want to hear anything about the strict rules and regulations gun shops in Virginia have to adhere to, or the paperwork from each gun buyer they have to keep meticulously accurate for when the auditor comes by. That doesn't help his point so he wants nothing of it.

*waves his linguistics degree around* I think I'm qualified to inform you that in the late 18th century, "regulated" was used with a meaning identical to today's word "equipped". So in modern-day parlance, the 2nd amendment says that it's a "well-equipped militia" that is required for a free state, which means that the arms to be kept and borne are supposed to be numerous, and powerful. Keep in mind that the United States borrowed warships from private citizens in the early days, because it was universally accepted that people should be allowed to keep and bear any arm they so choose.

because it was universally accepted that people should be allowed to keep and bear any arm they so choose.

tactical nuke, please...

The Term well regulated during that period in history means to "Have Enough" Do we have Enough to take a Tyrannical Government out of power. It does not mean more laws to control, Liberals will try to spin anything they do not agree with.

culheath

tactical nuke, please...

NRC license and FFL plus hazmat license in most states. Did you clear the storage of your nuke with your insurance company, it may void your coverage.

@ uscitizen#70 No, the term regulated did not mean what gun nut websites say it meant. There was one dictionary of english at that time. Everybody who was literate knew about it. I will admit that it was not created by a gun nut, but the guy was a right winger. Regulated meant then pretty much what it means now.

You could look it up. But why look something up when you can depend on a gun nut website for truthiness.

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al. must be spinning in their graves. How far their (and our) noble experiment has fallen!

Let us imagine all the run-of-the-mill criminals who stand in line for their licenses and permits. Oops, that must be the back alley or out of someone's trunk.

sailor, guns are blamed because its easier to kill with a gun, any idiot can pull a trigger, it takes a little more effort to kill with something else. Why dont we enforce gun laws because there are fewer and fewer gun laws out there and the ones we do have are hard for law enforcement to use. Any legislation we pass today is to remove any restrictions we have. How many children in Canada have been killed in their school? Maybe we need to rethink the direction we are going. The critical word there is THINK!

There are 20,000+ gun laws on the books in the United States. How many more do you need? One of the first things that get thrown out in a plea-bargain is the weapons charge. Whose fault is that?

I think it was Colt that said "God did not make men Equal Samuel Colt did" I think it was in an advertisement for the Peacemaker?

I haven't seen hard data that shows that gun laws are all that effective. It tends to just keep guns out of the hands of law abiding and criminals will find a way.

However, screw you republicans, I say ban guns if your going to ban contraceptives!

Yes I am still upset about the overreach in the south!

If I have to pay for your contraceptives, don't you think you should pay for my guns!

Eat your breakfast and finish getting ready for school; if your Mommy sees you on the computer, she'll get angry.

The problem is there is just too many ways of getting guns outside of gun shops that do obey laws.

Look at Ohio, dozens of legally registered guns that unfortunately one misguided teenager decided to use. If someone wants a gun to use it illegally, its very easy to find them. I am just not sure that they help, limitations of clip size may have helped in Arizona.

However, screw republicans I want guns banned if they are going to ban contraceptives and continue to stomp all over womens rights.

Well im in New Hamshire, and its rare that anything involving guns happens. And there is very little Gun laws.

That might be why we aren't a Democracy, we're a Republic. and I think the vets from the sandbox might disagree that a few rag tag fellas can't give them much of a run for their money.

yeah, we are republic because of the electoral college. Nice tea party spouting, and I don't care whether or not you pay for contraceptives the republicans want to ban them! That is what annoys me.

Obviously, Jan, the religious Right believes that murder and mayhem are more effective - and biblically condoned - means of controlling population growth. To a psychopath, this would make eminently good sense: we can achieve peace on earth by killing all our enemies!

Jan, can you give an example?

Which Republicans stated a desire to ban contraceptives? I can't recall anyone promoting legislation to ban contraceptives. Go to any drug store and you'll see plenty of prophylactics. Most doctors will prescribe birth control pills. I don't know of any jurisdiction in the U.S. where contraceptives are illegal. Apparently Jan-21270 is either grossly misinformed, delusional, or just lying.

Jan

You will need to show the proposed legislation to outlaw contraception. I haven't seen any. All I've seen is that you have to pay for your own.

Pvblivs, your right there is no legislation to outlaw contraception however if you listen to the republicans talking in the primaries thats where this kind of talk is. Our religious fanatics here are aiming that way, just as they are slowly taking a womans right to chose away with laws designed to slowly restrict abortions until its gone, contraception will be their next step.

Oddly enough, as gun sales increased, violent crime went down. As states/municipalties passed more and stricter gun laws, violent crime went up. This has been a pretty consistent statistic. Also, at least two of the countries you list did not allow easy access to guns, namely Libya and Syria. The rebels won in libya because of outside help, military swapping sides and raiding armories. Syrian civilians are being massacred; no outside help, no weapons, military still against them. Afghanistan is not rebelling except against us. We have 80 million legal gun owners here, a substantial force. As far as not having high tech weapons many of the forces our military fights don't either and they do surprisingly well. Finally, a well regulated militia is made up of armed citizens. Without those weapons the militia can not be organised, well regulated or otherwise.

rfa....precisely. This is why all states except Illinois have conceal and carry permits...crime goes down.

The state and federal government breed criminals and force some people into that nefarious way of life. If non-violent crimes didn't receive felonies, it would be easier for some to go back to normal life instead of having to turn back to a life of crime. Who really wants to work as a 35 year old burger flipper. Private prisons are a big threat to our way of life. They lobby for harsher sentences for non-violent crimes. say you have 2800 inmates at a private prison and the state pays $40,000 a year for each prisoner..that's $112,000,000 dollars. That does not include the free labor provided by the inmates. I'm not saying some of those people don't deserve to be there, but corruption doesn't just rome the back allys, it abounds in almost every court room where money is to be gained. Think of it, if one company owns three private prisons with 2800 prisoners each, the return is at least $250,000,000. Crazy.

The gross income is about $312,000,000

Don't you just love how some people here in the freest, most affluent society in the history of the world constantly complain about the erosion of their 'rights'? Be glad, Troy, that you have the right to post your protests and opinion on this and any other public forum that America offers you. And, more important, the right to be left alone, considered by many the hallmark of a free country.

Troy better yet ask Canada, how many childern have been killed in their schools due to guns, zero.

Troy better yet ask Canada, how many childern have been killed in their schools due to guns, zero.

square dude, you had better do a little more research, Canada has had several school shooting, It is just that Canadian news just does not sell well here in the US.

2006 - Dawson College, Montreal, Quebec:

2007 - C.W. Jefferys Collegiate Institute, Toronto, Ontario:

2008 - Bendale School, Toronto, Ontario:

2010 - Central Technical School, Toronto, Ontario:

Same period in the US : 53

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#United_States

Same period in the US : 53

Yes and the US has 10 times the amount of people that Canada has, So do the math and the US has had less per capita, You just became a pro gun ownership commercial...lol

What exactly does that mean?

Obviously, Jan lives in a cave and never heard of Operation Fast and Furious. The little conspiracy by the administration to outlaw the 2nd ammendment....it wound up killing a US border agent, and gave the Attorney General Holder the opportunity to publicly mock the congress and our constitution.

lol ... good one Denny !!!

I don't know where you are getting your info, but in Virginia you are allowed to use lethal force if you genuinely fear for your life.

What we don't have is Castle Doctrine, where if someone breaks into your home, you are supposed to flee, and only use force if you absolutely cannot get out.

That's right, Jeffsa, because of weenies like you who wouldn't fight to defend the country, or even your wife (are you married? can you defend your wife, or would you run off to call 911?)

Guns? I have duck hunting guns, quail guns, deer rifles, assault rifles, little pistols, great big pistols, and quick draw western guns and holsters, and home defense guns, and other guns that are just plain fun. And there's half a dozen concealed guns around the house and barn. And you know what Jeffsa, you and your idiot friends are going to really underestimate the "silent majority" one day.

Hey, wildjoe, congratulations on your little armory. I hope you are a better shot with those weapons than you are at making coherent posts. Do you think calling people names is a good debating technique?

By the way, I am a veteran, so don't bother with the simplistic garbage about defending my country. Have fun defending your country from the "invaders" with your little .38 special, by the way...not even an automatic is going to do you much good against an armed invasion, but you go ahead and keep rationalizing. Maybe you can pop 'em with that squirrel gun...

Geez.

I have to wonder at the mental stability of folks who are looking for a fight. Do you pray at night for a complete breakdown in society so you can start shooting anyone you see?

Square Dude: do you own a car and insurance? Why the heck do you have insurance? I have to wonder of the mental stability of folks who are looking for a car accident. Do you pray at night for a complete pileup so you can start running over any cars/people you see?

It doesn't surprise me that you would resort to using my moniker to attack me, but I really don't care - it's your right to be juvenile. However, resorting to attacking my patriotism or love of country merely because I don't agree with your point of view only serves to prove that you have little to work with when it comes to reason.

Good luck with your insurgency, though. I'm sure you'll be a real hero, at least in your own fantasy. Oh, yeah, and I think you might want to do a little reading of history; there was this thing that was called the Civil War where "service members" most certainly fired on fellow Americans, including "US civilians". See, if you are an armed combatant, that "civilian" thing goes by the wayside. But you being a student of military conflict and knowing all there is to know about warfare and such probably already knew that, right?

Better go read that oath again; you obviously missed some of it. But, if you are a vet yourself and DID take that oath, I would suggest that you understand what you are swearing to before you do so next time.

I am not the one being delusional, as you put it, nor am I the one picking and choosing. So, how does one defend one's country against a domestic enemy? Tell them to stop it or you'll take their binky away? Seriously? Or do you think that domestic enemies could not be civilians? Would they only be military? Do you realize how inane your arguments are? Oh, and are you displaying insubordination in your reference to the Commander-in-Chief? Or is that somehow different in your version or things? Perhaps you could enlighten us all with your observation of how our leader is somehow less concerned with our Constitution than you are...? Or maybe how you are not violating the Code with that kind of speech. But please, enlighten us all about that memorandum...

Yeah, I'm the one that's delusional...

All I need to do is look in the mirror? Wow, you wouldn't know honor if it fell on you. I am through arguing with someone as obviously uninformed as you are. Thanks for the personal attack, though...it was enlightening.

You might want to buy one gun for yourself and one for your spouse, child, friend, etc. If it's a gift, it's not considered a straw purchase and is therefore perfectly legal. Especially generous people have been known to buy guns for friends and even people they don't know -- sometimes as many as 10, 20 or more guns at a time.

Yeah... nothing like the the gift that keeps on giving... a beautiful shiny handgun. Just make my heart go all aflutter.

Similar to the recent scientific study linking lower intelligence to conservatism, I would be there is also a correlation linking lower intelligence to number of guns owned. No truly intelligent person continually wraps themselves in the 2nd Amendment unless they are lacking in other areas of their lives. To effectively debate the need to have more than one gun per month is laughable and to cry that it violates your "rights" is complete lunacy.

Hey. Mommy! Look at the pretty, shiny gun Daddy bought me! See how it goes bang? Mommy? Mommy?

"intelligence to number of guns" got a hot tip for you pal, I bet my gun collection has earned me a better retirement fund than your wall st. investments. Good one nut job, your name I mean.

Wow, so collecting firearms, that rarely if ever depreciate in value, many that even increase substantially in value over time, makes someone unintelligent? Ok then.

"the second admendment was written at a time when only one shot could be fired at a time"
And the first amendment was written at a time when people wrote on parchment with a quill and ink. Should we limit that amendment too, since technology has changed?

Jim the answer to your question is yes, we do need to limit the type of weapons, where would you stop. Belt fed automatic weapons, bombs, biological weapons, missiles. Do you want that kind of power in gangs or the mentally unstable? Are we really safer with no restrictions on guns, nope.

Please explain "numismatist" thank you.

square dude -

I believe most of that would fall under the category of "destructive devices" & would be restricted by federal law.

Hysteria will get you nowhere but it is fun to read.

a numismatist is a coin collector...not sure why using this analogy is relevant, but whatever...

the troll

as a female one could be raped with or without a gun. Whether it was legal to buy ONE gun or many in a month your own statement is only two guns max can be used at once. A (would be) rapist is a criminal so they wouldn't worry about the law.

Storing the "extra" ammunition at the police station in effect limits gun access. It amounts to making a list. Hitler was rather good about limiting access to guns and we know where that went. What if the family has 10 guns? That is still 100 rounds.

Stonepipe asked about numismatist. What limitation, besides funds, are imposed on your obtaining coins?

@square dude. There are limitations on types of weapons, without a license at least. That does NOT prevent the bad guys from obtaining them, just look to Mexico. It is RARE that in the USA we hear about those types of weapons being used in the USA. On those rare occasions we do here about the seizure of those items it is usually someone who has obtained them but not used them. I have little issue with those REASONABLE limits. Limiting the number of otherwise legal guns serves no purpose. I've known people who have ten or more long guns. Each serves a purpose. Hopefully not many go hunting squirrels with 30-06 or .308 but neither does one go duck hunting with a .22 (unless they are damn good).

the second admendment was written at a time when only one shot could be fired at a time

No it wasn't.

Puckle Gun [In 1718, James Puckle of London, England, demonstrated his new invention, the "Puckle Gun," a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock gun fitted with a multi-shot revolving cylinder. This weapon fired nine shots per minute at a time when the standard soldier's musket could be loaded and fired but three times per minute. Puckle demonstrated two versions of the basic design. One weapon, intended for use against Christian enemies, fired conventional round bullets, while the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets, which were believed to cause more severe and painful wounds than spherical projectiles] 171 8

Double shotguns - under and over revolving barrel type 1760
Flint double barrel shotgun – the firing mechanism, including the flint was concealed in a box as part of the lock 1760

The first patent for single trigger locks for double arms (James Templeman, Pat. No. 1707) 1789

Single trigger pistols, with side by side, and also under and over barrels, made 1789

So because you think the laws concerning the amount of guns and ammo a person has access to should be changed, does that mean they should be? Do you want to be God and run everything? What gives you the right to say what I have and don't have. I think there a way to many people on this planet, I think you should be sterilized so you can't have any children. I wouldn't want them to put additional strains on the worlds environment. What do you think about that? We have a democratic society for a reason, so people like you can't restrict what people like me do or have and I can't restrict you from doing what you want to do. This country doesn't run under a dictatorship. Well maybe President Obummer thinks he is beyond the law but that's a whole different can of worms. Keep your gun grabbing mits off my stuff.....

f u dumb ess

Sometimes when I read the sh*t clowns like you write, I wish you were overseas during the Viet nam War to see what people went through for people like you to have what you have. Your freedoms, benefits of being an American. I lost one of my brothers, and I served my country to keep it and clowns like you safe, to be free, to live in a democratically run country where we all try to live harmoniously. Now I have to fight in my old age to keep my guns and ammo. I am a law abiding citizen and do things legally. If I was a criminal, it would be no problem to buy fire arms with no paperwork and no problem with multiple gun purchases. People like you have no clue how the real world works...criminals don't care and they don't obey the laws.

Well said

So you open carry a 12ga? Nice...

Well I'm glad Kevin B isnt running anything.