Well this is a far cry from when I went to school. Back then we had bomb shelters and were taught to duck under our seats -- we didn't know from who we were ducking. It was the RUSSIANS! REmember them? So now, we're teaching our kids to look over their shoulder (don't fear the outside countries like Russia anymore because it's WE who are the killers). They're less worried about their studies and more worried about the killer inside or outside lurking. And what if the killer shoots the kids in the head? Is the kid going to start wearing helmets to school? See where I'm going? If I had a kid I would leave this country just as fast and go to Canada or Bermuda.

Sure. Because lots and lots and lots more guns, many in the hands of unstable people who felt the need to run out and snap up all the assault rifles because...well, makes you wonder why, doesn't it? More fear is a wonderful thing...I mean kids need to be more afraid since there isn't enough in the world to be afraid of, right? Armored backpacks, maybe armed kids while we are at it...and oh, maybe the teachers should have assault rifles on their hips at all times and make the kids wear their backpacks over their heads, too, since they are armored...wow.

Or maybe we could have a rational conversation about all the factors at play with the horrid violence in this country. It is easy access to guns for people who shouldn't have them, mental health services cuts to those who most need it, personal accountability for where those guns are stored, whether there are unstable people in the house that makes it unsafe to even have one in the home, making sure the conversation isn't a big political and fear-based one and that rational, reasonable safeguards are in place. Look around the world...what are the countries doing that we aren't? Look at statistics...not those by political groups, but hard statistics...who, why, and how are these tragedies happening? What trade offs are we willing to do to endure to make us safer...armed guards? Metal detectors? Reasonable guns laws and enforcement? Better resources for and identification of those who need mental health help? More mandatory reports so if Uncle Bob or your child is seriously depressed/angry/violent/unstable the doctor can order his gun from his home or whatever it means?

Let's don't make this even crazier! I am sad that this conversation didn't happen before...all the lives lost mattered and this is enough. Let's take a breath and be reasonable here and work together without being run over by those with financial interests in this.

This is hands down the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. The chances that your kid will be wearing the armored backpack while a gunman shoots them and actually have it work = 0.0%. Just remember it was your dumb ass that caused it when your growing child's spine is wrecked from carrying 50 pounds of useless steel every day to school.

Please take that money, pool it with the other concerned parents and hire a security guard for your school if you are worried.

@ram - You're probably right. But read through the gun worshiper posts below to see what the chances are for a rational approach.

Just a fairly abstract example. You mention personal responsibility. Check TV, news papers, blogs, etc. Personal responsibility is for poor people and, sometimes, for fat people. Here are the people to whom it does not apply: Wall Streeters, gun manufacturers, gun dealers, gun show operators, gun owners, the concubines in congress who create idiotic gun laws and a gun distribution system that is pure anarchy, corporate officers, limited liability partners, anyone with a fat bank account, and far more, including (to pick up on one of your points) the people who gutted the mental health system over the last 40 years.

Where is the rationality going to come from? From people who do not have the money to buy congressmen. So how much will rationality accomplish? Maybe something. Maybe - even though 30 dead college kids at VA Tech didn't matter - maybe 20 dead little kids at Sandy Hook will matter and provoke some change. But given our history on this issue, it seems that meaningful change is unlikely.

My kids' backpacks are in a "cubby" out in the hallway 98% of the time they are in school.

But that won't keep the same dumbasses who are stockpiling weapons in their home from buying one of these for each of their little angels.

Similarly inane my kids' school principal sent home a note the first school day after the shooting saying that from now on the front door of the school would be locked. Helloooo, the front door of Sandy Hook El. was locked.

Are Americans really this f-ing stupid?

Solid point JimD. Kinda sad that parents won't blink an eye at dumping $300 on witch-doctor fixes to 'protect' their kids, but will bitch and cry to high heaven if they are taxed to pay for mental health or more police patrols, which would actually help society and protect their kids MUCH better.

I'd consider buying one. True the kid is not likely to be wearing it the moment that the shooter came into the school, but in the event of a lockdown, he could put it on backwards and *poof* instant vest. It might not help if he's in the first classroom, but if he's in the second or third and already hiding in a closet or something it might just save his life.

And if you really want to protect your child, home school them, don't allow them any contact with the outside world, never allow them to ride in a car (the no 1 killer of children), don't let them ride a bike. Or play contact sports, or eat meat, or candy, or junk food. Make sure they never have contact with the opposite sex, lest they get.. Aids, Syphilis, Herpes etc, etc. Or fly. Or go out when a thunderstorm is possible. Or any of the other thousands of things which are more likely to kill your children than a gunman. Don't even let me get started on diseases. Such as the morons killing people who are giving polio vaccines in Pakistan. It's bad for the kids!

hello...they don't keep their backpacks next to the desk....NEXT WORTHESS ISSUE?

I'm just saying...

Your icon makes whatever you say idiotic. Worse even, even if it makes a good idea.

I am thinking of inventing the "armored bunny suit". It will look just like the neck to foot PJ's they use to sell, but be head to toe armored bunny suit complete with armored hoodie..... Every kid can get one issued by their school upon entering kindergarten. this would also solve any problems with kids wearing gang colors, they all "would look alike".........yeah, let me get working on that...........

It ain't the gun buyers buying these things. Most gun buyers know more about armor too. Even if a kid was wearing one of these, it probably wouldn't save the kid. Soft armor may stop a round or 2, but not gonna stop a hail or bullets, not to mention there's plenty of rounds out there that would go through soft armor like it wasn't even there.

So we have armed guards at banks but not schools, therefore we care more for our money than our children’s lives. Are armed guards effective? When was the last mass murder at a bank? Going postal: the term came from an UNARMED group. I noticed that they didn’t call it going bankal!!! And I bet there are plenty of people who would like to go bankal. Therefore being armed is both a deterrent and a safety edge. The term over educated idiots comes to mind when I think of our schools.

NOTE TO POLITICIANS: If you pass a law that makes my new $1500 assault rifle illegal I will make a note of your name and vote for anybody else in November. Also note, there are 300 million guns in the US; that is a lot of votes. The term political suicide comes to mind.

Because our government refuses to protect our children I can’t help but get the feeling that they are using our feelings for our children’s safety to get us to give up our 2^nd amendment rights???

Gun laws are effective?? Look at Canada: In America 80% of the prison population is black, and about the rest are Hispanic. I don’t see blacks and Hispanics in Canada, so I expect that they would have a lower crime rate. Apples and oranges comparison. Look at Mexico: Hispanic population, whole towns getting wiped out by illegal gun toting gangs. Their government threw the population to the wolves with gun control.

Why is our government loading up on ammunition while at the same time trying to pass gun laws??

Why Does The U.S. Government Need So Much Ammunition?

In my previous article, I also noted that the U.S. government appears to be very rapidly making preparations for something really big.

This week, it was revealed that the Social Security Administration plans to buy 174,000 hollow point bullets which will be delivered to 41 different locations all over America.

Now why in the world does the Social Security Administration need 174,000 bullets?

And why do they need hollow point bullets? Those bullets are designed to cause as much damage to internal organs as possible.

But of course this is only the latest in a series of very large purchases of ammunition by U.S. government agencies. The following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson....

Back in March, Homeland Security purchased 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage, prompting questions as to why the DHS needed such a large amount of powerful bullets merely for training purposes.

This was followed by another DHS solicitation asking for a further 750 million rounds of assorted bullets, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls.

Now why in the world would the government need over a billion rounds of ammunition?

If it was the U.S. military I could understand this. You can burn through a whole lot of ammunition fighting wars.

But this makes no sense - unless they believe that big trouble is coming.

George Soros:

Perhaps even more disturbing is what he believes is coming after the financial collapse....

As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”

Because lots and lots and lots more guns, many in the hands of unstable people who felt the need to run out and snap up all the assault rifles because...well, makes you wonder why, doesn't it?

Let me point out that many of the people who are now buying AR-15 type rifles have wanted to purchase one for a long time now and are only doing it because they suspect that the worthless 1994-2004 ban will be reinstated, or something even more extreme and useless, and then they will have to pay far more to get one or may be unable to get one at all. A decent AR-15 type rifle is an easy $1000 these days, some considerably more than that. The price tag has kept a fair number of folks who have long wanted one from getting one, but now that it appears inevitable the cost and availability will be very negatively impacted, they're doing what it takes to get one while they still can. They may have very well missed the boat and been left out in the cold last time, which proved to be somewhat of a false alarm, and by the time the dealers' shelves were stocked again, the 'emergency' was over.

Many of these people are veterans of the US Armed Forces. Their only real exposure to a firearm may have been familiarization in basic training and a once per year qualification firing after that, but the M16, and by extension, the AR-15 pattern equivalent, is the only firearm they have any specific knowledge of. If they're going to buy a gun - and with the way things seem to have been headed for a while now, a lot of people are deciding it'd be better to have one than to not have one - the one they want is the one they knew when they were in the service.

and oh, maybe the teachers should have assault rifles on their hips at all times

I'm trying to picture that... looks very awkward and uncomfortable now matter how I imagine it...

Look around the world...what are the countries doing that we aren't?

For starters, they don't mess around with troublemakers. They lock 'em up and keep them there. They don't get too concerned about the 'cruel and unusual' thing either. Years in the dungeon, and surprisingly, the recidivism rates are extraordinary low. Of course, they also don't have too many racial issues that fuel violence in most nations. A very homogeneous population where everyone is the same color, ethnicity, and mostly the same religion creates very few differences for people to get too worked up about. The US, in contrast, after the mid-1800's was such a melting pot of different races, cultures, languages, and religions that trouble to one degree or another is virtually guaranteed.

Reasonable guns laws and enforcement?

The many volumes worth of gun laws are quite reasonable as EVERYTHING you can do to intimidate, endanger, wound, maim, or kill someone with a firearm, or misuse it in any other way imaginable, IS ILLEGAL and people are arrested, tried, and convicted after doing those things.

Sorry, I don't think armored backpacks are really going to make any difference. Don't believe it would have saved 1 life at the school, but I can understand the desperation and the need to try something. How about security guards (armed) at EVERY school?

A Mathematical Approach to What Causes Gun Murder in America

Mass murder shootings happen 20 times a year in the USA on average...but that is less than 2% of all gun murders. It isn't the big threat in terms of annual gun murders. It is also one of the least preventable causes (because crazy people use cars, knives, rope, fire, fists, bombs, etc., to murder people). So what are the causes of the vast majority of gun murders (which would matter to those interested in actually reducing gun murder)?

Some wish to have gun control and gun bans in the wake of our last few mass shooting tragedies.

At what cost? Childproof society because a SMALL number (per capita) abuse the right? There are 200,000,000 guns in the USA, and 40-60 million people own those guns. Until this last year, which the FBI will have no official stats for until 2 years from now BTW, the crime rates, including violent crime and gun crime, had been falling for 30-50 years (moreso in the last 30). And this year there was only a slight uptick (several years into a recession no less, where people turn to drug "crime" for supplemental income). The population growth and guns in circulation, not to mention legal permits to carry guns, over that 30 years has far outpaced the gun murder growth. So even though the total gun murders probably went up this year, we still have a declining rate overall in the last 3 decades. I'll overestimate and say we had 13,000 gun murders, and do a little math for you.

Let's say the 40-60 million gun owners are 50 million owners...right in the middle (the average estimate).

200 million guns / 50 million = 4 guns per owner on average.

200 million guns / 13,000 gun murders = 15,384.62 guns per murder (that's a lot of guns not killing people)

Percentage chance a gun in the USA will murder = .0065% (or 6.5 in every 1000 guns...that's 993.5 guns in every 1000 guns not murdering people)

50 million gun owners / 13,000 gun murders = 3,846.15 gun owners not murdering for every 1 gun murder (that's a lot of gun owners not murdering anyone)

Percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun = .026% (or 26 in every 1,000...that's 974 gun owners in every 1,000 not murdering anyone)

315,000,000 American people / 13,000 gun murders = 24,230.77 Americans per 1 gun murder victim

Percentage chance you as an American will be murdered by a gun = .0041% (that's 4.1 in every 1,000...or a tiny threat for the mathematically challenged. You have a better chance at dying of the flu - 33,000 flu deaths per year in the USA)

Permits to carry guns and total guns in circulation in the USA has never been higher (which is not the same as ownership rate, which is actually down)...and yet the threat is very, very low. Still think all those other people should give up their rights for a threat less than the flu? Please recall that almost 70% of gun murders are commited by criminals, not law abiding citizens. No gun ban or gun control logically affects them, as they already don't abide laws, and we aren't on an island where getting guns is hard when they are banned (it's easier in say England or Australia, because of geography, to ban guns).

Now let's compare to the Holy Grail of gun control advocates (Canada and England) who value freedom so low as to want "to purchase temporary safety at the expense of liberty", as Ben Franklin put it (he said you will "deserve neither" when you do that, and I'll add "you'll get neither"). BTW, I'd point out Canada didn't outlaw guns at all in reality :

Canada's population 35.5 million / 126 gun murders = 281,746 citizens per gun murder

Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun as a Canadian = .0004% (4 in every 10,000)

Gun owners in Canada is 10.934 million / 126 gun murders = 86,777.78 gun owners per gun murder

Percentage chance a gun owner in Canada murders you with a gun = .0012% (1.2 in every 1,000)

Now let's look at England's gun ban paradise:

England's population 53 million / 39 gun murders = 1,358,974 citizens per gun murder

Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun in England = .0001% (or 1 in 10,000)

Gun owners in England 1.8 million / 39 gun murders = 46,153.85 gun owners per 1 murder by gun

Percentage chance a English gun owner murders you with a gun = .0022% (2.2 in every 1,000)

I'd point out gun CRIMES (not just murders) in England have soared upward 35% since the gun bans. Criminals used handguns in 46% more crimes, and it was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise...there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year, the most since the previous peak in 1993.

Stats show the number of crimes involving handguns have more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre, which brought about the ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Quote:Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.

"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either."

So England's gun bans may have lowered total murders, and even the rate of murders, but the violent crime rates are soaring. Guns are a game theory mathematical deterent to crime, especially violent crime, believe it or not.

So what can we get from all these stats?

Population matters, as does other factors besides guns themselves:

The whole story is told in the percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun - USA is .026%, Canada is .0012%, and England's is .0022%.

As you can see, Canada has a higher rate of ownership of guns and more total guns than England, and yet has a LOWER gun owner murder rate than England! That means it isn't guns that are the factor making England murder more. So why is Canada so low, while England is nearly double that? Why is the USA more than 10 times higher than England? All of this is adjusted for population and total guns in society...so what is the factor making us so much more prone to murder (even if it is a tiny threat overall to life) here in the USA?

THE DRUG WAR.

In England they have a drug war, but they do not focus on possession. Meanwhile we lock up nonviolent criminals at the almost the exact same rate as violent ones in America. Canada has legal marijuana in some areas, and has for years, and takes a very relaxed attitude toward drug use in general (although they have laws which are largely unenforced).

Just like during the Prohibition of alcohol, murder rates have soared under the Drug War. So has our incarcerations and incarceration rates...we now lock up more people in total than any other country in the world (yes, even the vastly more populated China and India)! That's total and per capita! "Land of the Free"? Think again. "Land of the prisoner" is more accurate. We arrested more than 750,000 people last year for just marijuana! 86% of those arrests were for small amounts; simple possession charges. It's not only tyrannical, it's a waste of resources which fuels a black market run by criminal sociopaths, and takes resources away from fighting actual violent crime like theft, property damage, assault, rape, child abuse, and murder.

This War on Drugs (and personal adult freedom) has given us the street gang phenomenon on the scales we see today. Chicago alone has dozens of separate drug gangs. They also have a high murder rate to go along with super-strict gun control in comparison to other cities...because guns aren't the problem, the Drug War is. Many of their gangs can trace their roots to either the beginning of Prohibition, or the beginning of the modern Drug War.

In Honduras where gun murders are most common and horribly frequent, they have gun rights...but they also have a country which is a main thoroughfaire for the illegal drug trade. By comparison, Uruguay has almost the same gun ownership rates as the USA and the same gun rights as well, yet they have a lower gun murder rate because they have no war on drugs. In fact, their govt is seriously considering selling marijuana to its citizens to get the drug trade completely above-board!

If you want our rate of murder to decrease via guns you don't take away guns, you end the Drug War. If you have any doubts about this go look at the murder rates after alcohol Prohibition began, and then after it ended. Also look at countries that have already ended their Drug Wars.

Crime rates in Prohibition rose immediately 78%, 24% in just one year from 1920-1921 (the first year)

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/0049...e_Rate.htm

The murder rate was cut in nearly half (40% decline), from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 when Prohibition ended. This was directly caused by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-...as-failure

If we want to half our gun murders, legalize drugs. If you want to further bring it down address the next major cause; domestic violence. Spanking children leads to many issues surrounding violence, but especially domestic violence. If domestic violence is how you raise children, then expect them to use it themselves as adults. A small number of those people will kill a domestic relative or partner. The gun simply facilitates it.

The final point I'll make is that if only .026% of gun owners murder someone with a gun, then 99.974% of gun owners don't kill someone with a gun. It's hard to argue we need to punish the 99.974% for what the .026% do. That kind of illogic is used in schools to punish classrooms full of kids for what one anonymous child has done...and it leads to bullying, because children then ostracize their peers who are guilty (and they don't know how to ostracize responsibly, so it ends up in bullying). We should use a more logical approach on adults. In a nation of 315 million people, with a Drug War raging and domestic violence against kids being the norm, a 99.974% responsible gun owner rate is unbelievably good. Perspective, instead of irrational fear and knee-jerk reaction, is what helps here.

ADDED:

Someone said they thought we could half gun murder by ending the drug war, but the we'd double the drunk/drugged driving deaths...but that is illogical. No one has any problem getting drugs now, and they already drive on them now. Also, when drugs were legalized across the board in other nations the usage only went up slightly, and in some nations actually decreased. Plus, when we re-legalized alcohol the usage here only went up slightly, while alcoholism went down (especially among minors), and the murder rate fell in that first year (1933) 40%. THINK through why your criticisms might not be logical...and Bing or Google them to see people have already answered these illogical and/or irrational reservations.

Lastly, someone else said they would never change their mind about being anti-gun no matter the evidence...but again, that is irrational. There are irrational people who won't fly even though they ADMIT cars are more likely to kill them. They drive but won't fly...that is irrational. Guns are less likely to kill a kid than swimming pools. How afraid are you of swimming pools? Cars kill more people than guns...how afraid are you of cars? Gun murder is almost 3 times less likely to kill you than the normal flu virus...how afraid are you of guns vs the flu? Being rational means fearing things based on thr actual RATIONAL chance they have to kill you, not the IRRATIONAL fear of HOW it might kill you. Guns are not nearly as dangerous as the media and most anti-gun people think they are.

In fact, more lives are saved in the USA every year than are taken by guns every year. They are in reality, indisputably, a NET GAIN of life. If only 2% of the 750,000 crimes prevented by private guns (FBI stat) save one life (or 1% saves 2 lives, etc.), then more lives are saved than taken. BTW...sutdies show many more than that are saved by guns...the estimate by Clinton Administration study was 2 million lives per year...which might be high...and other more intensive studies show the number to be in the tens of thousands, up to 200,000, per year. But EVEN IF the number was only 15,000 as I suggested with my 2% number, we're still looking at more lives saved than murdered.

FURTHER ADDED:

A study done by the Harvard Jounal of Law and Public Policy reports some interesting statistics.

The study, which appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs...online.pdf

STILL FURTHER ADDED:

It appears there is also NO correlation between single parenthood, violent video games, movies, TV shows, music, one religion or another (or lack thereof), etc.

Like guns, those are just NOT causal to high gun murder rates, despite the illogic used to say they are. (To be clear, it is intuitive to think guns and these other things cause the problem...but there is NO factual basis for it, and the factual nature of things is often deductively logical, and counter-intuitive.)

ADDED:

Paul Harvey on Guns

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

Consider:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

Me: And That's The Rest of the Story!

ADDED:

For those who ask "what 'tyranny' has the USA experienced to warrant the right to keep and bear arms", as if we as Americans are immune to having a government that can turn tyrannical, I give you the following list of tyranny's methodology, and the list of things our government has already done to meet this definition:

The methodology of tyranny:

The methods used to overthrow a constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else.

Control of public information and opinion: It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it "public information" or "marketing".

Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers: It doesn't matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.

Undue official influence on trials and juries: Nonrandom selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.

Usurpation of undelegated powers: This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.

Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force: The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of "protecting" the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.

Militarization of law enforcement: Declaring a "war on crime" that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.

Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform: Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.

Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers: When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny.

Use of the law for competition suppression: It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters' competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.

Subversion of internal checks and balances: This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.

Creation of a class of officials who are above the law: This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are "following orders".

Increasing dependency of the people on government: The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.

Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them: When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

Use of staged events to produce popular support: Acts of terrorism OR WAR, blamed on political opponents OR FOREIGN NATIONS, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a Reichstag plot.

Conversion of rights into privileges: Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.

Political correctness: Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.

(The italicized and capitalized parts are my additions, and the rest is found here originally):

http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

List of our government's transgressions into tyranny:

☑ DRONES
☑ OBAMACARE
☑ NDAA
☑ PATRIOT ACT
☑ WAR IN LIBYA
☑ WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
☑ WAR IN PAKISTAN
☑ DID I MENTION DRONES?
☑ GOLDMAN SACHS
☑ MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
☑ GUANTANAMO
☑ ASSASSINATING U.S. CITIZENS
☑ WAR ON DRUGS
☑ BAILOUTS
☑ AND EVERYTHING ELSE!

Under "everything else" I'll list the following:

1. The use of "national security" to keep secret things that are not apart of security matters, but instead shield the state from scandal.

2. Voter fraud AND suppression, plus the laws that restrict competition with the 2 Parties that control the political landscape. The includes the debates that are televised (which are run by the 2 Parties, but weren't always).

3. Loading juries with people who are bias, and the Supreme Court's purposeful change to our law that used to allow people to be instructed by the defense as to their right of jury nullification (the ability to vote "not guilty' because you disagree with the law itself), and limiting the defense from arguing whether the law is unjust or not. They also exclude anyone who says they know about that jury nullification right (which is a legal right) from jury service.

4. The tremendous list of things the state does that are neither enumerated in the Constitution nor listed in the Amendments (which are the only 2 places the state can derive their powers from), and the complicity of the Supreme Court in subverting the Amendment process that is supposed to be used to change, add or delete, those powers, by simply declaring things not in the enumerated powers or Amendments as "Constitutional".

5. The inability of private firms to be hired to compete with the monopolization on policing, thereby rendering their costs higher, quality of service lower, and accountability being non-existent (like it does with all coerced monopolies). Some places like San Francisco do have private police that are allowed limited competition with the state's force, but only because it PREDATES the state police force. In other words you don't require state police to have police, because they originated in the private sector and are to this day ranked as a better service by customers (citizens). They are also much less likely to beat and kill people (let alone talk to them like chldren).

6. The constant militarization of police should be obvious. I mean drones and camouflage? What do they need jungle print camo for in the city and towns of America? It is a pure intimidation tactic.

7. The state constantly infiltrates and subverts those groups that wish to stand up to its power peacefully. "Agent Provocateurs" are a fact of life in America. They infiltrate every major peaceful protest.

8. Whistleblowers can face the death penalty, especially if they release proof of war crimes or the like. This relates directly to using the guise of "national security" to promote secrecy about things that are not about security, but instead are about hiding scandal and sickening psychopathic behavior on the part of the collective institution, or individual in it, or both.

9. As I mentioned, using laws to not only limit competition with the 2 Parties, but with police, fire service, military, road management and production/ownership, welfare, money, interest rates, and a huge list of things I'm not go to mention are fact of life. All of these things predate the state, and used to function without a state coerced monopoly on them. If they allowed competition they'd actually have to prove they provide the better service...not something they (or the public sector union heads in bed with them - not to be confused with rank and file union members) want to do.

10. Checks and balances, like courts reviewing the assassination of U.S. citizens and warrentless wiretaps and searches, have continuously been undermined.

11. The government is above the law. Everyone knows we'd go to prison or be HEAVILY fined if we did many of the things they simply lose their jobs over (if that). Cheating on their taxes, sexually harassing people, scandals involving stolen and embezzled funds, etc., etc. And their cronies in the private sector get away with it along with them. The Pardoning of terrible criminal acts upon their cronies happens every time a President or Governor leaves Office.

12. Dependancy on government has risen, whether it's welfare, medical, housing, retiremet, PHONES, REFRIGERATORS, etc.

13. People avoid voting like the plague, which isn't altogether bad or wrong thing...but they even avoid voting for people they KNOW are right and instead vote for who they THINK will win. That's a personal form of selling out, and it's a collective form of endorsing unethical things because you want to treat politics like a team sport where rooting for the winning team is better for self satisfaction than rooting for the team that doesn't cheat to win. This also shows up in avoidance of jury duty (which could be made voluntary if they allowed jurors to be professionals just like judges and lawyers - which would undermine their attempts to keep jurors ignorant of the laws and jury nullification), which could stop untold numbers of people from going to prison over bad laws. Again, jury nullification is important to a free society...and we are kept ignorant of that right BY LAW.

14. Staged events or outright lies have started more wars than actual attacks or credible threats against us. Vietnam via the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the WMDs in Iraq, the Lusitania being an innocent passenger ship with no arms smuggling purposes, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

15. The conversion of rights into privileges, like search and seizure protections, the right to keep and bear arms, the universal freedom of speech where it does not cause DIRECT physical harm (it is legal, or used to be, to say things that you do not believe will cause actual violence, or things you do believe will cause violence but do not have a likelihood to actually cause harm despite your notions), the right to trial (that all depends, now), the right to life not being deprived without jury trial (they now assasinate USA citizens without even proving to a judge it is justified...so they can effectively kill any of us at any time if they wish to), etc.,etc.,etc.

16. Political correctness is used to stifle dissent. For example, just one way is to call anyone you disagree with racist no matter how unrelated to racism it actually is. Another way is to insist of using certain semantics and lingusitics to limit the expression of unpopular but logical ideas. The idea that words are cause for violence legally, or that words are equivalent to violence. This shows up in everyday life, but is reflective of how politicians are treated by the media...where they say things that are obviously not meant the way the media spins it. The public simply follows suit on the trend.

ADDED:

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm individual citizens, not just members of militias, so they could overthrow a tyrannical government. Every Founder said this and only this, except Adams (who still wanted individuals armed, but only for self defense, and he thought militias must follow the orders of tyrants regardless because he was a law fetishist as opposed to someone more agianst tyranny and for liberty even if it meant breaking tyrannical laws). Some people have suggested to me other false revisionist history nonsense, and so I leave this link full of other links and facts to prove the case. If further necessary I will start quoting the Founders and challenging them to match me quote for quote (which they can't).

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

The most important links on that site are these ones:

"Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

"Quotes from the Founding Fathers and Their Contemporaries"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Good luck defeating that with some semantical trick about the wording or puncuation of the 2nd Amendment. They mispelled words in the Constitution too...I suppose next you'll argue we have somehow mistakenly mispelled words all these years and the Constitution had them right all these years? Enough with the illogic and irrationale...non sequiturs are not logical arguments.

Someone missed their meds^^

WoW, someone really needs to get a life. ProIndevidual, do you really think anyone is going to read all that bullsh*t you wrote, seriously, g-e-t- a l-i-f-e

Hey Pro, the figure is closer to 6.5 guns out of 100,000 used to commit murder. I'm sure the rest has merit, but it's too damn long too read...

How do those old sayings go?

''Knowledge is power.''

-- and --

''Ignorance is bliss.''

Just sayin'

Keep up the good work, Pro!

I am not real sure that back pack thing is a good idea. In Somalia, someone in another squad removed the plates from the back of his vest. He was hit from behind and the bullet was deflected off the front plate and reentered his body which killed him. If he wouldn't have had the plates at all he probably would have lived. So if someone was hit from the front wearing this backpack, wouldn't do the same thing?

I'm not saying these bullet proof back packs are or are not a good idea, but I do believe that further gun control is not a good idea. I am not a gun owner, though, I would like to be one some day. Reducing the rights of law-abiding gun-owning citizens will not take guns out of the hands of criminals, it will empower them. This rush to give up more rights is insane, do we actually believe we need the government to protect us from ourselves? I sure as hell don't, we need them to protect us from foreign powers and from the government itself taking too much power. We've been continually giving away our freedoms in the name of security since at least 9/11/01 if not earlier. I'm reminded of the recently oft repeated quote from one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

For all the people who think more government power is a good thing, when the ish hits the fan and a police state is declared you'll have only yourselves to blame for blindly giving away your rights so you could feel all warm and fuzzy and secure, even though you are less secure than you once were. I'd like to think the ish won't hit the fan, but when you read the tea leaves you'd have to have your head buried in the sand to not see it as a very real possibility sooner or later.

i know what to do.... lets buy ALL the semi-automatic rifles and put them into circulation... yea! that'll stop the already dead guy!!!!!

Without doubt. And practically speaking, a kid at his desk is not going to think to pull his backpack over his body as the gunman comes in shooting. It's a false sense of security.

When it is your time, it is your time.

Please get this guy off the forum.

Buy them another?

That's a god one.

And -- should the kid start wearing helmets to school to protect against the shooter that shoots the head?

Why do you think that all gun owners are uneducated rednecks?

Haggis: shut down you computer and go do some more pot.

Give the computer back to your mom and go play your violent video games!

I did buy one in 308.cal. and 3 extra mags.

Sorry wisconsin but it is not the "libs" that are pushing this. But you just keep on believing that if it makes you feel better.

Sheesh, it's the paranoid factor that is running out buy these things and the guns also.

Another day off work.

Right! We are caught in a lunacy loop. Since many people live in fear, they want more guns (to try to make themselves feel safer!) The increase in guns floating around soon makes everybody more nervous, and so more people get more guns, which perpetuates the cycle. Round and round, and round! The ONLY reasonable solution is FEWER GUNS, as quickly as we can manage it. We should begin tomorrow morning confiscating, and destroying any gun capable of firing more than 1 shot in a minute! (If you can't bag a deer with one shot, you are too much of a menace to all of our safety, to be allowed near a gun!) No Founding Father would consider allowing anyone so hateful, or fearful of his neighbors, or government, that he needed a gun to function, to have a gun! Basically, the reasonable, sane hunters and sportsmen in our midst can probably be trusted to keep hunting and sport weapons.

Its the paranoid schizophrenics who want to hide behind guns that are the biggest actual threats to the rest of us. Who knows what will set one of the lunatics off? If they are a wild west "high noon sheriff" kinda guy, then just because they are suspicious of you, they may shoot and kill you, some dark, rainy night! Or, maybe you are playing your stereo too loud for one of them, out in the street! That could get you shot and killed! Even an argument over a pizza has gotten folks killed, by guys "afraid for their lives"! Basically, guns do, in fact kill people in this country. Oh, by the way, if somebody shoots and kills your kid, its unlikely to happen at school! Most likely, it will happen in your own home, and you, your spouse, or a family friend will be pulling the trigger! That's a fact, Jack!\

Buy your kid personal shields, if that makes you feel better. But, the only real safety most of us will have is to become more like the sane, rational, grown up nations that are far safer, saner places to live, than we are! More guns, just continues our national obsession with them, and our imagined traditions about "high noon, on main street"!

Then the kids would stand a better chance if you sent them to basic infantry school before they start kindergarten. 

That ought to prepare them.

Or, just shoot in from the front instead of the rear..........

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with HUNTING.......

need to study history harder. in the colonies the militia was just every man capable and willing to hold a rifle. this was citizen arming themselves. the founders were watching British soldiers enact marshal law on British citizens in the colonies. The Founders understood that a standing army could be used to oppress it's own people, thus the founders were against standing armies. the reason we didn't see them till the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.

the militia = the people but not all the people = the militias. that is why the right to keep and bear arms was qualified to the people, and not the militias.

even if you push the militia angle, we will just have state militias that gain massive number of members, where they will be further trained to kill.

You can indeed hunt with an AR15, some of the prey includes deer, hogs, and varmits. Yes guns are designed to kill but guns have been adapted to be used for hunting and target shooting. It is not uncommon for citizens adapting military hardware or the military to adapt citizen hardware. Common examples would be the jeep or the vw bug, radios, and aircraft.

The AR15 design gives the user options with uppers, stocks, barrels, sights, magazines lasers, flash lights, optics and so much more. There are also so many calibers that can be used in that design from 9 mm Luger to .223 to .300 Blackout to .50 beowulf. Its action is not identical to its military cousins (M4 and M16A2). You can't change from a semiauto bolt carrier group to a full auto bolt carrier group, the trigger pack is different as is the internal dimensions of the lower. Most of the other parts are interchangable.

When the Second Amendmet was written, citizens had the same amount of firepower as any soldier. There is no reason that citizens should not have the same firepower capabilities as the standard infanty.

Lose one of your rights and the other rights will follow suit soon. The antigun folks need to understand that the Second Amendment guarentees the other amendments from a warmongering goverment. A goverment fully capable of tyranny and thats made too many coverups in the last few years.

The arming of teachers worked for Israel. They had a school shooting and armed their teachers, there was a 2nd attempt and the gunman was met by an armed teacher and a security person. Gunman dead, no children injured, and no more attempts have been made at schools.

So we have armed guards at banks but not schools, therefore we care more for our money than our children’s lives. Are armed guards effective? When was the last mass murder at a bank? Going postal: the term came from an UNARMED group. I noticed that they didn’t call it going bankal!!! And I bet there are plenty of people who would like to go bankal. Therefore being armed is both a deterrent and a safety edge. The term over educated idiots comes to mind when I think of our schools.

NOTE TO POLITICIANS: If you pass a law that makes my new $1500 assault rifle illegal I will make a note of your name and vote for anybody else in November. Also note, there are 300 million guns in the US; that is a lot of votes. The term political suicide comes to mind.

Because our government refuses to protect our children I can’t help but get the feeling that they are using our feelings for our children’s safety to get us to give up our 2^nd amendment rights???

Gun laws are effective?? Look at Canada: In America 80% of the prison population is black, and about the rest are Hispanic. I don’t see blacks and Hispanics in Canada, so I expect that they would have a lower crime rate. Apples and oranges comparison. Look at Mexico: Hispanic population, whole towns getting wiped out by illegal gun toting gangs. Their government threw the population to the wolves with gun control.

Why is our government loading up on ammunition while at the same time trying to pass gun laws??

Why Does The U.S. Government Need So Much Ammunition?

In my previous article, I also noted that the U.S. government appears to be very rapidly making preparations for something really big.

This week, it was revealed that the Social Security Administration plans to buy 174,000 hollow point bullets which will be delivered to 41 different locations all over America.

Now why in the world does the Social Security Administration need 174,000 bullets?

And why do they need hollow point bullets? Those bullets are designed to cause as much damage to internal organs as possible.

But of course this is only the latest in a series of very large purchases of ammunition by U.S. government agencies. The following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson....

Back in March, Homeland Security purchased 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage, prompting questions as to why the DHS needed such a large amount of powerful bullets merely for training purposes.

This was followed by another DHS solicitation asking for a further 750 million rounds of assorted bullets, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls.

Now why in the world would the government need over a billion rounds of ammunition?

If it was the U.S. military I could understand this. You can burn through a whole lot of ammunition fighting wars.

But this makes no sense - unless they believe that big trouble is coming.

George Soros:

Perhaps even more disturbing is what he believes is coming after the financial collapse....

As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”

here we go again wisconsin. Romney was defeated, why do you keep bringing him up?

My goodness you are obsessed.

"WHEN then 2nd Amendment was written there was NO police force what to speak of. SO the conclusion made is that a Militia (aka civilian police force) was needed for the protection of the free states. . The only decision one reasonable person can come to, is that unless EVERY American is in a Militia..."

Bingo. It's everyones job and your my next SC nominee - a stoner I can live with.

the absolute intent of the 2a was to give the power of force to the people. it was meant so that every american had the ability to be armed like an infantry soldier from a tyrannical government, foreign or domestic, that would be sent to deny them their lives or liberty. it was the ULTIMATE check in the system of checks and balances.

Paranoia IS destroying us. The second amendment was written in a completely different time in history. There is absolutely NO COMPARISON with our lives today. Nobody needs an assault weapon, period. As far as teachers having guns? That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, and my guess is no self-respecting teacher would accept that responsibility. I know I wouldn't. Think people. You are becoming bat s**t crazy. The next dumbest idea are these backpacks. I mean, it just boggles the mind that people really believe that more of this s**t is what will "save their lives." You have just ended your lives and your freedom by subscribing to this nonsense. Grow up and learn to live together, learn to help each other, and learn to respect each other. When someone who is mentally ill needs help, we need to help them. We need to not think if someone looks at us the wrong way we can just blow them away. We do not need to create a bigger culture of fear than is already here. This is a sign of an extremely sick culture. I refuse to go here. This is not living. It is death to think and believe this way.

Heres a question that a gun nut can never make a good argument to answer: Why do you need an assault rifle? There is no reason for the average person to have one...NO REASON! Home defense you say?....What moron would start rattling off 30 rounds into his own house, destroying more than a would be thief was going to steal in the first place? makes no sense! Sport shooting you say?...PLENTY of other types of guns you can do that with, Its not about caliber or size with someone that is a true "sportsman" or "target shooter" so a .22 would even take care of that "trigger itch". Hunting you say?... Yeah it really makes a challenging hunt to just spray a swath of bullet until you hit the animal your going for, then have a nice time picking out a couple dozen rounds from it if you intend on having it for food, again NO SENSE!...These type of guns are worthless except to do one thing: KILL HUMAN BEINGS! that's what they are made to do, nothing else, and YOU do not need them....Oh and by the way I guess people are not thinking to far ahead by going out and buying these things as fast as they can. If there's a law put in place to outlaw these and you OWN one of these guns then guess what? You gotta get rid of it anyways or go to jail if your found with it.....again NO SENSE! and even if you say "oh I'll just hide it" well the first time you kill something/someone with it or take it to the range...i guarantee you that you get a visit from the police and then there are going to be questions/charges.....Get real, don't be stupid and for god's sake look at the real picture of these weapons.

What is an "assault riffle", I know of no gun with a model name such as that. I guess any riffle that is used to assault a person could be called an assault riffle! Really know what it is you are talking about before trying to to ad your two cents. As my grandfather used to say, better to listen a bit before opening your mouth and looking foolish.

FWIW - there is no such bird as a seagull, both are slang terms thrown around carelessly to describe what a person really knows nothing about!

Facts - AR-15 typically fire a .223/556 bullet which is the same diameter as a 22, they are also commonly made to shoot both 22cal (the low power 22 rounds you mention) and 9mm. They look the same to most people. They do not spray bullets, they fire one round each time you pull the trigger! Anything more is a termed an automatic weapon or machine gun. They have been illegal to produce for years except for law enforcement or military usage. Older pre-ban guns exist, cost a small fortune, require lots of paperwork and check to be sold or transfered, (look up Class III firearms) Plenty of criminals get there hands on them though, the new ones too and they get them at the corner gun store!

AR-15's AK-47, again are good weapons to keep for home defense, if you know how to use your gun (tool) you won't shoot up the whole house if you have an intruder. You could actually do more damage to your home by using a shotgun with buck shot! The above adapt well for hunting. Typically you want to put as few holes, and the smallest ones you can in an animal that you want to harvest to meat from. Can't imagine being servered any meat that looked like swiss cheese!

As for sport shooting, the above are quite widely used, the AR can be quite accurate to certain distances. Look up the sport of 3 gun, not to mention standard riffle competitions.

Term1 you obviously no nothing about guns other that the fiction you watch in movies and TV!

Actually Bill let me see if I know what i am talking about...a .223 is the diameter of round yup, with a MUCH higher velocity. Also the round is longer. making the impact and weight higher = more damage. Now for your "they make good hunting rifles by being adapted' hmmm. So you yourself think that having to modify a weapon to take and use for a purpose that it was not intended for makes a good idea? Wow I am glad you have a "southern" education to back that one up. And as far as the home defense thing...I am sure you think of yourself as a "expert marksman" that can hit someone who is running in your house in the dark trying to get away from you, with a gun that has a trigger that is meant for fast action and not "shoot your house up" Sorry do not see that happening and again if you are that great of a shot a 9mm handgun would be just as effective if not more so. Also as far as the difference in a semi auto and a full auto for home defense.... According to you a person (tool) who knows how use their gun won't go all spray happy with a semi-auto if they see a burglar, Yeah good luck with that! Most people will start pulling that trigger as fast as they can to eliminate the threat. Lastly I don't know about you but I have seen and used a few semi-auto that I could run a clip of 30 rounds out in no time VERY close to auto speed ( just check Youtube if you don't believe me and see). See an "assault rifle" is a category of weapon NOT a name..again your "southern" education comes into play where you can't differentiate things well. And a LOT of those type of weapons have a lighter trigger pull for guess what?...faster rate of fire, some have a smaller distance of pull also for yup right again...faster rate of fire...then of course you also have things like a trip trigger that can be bought to enhance the "action" of the trigger to make it in essence more double or triple action, there are TONS of trigger mods that get around the "semi" speed problem. So there you have it. You have now been properly informed so next time. Try again before YOU open YOUR Mouth and sound stupid...but then again as one of your hillbilly bretheran said so prolifically "stupid is as stupid does" so I won't hold my breath.

Oh a footnote for you Bill...ANYONE who looks at a 9mm round and thinks it's a .22 should STAY AWAY FROM GUNS altogether...they are NOWHERE NEAR the same size or shape. You are an imbecile to think so...

And we need to keep guns away from cretins like you. Mental health reform, yes?

dls--What, pray tell, is a "military cartridge"? An AR-15 fires a .223 round, same as the M-16/M4 carried by US armed forces, but that .223 round is popular in a variety of firearms, not just AR variants. Some are semi-automatic, some are lever action, some are bolt-action/single shot. Military snipers, depending their service and mission, may use .308 Winchester or .300 WinMag, both of which are very popular among hunters. Would you ban all those hunting rifles as well?

Is a military cartridge one that, as you note, is armor piercing? Sure, once can purchase armor piercing .223, .308 Winchester, and .300 WinMag, but then any firearm chambered for those calibers could fire it, so you would be banning every firearm chambered in that caliber. Of course, then ammunition manufacturers could (and likely do already) simply make armor piercing rounds in other calibers.

In short, you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. makes it kind of pointless to read even further in to your "proposal"

dls-387641

The only thing on your list I agree with and that will work is number 4. The other stuff has been tried and it already doesn't work, look at Californa with all of thier strict gun laws they still have a violence epidemic just like Chicago.

Personal firearms sales or the gunshow loop hole as most of you libs like to call it is not a problem. They are still bound by most of the laws FFL dealers are bound to. The NCIS does not allow citizens to call in background checks to them and does not have the manpower to do so if they could.

Limiting clips or the proper term of magazine does not solve anything. The time required to strip a magazine and replace it with a full one is insignifacant just like the round count. A well practiced individual can do this in about a second or 2.

Where would congress find money for a gun buy back program? They already can't eliminate the national debt and pay themselves way too much.

Violence is out there and always will be. Pray for peace and the violence can be stoped or reduced but have a back up plan such as an AR15 or friends who have them.

dls - Our Congress can't even pass a budget, so an amendment is highly unlikely. Well thought out post though.

So based on your rules my Browning Lever Action rifle that fires a .308 (common sniper round) and has a detachable magazine is now an illegal caliber. Thanks for making me an outlaw.

I got an idea...Instead of you all harassing and getting all butt hurt about losing your "AR-15" I say a law that would make ANY rifle that uses any clip illegal...it does take a LOT longer to fill a tube magazine...no more '1 or 2 second reloads" as one of the nuts above said. And as far as if it's a military round or not, Who cares if you want to use a elephant round on a rabbit. Limit the velocity of the round, thus its impact power. Plenty good enough for all you "dedicated sportsman" that say they use these guns for target shooting and not killing something with. Now argue about that...

Ah yes another un-educated firearms expert to tell everyone else what they need as it relates to firearms.

Armor piercing rounds are and have been illegal outside of LEO and military, don't worry the criminals don't care there illegal and still get their hands on they.

You can't buy and gun through the internet, directly, you can buy (pay for) the gun, it will be shipped to any Licensed gun dealer in your state (you choose, one would think close to you) when it arrives you will pick it up in person and go through the same background check you would if you bought it from that gun dealer. Difference is you will on pay that dealer a transfer fee. You paid the original dealer for the gun itself!

Gotta Luv people who have no idea what they are talking about!

More education for at least new gun owners would help curb the number of accidents per year!

btw - 9mm and 45 are also used by the military, 9mm is actually NATO (9mm x 19) should we outlaw all these too????

Good luck with that...

Well Bill good to see you have that "selective" understanding going again...Actually you got a couple things right. You can buy a gun online or from a catalog through a licensed gun dealer and its not a "i bought it then it comes to my house" type of thing. BUT what you so eagerly overlooked was that there is no background check for a Rifle. You do go in and fill out a piece of paper with your info (that's just a registration form) not a background check. A background check has to take place BEFORE you take the weapon home with you. This is the case for handguns..not RIFLES (at least here in Michigan). The only other thing you have right is that you do pay for the transfer/delivery fee that the gun store owner has in place. By the way I love it how you called other people "uneducated gun experts" which I have clearly shown you to be now in three different posts. I would like it if you just kept your trap shut and stopped posting, my fingers are getting tired of typing responses to clarify your ineptitude.

Term1 - "Clip", I am ok with that. Any soldier knows that there weapon uses a Magazine not a clip. Using the term "Clip" in basic training would result in 50 pushups. 7 years in the Army and 15 in law enforcement, and I have posted this before and I will again. I have had more incidents with knives then with guns.

I'm not sure why you left off #10 -- round up all the Jews and send them off to "camp."

Bullets do not act that way.

bulletproof materials are designed to absorb kinetic energy, not repel it.

Too late with all the congress nonsense. Obama has already told them to go to hell. As for your amendments, over the dead bodies of millions.

The term militia means armed citizens. The founding father wanted to insure that we could defend ourselves should the government get out of hand.

Here are some real facts that you should know. The source is our very own FBI. They publish a Uniform Crime Report every year. OF not is that the height of the AW ban the murder by gun talley was about 24,000. Since the expiration of the AW ban in 2004 murder by guns in the US has stedily decrease at a rate of 2%-4% and the FBI reported for last year, 2011, that the total number of murders inthe US by guns was 8,583 of those 323 were comitted with a rifle. The data doesn't show the types just that they were rifles. Lets say all of them were AR or AK pattern rifles. THat still only account s for 2% of the murders. There have been numerious studie by so many different groups and not one of them will say the AW ban made a difference.

Shotguns and hand guns kill more people in the US that AR or AK patterned rifles. This is just feel good legislation. Ammending the Bill of rights is not gonna happen.

So go get the guns from the gangs and criminals, and then get back to me. DA!

You really don't understand the constitution at all.

the vast majority of gun owners already do this. i doubt the people in the streets selling drugs and fighting over territory right now will follow this new law though.

I support making the owner culpable of what the gun does in all situations but one in which the gun is stolen.

Yes, exactly. Especiallys since their unhinged relatives are the ones that take the guns and mow down the general public. Let them be liable.

There are already laws on the books for this it varies state by state but they are there and rarely enforced

great..blame the crime victim whose firearm was stolen... do they also charge the mugging victim if the mugger uses that cash to buy a new gun? They shoulda had their cash locked up at home and shoulda only been carrying credit cards. Criminals do bad things with cash (get drunk and drive, buy drugs) so cash should be banned.

Original info was wrong. He had 2 handguns on him, one which he killed himself with. All the murders, according to the med examiner, were done with the .223 caliber AR15 Bushmaster, which was found next to him after he killed himself. They also found a shotgun in his car.

Just the media misleading us again, time after time, stirring up the angry mobs. Trying to cause a reaction out of fear and emotions.

Because you don't know how to read? Or is it the media plot against you and mtu?

Not sure where you are reading this info. Haven't seen it. Heard the rifle was in the car, then all of a sudden it changed. If you don't think msnbc would lie to promote gun restrictions I can prove you wrong.

JimD How many times were there conflicting reports of weapons used? It happens shooting after shooting. The media has no idea what the different firearms are. They just use wording that will make the most profit for them.

Right? So when the Medical Examiner stood at the podium during a press conference this past weekend and said and I quote " All of the children and adults were shot with the AR-15 and that most of the victims had suffered at least 3 wounds and some as many as 11" then he was lying?

I'm sure if you google it you will find the clip on youtube or one of the other video medium.

Don't be so silly. At the time that the information was being given things were still in a very fluid situation. There were a lot of things that were first thought that turned out to not be true. Everyone that is reasonable knows that you are not going to get the whole story in the immediate hours during the chaos.

How very accepting and liberal of you. So loving. So caring.

"You can never have enough guns to make you safe enough."

no crap all I ask for is a chance to defend myself.

the left has some fantasy that 300 million guns will disappear. it is like people that preach abstinence to end stds and unwanted pregnancy. it is fantasy land bs.

the government should get serious in fighting the causes of crime, we might get somewhere then.

Libs don't believe in evil so there is no logic to anything. Everyone is equal in liberal la la land. You see, Satan and christ are on the same playing field. This sadistic evil fer that butchered these kids was "just having a bad day". ITs what happens when you stop teaching people right and wrong and giving crazies equal rights. A whole generation of dum ba sses get trained.

Gun nuts, relax. You don't have to try so hard. The taliban, after killing women for vaccinating their kids against polio, has proven that they are still stupider than you.

JimD-406742

go kill yourself.

Four well armed and well trained police officers, on duty, in uniform and carrying their weapons were killed by a lone gunman while they took their break in a coffee shop in Lakewood, Washington. The gunman had the element of surprise, he shot them in the head so he could be sure to avoid the bulletproof vests they wore. The last officer to die got off a single bullet which wounded the gunman in the leg but that did not slow him down, he got away and was later turned in by his ex girlfriend. So much for being armed and protected by armor.

JimD still lives with his mother!

You forgot the remote-controlled 249 mounted on the ceiling corners, the guards with K9s, 'Where's your pass?!' Gotta figure going after the mindset, gotta change people. A law or laws can't do that. The hardware is already out there, hundreds of millions of 'em and billions of cartridges to go with them. Earlier a poster said better to have one than not these days. I believe it has come to that. Want that soon to be banned weapon, better pony up the loads of dough dealers are asking. Down here along the Arizona/Mexighanistan border they can be had in Mexighanistan for cheaper and better quality than the AR junk favored by Americans. Galils, AUGs, FN-LARs, RPKs, AK 47 & 74s, HK93s, etc. Lots of Valmet 47s too. Maybe up North and East of the US a ban will put a dent on ownership of said hardware, not down here. Outlaw guns and folks will get them south of the line. We can't even stop an illegal, how you gonna stop hardware from coming? Contrary to popular belief, Mexico is exporting hardware (including the magic that goes BOOM!) along with dope and cheap labor to satisfy America's need. Canadians come down here and score hardware (illegal in Canada to possess a handgun) from Mexico, costs them too much in the US. Many current hardware-owners are smart enough to keep their guns off-site just in case the politicos move to seize 'em. That's exactly what the Palestinians did when Israel outlawed them to have hardware. None were found in homes. The Brits had to deal with the IRA diplomatically because bombs were used instead of scarcity of guns. All that did was create some jackass to don a boomer suit and set himself off among gatherings. America is and has been a culture of violence. Mexico has outlawed guns forever and yet the violence is center stage. America loves the 2nd Ammendment and just will not part with their guns. A law can not change a culture. Where there's a will, there's a way monsters like the Conn. killer to Tim McVey and every murderous freak between will find a way to apply themselves. Guns or not, legal or not, these creeps seem to find a way. I'm frustrated in that America can find and destroy creeps like Bin Ladin and yet be impotent at gaining an intercepting hand at our home-grown terrorists! That's right, these mass-killers here in America are the real terrorists. Ain't scared of no Johnny Jihaddi, Tommy Taliban of Eddie Erhabi here within our borders, dispatched many of them to Allah while in the Green. It's these Yankee terrorists that make me wonder and shake in my boots. I don't claim to be anything when it comes to psychology. I'm as dumb as a box of rocks. I believe it is the desensitization of being a human in our gun-culture. Especially with what is now called entertainment today. Crap movies of gratuitous violence, crap on MTV Rap and war X-box games. Jack-assed, impractical idiots playing crap like Call of Duty. Get off your-lazy asses and sign up to do the REAL thing, ya jerks! Enlist in the Green! The world laughs at America's means to kill their own children and yet call itself a world leader. Can't even protect our children!

jolly, after reading your thoughts it seems absolutely amazing (although a waste of time) that you learned to type.

Four well armed and well trained police officers, on duty, in uniform and carrying their weapons were killed by a lone gunman while they took their break in a coffee shop in Lakewood, Washington. The gunman had the element of surprise, he shot them in the head so he could be sure to avoid the bulletproof vests they wore. The last officer to die got off a single bullet which wounded the gunman in the leg but that did not slow him down, he got away and was later turned in by his ex girlfriend. So much for being armed and protected by armor.

warren wrote - "question is where do all the people fighting in the middle east get the weapons we cant afford to buy"

I suggest you go over there and ask around. Let us know.

You got that right. If the rich owners on wallstreet that own washington have their way, we would all be working in slave camps. Its how they think. You have to arm yourselves because you have nancy pelosi's of the world running america. She would send you all to the gas chamber if she had her way. You can see it in her eyes.

so your theory is that all this guy buying is for investment purposes? Will your mentally ill relatives understand that part of it?

Warren, know that part of the world well. Better than most posting here. Know the culture even better. Hardware comes from China, Russia and the good old US! We're so good at it we armed the Iraqis and fought them twice. We ousted the moderates and installed Tommy in A-Stan to rid themselves of the Russkies. America even armed Tommy Taliban and are now fighting them too! I was there, were you? Add Egypt too. Egypt was second to none as a rendition point. Before there was GITMO, there was Egypt. Been to them parts too. Have you? We had a huge hand at arming Mexico and our cops are fighting the Narcos too! Know that side of the line even better! How about you? Just like America, in the rest of the world if you have something to say, it is better heard if you got a gun. Unfortunately, violence is the universal language and not music. Joker, the Wall Street folks have always owned Washington, you must be from England! More bang for your buck if yer willin' to walk across the invisible fence into Mexico like the Canadian crooks scoring hardware from Mexighanistan.

eric holder gave the guns to them, barry said it was ok.

Jim you are correct. I wonder what happened 4 years ago that caused that boom?

People were terrified of a black guy. Can't remember his name...... oh yeah, got it "Barack Obama". Turns out he was OK though.

JimD, I agree. Unfortunately, as my old Pappy used to say "You can't fix stupid". More guns in more homes to be available for the next sick person to use for slaughter. Yup... makes perfect sense to me.

That would be true if schools had at least one person that may be armed. You can't have a gun free zone, that is exactly where these crazies go. Remember , this guy killed 6 year olds. There is no sanity to argue with, he just needed a bullet before he could do something like this.

The Antipsychotic Prescribed To Adam Lanza Has A Troubled History All Its Own

businessinsider.com/adam-lanza-taking-antipsychotic-fanapt-2012-12

Maybe we should blame big Pharm and their drugs, before we blame the gun.

Google: Police killing, Lakewood Washington. Four young, healthy, armed, trained, armored, cops dead. The gunman only had a handgun. So much for your theory about the best protection being armed and trained being the best defense.

Since all the mentally ill killers are planning suicide, all they have to do is gun down several dozen 1st graders before the armed school 6th grade teacher can get the gun and run over to the 1st grade classroom and gun down the shooter, who is by that time behind some of the still living kids as a human sheild. None of this crap makes sense. The assault weapons have to go.

Until that sane, trained and skilled person with a gun is mistaken for the assailant by another sane, trained and skilled person with a gun. Couldn't tell you how many times cops drew and sometimes fired on other cops back in my dark ages in the Apple. Yeah, Kim, add another gun to the mix... I don't think that will fly! No such thing as skilled. The closest thing is combat! That's where you fire the tool of the trade everytime one goes outside the wire. Done that, have you?