I'm getting very tired of the framers/founders argument. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and I don't have a problem with concealed carry. However, if the founders could pay a visit to 21st Century America, I believe they would be quite shocked and dismayed by the perversion of their intent. You wouldn't even need to tell them everything that has transpired, just show them the pictures of the personal arsenals that police have seized from potential copy-cat suspects since the Aurora shootings. They would say "no no no, this was not our intent, we should have been more specific". Whenever someone suggests that the Constitution is a fluid document, people get offended. I believe the founders were realists and fully expected that their writings would be viewed as an outline, a framework that would change with the needs of society. We need to find ways to slow the proliferation of weapons in our society. There should be limits on the types of weapons allowed, the number of weapons any one individual can own, the frequency of purchase and training requirements. I would also like to see at least an attempt to regulate the private sale of weapons. When you purchase a used vehicle from someone in a private sale they have to sign over the title and then you are required to register it in your name. I would like to see the same requirement for weapons, with a background check required.

The best known anti-federalist was Thomas Jefferson. The anti-federalist and Anti-Administration Party were all political parties Thomas Jefferson was highly active in.

Why would such an event change already-established views? Those for more regulation will only see added justification in the shootings, while those who want guns will continue to insist the actions of a nutcase are immaterial. Both are self-reinforcing viewpoints.

Any actual thought on the issue is undesirable.

There is no constitutional right to own or operate a motor vehicle. Every state calls automobile operation a privelege. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The other thing to remember is that when the Bill of Rights was enacted, government agents were armed with swords and muskets. Shouldn't we restrict current agents of government to nothing more powerful than muskets and swords?

I personally don't want to take anyone' s gun. I own a pistol myself and I have had plenty of training in it's care and feeding (20+ years in the US Armed Forces). I have conducted Army range fire as a range safety NCO. While I don't believe there is any reason to take peoples firearms (unless they are criminals or mentally ill), I also see no reason not to enact reasonable restrictions. There is only Three logical reasons to own a 100 round drum magazine:

1. You're too lazy to reload.

2. You feel you need to lay down suppressive fire in the event of a home invasion. If you really need those 100 rounds, you better forget the rifle and call in an airstrike.

3. You have this strange fantasy that you and your drinking buddies are going to defend American freedom by taking on the US Army when they come for guns. We know it's a fantasy because:

a) The US Military would never come for your guns.

b) You and your half drunk buddies wouldn't last 15 seconds in a firefight with the US Army.

4. Ops ...there is a number four. This is the "my reason isn't rational" reason. You want to kill as many of your fellow citizens as possible before the authorities put you down like a rabid dog.

As you can see, none of the above reasons for a private citizen to own a 100 round drum magazine is worth the risk of reason #4 above.

Have a nice day.

you sir are an idiot. you are clearly the one who needs to WAKE UP!!

Either George Washington or Thomas Jefferson wrote that the main reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is to allow them the protect themselves from those who would impose tyranny upon them, including their own government. The history of "gun control" is filled with one country after another wherein the citizenry was disarmed and then exterminated. Why is it that you think that people are pushing to arm the Syrian rebels so that the government troops won't be able to massacre them at will?

As for taking on the US military, if a few thousand semi illiterate Afghanis can give them the kind of trouble that they've been having in Afghanistan, what will a few MILLION well trained and PO'd American veterans (thousands of whom are retired Special Ops guys) are going to do?

I believe the founders were realists and fully expected that their writings would be viewed as an outline, a framework that would change with the needs of society.

If the founders would have meant for their writings to be "fluid", they would have left out the words "shall not be infringed". They didn't say "if things are different in your day" or "only certain people can be granted a permit" or "only certain types of guns will be allowed".

And for those who interpret the "well regulated militia" as meaning the military and not individual ownership, if that were the case, every individual/civilian owning a gun when the amendment was written would have had their guns confiscated. We all know that wasn't the case.

I just came back from Las Vegas where I saw MOB Attraction.

What struck me was how alcohol Prohibition made many extremely wealthy; some used their immense wealth to further Organized Crime. Eventually, Organized Crime became so big that even after Prohibition was lifted it just kept on getting bigger, eventually setting shop in Las Vegas.

If guns were banned in the US the same thing would happen: a lucrative black market of guns would emerge. Bad guys would have guns, law abiding citizens would not, and another sub culture of crime would emerge, not alcohol Prohibition but gun Prohibition, a far more deadly combination than the Speak Easy Organized Crime fueled.

Gun owners see what could happen and they stand, like myself, with the Second Amendment.

Wit our current failure in the White House, the necessity of owning fire arms has increased at least threefold. Gun laws are enforceable only for those who respect the law.

Lt Scrounge-4042308:

Like what ya wrote. Agree with ya 100%.

P.S. Do you see what I see coming down the pike?

Ol Doc, In your 20 years of armed forces service did'nt you as I did, take an oath to protect this country against all enemies both forigen and domestic? Since you seem to have lost track of this important part of the oath you took the day you swore in and every time you reenlisted,you may want to review why the fonding fathers made the 2nd amendment the 2nd amendment. Their experience with tyrants and the use of government troops against the populace was first hand. They expected the population of the USA to maintain their vigilance over the expanse of the government machine and nip in the bud the over reaching tyranny that all governments posses as their reason for being. Those that gave us our Independence went to war against the front line military of the great British Empire with their own weapons. The same weapons as their opponents. Your review of the reasons not to have a high capacity magazine indicates to me you probably were not in the Armed Forces, especially the Army as you show little understanding of the use of sustained fire. These are semiautomatic weapons not full-auto. Fire power is fire power. If you don't have it when you need it, you wont get it in time. The lowly citizen does not have the luxury of the military's long line of logistics to resupply the soldier. The citizen soldier goes the war with what he shows up with. If you paid any attention to the past you would see examples after examples of governments use of the military to quell the citizens. Most currently in Syria, Libya et. all. "Logical restrictions" is just the Liberals, Socialists, Statist's,communist's, medias buzz word to appear willing to listen to our side before they take away a portion of our liberty. They have been doing piecemeal for decades and lulled and confused the majority to sleep in their quest to control us completely. The final source of the peoples ability to end oppressive government tyranny is the 2nd amendment. You sir are not only suspect in your veracity but either lost in the rhetoric of the main stream mind control or one of those to quote our great founding fathers, "that would give up your liberty for a small piece of perceived safety, and as such, deserve neither". The good lord takes care of old drunks and old fools. Perhaps Ol Docs too. Praise the lord and pass the ammunition

Seems that all the weapons the guy in Colorado had worked except the Smith and Wesson AR-15 style weapon with the 100 rd drum magazine, it jammed. The military uses 30 rd mags in those types of guns. Those 100rd aftermarket mags are prone to failure and they are cumbersome. Had they been banned this guy would have had a reliable 30rd mag and it would not have jammed. For what ever it is worth, it seems having 100rd mags available this time actually saved lives. I have AR's and AK's but I just have regular 30rd mags, but that is because I just don't like the way the drum mags look and and I don't like the way the operate. But, I also don't like someone trying to tell me what I can and can not have.

Look at a world without guns before guns were made was it a utopia of goodness. Think of the Vikings the Mongols and so many others the facts tell the truth even if only the police had guns how fast can they get there 5 mins 10 mins or in Detroits case 9 hours the physically strong would rule over the weak the young the old the women no offence and any one sick or not as strong as the bad group or one person that attacks them guns make the strong stronger but guns make the weak just as strong God made men but Guns make them equal2.independenttribune.com/news/2012/jul/06/concord-woman-shoots-man-during-attempted-burglary-ar-2412394/wpbf.com/news/south-florida/Palm-Beach-County-News/Deputies-Teen-burglary-suspect-shot-by-resident/-/8815578/15618394/-/w8u410/-/index.htmlmyfoxdetroit.com/story/19070227/elderly-homeowner-shoots-and-kills-intrudermlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2012/06/66-year-old_woman_who_shot_int.htmlfoxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/examiner.com/article/woman-shoots-at-intruder-police-seek-public-s-help-finding-him
Are these lives worth less then the victims in this crime

An AR-15 style rifle is displayed at the Firing-Line indoor range and gun shop on July 26, 2012 in Aurora, Colo.

The above is the caption on the picture of this seed....and shows why this discussion is useless...."Style" has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a weapon. While we are on the subject...an AR-15 is not, repeat NOT an "assault rifle."

Reminds me of the period during the cold war where both the Soviet Union and the USA had enough nukes to blast each other 100 times over.

There was a reason for that, my friend. It's called maintaining parity. The sole intended purpose for maintaining a stockpile of nuclear weapons on either side was to help ensure that neither side would want to unilaterally deploy them out of fear that they'd be 'getting them right back', the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. But for that to be relevant, both sides have to have roughly equal levels of force available so neither had a significant advantage. Unless the two sides could come to terms on a treaty (never really happened, despite several attempts), 'how much' boils down to what each side could afford to manufacture and maintain, and once both sides are roughly equal, then both sides could stop until that status quo was broken. Both the USSR and the USA knew full well how many megatons of destructive capacity they had and neither side wanted to actually use their strategic nuclear weapons at all.

mental illness that says deadly firearms make you safe

Some people have that, many others do not and if they have firearms, they're not kept as weapons, or if any are, they're maintained at a resonable level, i.e.: a shotgun or a handgun for personal protection vs. a virtual arsenal of loaded weapons stashed all over the premises.

You are in line with places like Afghanistan, Iraq,and Yeman where everyone is armed to the teeth and not hesitant to shoot.

No, not really...unless, of course, you live somewhere where there is a lingering war between factions and you're part of it thanks to your family tree... those tribal disputes have been going on for ages and outside of something like the Hatfields vs. McCoys, you've got to be involved with gangs or organized crime to be part of anything close to what the folks mentioned in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. If someone just keeps a bunch of loaded guns around for 'security' in the US, the most likely difference is that they're probably not going to have any actual enemies show up trying to kill them, while it happens all too often in the middle east.

However, if the founders could pay a visit to 21st Century America, I believe they would be quite shocked and dismayed by the perversion of their intent.

Possibly. I've always felt that their intent, however, was that the average citizen in good standing be able to maintain some semblance of parity with any soldiers they may have to defend their homes from, either foreign (an invasion) or domestic (the tyranny example often cited, though much less likely). Very heavy weaponry, or ordnance, such as artillery, rockets, bombs, even machine guns, most likely would not be employed against citizens of any invaded nation. There's just too many of them, and ordnance is expensive. It's used where the cost and somewhat limited supply of it can be justified, which would be government and military buildings and the like, not the homes of private citizens. They can be contained, corralled, controlled, by infantry...armed with rifles and other small arms. More than a half century ago, pretty much any sporting arm would have been a fair match for a military rifle. Today, a fairly skillful person armed with something that has a decent magazine capacity, handles quickly, and is some sort of a repeater would pass, factoring in the homefield advantage someone defending their home would have. A lever action .30-30 or a 12 gauge pump shotgun and a decent supply of shells in the hands of a person determined to stop their home from being invaded by one or several soldiers could certain stop them. A semi-automatic anything really does put someone in that situation on par with such soldiers in the case of an invasion. Training beyond familiarity with the weapon isn't too critical...the skill to prevail is nowhere near as important as the will to prevail. Soldiers ordered to invade neighborhoods where many people are armed and waiting for them will absolutely dread having to do it and if they manage to survive, they will see a great many of their comrades slaughtered as they kick in doors. This would be what the authors of the Constitution had in mind, at least partly, and they must have gotten it right because after about 1812, arrival of hostile foreign troops has been limited to spies and saboteurs...none of whom are known to have invaded any homes, let alone killed or wounded any US citizens in their domiciles.

We need to find ways to slow the proliferation of weapons in our society.

One of the better ways would be to start rejecting much of the garbage that Hollywood keeps dumping on us that portrays all kinds of 'badasses' as possessing and heavily using weapons in the course of the story. People grow up watching this stuff and it becomes a frame of reference; people actually think that some of this stuff is normal or that people who want to be taken seriously have and use a bunch of combat weapons to accomplish things that are in virtually all cases, ILLEGAL, even if the person doing them is a law enforcement officer. As long as people watch bad TV and movies and find themselves aspiring to emulate what they've been watching as a lifestyle choice, we will be having these problems.

I would also like to see at least an attempt to regulate the private sale of weapons.

Do keep in mind that if a person sells a gun to someone who they know or should have known was not to have one, they can definitely be held liable for it. The big one is selling a gun to a minor after making no attempt to verify that they were of legal age, but selling a gun to a notorious criminal (in other words, they're well known enough that any normal adult would recognize them for who they were) would also probably land a person in hot water. In my state, anyone wishing to purchase a handgun needs a permit to acquire one or else a permit to carry weapons, and this includes private party sales. We do, in fact, occasionally have people who are charged with selling a gun to someone who didn't have either permit. Not often enough, but it does happen where someone who shouldn't have a gun is caught with one and it can be traced back. I think requiring background checks might not work so well...easy enough to fool regular gun dealers if one goes to a bit of effort, average people involved in a occasional sale could be tricked much easier. I can to the state court system's website and do a quick court history check on pretty much anyone and see everything they've ever been charged with as an adult and how it was adjudicated, but I need to have their correct name to start and then maybe a few more things depending on what I find, such as date of birth and where they were originally from, like if they're a Smith, Johnson, or Anderson. Of course, depending, you could be a first class citizen and find no one would sell you a gun if someone of the same or similar name has a rap sheet as long as your arm. People would be scared to sell them anything out of fear of getting in trouble themselves unless there was some very good proof that's not who the person was. Would you want to have to provide your SSN or DL number to a stranger in order to buy a gun from them? It'd be perfect for identity thieves...offer a gun for sale, collect ID info, and tell each person they didn't pass the background check so they couldn't buy the gun...that personal info could bring in far more money than the sale of a firearm could!

Only fear based (fearful) people feel a need to own guns.

Not counting, of course, all of the hunters, competitors, and recreational users out there, which is the majority of firearms users, as well as those who genuinely are prepared instead of scared, and there are more than a few of those around. They're not the ones who go buy a gun after hearing about something in the news, though!

There is only Three logical reasons to own a 100 round drum magazine:

The only valid reason I know of for those to even exist is for the use of the relative handful who hold tax stamps for certain firearms taxed and registered by the US Treasury Department under the National Firearms Act of 1934, specifically those who have a select fire AR-15, referred to by the BATFE as 'M16's. These folks will often take them to exhibitions and the 100 round magazine lets them put on a very impressive show, especially at night with tracers. An example would be the event held at Knob Creek, Kentucky. For anyone else who has just a standard AR-15 type rifle, they're an expensive gadget that does little more than waste a hundred and whatever some dollars they get for them! They are absolutely notorious for jamming (they are plastic, after all) and anyone with some insight into them would absolutely NOT stake their life on it in a home defense type situation, same as any other off-brand or non-standard magazine. Most AR-15 type rifles out there should not be used for personal protection because of reliability issues thanks to all the knockoff parts available for them these days, but even a known 'good' one (Colt, Bushmaster, Smith and Wesson, etc.) such as a law enforcement agency would purchase with no aftermarket parts swapped into it needs a reliable magazine manufactured by either Colt or one of the US government contractors, like LaBelle. The police and the military do not use plastic 100 round drums with the AR-15/M16 family of rifles. That should be a hint to everyone else!

What struck me was how alcohol Prohibition made many extremely wealthy

The Volstead Act (Prohibition) really lit the fire for organized crime. What most people don't realize is that the gangsters had been around before then, too. It's just that they specialized in gambling, prostitution, and extortion before the opportunity to profit mightily from bootlegging came along in 1919. Prohibition of alcohol ended in 1932, but by then bank robbery and narcotics were becoming all the rage...they'll always be into something. In recent decades counterfeiting of consumer products has been very much run by organized crime syndicates of different types.

POLL: Views Unchanged

NBC: Vows To Stir Minions

Rick Drake-6425648 ----yadayadayada....if the framers came forward in history and was what has happened the first thing they would do is to drag out the ropes and hang 90% of the population of the jails then turn to those who illegally use fire arms and start hanging them....then we would see a drastic decrease of violent crime throughout the nation.

I don't understand why the pro-gun fans so quickly start talking about banning guns... well, actually I do... they want to distort the issue. I think even the most liberal people don't want to ban guns. That's just hype and rhetoric. The 50%+ people that are for more gun control (states it right in the poll) and NOT for banning guns. Continually framing the issue as if liberals what to take your guns is nothing more than a political statement - nothing to do with the truth. Hyperbole.

I myself am a so-called bleeding heart liberal (meaning I actually care about people not like me) and proud to be one. I also have a 9mm automatic pistol and I know how to use it. I am completely 100% against the government banning my gun. I am however, like about half of Americans, for controlling the sale, distribution and use of some types of weapons.

So, to reiterate, nobody wants to ban your handguns, shotguns, or hunting rifles. Many people think it is sane and reasonable to put controls on weapons, and that's what is at issue.

To those who feel the Constitution is "Out of Date".

Times may change, but integrity and honor NEVER change...

No matter how you slice it, THAT is a universal truth.

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

Quote from ADOLF HITLER, 1935

First they have you register them so they know where they are when they want to confiscate them. If only 10 out of every 100 Jews in Europe were armed then out of the 6,000,000 murdered there would have been 600,000 armed individuals to stand up to the Gestapo and SS. The Holocaust wold never have happened.

Overlord, I'm not a rabid owner either and I'll accept your view because you know the myriad rules. But how do we get any tighter with the abusers without beating on the legal owners? The NYC ban will stop you but it won't stop your face from getting slashed on the subway as a gang initiation. I want that injustice addressed before I make any concessions.

Quoth the sage:

Nobody ever went broke, including the gun manufacturers, underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

And to the morons endlessly babbling about the second amendment: quote the whole thing. Then go read and find out why it exists. Hint: it's not there so the common sort (that's you) could defy the government being set up by the Fetishized Founders.

And to the idiots that think something like the US gun non-laws would have interfered with hitler: please try to learn how to think.

Hey, JimD-boy, just who the f**k are you to denigrate the intelligence of anyone, simply because they disagree with your supercilious, shovel-full of crap. You rrrrrreally like yourself, don't you brilliant boy?...so much so, that the rest of us are simply morons and idiots, unfit to compete with your obviously superior intellect. Well, as far as I'm concerned, better to be a babbling idiot than a pompous azzhole!

Snakea - Think of the Vikings the Mongols and so many others the facts tell the truth even if only the police had guns how fast can they get there 5 mins 10 mins or in Detroits case 9 hours the physically strong would rule over the weak the young the old the women no offence and any one sick or not as strong as the bad group or one person that attacks them guns make the strong stronger but guns make the weak just as strong God made men but Guns make them

Please, do have some punctuation marks, on me. It would be so much easier to read your post. (Save what you don't use for later.)

. . . . . . . . . . .) ) ) ) ) ( ( ( ( ( [ [ [ ] ] ] / / / , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , " " " " " " " " " " " " ; ; ; ; ; ; : : : : : : : : : : : : ? ? ? ? ? ? ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

@Rick Drake-6425648

They would say "no no no, this was not our intent, we should have been more specific".

Give me a break and take a history lesson while you're at it. The Second Amendment was not intended to insure people would have guns to hunt with. Militias of the day weren't armed with shotguns, they had the most modern military weapons available at the time. So how cn you be so sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't want the citizens to have the same available today? Just because they couldn't foresee the power of such weapons doesn't make your stance anything other than your own biased opinion based on absolutely nothing.

About the founders and framers speech. You don't know their intent, let alone, we have a portion of the population fond of revisionist history. The separation of church and state folks love to invoke Jefferson's name. They conveniently forget there were 4 Churches housed in the Capitol and Thomas Jefferson had preached there. (They met there before Congress did.) So which way is it? What is important is that it is our rule, not someone elses.

I don't have any doubt the poll is correct. The exceptions don't constitute a need for change. And even if people did change the gun rules, the people who shouldn't have a gun still would. So nothing would change, except the law abiding citizen would be unable to defend themselves, and deaths would increase.

About the founders and framers speech. You don't know their intent

If we can read, we can know their intent. It is only those who seek to alter the writings in some way who argue that the intent has somehow changed over the years. Good Lord people, the Founders built a nation. I think they knew what they were writing about.

Most people that are pro gun and self defense are pro religion and believe in God. If you believe in God and Jesus then wouldn't dying sooner get you into heaven sooner? If you are religious then why do you need a gun? If you die, you get saved right? I don't get it. If God is so great and heaven is paradise then why would you want to delay? Hmm.

I do believe it was a man with a concealed weapons permit shopping in a Smith's store that stopped an idiot with a knife that he purchased at the Smith's store from stabbing more people then the two that he stabbed. Ask those people how they feel about guns. I bet every person in that store that day was very happy that there was a law abiding gun owner shopping in there at that moment.

A bad person can turn anything into a weapon!

stull

A bad person can turn anything into a weapon!

A weapon that can kill a dozen people and cripple almost a hundred more in less than 90 seconds? Name another weapon that can be easily obtained and carried into a public place that can do that kind of damage before the perp can be taken down. I think it might be more appropriate to say that it is a weapon that can turn anyone into a bad person. The latter happens much, much, MUCH more frequently. And in mass killings such as Aurora and Columbine, the weapon is always multiple firearms, not nun chucks or knives.

Rick's Real Remember Timothy McVeigh no guns,just a little fertilizer,took out the front of a building,killed a bunch of little kids.The problem is the wackos are nuts, but they are not stupid.Anything can be turned into a weapon.Look up some of Canadian laws and English laws on guns, they are considering banning pocket knives.Canada has a farmer in prison because he shot two thieves that were taking his equipment out of the barn and loading a trailer(2nd time they stole from him. He killed one the other is suing.)Another case is a man shot at 3 men, who were throwing fire bombs at his house,he is in jail for not having his gun secure.In this case no one was hurt.You can own a gun but you can't use to protect yourself or your property.

Proud2Bavet,

Lt Scrounge-4042308:

Like what ya wrote. Agree with ya 100%.

P.S. Do you see what I see coming down the pike?

I like what you both have had to say. I would like to think most intelligent Americans can see what is coming down the pike. But then I come to this site and think to myself I guess that is not the case. It seems that most Americans are content with their head in the sand. It is a very sad time in American history. When we have such an unintelligent uninformed populace of people that have for some reason chosen to believe the media at all cost even when in most cases they know that the media is wrong. The sh*8 people believe these days is astounding to me the media could say that the sky is red with yellow poke-a-dots and you would say no it is blue then some idiot try’s to argue that you are in fact wrong because clearly if the media has said that it is red with yellow poke-a-dot then damn it that’s the way it is. To all of you that think by the government outlawing something that it will get rid of the problem I have but one question for you? How goes America’s war on drugs? You can have my guns when you pry them from my dead hands.

Rick Rael,

Dynamite works well at creating just they mess you are talking about.

No need for me to reply to you Rick's Real, gunfsafety did it for me.

Thank you gunfsafety! : )

100 people in 90 seconds. Yep. That does it for me too. My rights as an American include the right to LIFE, which is a constitutional right too.

So when will my right to LIVE trump your right to own assault rifles and 100-round clips? Or are all unarmed Americans just expected to give up that right?

rick's real,

So when will my right to LIVE trump your right to own assault rifles and 100-round clips? Or are all unarmed Americans just expected to give up that right?

Dynamite and chemicals can do the same damage if someone wants to kill that many people then there are many other ways to do this. If you restrict guns or clips from law abiding citizens how is the government going to keep them out of the hands of criminals? They cannot just look at what is happening now all kinds of criminals have access to guns and they don't buy them legally. They probably buy them from Eric Holder and Obama. Look at the war on drugs that also invades on my right to life and they are currently illegal. So how is the war on drugs working out for the US? Yes, drugs are a problem as most whack jobs are on them when they commit crimes. Or they commit crimes for them

So when will my right to LIVE trump your right to own assault rifles and 100-round clips? Or are all unarmed Americans just expected to give up that right?

Hopefully never. Have we really ever had to prioritize rights before? This right is more important that that right?

If you give up your right to life, it won't be because of me or my weapons. (Unless you try to harm me first.) If you ask us to give up our right to be armed, how many people a year are YOU asking to give up their right to life? I'll wager more than you think. A lot more.

why dont we get to the real issue ...which is not guns...guns dont have legs or arms and cant kill by theirself..you can pass all kinds of new laws and youd still have some nitwitt find something to kill someone with..look at all the drug laws and immigration laws they have ,has it helped ...no. people just come up with a new way to get around them. it has to start with getting morals and strong family values being brought back into the homes..america has to start getting back to the good ole usa or were all going to be doomed.

The problem with statistics is that they're frequently used selectively. People ignore Switzerland when talking about gun ownership and homicide rate... Switzerland has a murder rate four times lower than that of the UK, yet their gun policy is very different.. hmm..

People forget that there are other countries in the world, and that firearms will not cease to exist just because they'd like them to. Making something "illegal" is a good way to encourage black market transactions.

It is referred to as ecological fallacy.

Moose, to suggest that "the government has no right to implement [gun control]" is not only wildly incorrect, it's a fairly dangerous rhetoric to adopt. The government has the responsibility to protect the people and provide for their general welfare. The Second Amendment, the most poorly worded 27 words in the Constitution, does not preclude that responsibility. The government already implements gun control... it's just not good enough. You cannot buy any weapon at any time in any amount. You cannot legally own a shoulder-mounted missile launcher. That's gun control, and we already have it.

There are some who would advocate the banning of all guns in America. I'm not one of them. But I think handguns are a disproportionate contributor to gun violence and gun deaths (look at ANY statistics) and that's where I think the focus should fall. I grew up shooting guns. I used to personally own a 9mm Ruger. But I gave all that up because the enjoyment from popping off a few rounds at the shooting range isn't worth the blood toll that the country has to pay. If it's about defending my home, I'd rather have a shotgun, anyway.

Amendments do occasionally get repealed, modified, or changed. So don't think your "right" to stockpile an arsenal is guaranteed. Rights are really only rights as long those granting them elect to continue doing so. Remember habeas corpus? A supposedly immutable right upon which large swaths of our government and legal system are based? Yeah, that one disappeared during the Bush administration.

As for the foreseeable future, the gun debate in this country appears to have been settled. The guns won. So the price the rest of us must pay is what you saw in Aurora, Colorado. And you know it won't be that long until the next one.

Please look up the definition of the word infringe, you will see that you are wrong, and I accept your concession in advance.

Furthermore, no one grants you rights, if they did it would not be a right, but rather a privilege. Your method of thinking is precisely why the 2nd Amendment was written, to make the ultimate and final distinction between what is a right and what is a privilege.

Hey, moose, where do you think rights come from? For example, your right to say stupid things freely? You say nobody granted you that. Do you think it grew in the root cellar?

And your notion of why the second amendment was written is at the level of a scrawl on a gas station men's room wall.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

Moose,

Just put a ban on the big selling arms and ammunition companies at the City's depot. Any one can buy anything they want. And the money flow's.

I never use the phrase "Wake Up!"--tho I'm tempted sometimes--because it always seems to go in hand with one simplistic opinion or another.

Moose, that "right" (which HAS been granted) has already been infringed. You cannot legally own any weapon you choose. You may not have an anti-aircraft shoulder-mounted missile launcher. You may not have weapons-grade plutonium. There are restrictions and controls. You need to be rational if you're going to engage in debate.

Even Scalia has suggested that some degree of control is allowed. He said because the Constitution says "bear arms", that means something you can carry and thus rules out things like cannons.

Now, some suggest that the Constitution should be applied to mean muzzle loading muskets, however, they did not make any distinctions and therefore it could be interpreted to mean any modern gun you can carry. For example, they didn't confine it to just "matchlock" weapons or "flintlock" weapons. At the time there were varying degrees of technology, some considerably more effective than others and they didn't confine it to a particular type, thus implying that the most effective "modern" weapon was acceptable.

Personally, we already have adequate restrictions. The only way that you could make gun control really work would be to ban all guns and confiscate every one in existence. That isn't about to happen.

This guy obtained his weapons legally and something that hasn't been talked about is that he spent a significant amount of money doing it. The weapons he chose, drum magazines, ammo, and other gear he chose didn't come cheap. He bought his guns at retailers who tend to be on the high priced side. I wouldn't be surprised if he "invested" 10 grand into his little plan, maybe more considering all the stuff in his apartment. With that kind of money he'd have had no problem putting together just as lethal an arsenal illegally, just maybe not as high quality, but every bit as effective.

There are many tens of millions of guns out there and stopping all sales tomorrow just drives up the price but really does little with the supply. Far and away, the overwhelming vast majority of those guns never do anything wrong or are used aggressively or violently in any way. The percentage actually used criminally is infinitesimally small. Guns are not the problem. Doctors kill far more people than guns do.

The issue is nut cases like this individual and in this case he had enough money to commit his crime in dramatic fashion, but bottom line for $50 worth of chains and locks and 5 gallons of gas, he could easily have killed everybody there. The point is that someone like this is not going to say, "Oh well, no guns, so I guess everybody lives." This is just very naive to think that he couldn't have come up with some other equally or even greater deadly plan. And very likely, he would have.

The problem is associated with people like this who exist among us and very likely have been detected by someone as being dangerously unstable. I don't think that there is an easy answer as to how you deal with this. We can't just lock everybody up who someone thinks might be dangerous. I think the issue is far more complicated and I do think it is a much bigger systemic problem. We in this country have allowed ourselves to accept a lack of respect for fellow human beings as being somehow "normal".

It's in the news everyday. Hate and a lack of respect is even promoted by political pundits and even some of our political leaders. We have come to accept hate as being acceptable. To some misguided and confused individual such as this, I'm not sure he really saw his actions as being any different than many things he observed on a daily basis. You see the hatred on these comment boards about how we should treat this individual. We think it is OK to feel that way. It isn't. And until we all realize that it isn't OK, we shouldn't be surprise when some nut job expresses his hatred and lack of respect for other human life in such a manner. I am reasonably certain that this individual found some way to justify his actions in his mind. How many of us self justify some "milder" form of hatred every day? Are we all setting bad examples that just sometimes get escalated to an extreme by someone who isn't thinking clearly? You can say that it isn't the same thing, but maybe to someone like him it is exactly the same thing. Do we teach hatred and vengeance? Do we treat it as acceptable under certain circumstances? I think the answer to both those questions is yes, and as long as it is, someone will occasionally cross a line that to most of us would be unacceptable behavior responding to similar circumstances.

We expect everyone to make sound decisions about what is acceptable and what isn't. But do we also create some pretty fuzzy examples of where the line is drawn? I think so, as I see many examples of things that I consider unacceptable that many others view as being just fine because it isn't criminal. And I see a lot of examples where people at least flirt with criminality too. There are people walking around who don't see things as clearly as most of us. And many of us considered completely sane, don't draw the lines in the same place either. It may sound stupid, but I believe that if we all could be a little nicer, and showed more respect for others, the lines that get observed by someone like this might be a bit more consistent and clear. I won't say that's the solution, but it sure couldn't hurt. Frankly I believe it could be more effective than creating more gun laws that aren't necessarily going to be followed by someone like this.

The second amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and it has not been. Contrary to some posters ideas, it is legal to own just about any weapon short of a nuclear bomb. Even that really isn't illegal but just try laying your hands on the nuclear material for the bomb itself! The government is within it's rights through the commerce clause to require special licenses and or training for weapons but they cannot out right ban them. For example, someone mentioned cannons. How many civil war enthusiasts collect and use cannons in their reenactments? How many VFW posts have a tank, cannon or attack helicopter sitting in front of them? There are many collectors out there that have machine guns of every variety and caliber. They own them legally, but in all cases have to have special licensing or permits for them. The problem is not with the guns, the problem is with people! Responsible law abiding citizens make up the vast majority of civilian gun ownership. They are not the problem. It is the criminal that is the problem and he or she would be a problem whether the guns are there or not. There are many laws and sentencing guidelines on the books that go ignored which were designed to deter the use of weapons in the commission of crimes. The courts and liberal justice system fails to heed them. Criminals are let out in increasingly shorter periods of time for "good behavior" even if what they did to go to jail was horrendous in the first place. If you use a weapon in the commission of a crime then your sentence should be accordingly strict with no time off for good behavior. Enforce the laws that are already on the books instead of wasting time, effort, and resources passing new laws that will be ignored.

" Enforce the laws that are already on the books"

It's easy to mindlessly repeat the NRA's false propaganda. Actually backing up that propaganda with fact is a different story altogether.

Name one -- JUST ONE -- gun law that isn't being enforced.

I -- we -- knew you couldn't.

Stop being a mindless useful idiot for the billion dollar gun industry's tax-exempt mouthpiece NRA.

And do the math:

The NRA boasts that it has five million members. That is 345 million less than the total population. Thus the NRA holds the 345 million hostage to its anti-Americanism and lunacy. Do you like being bullied, at the point of a gun, by a minority which promulgates anti-Americanism and criminal rationales?

Moose and everybody else, people are allowed to have guns, they don't need to have assault rifles. It's very simple. Oh, and go tell the victims and their families of the wounded and killed in Colorado that gun crimes are down in America.

Does anyone really think that if there were a ban on having assault rifles, he wouldn't have gotten one anyway, or used some other means? It might have been a -little- more difficult, but it wouldn't have stopped him from killing people.

Then, I guess we would be discussing banning whatever chemicals he used.

What I find interesting is that you have two groups of people.

Both groups want to control or ban two things. One thing is legal, the other is not. Both things can be used to harm others. Both can be used for legal things, and sometimes are not. I'm talking about guns and illegal drugs.

I guess just what people want, or don't, or what they believe in or don't. Statistics and such are really just crutches.

JNargarya;

Okay, how about the provision of the NFA ,(National Firearms Act) that provides for a ten year prison sentence for a felon found in possession of a firearm? Or the provision that a felon committing a crime with a firearm be subject to an additional 5 years in prison plus a sentence five time longer than normally imposed for said crime? Or maybe the provision that provides that any criminal act using a firearm be made a felony and conviction of such carry a sentence double that fro a none firearm felony?

With 27,738 gun control laws on the books, if they were being enforced, I would think gun crimes would be rare. But, like the Immigration laws, they are largely unenforced. We'll see if Colorado invokes any of these largely forgotten fire arms laws. But then, he has but one life time to spend in prison he has but one life to be taken for his crimes. And that, is were the true inequity lies. That, is the real problem. Now, I wonder had he run these people down in a crowd with a truck if the debate would be to ban all trucks or if it would just be the act of a deranged man?

This has nothing to do with the NRA. With that number of laws, counting all Federal, State, County, City, and district of Columbia, clearly they aren't being enforced or we would have many, many more prisons to house gun criminals. Do the research and see for yourself, not just parroting the Brady organization BS.

Gun control is just a method of skirting the real issue. "Why do people kill"??? Reasons include, need, greed, hate and insanity. Each issue is important but never really talked about.

Greed: nothing you can really do about that one. some people are just plain bad. But greed is not the highest factor in the death toll.

Need: Most people who kill because of poverty do not set out to kill. Usually they sport a gun to intimidate so they can take the money. Solution: A better economy usually effects this number downward.

Insanity: You cant stop people from being insane. You can vote for better laws involving insane people and doctor's relationships. Case in point, even though there was no gun involved, here in jersey a young boy was killed by a boy slightly older then him. he was raped and stuffed in a suit case after his death. The mother of the killer had tried for years to have her son committed because she knew he was dangerous. The courts refused, probably for financial reasons. In this latest massacre we now find he was diagnosed already. Why is there not a system in place to evaluate this?

Hate: This is one we can all do something about. Better communication, stop teaching kids to fear other races, stop the economic suppression, and maybe some day we will have a real conversation about race with out the name calling. Racism itself is not the problem, it's how we deal with it that is the problem.

Maybe we should look at these factors too. However I do agree that assault weapons should be closely monitored. Nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to a highly efficient killing machine. oh yeah, im a tree hugging liberal and I am against total gun control. Imagine that lol

What a sad comment about Americans, who consider themselves Christians, and their unChristian views on guns and their use. Semi automatic weapons were never meant to be a right to be in the arms of citizens. Neither were grenades or grenade launchers. God save us from the NRA.

Guns are the American security blanket. So long as most people have a few, they can tell themselves that they will always live in a representative democracy, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Remember Waco? That's how much good your guns will do when the government comes for you. Just keep telling yourselves it could never happen....

The poll clearly left out one category: How many Americans feel that the right to own guns trumps the right to safely recreate in a public place. Seems to be the majority view....

Poorly written article for sure. As if tougher gun laws protect the citizens from criminals. All tougher laws do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. So lets keep criminals safer by taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Gun control advocates are pathetic at supporting their points of view, and what a surprise that the masses are not buying it.

Trying to cure gun violence with gun control is like trying to heal a brain tumor with Advil.

It pisses me off that politicians and short-sighted individuals are trying to solve a symptom of the problem rather than attempting to get at its roots. Take all the money/time/effort from gun control, and focus the efforts on improving the quality of life in low-income areas (where the vast majority of gun crime happens). I have a feeling that if we didn't have children raising children, or so many single mothers raising children, our gun violence levels would plummet.

Oh well, God forbid somebody tell the American people to pull their heads out of their asses and try to stop the behavior itself; let's just ban the tool they're using instead. That'll work.

"Rights" Come from God, whether you believe or not.

"Privileges" Come from Gov't.

Self defense is a right.

As long as an individual is law abiding that individual enjoys rights, and privileges.

I must say there are some well thought out opinions out there.

There are also a lot of folks who need to think a bit more about what they're saying and leave the hate at home.

@Thinkforyourself:

You are wrong on several counts. Most glaringly your statements about shoulder-fired missiles and weapons-grade plutonium. NEITHER of these are regulated under firearms laws as NEITHER ARE FIREARMS! Do your homework before shooting your mouth off.

Further, the 2nd Amendment is not the "most poorly written 27 words in the Constitution". What most Americans, including yourself apparently, fail to grasp is there was never supposed to be a standing US Army. Thomas Jefferson himself stated "...a standing army is the first step toward tyrany." Neither is the National Guard the 'militia' spoken of in the 2nd Amendment or Federalist 46, both of these are refering to an armed body of the people available to the State Governments for the common defense, but otherwise under no strictly organized chain of command. Again, do your homework.

The problem here isn't guns, the problem is people. The case of Virginia Tech is a perfect example. There were multiple complaints to authorities about the shooter's behavior before the tragedy happened, but UNTIL HE HARMED SOMEONE THEIR HANDS WERE TIED. This has got to change. My own wife is Type 1 Bipolar. During her first manic episode she was engaging in behavior that could have gotten BOTH of us killed. I spoke with a doctor who was a friend of the family to ask how I could get her committed to a psychiatic hospital until we could get a handle on what was wrong and start a treatment program. I was told, "Until she tries to kill herself or someone else, you've got no chance."

This all dates back to 1963 and a miserable piece of legislation called the Community Health Care Act. It was supposed to allow mentally ill but functional people to be reintigrated into society and provide resources to their communities to help them. It was another liberal feel-good law that failed miserably. The resources to the communities were never provided, and it opened the door for wholesale deinstitutionalization, and resulted in massive increases in crime and homelessness as people who shouldn't have been released were thrown out to fend for themselves.

If we're going to have a "serious" discussion about these crimes, this is where it needs to start because lets think about this logically for a second. Name me a single person who has committed a mass shooting, going back to the Texas A&M shooting in 1966, who did not either, 1. die at the scene, 2. face the death penalty for their crimes, or 3. spend the rest of their life in jail. You can't. No one has ever 'gotten away' with a crime like this. No one in their right mind would consider committing it because from the moment they pull the trigger, their life is over. And yet they continue to happen because there is no mechanism for getting seriously mentally disturbed people into a controlled enviornment where their illness can be treated until after they harm someone. That MUST change.

The only people breaking gun laws is eric holder and his buddy barrack!!! Fast & Furious, google it. They sent guns to mexican drug lords to further thier anti gun agenda!!!!!

What strikes me as funny is the USA gives arms to rebels opposing their governments (Lybia etc) - and when they give those weapons to citizens, they give assault weapons.

Now look at our country - people want our citizens to give up their rights to assault weapons (because we don't need them they say)

The advocates for more gun control or even for the existing gun control laws are not simple minded or slow in the head. They simply do not understand reality yet. Through patience and education we can undo the great injustice that is already being suffered by the American people under the current Un-American gun control laws that are in place and prevent more of this foolishness from making it onto the books. If each of you put forth a little effort each week to educate one person on the reality of firearms and the unconstitutional nature of the existing gun laws we may be able to repeal the current government oppression we suffer fueled by the fears of gun control advocates. Find a new friend and take them to a range today!

Jeff from West Central Ohio

Don't worry, Jeff NO ONE wants West Central Ohio. you are safe.

What the rest of us hear when you pro gun people spout your rabid view is:

I'm a terrified little rabbit and the only way I feel safe is if I have this giant penis-extender so I can get you before you can even get close to me to hurt me.

rest assured, when the revolution comes you will be the first to be eaten, gun or no-gun.

ou812 - It's not really surprising. The US government doesn't trust it's own citizens and it doesn't have much to worry about those trying to take down a government it doesn't trust either. They figure they can worry about those guns after the bad government falls.

http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

You're welcome. And no surprise this isn't a major headline.

mj-1451595

I am a pro gun person and I don't spout any rabid view. It's impossible to have a conversation (online or in person) with a gun grabber like you. I'm not a terrified little rabbit. As a matter of fact, I feel quite safe with or without my weapon. If you think a gun free utopia is possible, why don't you and the rest of your anti constitution, gun grabbing @!$%#s pick a place and move! The weapons are not at fault. I have a 45 cal. handgun in my safe. It hasn't jumped up and tried to kill me. Those who are trying to disarm the USA are the true cowards. Look in the mirror and you will see one.

The weapons are not at fault. I have a 45 cal. handgun in my safe. It hasn't jumped up and tried to kill me.

Thank you!

As I have stated anything can become a weapon in a bad persons hands.

My nieces ex-husband just beat the sh!t out of her with his fist in front of their children. His fist landed her in the emergency room, broken nose, black eyes and other injuries. This is the third time he has done this to her. Years ago he spent 9 months in jail for it (2nd offence) Third time meant prison. He is now in jail awaiting his trial and his prison sentence. His fist could have killed her, they are his weapons of choice. Most people with fist don't go around beating the sh!t out of people just as most people with guns don't go around shooting people up. Take away all of the guns and the bad people will find another weapon to use.

There are some good comments here and some crazy ones mixed in. One thing that I believe this poll data suggests is that most people don't see eliminating guns as some magic panacea that automatically ends these tragedies.

Some degree of regulation should exist and is pretty much within the Constitution. If you haven't seen the far right purist Constitutionalist Justice Scalia's recent interview on Fox news, look it up. www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/ Scalia talks about all sorts of issues facing the Supreme Court and has quite a bit of discussion on guns. He suggests that regulation is OK and appropriate by the Constitution, but doesn't really attempt to define where the line is. He makes it clear though that some regulation is fine.

Personally, I think that after such a tragedy, is exactly the wrong time to be having these discussions because it actually takes us away from frank discussion about the true, more basic causes. It suggests that there is some easy way to fix things just by writing the correct laws. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Using laws to "fix" things is somewhat misguided. True as time progresses, laws may need to change and many laws are made with good intentions, although those that are written in a reactionary response, tend to be flawed at best. All of us would like to see such incidents cease to exist, but it is foolhardy to even suggest that we can somehow rule them out of existence.

Erik197

@Thinkforyourself:

You are wrong on several counts. Most glaringly your statements about shoulder-fired missiles and weapons-grade plutonium. NEITHER of these are regulated under firearms laws as NEITHER ARE FIREARMS! Do your homework before shooting your mouth off.

Actually, it is you who are wrong. "Arms" simply means "weapons" -- look it up. Doesn't only refer to a gun (although it usually does, colloquially). You cannot legally own any weapon you want. You really can't even own any gun you want. There are regulations and controls.

Nice try, though.

Any firearm the average beat-cop carries in their vehicle as a daily part of their job, I should have access to (short of automatic weapons which are a waste of ammo and not needed)... plus hunting weapons.

A semi-auto sidearm or revolver is a defensive weapon - close range, limited power and penetration

A shotgun

A semi-auto medium caliber rifle

That's what these guys carry around with them every day. It is not unreasonable for an upstanding citizen to have access to these same things.

The same could be said of the auto industry on an even larger scale. I wonder if the federal government would bail out Colt or Remington?

More people are killed by swimming pools than guns in the US. Perhaps we should pass laws requiring background checks and waiting periods before people are allowed to swim.

No Swamprat, guns don't give them NEARLY as much business as knives or other contact weapons. I know it's not possible to change a closed liberal mind. Facts are a funny thing they don't change. Crime rates in the US have FALLEN dramatically as gun ownership has gone UP. In fact the cities with the highest amount of gun violence are those with the strictest laws restricting what LAW abiding citizens can own.

@ Lt Scrounge-4042308

While I'm pro gun-ownership, correlation does not equal causation

One could just as easily argue that the stricter approach to gun-control in CA, IL, etc is due to the higher rate of crime with a firearm.

Anyway, Mexico is a much better example. It's illegal (with few exceptions) for a civilian to own a firearm. The Mexican gangs and drug lords move around Mexico with impunity (save for the big cities) as they are the only ones that are armed.

@ The Nasty Swamprat

Crazy people can do terrible things, no matter what amount of controls are put in place, someone as resourceful and intelligent as James Holmes would have figured out how to accomplish his havoc. He could have just as easily bombed that theater as he did shoot it up, and considering that he spent well over $15K on his arsenal and armor, he could have easily forgone the explosives entirely and used the extra funds to purchase weapons on the black market if he weren't allowed to acquire them legally.

If we can't keep guns out of the hands of gangs, how do you expect it to be any different with crazy people with no prior criminal records?

Recall from the outset of the theater massacre that James Holmes' mother told authorities "you have the right guy". The fact that she knew her son was capable of such destruction is very telling. We as a society need to make mental health institutions more easily available and allow for people to be committed based on their proclivity for committing acts of harm against themselves or others...NOT after they've already proven to be a harm to themselves and or others (which is the determining factor today for committing someone). People like Holmes, the Virginia Tech, and the AZ shooters all displayed serious mental instability, and non had prior records...but their PARENTS all recognized serious problems but didn't have the tools to do anything about it.

actually sir if you research your statistics you will find that the states with the strictest gun cotrol laws not only have the highest rate of gun related crimes, but also the highest murder rates that our country has to offer.

@ seriously

i found your comments intelligent and well written. i feel that it is necessary to point out that hippa yes privacy laws prevent those of us in law enforcement from getting all the necessary information to deal with the folks on any level.

Jeff, not only is your swimming pool analogy a false one, I don't think it's even true. Gun deaths in the US exceeded 31,000 in 2007. You're suggesting that more people died in swimming pools? Please cite your source.

Moreover, swimming pools serve a very different function, as do cars, another favorite faulty logic point of comparison for gun advocates. They aren't designed and utilized for the sole purpose of killing human beings. That's a handgun's only purpose; that is why it exists.

Where do you get that a hand guns sole purpose is killing humans? I have several .22 target pistols that are used for hunting & plinking. Your analogy is dead wrong. If you think guns are made for just killing humans there lies the flaws in your thinking. With that mind set, no wonder your nuts.

Thinkforyourself; wrong. I have hunted with a handgun before. It is legal in my state.

You guys need to read more carefully and (in Kevin's case) employ a bit of critical thinking, rather than going off on emotional rants and calling people nuts. You can USE a handgun for numerous things. I certainly have (target shooting). I said its sole purpose is killing people. That is specifically why the handgun was invented. I assure you, it wasn't initially created and designed to hunt.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

I say keep your gun's, but why is anyone afraid of a back ground check? probably those who have something to hide. It takes a week to be checked out. nothing to it.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to try to claim that swimming pools and knives end the lives of more Americans every year than guns, you're going to have to provide some kind of proof or reference. Otherwise, I'm not buying it at all. If you want to say something like "swimming pools kill more people than guns in Palm Springs, CA", perhaps I could go along with it, but not if you're referring to America as a whole. In my town, I've heard of three stabbings this year, none of them fatal. I've heard of five deaths as a direct result of gun violence here, this year. And those types of numbers are pretty par for the course here, to my recollection.

And if you're going to claim something like "Gun violence is increasing in the UK even with strict gun control in place, while gun violence is decreasing in the US, without significant gun control", you are conveniently overlooking that fact that overall gun violence in the UK on a per-capita basis is a FRACTION of the gun violence here. You are cherry-picking your statistics in an attempt to strengthen a weak position...that gun control does not work. It does...but you actually have to look at the whole picture, from everywhere, to understand that. So never mind, I know the hinges on your mind won't open quite that far anyway.

Swamprat,

Maybe next you should ask that silverware be outlawed since people use them to feed themselves and obesity kills more people per year then are killed by people using guns. To blame a tool is ignorant and silly, one needs to understand that in a criminals view they do not care about laws or they would not be out breaking them. I would rather have a gun to defend myself then to scream at a deranged person that they should put theirs down because they are breaking the law.

"The beauty of the second amendment is it will not be needed until they try to take it away from you", Thomas Jefferson.

We are given a constitutional right to have guns, if you are against it then you need to move because the only way the government will ever get weapons from most Americans is to pry it from their dead fingers. Plus weapons in the hands of the common man are what keep the government honest.

Aquatone,

I will not blame knives because I can find no proof, and to be honest I do not think there are more deaths from knives then guns except inside of prison.

But if we go with this line of thinking then lets outlaw spoons since obesity kills more Americans then guns, or maybe we should outlaw cars since auto accidents kill more people then guns. To outlaw a tool is as silly as outlawing a spoon for making you fat. It is not a gun or a spoon or car that kills but rather the people behind them.

40,000 people die a year from auto accidents http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-people-died-in-car-accidents-in-the-usa-in-2011

300,000 people die a year due to obesity http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Many-People-Die-From-Obesity-Each-Year?---Shockingly-Hundreds-Per-Day!&id=3827239

11,800 people killed by homicide with a gun http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101014082155AASrg8A

So you stop eating and get rid of your car and I will get rid of my gun. The truth is if you look at statistics over the last 20 years you will see that homicide with a gun has gone down just about every year, and this is from a country with the most guns owned by private citizens in the world.

Recall from the outset of the theater massacre that James Holmes' mother told authorities "you have the right guy". The fact that she knew her son was capable of such destruction is very telling.

Holmes mother was called by the media(not authorities) in the very early hours of the morning after the tragedy, During the call she was asked if she was the mother of James Holmes from Aurora Colorado, She indicated that she was, She was not aware of and had not been told that her son had committed any crime, This phone call and subsequent twisting by the media to fit their agenda has been exposed already.

Thinkforyourself-2427469 You said that it sole purpose is killing people. Not was . I am not going to try & guess why guns were invented hundreds of years ago. I am talking now. That was my point when calling you nuts. I have probably close to 40 guns. Out of that only a couple of them are for the most part self defense. I was raised with guns, they are my hobby, I like to shoot & work on them. But to say that a guns SOLE purpose is to kill humans is just silly. THAT is the reason for my rant as you call it.

Tbenton- Thank-you; this is what I done myself, people go on line for yourself. Crimes will be with us for ever removing the guns are not the answer. Invoicing the laws we have in place yes. Correct this problem first. Then let's sit back and see what happens. If this don't work then will try something else.

@ Think - Long guns were first invented to kill people too. They were invented to replace archers in armies. Sometime after that we discovered other wonderful uses for them like putting food on our table and keeping thugs out of our home.

@ reality-2984997

Thanks! and likewise.

In any sense, there's no easy answer to dealing with these issues.

Crazy people are going to find a way to acquire their tools of destruction, legally or otherwise.

Criminals will find ways of acquiring their tools of the trade, typically illegally.

We can slow/stop many criminals from acquiring firearms by dealing with their revenue sources.

We can slow/stop many crazy people from acquiring firearms by proactively trying to deal with their psychoses before they lash out.

In an ideal situation, I would like acquiring a firearm to be similar buying a car...the dealership doesn't do the background check to make sure you're licensed and qualified to drive...why are individual gun stores saddled with this burden.

What I think we need is a comprehensive system that ties in health records, current medical prescriptions, prior (relevant) criminal/misdemeanor convictions, etc. And a person desiring to acquire a firearm would pay to have their background check run and compiled by the Feds...after the check is completed, the person is given a unique serial number generated by the government institution and it would be valid 2 weeks after the date requested and be active for 2 weeks after. When the person goes to any gun store during their active-period, they simply would need to present the serial number and proper ID for the gun store to ID them and make a sale on the spot

The semi auto technology that has everyone so riled is 100 years old. Browning incorporated it into his 1911 sidearm. So I doubt that technology will change the pistol much in 100 years. It didnt change much in the past 100.

Shut up.

Are you simple minded enough to think the founders wanted gun ownership based solely on the lethality of the times???

They of all people understood the dangers of what a gun can do, but mostly they understood the dangers posed to an UNARMED society. With the overbearing nature of government, world threats and crime today I would challenge that our founders would be MORE in favor of the 2nd amnd now more than ever.

After all, the framers thought slavery was a good idea, along with allowing male land owners to vote.

You mean like Luther Martin and Benjamin Franklin? Or perhaps Thomas Payne who with Franklin was one of the founders of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

Voting qualifications were set by the states and between 1820-1840 most were eliminated. By 1840 only Louisiana, Rhode Island, and Virginia still restricted voting based on property or tax paying qualifications. Didn't really have anything to do with the Founding Fathers.

At what point do you stop taking away weapons? Nasty, why don't you try a Google search on "UK knife crimes. or Canadian knife crimes?" There are plenty of ways to kill, and if you have the intent you'll find a way. Do you see how many illegal aliens there are in this country, or illegal drugs. Do you actually think that gun control laws would be anything more than an inconvenience to a criminal or somebody really intent on doing harm? The number of deaths attributed to legally owned guns is minuscule compared to the carnage on American highways. U.S. rate: Automobiles 10.63 per 100,000. Guns 3.6 per 100,000. So maybe we should ban cars instead.

I think the Constitution is a pretty sound document.

We can only speculate what the framers had in mind.

By saying, "The original authors didn't mean for the second amendment to protect automatic weapons because they couldn't imagine such things would exist" could also be applied to the first amendment.

Television and radio broadcasts are protected, yet I'm fairly certain our founding fathers would be amazed at the technology.

Maybe you should ask yourself the more important question Swamprat, what was it that allowed the entire institution of slavery to exist? Could slavery have been possible had the slaves been armed? No, because only an unarmed population can be held in servitude.

@Moose8684 They knew it =1865
In a reaction to emancipation, several southern states adopt "black codes" which, among other things, forbid black persons from possessing firearms.

I think many on both sides of the discussion focus on the gun/magazine in a situation where a "tool", used a another tool to do some killing. Couldn't he have just threw a few gas cans in there to the same affect?

What would you do, blame gas cans? ban any over 2.5 gal? The tool doesn't matter.

Defending ones own life is a god given right, the founders added the second amendment to provide more protection to it's citizens and this country because history is filled with those in power indenturing it's citizens by not having anything like it, but it's still a god given right.

The 800lb gorilla no one talks about is how many guns are used in self defense, by everyday people to prevent such crimes from occurring, or saving the lives of the people they love.

Had the theater simply not been a "gun free zone", it wouldn't have been a "defensless sheeple" environment, and would have been skipped for easier pickings.

History is the greatest teacher in all this. politicize it all you want, but forget history and we'll be doomed to repeat it.

Anyone tired of the trolling by swamprat yet?

I think he is just the type of person that doesn't need a gun. He isn't stable at all.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

While I support your right to free speech, it is clear that you sir, are a idiot.

Thinkforyourself: I view the purpose of a handgun to be that of leveling the playing field, to discourage and prevent others from killing me. People buy guns, not to kill other people, but to prevent bad people from killing them.

Most of human history was spent without guns, and we did a pretty fair job of killing each other off without them. In fact, the strongest and meanest of the bunch pretty much did whatever they want, as the weak and the weenie-minded had no means to stop them.

Swamprat,

The constitution was written full of checks and balances for the government, and the second amendment is just that a check against and a balance to a government gone wild! The founding fathers wanted all to remember that we are free and sometimes we must fight to remain free. Yes we have changed and so has the world in the 220 some years since the constitution was signed, but the principles written into the constitution are as valid today as they were then. There are prices we must pay for our freedoms and having to deal with violence is one of them. Accept the reality that no society is perfect and also accept the reality that with freedom comes responsibility. Mother government cannot protect you no matter how hard it tries. Even the secret service, the most fanatical, serious, and arguably the best protective body around, realizes that if someone really wants to kill someone they are protecting, it is possible and in fact likely that they will succeed.

What the hell are you talking about. Was this nut in Colorado a relative of yours? By the sound of your ranting, your kid is probably retarded anyway. Your shoe is untied.

what a tool...go sail off the earth flat thinker

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

So progress is a negative thing? Only in America.

What is it with those who have convinced themselves that they can be taken seriously after stating that their rights are God given? No one can possibly know if God exists, and I'm being scientifically very lenient here, but they've convinced themselves it is a certainty. Nothing they say after such a ridiculous statement really matters to anyone outside their own state, which they rarely if ever exit.

In reality, they have fallen asleep in the comfort of their own freedom. While armed, they are far from dangerous to anyone important but among themselves and serve the richest 0.1% of the population just as intended.

Their guns and bibles only give them the false sense of security amid their ignorance and distraction. They've created this fantasy world for themselves, let them live in it.

Progress is a word based on a point of view. Essentially it is an opinion. Throughout history, power has started with the majority of a population, and has slowly withered away to only a few possessing the power. Then an uprising by the overpowered majority ensues, mass casualities happen, and freedom is restored. This is the repeated cycle, over and over throughout history.

This cycle is slowly starting to show it's teeth in America. The few have the money and the power, but we have the guns to fight back. The last step is we either use the guns to fight back, or they take them away. You pick which side is best for you.... If you pick the gun-free side, don't knock on my door in peace when you want my protection.

Swamprat. You need to click the "Reply" button at the end of the thread to respond. You keep creating new posts.

How is large clips an issue? Lets take aurora for example, the guy goes in with a high capacity clip, several of them, he opens fire and kills 12 injuring 58, his gun jams, he then casually just strolls out of the theater. Now tell me how many people were in that theater? How many people decided that their life was better to save then to run the risk of dying to save the lives of all the others in the theater? How did this guy just walk out casually after doing this? The problem isn't guns, the problem is morons like you who won't do anything to protect the innocent.

@The Nasty Swamprat --- Guns can also be used for transportation. Break into my house in the middle of the night and my .45 will transport your azz to tomorrow land.

15-20 mins of shooting in Aurora . The people were completely defenseless.

I have a number of friends with "assault" weapons and none of them have killed or hurt anyone. To assume that their purpose is to kill shows how stupid you are. People like these weapons for a number of different reasons. The reason I like an AR-15 over a bolt action rifle is I can spend more time shooting and less time reloading. This concept might appear foreign to you so let me explain it in terms you MIGHT understand. Would you choose to buy a car with a 5 gallon gas tank or a 20 gallon tank? Would you rather make more trips to the gas station or spend more time actually driving? If you prefer the 20 gallon tank than by the same logic you should want a 30 round clip over say a 8 round one.

swamp rat ,they are there to protect us from Communist believers like you. you communist idiot. if you don't support the right to bare arms then why should you be allowed to use free speech? you should not be, you should not have the right to pursue happiness either That is also in the constitution. in fact why don't you just move to china, russia, someplace where they will shoot you for being such a looser or maybe just shoot you for being white, maybe shoot you for walking funny, maybe shoot you for having money in the bank that they want, do you get it yet dummy, then you will understand why we have the right to bare arms.

Some people call them assault weapons so that those that are weak minded and fearful will be scared into voting for a bunch of restrictions on whatever the talking heads tell them to.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

Swamprat,

Do you know what the difference is between an AR-15 and a Remington model 7400? A pistol grip is about it. Both are semi auto rifles which can be easily purchased over the counter. They can both be the same caliber and fire their ammunition as fast as you can pull the trigger. Both can be highly accurate at nearly any range within reason ( out to about 500 meters) with little training. And both can have large magazines, though more common with the AR than the Remington. The term assault rifle is actually a marketing gimmick. Oh there is one more difference, though both can be used for the same purposes, the AR-15 is called an assault rifle while the Remington is referred to as a hunting rifle.

Stop feeding the troll....

This murderer and the person that tried murder Rep. Gabby are mentally ill. They should have been on the "do not buy" list the FBI keeps to decline gun sales. Mentally ill persons need to be identified and prevented from buying guns until they can be examined and found competent to own them.

@swamprat

If someone breaks into your house, and intends to harm you, you think calling 911 wil save your sorry butt? Myself I'll use my .45 first and then call 911. I'd be willing to bet that I'll still be alive to talk to the police when they get there.

Stop trolling, troll.

You failed to mention that all those places had signs stating that guns were not allowed. So the Criminals were able to just walk right in uncontested and slaughter people.

Here is something practical, Columbine, Va Tech, Tucson, Aurora, what do they all have in common? select seratonin re-uptake inhibitors. If one really wants to do something practical why don't we start banning or more heavily regulating the prescription of these drugs? If you really want to compare murder rates in the US to countries in Europe, then one must also compare the rate of prescription of anti-depressant and anti-psychotic drugs. A kid in the US today is 13x more likely to be on some kind of mind altering PRESCRIPTION drug than his peers in Europe. Statistically speaking, a gun in America is much less likely to kill a person than a gun in Europe, as there are some 200-300 million guns in the US, while most European countries report to have a tiny fraction of that number owned legally.

The Nasty Swamprat:

I have a plan for you to start educating people about the dangers of guns. I will pay for your ticket to go tyo eitehr NYC or Detroit and I want you to walk up and down the streets and tell every person you see, about the dangers of owning a gun....

Is it a deal? That's what I thot. If you are not going to do anything about it, then stop complaining.

My Neighbor is against guns.

I Own Guns.

If my neighbor ever gets robbed,

I will honor his beliefs and not intervine with my Guns.

Proud2be "wet" - If your neighbor is being robbed at gunpoint, you will probably be s#itt23g bricks hiding out under your bed. Your guns only make you feel tough until you have someone with a similar weapon shooting at you. The gun nuts are a bunch of lily livered cowards who can only fantasize about being brave.

Yes the gun nuts are cowards, but the people who choose to wait until they are in danger and then expect the police to rush in and risk their lives are somehow heroic.

Far more people die in cars and going to the hospital. The fact of the matter is these "mass" shooting are rare. You are still much more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than in a mass shooting.

vs101 I guess your one of those tough guys that would stand up to someone with a gun. I bet you would take it away from them right? Then just beat their ass. Take a fist to a gunfight? That didn't work out real well for Trayvon, did it? People like you are real tough on the computer. Your right people like you don't need guns. They are too manly for you.

us101, you must be that kind of person you speak of. When I thought my 11 year old neighbor girl was in trouble, I went down to check on her. i took my pistol with me, and ended up stopping an attempted rape by a career criminal (with a previous rape charge). He himself decided it was better to attack me and die instead of spending the rest of his life in prison. It was his choice. I gave him a chance to stop and drop to the floor.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

There you go again with your disinformation, Moose. How many different threads do you have to be corrected in?

ONE of the Columbine shooters had been prescribed antidepressants. He stopped taking them abruptly. That is what causes the problem.

The VA Tech shooter was never confirmed to have been taking antidepressant medication of any kind, much less an SSRI.

The Tucson shooter was diagnosed schizophrenic. SSRI medications are not among the typical or atypical psychotropic medications prescribed for schizophrenia.

There is no evidence what so ever that the shooter in Aurora was prescribed, not taking any psychotropic medications at the time of the incident, much less specifically an SSRI.

Cite the source of your claim that a child in Europe is 13 times less likely to be on a "mind altering" medication than his peers in America. Likewise, if you are going to look at medication rates, you must also look at variables such as treatment modalities. And it is "mood altering" not "mind altering".

hopefully the next one swamprat will be there and no one will defend them.. i love my guns

To all the goobers who responded to my post - I did not state that I would go up against someone with a gun with my bare hands. My point was that this country is overrun by gun nuts who have never used a gun in a gun fight but owning guns have given them a false sense of power. Sure there will be exceptions where someone will defend a neighbor with the help of a firearm, but those are rare exceptions. Most people don't have loaded guns laying about on a nightstand in anticipation of an intruder, and most home invasions happen without prewarning. I don't deny that having a gun may give you a better chance than not having it but I have no illusions about its limitations. Statistics show that most people who own guns cause harm by misuse of their own weapons and not due to an armed home invasion. Just about everyone strapped a gun in the wild west, but it did not stop them from being killed (which was why it was called "wild"). If arming everyone with guns were the best means of having a safe society, then Afghanistan would be a veritable land of peace and harmony.

So true. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol or drugs. Gun control will only disarm the law-abiding citizens. The criminals can't wait.

In the case of alcohol prohibition the other thing it did is to make "criminals" out of almost the entire population of North America. If guns are made illegal then a person will be able to buy a machine gun or sawed off shotgun as easily as he can buy a now legal handgun.

@ Wonderful - It would certainly be a shame to wake up one morning and realize on that day I had become a felon when nothing changed about me from the day before it, except that on that day, having a gun would be illegal.

It would however be interesting to see what happens when 80 million Americans become felons overnight. I wonder if the government could collect 1/2 the weapons in private ownership before the country exploded in their face?

The police gave up using .38 after a shoot out in Miami in which the FBI discovered that .38 doesnt have sufficient stopping power. The marines just placed a large order for 1911s. Again, proof that the technology is unchanged and sufficient.

Glock is a brand, not a caliber. Glock comes chambered in 9mm and .40. I would probably prefer a 1911 in a firefight, but Glocks are simpler to use and clean. I don't have a frame of reference for 9mm as I only own .357, .40 and .45.

Glock makes a .45 ACP model so you do not have to choose. I have shot both and the Model 1911 does fit my hand better. I believe the 1911 is seven shots while the Glock gives you thirteen.

old Nasty needs to crawl back into his swamp. I guess he doesn't realize glock is a manufacturer and not a type of gun. No difference in a glock or a colt or anything else for that matter, except for price, manufacturing quality, materials used, and personal preference. And by the way, I prefer my .357 revolver to the 9mm or .45. I just like revolvers better. Personal preference. Less parts to malfunction.

The Los Angeles Police Department carried .38 caliber pistols for years, then they modernized to the 9mm. After two years in service the Los Angeles Coroners office did a study in wounds from police shootings comparing the .38 to the 9mm........

They discovered they were the same, the modern 9mm has no practical improvement in wound causation over the older .38. It just looks newer and sexier and scares liberals more......but to the educated wepaons specialist.....NO DIFFERENCE.

Wonder: The cops switched from a .38 special to the 9mm and now the .40 cal which fits between the 9mm to the 45 because the .38 was not strong enough to subdue a drug crazed person.

Uh..... Are you saying a 1911 in 45ACP vs a Glock in 45ACP? The bullets are the same for both guns.

A .45 hands down.......most accurate, powerful, and knockdown capability of any self defense/combat weapon. You don't mess with perfection. Having said this it does take a degree of practice and experience to become proficient with the M1911. This is my preference and my opinion......I'm sure there are a lot of Glock people out there that feel the way I do about the Colt (or any one of a dozen of other worthy 1911 knockoffs). And this is exactly as it should be.........

The Dog

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

Swamp, First of all, some Law Enforcement Agencies have been carrying the .45 ACP since it became available.

As a matter of fact the USPS at one time carried .45's.

Highway Patrol carried the .357 Magnum since it was invented for decades. Why did they go to Semi Auto's? Actually many Police Department still allow their Officers to choose which sidearm to carry. They must meet certain criteria. No full auto pistols, no .22 rim-fire, .44 magnum, etc.

Unfortunately many Patrol Officers do not practice enough with their Side Arm. But many, many Officers go through their entire career without firing their sidearm while on duty. Some believe it or not never have to draw their weapon.

Swamp, I know you hate weapons, like I hate alcoholics. But neither one of us is going to get our way. I've come to terms with my hatred. You might find more Peace in you Life if you come to terms with yours.

Good Luck.

Stop feeding the troll....

I think Sawmp is trying to mention the Glock being a polymer framed pistol and not a metal framed pistol. He has it twisted as to mean it is so different than the orginal 1911 design. He doesn't realize that minor changes like that haven't change the basics of what a semi-auto handgun is, its mechanical workings, and how it performs. There are many like him. I took this my neighbor to the range once because he had never fired a Glock and was itching to try it out. I brought the Glock 19 and the first words out of his mouth were "That's the plastic gun." Once he touched it, he realized it was mostly steel.

hey nasty the 45!! the glock is a piece of crap! your posts don't reflect that we need to bring back the state mental hospitals the liberals did away with in places like N.Y and California to save a buck just ask mario quomo and Nancy pelosi as far as gun control goes i got your your solution swinging its called a good hemp-rope and a good german hangman this Holmes creep needs to have his neck stretched right there in public!!! get it liberal views stink you cowards don't have the stomach to do what needs to be done put this scumbag to death!!

i dont think any glock a piece of crap my nearly 20 yo glock has had about 10k round throug it and its working are still like new.

Guns are not the enemy its the idiots that abuse them! The big problem with shootings like Colorado is these freaks are looking for their place in history, their day of glory, and mostly the publicity putting them in the spot light. Just look at these type of incidents and look at the publicity they arouse, these people look for their place in the sun their moment of fame, that is the big draw to these senseless acts of violence. If the american news, television, papers etc. would not glorify these idiots it might keep these type of incidents from occuring? Another look at the shooting in Colorado no one was armed at the theater, true not a great place to be carrying a concealed weapon, but if someone would have returned fire on this jackass maybe just maybe many of the injured or killed might not have occured. Being a combat veteran myself its not easy to keep shooting when someone is shooting back at you body armor or not, I believe it would have supressed his fire and probably retreated the shooter. Yes hind site but food for thought!

I've shot Glocks and Colts.......I must say that I do like the Glock. It's light weight, if you want some real power you can get it in 10mm, it has a large capacity magazine, it points well, and recoil is well placed. But, I like the Colt .45 Auto better. You see that's my preference. It's OK for different individuals to appreciate various arms, makes, and models, at least as long as we have the right to own them if we choose.

Preference and choice........something I fear will disappear when the senseless libbies get their way and our flag falls. I don't understand how any individual can standby while the last remaining country on earth with free men becomes a nation of sissies that give over control of their rights to a ever ravenous federal government.

What happened in Colorado was tragic, for sure. The question is "are you going to trust the government, the police, and new laws to make you feel safe" or "are you going to take your self protection seriously." This is what each of us have to decide.

The next 10 years in this country will be very telling.

The Dog

Well said; thank you.

Ursup bad leaders, you means ones you don't like who have been duly elected according to the constitution? I fail to see the logic in that statement.

Nasty, if you fail to see the logic in that statement it is because you have failed to study the history of both this country and the world. It also says that you aren't paying attention to anything that is currently going on in the world of today. Get out of the swamp.

Christian - exactly right ! We have the Constitution on OUR side !!

Duly elected according to the Constitution? You mean the president who put a birth certificate online that is fake, and his lawyers have argued in court that it doesn't matter if it is fake because placing it online is in no way presenting it as a legal document? Or perhaps you mean the last president who started two illegal wars, pressed the Patriot Act (which directly violates the 4th amendment)? Or perhaps you mean the current president who started an illegal war in Libya, and signed the NDAA which violates essentially the entire Bill of Rights? Wake up my friend, our Constitution is dead, and there will come a day when we have to stand up in order to reassert the rights that our Constitution acknowledges we have.

Moose......the US didn't start an illegal war against Libya. That was a NATO mission begun essentially by England and France. The US DID however start a very illegal war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two different critters, and the US tried to tone it down and not seem guilty of anything, and created a "coalition"

Chuck, so why did BO not get us out of Afghanistan (like a dozen other things he promised)? Was that "Bushy's Fault" too? And now he's sending our warships to Iran and the Left has somehow come up with the idea that such a move is Romney's fault because he supported it (indirectly) during his speech in Israel. Man, does the hypocrisy from the Left ever stop?

Right, so you agree with Obama and Panetta when they stated that Congress is not needed to send our military into action so long as NATO and the UN say it is ok, regardless of the method laid out in our Constitution?

there is a good chance that the American people will need their weapons to usurp bad leaders, may not be soon, but it's in the constitution for a reason.

I think you have invented your own paranoid reason for the Second Amendment and have quite possibly never read the actual 27 words that it contains. There is absolutely no HINT of language in there that would suggest the reason for arms-bearing is to control our government or subdue them or overthrow them or whatever you anti-government people are railing on about now.

It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This was written in the late 1700s when the US was a fledgling country without a standing, formal military, so it allowed citizens to be armed so they could be rounded up and assembled into a militia in the event of invasion, more specifically in case the British tried to come start some problems.

I support the responsible ownership of some guns, but please don't think you're allowed to keep and bear arms simply to overthrow the government if they don't bend to your will.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

Oh Moose, that's cute.

Or perhaps you mean the last president who started two illegal wars, pressed the Patriot Act (which directly violates the 4th amendment)? Or perhaps you mean the current president who started an illegal war in Libya, and signed the NDAA which violates essentially the entire Bill of Rights? Wake up my friend, our Constitution is dead, and there will come a day when we have to stand up in order to reassert the rights that our Constitution acknowledges we have.

Without talking about other parts of your post, neither war was illegal. They were voted on by Congress and are therefore legal. It doesn't matter the impetus, the outcome, or the politics, they were legal. So many people in this country disqualify themselves from legitimate arguments by mentioning what you did.

Thinkforyourself,

If you go back and read not only what is in the constitution, but the writings of Ben Franklin, and George Washington along with several others that are signatory to it, you'll find that the second amendment is meant to say just what it says. The language seems vague but the purposes behind the lack of specifics are quite clear. The framers wanted a document that could change with the times yet leave open the door to their original intent. These men were patriots who truly thought the notion of freedom from tyranny was worth going to war and dying for!

Is Swamp Rat the best the Liberals could send tonight??? Pathetic.... I swear, I can almost smell him from here....

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

We can't and probably never will be able to. Which is exactly why the ability to defend and protect yourself is so important.

You are NOT going to keep the criminals and killers from getting guns and anyone who thinks it is possible is living in a dream world. They will get the guns even if they have to make them which is easily done. Then only real protection is that most would be criminals realize that with an armed population the odds are against them and at some point they are going to come up against someone that is armed and more than willing to take them down. That is not the case in countries where guns are outlawed from the common citizen.

Swamprat, that is a trick question. It's just like "how do I keep alcohal away from drunks?...I know, We will constitutionally ban it!" Yeah...that worked. Only the crooks will have the gin or guns then.

EVERYTIME some nut does something like this or drives her car head on into another car with her family in it (NY..remember?) we always hear how people can't believe it and in the same breath that they weren't surprised. It's because we, as a people, are so scared of being sued or of 'infringing' on someone elses rights we DON'T stand up. We have been robbed of our right to say "uh..you're a freak..no gun (car, boat, chainsaw) for you!" Whose fault is that? Who pushed laws on the books that ensure we cannot turn down someone for a job due to mental health issues? Who has pushed laws to ensure that we are blind to any physical defiencies someone may have (which is not a bad thing) under penalty of the law (whooop-there it is..the bad thing). Who has puhsed thier great sociological answers to questions MOST of us don't want answered? Dang...all I hear is crickets.

There is NO solution...but you knew that. We call people like you 'baters' around here...but that's only half a word.

Swamp, that's a fair and valid question. Unfortunately one without a good answer.
But I guarantee you that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will NOT solve the problem.

Simple....we elect Judges and D.A.s with some freakin' balls to punish the criminals. It's not the gun that commits the crime, it's the idiot who pulls the trigger, but when it goes to court finally the sentence gets watered down to almost a jaywalking charge. The system is broke, and Judges should be ashamed to let things be as they are. Sadly, the same people keep voting the same people to sit on the bench. It's becoming time to take matters into our own hands since the system won't do it because they're afraid of offending somebody

@ Chuck-295246, "Simple....we elect Judges and D.A.s with some freakin' balls to punish the criminals."

I think its a little difficult to do when the current administration loads our DOJ with cons and criminals to ensure justice in the US. Well, we'll see what we can do about that in November....

you and your communistic views can go to russia if you don't like the constitution. you mr swam-prat are just that it is not up to you to decide wether we are armed or not. we are armed because the constitution gives us that right to protect ourselves from government tyranny. it happened before and the right to bare arms protects us from it happening again. if you don't like it then simply leave. you have that right some people don't like knifes, machetes, etc. I don't like you and people like you. you do not deserve to be protected by me or any other person that if civil conflict breaks out and lets say the government all of a sudden takes your bank account and your house and truck. you would be the last person i would defend. my bullets are worth more to me than that. now if you don't think that is possible i recommend you read your democratic buddy presidents obama care bill and you will find out about your bank account, that one my friend was snuck in there by the no read but lets vote yes at midnight obamacare bill that the president that you voted for passed, free speech is being tested in california right now the protesters that are being pepper sprayed, their babies that are being pepper sprayed, under the constitution they have a right to assemble and protest, Not in california under democratic leadership. You sir sound like you support that, I don't and therefore i do not like you or anything you say. Shut your mouth and get to russia stupid.

They can lower the murder rate drastically if law enforcement went all out to stop the heart of the problem. Blacks, Hispanics and people with a criminal record commit 95% of the firearm related homicides in this country. The Blacks and Hispanics in the gangs and with a criminal record are a small amount of Blacks and Hispanics overall. I'm not condemning all Blacks and Hispanics.

And I'll bring it up again, when the LA Police went after the gangs in the early 1990's, there was a dramatic decline in crime. Then the ACLU and liberals got involved and put a stop to it and crime went back up. I fail to see how racism plays into it like some people argue. They are going after the people responsible for the vast majority of firearm related murders.

Law enforcement has gone after the Mafia and biker gangs before. They identify and target them. They usually end up locking up a large amount of them.

In the early part of the 20th century, bank robberies were being committed at a very high rate. During prohibition, the Italian, Irish and Jewish gangs were bootlegging and killing each other in record numbers. That's who the police identified and went after. It wasn't Black people committing these violent crimes, it was the White gang members and that's who the police targeted. Now it's the Black and Hispanic gangs responsible for most of the firearm related homicides.

But if you single out the Black and Hispanic gang members, it's a racial issue. Law enforcement knows who most of these gang members are and of course they know who has a criminal record. It would be an efficient use of manpower to go after these known people. It would require a huge police presence in the areas these gangs and criminals operate in. But the liberals don't like that. Instead, they would rather have laws passed that affect everyone, even though there are around 80 million legal, law abiding firearm owners who would be affected by it.

For some reason the focus is on the rare mass shooting. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, Aurora CO., etc. Those shootings accounted for less than 100 murders while in the same time frame there were around 150,000 other homicides. Why is that?

I don't know how you can stop the rare mass shooting. How can anyone predict what someone else will do when there aren't any signs showing they are about to commit mass murder? Banning assault weapons will do nothing. Banning 100 round magazines will do nothing. Identifying someone buying a lot of guns will do nothing. The Virginia Tech shooter, the two Columbine shooters, Jared Loughner and the Fort Hood shooter all had a handgun, not an arsenal of weapons. James Holmes AR-15 jammed on him after about 20 shots and he did most of his killing and injuring with his handgun and shotgun.

Holmes and the two Columbine shooters also built homemade bombs. Luckily the propane tank bombs at Columbine didn't go off and Holmes, for some unknown reason, told the police about his booby trapped apartment. The death tolls would have been sky high if the bombs had gone off. Timothy McVeigh killed hundreds without a gun. The 9/11 hijackers killed thousands with only using cheap box cutters as weapons to take over the planes. If all guns were banned and disposed of there would still be the occasional mass murder.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

Reed1

You are NOT going to keep the criminals and killers from getting guns and anyone who thinks it is possible is living in a dream world. They will get the guns even if they have to make them which is easily done. Then only real protection is that most would be criminals realize that with an armed population the odds are against them and at some point they are going to come up against someone that is armed and more than willing to take them down. That is not the case in countries where guns are outlawed from the common citizen.

The thing is, though, this statement (in bold) is completely untrue. I am an American personally living in one of those very countries (where guns are banned). Been here for years. And guess what? There's virtually no gun violence here. There is crime, sure, and even sometimes even violent crime -- knives and ceremonial swords are brandished. But there are no gun murders, no mass shootings, and somehow, despite your claim, the bad guys don't manage to get the guns that easily, either, and terrorize the general, unarmed population.

And also, contrary to your rather ridiculous assertion, a gun isn't "easy to make."

Ah, Roodles...so much ignorance and misinformation in one short post.

@Thinkforyourself;

Yes, guns are VERY easy to make. First, go to a local prison. They usually have them on display. They are called ZIP GUNS. Single shot, typically a .22 or .25 round and VERY FREAKING DEADLY.

Go to eBay and look up CNC and LATHE. These machines can be bought for under $1k and can produce a decent firearm EASILY. Using Mach3, even I could kick out a decent gun in under a few hours. Hell, you could make one, except the barrel, on a 3-d printer..

That's the point. You don't keep the guns out of their hands. You shoot them.

You are very correct Nomo. As far as how do you stop these murders, can't be done, been going on since Cain and Able. Here in this country a good start would be wage war on the gangs, they commit most of the murders in the country. Our prisons are full of vile repeat offenders of the worst kind. These anti gun people who want to disarm America and complain about all the murders are the first ones to say no to the death penalty for said murderers.

There are several mass murderers in prison at this time. One mass murderer of 7 people has been in San Quinton since 1988 taking up space and wasting money that should be used for better things. By keeping these just put other people lives in danger. The only death sentence they seem to get is death by old age. While the lawyers make a fortune off of our tax dollars appealing time after time to keep these scumbags alive.

There are people out there that love to say, "The death penalty doesn't deter murder'. No kidding, but, it does stop that murderer from ever hurting any on else ever, in or out of prison!

Not really true, nomo. I'm not advocating banning all guns, but at least be honest with your facts. In Japan, a country of 90 million people, there are an average of less than 20 gun murders a year. In 2006, they logged all of two. TWO! The US had around 30,000.

We need to at least acknowledge that we have a serious problem with gun violence in the United States and work to find a way to ameliorate this problem. I don't think the proliferation of guns is, in and of itself, the cause of the problem. After all, Switzerland has its fair share of guns, but nowhere NEAR the rate of gun violence. So perhaps it's not just the guns. But that needs to be part of the discussion. The US has a gun death rate that's 20 times higher than the next 22 wealthiest countries in the world COMBINED. We have an average of some 20 mass shootings (multiple victim shooting incidents) every year. Clearly there is a problem.

I'm all for upholding the Constitution and I do in fact support responsible gun ownership. But I don't support this "any gun, any time, any quantity of ammo" line of thinking. We just need to look at our very unique problem and address it honestly. No other first-world country in the world has anywhere NEAR the rate of gun violence that the US has. Surely there are reasons, and ways to make improvements.

Very true, thinkforyourself. It is not so much the gun ownership, but the false sense of bravado and entitlement of "look at me wrong, and I am entitled to shoot you dead" that goes with the American gun ownership. It is a lack of empathy or concern for anything or anyone that does not extend past their own nose, and their desire to protect all that is material over the value of basic human life and dignity.

Thinkforyourself,

With looking at those statistics, also look at the penalties for gun crimes. How are the given, how long are they for, and exactly what percentage of that penalty is served! I do not think you'll find disagreement with the statement that we have a gun violence problem, but gun control is not the solution. Enforce the laws in place,(we have over 27000 of them in this country), and stop giving slaps on the wrist for gun crimes! If a law states 10 additional years for use of a gun in a crime than that 10 years should be served along with the sentence for the crime.

I disagree. Gun control MUST be part of the conversation. It's not in and of itself the solution, I will concede that. But we cannot just disregard it altogether. We have a serious problem in the United States with gun violence, and it leaves me flabbergasted that some people refuse to equate gun violence with guns.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

The following people are thought to have suffered from bipolar disorder:

Abraham Lincoln (leader)
Adam Ant (musician)
Agatha Christie (writer)
Axl Rose (musician)
Buzz Aldrin (other)
Drew Carey (actor)
Carrie Fisher (actor)
Edgar Poe (writer)
Gordon Sumner (Sting) (musician)
Hans Christian Andersen (writer)
Heinz Prechter (entrepreneurs)
Isaac Newton (other)
Jane Pauley (other)
Jean-Claude Van Damme (actor)
Jim Carey (actor)
Jimi Hendrix (musician)
John Dally (sporting stars)
Jonathan Hay (sporting stars)
Kay Redfield Jamison (other, writer)
Kurt Cobain (musician)
Larry Flynt (entrepreneurs)
Liz Taylor (actor)
Ludwig Boltzmann (other)
Ludwig Van Beethoven (musician)
Marilyn Monroe (actor)
Mark Twain (writer)
Maurice Benard (actor)
Mel Gibson (actor)
Micheal Slater (sporting stars)
Napoleon Bonaparte (leader)
Ozzy Osbourne (musician)
Patricia Cornwell (writer)
Patrick Joseph Kennedy (leader)
Patty Duke (actor)
Plato (other)
Ralph Waldo Emerson (writer)
Rene Rivkin (entrepreneurs)
Robert Downey (actor)
Robin Williams (actor)
Sinead O'Connor (musician)
Sophie Anderton (other)
Stephen Fry (actor)
Ted Turner (entrepreneurs)
Tim Burton (writer, other)
Tom Waits (musician, actor)
Thomas Stearns Elliot (writer)
Vincent Van Gogh (other)
Virginia Woolf (writer)
Winston Chruchill (leader)
Wolfgang Armadeus Mozart (musician)

Actually in NY you would lose your Concealed Pistol Permit. I fail to see where you are going.

You are asked if you have had mental problems when you fill out that little form to get your gun. If you answer yes, be prepared not to get a gun.

You can get a Concealed carry in NY?

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

You can get a concealed carry permit in numerous counties in NYS.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

According to the CDC.... "Drowning is a leading cause of unintentional injury death worldwide, and the highest rates are among children. Overall, drowning death rates in the United States have declined in the last decade; however, drowning is the leading cause of injury death among children aged 1–4 years. In 2001, approximately 3,300 persons died from unintentional drowning in recreational water settings, and an estimated 5,600 were treated in emergency departments."

No one said as they headed out, "Hey, did you know there a big chance one of us will die today at the lake?"

Swamprat..you know for someone with water in their name you used a BAD analogy.

Locally, the police (state and local) have gotten serious about underage jet ski riders. Seems one ran into his buddy killing him. He said he wasn't used to the model and didn't know how the throttle worked (which puts your snarky comment up your butt).

SO...what's next? Bread Knives?

Jay

The outlawing of "sporks" will the next on the list of deadly weapons. You can kill somebody, and have a handy dandy lil device to eat 'em with. Swamp doesn't understand that almost anything can be a deadly weapon, so I guess everything will soon be outlawed. It's not the object, it's the person. Btw Jay, I have read that breadknives ARE next, so hide what ya got! lol I had to hide my seashells,sharks teeth, deer antlers and arrowhead collection before they got on the list too LOL

Don't ever let it be said that the Right are "mean spirited and caustic". I've seen more patience shown as people have conversed with this obvious moron, "Swamp Rat", for a half hour now. People like Swamp Rat are what pushes people like Holmes over the edge....

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

@The Nasty Swamprat --- Sounds like first hand knowledge. Was your judicial hospitalization voluntary or involuntary? Stay on your meds and off the vine.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

nasty were you denied?

Is this a comment to call yourself enlightened? Or is it a comment to insult all Americans who believe in the right to bear arms?

Wow..Robert...wow...all I can say to you is.."far out man"....

Meanwhile back here in reality we live in a world where the vast majority of people DO try to live a just and spiritual life. Yeah, we mutter about co-workers and have bad days but when push comes to shove there's always the guy in the crowd who will run into a burning building or jump in the water to save someone. In any office you always have that one person who ALWAYS remembers everyone's birthday. The one guy from down the hall who makes the coffee for a couple of jackasses who don't understand the unstated "last cup" rule. All we can do is slowly try to improve the standard we live by. Not by laws so much, but as an understanding like the "Last Cup" rule...in that, society as a whole dictates what is right and wrong...and as the statistics show it's a VERY personal and EVENLY split opinion. Which means no one is less or more right. That we should enact legislation that allows one the freedom to choose. That is what the law is we have now. Oh...and I like to shoot..at the range...I don't hunt..so am I guilty of being a 'paper killer'? Because I must hate something, someone, or myself? Because I own a gun?

Narcissism can also be pointed at arrogant people who think they are the 'select' few who deserve to be on earth...get a clue Hippy! (Man...I have always wanted to call someone a Hippy! :) thanks for the chance to actually do it !!)

Jay

Sounds like a bunch of L. Ron Hubbard's crap.

Robert-529549

Oh Enlighten One... Would you please put meat on my table for I have seen my wicked ways and have discared the hand of satan as you have comanded..

Now Where the He&l is the Meat!!!!!

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

Robert,

News for ya brother, the Narcissism thing, your guilty! Looking down in judgement, or thinking that your better, more intelligent, or enlightened than someone else qualifies. People have many different reasons for defending the right to bear arms. I personally love to hunt and to target shoot. I know I do not need guns to survive today, nor are they really necessary to protect my home or family, but I choose to own them never the less. Guns are just like any other tool, when used properly they are fine, when they are used improperly they become a nightmare. Fortunately it is not the gun's fault but the person who uses it that is to blame. Anyone who abuses their gun rights needs to answer for it and take responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately some liberals and gun control advocates don't believe in personal responsibility! They believe it is always someone or something else's fault.

Don't forget his "no idling" law...I kid you not. You cannot idle for more than 2 minutes in front of many institutions (schools, hospitals...etc) because it's wasteful and harmful.

Who the heck is this guy?

He needs to worry more about all the guys taking a pee in the doorways...was there for a meeting in May and on three different occasions walked right by people pissing in doorways....but atleast it was soda and fat free urine!

Jay

You do realize that if you take a gun into a gun free zone you are the criminal.

Varis11 - ah ! the beauty of gun control laws !! making criminals out of law abiding citizens who just wnat to be able to protct themselves !

Old sayign - better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 -

After the shooting gun sales and request for Concealed Carry Permits soared in Aurora and probably other places too -

I am sure there will be a lot more "criminals" out there now.

Gun control , Calorie control, Baby control. Control has a backlash.

Let me get this straight Dog, you think it is OK to break the law? Just what other laws do you think are OK to break?

PS it is not the law that makes the criminal, it is the disobedience of the law. Kinda twisted up on the panties there, right? LOL

Good Ol' Dog:

I read that... He is trying to FORCE all new mothers to Breast feed...

It's flakes like him why I keep a gun around... Yas never know when the Gestapo will come knocking at your door in the middle of the night.

Varis II, "In the land off the blind the one eyed man is king." May you and your family never be lorded over by a one eyed maniac in a movie theatre or any other gun free zone.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

If one wishes to see the value of an armed populace, look to Tyler 2005. An armed individual with a conceal and carry permit witnessed a shootout between police and an armed suspect in the courthouse square. Arming himself with his licensed weapon he assisted the police in drawing the suspect away from the courthouse where he was battling with police with private citizens in the crossfire. In the process this individual gave up his life but saved countless others.

Or how about the 90 year old woman who confronts a burglar with her legal firearm from a few years earlier.

Or how about the unarmed robber who used a baseball bat to bludgeon his victims?

There are even federal, state and local police that will (quietly) advise you own and carry a gun because they will not be able to get to you quick enough.

Guns are not the problem - it is the criminals and people who sit on juries awarding lenient sentences so they end up back on the streets all too soon.

It's not that more guns make people safer..... it makes criminals more afraid

I would have targeted his muzzle flash. Statistics show your opinion is incorrect.

So, Steve you think the threat of more guns in the theater would have made this guy sane all of a sudden? Does having guns in your house make you sane? I doubt it.

OBOMO, what statistics? NRA bulls**t? Have you not heard that the 'facts' coming out of the gun fanatic websites and the NRA is so full of lies, there is no room for truth? >>>YOU WILL NOW GO OUT AND BUY MORE GUNS AND AMMO BECAUSE YOU ARE OUR DUPES AND WE HAVE MADE YOU AFRAID OF THE DARK>>>>

Tex2c:

Do your neighbors are talking about guns like this?

Indeed, that's called speculation. It's in the dictionary between s**t and syphillis. Nobody knows till the rubber meets the road babe.

communist piece of garbage. should civil conflict ever break out make sure that i do not waste any ammunition protecting you. it is your weak mind that is polluting the country today. chicago is a perfect example of gun control. are you really that dumb. no your just a democrat.

ex2c, maybe the thought that SOMEONE inside was armed would have made him think twice about what he was about to do. He knew there was no threat to him.

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

If he thought there was no threat to him, why was he wearing body armor?

Our fore-fathers wrote the Constitution with what was considered the ultimate in firepower for the time. The alternatives at the time were swords or arrows. They did not say, "And allow the people to have their bows & arrows with swords less than 14 inches in blade length to protect themselves against crime"

If you READ the Constitution you would find that the 2nd Amendment is an alteration of the previously agreed upon statement. Our fore-fathers acknowledged the need for a "well-regulated militia" to reinforce the previous statement within the body of the Constitution. And then made the statement using an absolute followed by a mandate. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No limitation of firepower, magazine capacity or bullet size.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... say it the same way you do "separation of church and state".

Except only one is actually in the Constitution.

Again, the agents of gevernment had single shot muzzle loaders when the Bill of Rights was enacted. How will you restrict government agents to muskets and swords today?

The second ammendment was written at a time when the only guns available were ONE SHOT MUZZLE LOADERS.

No it wasn't, by that time there were patents out for firearms capable of firing multiple shots.

Bassai - what patents? It is clear to all but the gun fanatics and the NRA marketing wing of the gun and ammo industry that the founding fathers were thinking about nothing other than muzzle loaders. Putting thoughts into their minds about things that did not exist is the epitome of manipulating propaganda.

It is getting harder to tell just exactly who the criminals are, the guys who use guns to rob you of your money or the guys who take away the safety of your life and families by carrying guns everywhere pumped up by the NRA.

Not every gun owner fits your definition, tex2c. If you don't want a gun, then don't get one. I know I will feel safer just knowing that.

The second part of your comment is just idiotic.

I don't want to see the 2nd amendment revoked, in part, because it would be done by politicians. Politicians do things for all the wrong reasons.

With all due respect, idiot, the founding fathers and the minutemen who fought the battles would have LOVED semi and full automatic rifles and handguns to kill red coats and indians! I doubt, though, they would approve of how the 1st amendment has been misused and abused condoning pornography and other vile, vulgar and violent behavior!!!

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

Where does the second amendment say "guns"? Nowhere! It says "arms"! Those clever political scientists fully anticipated the march of science.

The language of the second amendment and the rest of the constitution for that matter is purposely vague unless a specific point is being made. The purpose is so that the document can grow with the nation. The founding fathers new this and provided for it. So arguments like yours don't wash. Ben Franklin was an inventor. Do you think for one moment that he didn't take future developments into account?

The more we restrict the LEGAL ownership of weapons, the more we diminish law-abiding citizens ability to defend themselves from criminals, who ignore gun laws anyway.

tex2c
Bassai - what patents? It is clear to all but the gun fanatics and the NRA marketing wing of the gun and ammo industry that the founding fathers were thinking about nothing other than muzzle loaders. Putting thoughts into their minds about things that did not exist is the epitome of manipulating propaganda.

Looks like you and a few others are the ones putting thoughts of muzzle loaders in their heads.

http://www.americanfirearms.org/history.php

1640 The screw or cannon barrel pistol [French gun makers produced some of the finest sports guns of the 17th century. One has three revolving chambers, each fitted with its own striker and sprint. This type of multi-shot weapon risked a dangerous chain reaction, in which Firing one chamber set off all the other chambers]

1670 Flintlock Revolving Rifle

1689 The earliest known English breech-loading rifle was made by Willmore

1718 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]

1760 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

1774 The Ferguson rifle, designed in 1774, was the first English breech-loading rifle made for military use. Never developed beyond an initial order of 100 rifles.

1780 The top rib in double-barreled guns

1789 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

1810-1820 The revolving principle is as old as firearms, but manufacturing methods permitting adequate accuracy of workmanship and boring precision for a safe cylindered or chambered weapon date from 1810-1820

http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhistoryinventions/a/firearms.htm

In 1718, James Puckle of London, England, demonstrated his new invention, the "Puckle Gun," a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock gun fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder....According to the Patent Office of the United Kingdom, "In the reign of Queen Anne, the law officers of the Crown established as a condition of patent that the inventor must in writing describe the invention and the manner in which it works." James Puckle's 1718 patent for a gun was one of the first to provide a description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breech-loading_weapon

Breech-loading firearms are known from the 16th century. Henry VIII possessed one, which he apparently used as a hunting gun to shoot birds.[1]

More breech-loading firearms were made in the early 18th century. One such weapon is known to have belonged to Philip V of Spain, and was manufactured circa 1715, probably in Madrid. It came with a ready-to load reusable cartridge.[2]

Patrick Ferguson, a British Army officer, developed in 1772 the Ferguson rifle, a breech-loading flintlock weapon. Roughly two hundred of the rifles were manufactured and used in the Battle of Brandywine, during the American Revolutionary War, but shortly after they were retired and replaced with the standard Brown Bess musket.

So how is your manipulative propaganda working out for you?

Just in case the two patents above aren't good enough for you here's another for one of the breech loaders mentioned above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_rifle

The action was adapted from the earlier 1720 Isaac de la Chaumette design by Major Patrick Ferguson (1744-1780), who redesigned it around 1770. He received an English patent in December of 1776 (number 1139) on details of the design.

As you may have noticed one of the issues with different multi-shot weapons was manufacturing techniques which enabled production of them in larger quantites as well as improved safety. Guess the framers of the Constitution never envisioned improved manufacturing.

John Wayne Gacy killed three times as many people as Holmes did. How many automatic firearms did Gacy use? How many semiautomatic firearms? How many single shot firearms? How many rounds did Gacy fire?

At a minimum when he started putting together the first bomb components.

He didn't break the law until he walked into the theater with a gun. The theater will be sued in civil court for not allowing concealed weapons to be carried on their premises. I will put money on that one.

When he carried a loaded weapon into the theater. Before that, I believe Colorado respect teh right to carry in your vehicle. If not, then as soon as he loaded the guns outside of his residence. Prior to those actions, nothing he had done was illegal. Nothing he had done was ny different than I and many others have done. We all purchase ammo in bulk to keep the cost down. We buy magazines and gear over the internet. And we have all purchased firearms.

In your mind, how many million law-abiding citizens would need to be put behind bars before you feel safe? How many criminals need to be out down for all of us to feel safe?

At least one more.....

Peter - of course ! - everything will go underground - no one knows how many unregistered / illegal guns ther are out there or who has them -

Stupid Democrat Liberals think if they pass just one more law........

Actually he broke several..at the point of purchase,he lied on the affidavit of his intitial background check ,while purchasing the firearms about being under the care of a psychiatrist,buying chemicals to produce incendiary devices, booby trapping his apartment...all severe violations of federal and state laws

Tyranny is not what I fear most, rather I fear anarchy and pandemonium once this debt-ridden, unsustainable economic system finally collapses! Then the order of the day will be to out wit, out last and out play your neighbor (for fighting the US government and their sonic and thermal weaponry is futile) by doing whatever necessary to put enough food in your belly each day before you succumb to starvation like hundreds of millions, probably a couple billion soon will in a few short (read what Stalin did to the Ukrainians prior to the onset of ww2) months time! And while a bolt action single shot is better than nothing at all I would most certainly rather have a semi-auto rifle or two with detachable magazines and a couple thousand rounds of ammo at the minimum - AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT FOLKS, AND YOU CITY DWELLERS TOO, FOR THE PROVERBIAL $HIT WILL SOMEDAY, AND SOON, HIT THE FAN AND IT WILL MAKE THE HORRORS OF THE HOLOCAUST LOOK LIKE FRIGGIN' CHILDS PLAY!!!

John Wayne Gacy was a serial murderer, not a mass murderer. Completely different profile, and can't be compared.

You anti-gun nuts are about as stupid as a rock with an amoeba attatched to it.

Oh the irony... I don't think any event is going to change the minds of the crazy, right-wing, gun nuts. Someone could mow down hundreds of people with a cache of automatic weapons and they would claim some bs like "guns don't kill". I've given up attempting to reason with anyone of such low mentality.

Since guns kill so many people please explain why we do not prosecute guns for their crimes?

The moment he walked into the theater with a loaded firearm. He broke another law when he pulled the trigger and still another when he set the traps in his apartment. Until those points of time, he wasn't in violation of the law. The laws we have respond to actions, not necessarily intent.

DOCJT

John Wayne Gacy was a serial murderer, not a mass murderer. Completely different profile, and can't be compared.

Gacy's victims must have been gratified to know that they couldn't be compared to gunshot victims.