Not a wise choice you may hit your doggie. May I suggest an AR 15 platform? Lots of great American companies make them, and it helps employ good honest people. Good luck.

Come on libs and Demitwats 'OH MY GOD IT'S A REPUBLICAN CONSPIRACY"

Your soooo right Stonepipe and Mike there is also the fact that an RPG is a one shot wonder, if you miss then the guy or the dog may bit you before you can reload!

whats nice about the RPG is that you dont have to be accurate when aiming, downside is blow off half my house ! maybe i will take "stonepipe2" advice and get the AR 15 platform and mount an grenade launcher feature...

Silverton.. Thy are registered when purchased. They all have an a serial number. The issue is privacy.. as is the case in New York when the NYT decided to post the names and addresses of all registered gun owners.

So lets do this.. lets giver out the names and addresses of all of the unarmed people and see which gets hit first.

Silverton, what Feinsteins bill wants to accomplish is to make all the grandfathered weapon owners pay $200 for each weapon they own, get fingerprinted, get their picture taken and have ALL their information put into a national database so that at any time, authorities can legally come to their home and have the right to search and potentially seize guns based on a perceived threat.

Does this sound familiar? It should because it happened in Weimar Germany, whose constitution was a lot like ours since it was drafted after World War I by the US, Great Britain and France. Hitler realized that in order to gain power within Germany, sweeping legislation was necessary to slowly disarm (emphasis on slowly) by first restricting firearms and have everyone who owns a gun register with the government. This way every threat (and I say this tongue in cheek because these were law abiding citizens and war veterans) is there on a piece of paper for government forces to pinpoint when they felt it was time to pass more legislation under the guise of protecting the people from themselves and seize the weapons.

silverton

Because its none of the governments business what legal law abiding citizens may or may not have.

Silverton,

Because gun ownership is a right and driving is a privledge. Would you like it if you had to register everything you say with the government?

It is interesting to see a harmless and respectful question like I asked above was collapsed. LOL

What are gun enthusiasts afraid of exactly?

I guess I am not one of those who fear the United States government or our local police. The Congress may be doing a lousy job, but I don't think they are out to kill us. Hitler was indeed a supreme manipulator, and used the media (radio mostly) to brainwash the public. This is why I find biased media reporting like Fox News extremely disconcerting. There are folks out there that actually believe that stuff (kind of like pro wrestling).

And no, Feinstein's proposal is NOT so people can come and search your homes. It's purpose is for the same reason that cars are licensed. I don't feel that my privacy is invaded by registering my vehicle and by having a driver's license. It seems to me that only someone who was paranoid and had something to hide would mind having his/her guns registered.

But, I agree that it is wrong to publish that kind of information in the newspaper. It serves no useful purpose and could actually be harmful.

As for davefromdanapointca, who says that gun ownership is a right, well, so is voting. You have a right to vote and must register to vote. No problem with that.

I have owned a gun and enjoy target shooting. I think automatic and semi-automatic weapons belong in the hands of the police and military only. But, if people are allowed to own them, then why can't they be registered, so if they are stolen, they can be tracked, especially if they are used in a crime?

Here is my concern with this.

What is the percentage of these people purchasing these firearms that are actually going to learn how to properly use them? How many are simply buying out of fear and will only gain a false sense of security by having a weapon in their homes?

I am all for gun ownership as I have what amounts to a small arsenal, but a weapon in the hands of an irresponsible owner is just as bad as on in the hands of a killer.

Please stay trained on its use, cleaning and proper storage. It only takes a simple lapse to see a small child shoot their friends or themselves.

While owning a firearm is a protected right, it can easily be taken from you if you choose to be irresponsible with it.

silverton-2953905

It is interesting to see a harmless and respectful question like I asked above was collapsed. LOL

Silverton it's pretty simple. The conservatives are all for free speech as long as they agree with it, personal liberty as long as it's just theirs and religious freedom as long as the religion is christianity.

WilliamOfRites,

Well said and sadly true.

Some people will simply never "get it". Guns are NOT the problem. It has been proven time and again that areas with more guns have LESS crime. Chicago is a prime example of failed gun laws.

If thats how you feel mike-2598123, you are a potential school shooter. Its people like you that shouldnt have gun rights.

The only reason we werent invaded by the japanese was that they understood our American gun culture. Admiral Hirohito responded to a question "why didnt you invade mainland America?" He answered "Because behind every blade of grass is an American with a gun."

The 2nd amendment isnt about hunting, Its about having military style weapons so real Americans can defend this country from ANYONE who would abuse us. Including our own government.

Never owned a gun where I live BUT funny since Feinstein is threatening to pass this bill i have this overwhelming itch that someone is trying to screw with my rights with some knee jerk reaction they feel they can impose on us....because of this in the last week I've purchased my first gun(gotten the background check), ammo, joined a club, taken lessons etc and plan on getting more as soon as possible

ClownsWillKillYou,

Please remember to get your new weapons registered. Thanks.

Getmadstaymad,

There is no written historical evidence of Adm. Hirihito making that comment about "behind every blade of grass is an American with a gun."

Apparently, it is just a fictional remark that is making the rounds on the Internet. (Sounds good though!)

silverton-2953905

1. Cars and trucks are registered so that they can be taxed as property.
2. Car registration is state by state, not national.
3. Guns are registered in certain states and municipalities.

SILVERTON-2953905,

The NRA has always been against gun registration because they believe "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it". There are numerous historical examples of governments who have used registration forms as a means to confiscate weapons, the Nazi example probably being the most famous. Soon after coming to power Hitler initiated a gun registration law. Subsequently, a law outlawing military small arms except for the government (sound familiar?) was implemented. Police showed up at residences where they knew guns were because the naive owners who trusted the government had dutifully registered them, and demanded they be given up (later they showed up and demanded that those deemed to be "undesirable" be given up). America is an unique country in all the World because the Founding Fathers wanted to eliminate the line which separates the Rulers from the People. If there is no reason for the people to fear or distrust the government, then by the mandate of our Constitution, the government has no reason to distrust its citizens. When the government breaks the compact of mutual respect by banning or confiscating military small arms, then they have violated the absolute mandate of the 2nd Amendment that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If the government doesn't trust me with a state of the art modern military small arm, why should I trust them with the same weapons? However fond one might be of the U.S. govt, history is nevertheless replete with conspicuous examples of its potential for corruption. After all, it is made up of humans, which history has also shown are notoriously prone to evil action. I see nothing to indicate that human nature has changed or that there are no longer Wars or the Rumor of Wars. The role of the "unorganized Militia" as defined in U.S. Federal and State law (see U.S. Code, Title 32, sec. 313 & various State Defense Forces) is to supplement or replace National Guard units for the protection of life and property in an emergency, and in that capacity, the Militia's role is a military mission. To restrict the Militia to the use of 19th century technology hunting rifles to complete its mission directly undercuts the whole value of an armed populace which stands ever ready to fight all foes of the Constitution, both foreign and domestic. America has enjoyed great domestic peace and prosperity for a long time. It will not always be so.

im a law abiding citizen...I get registered and background checked for everything

Clowns,

Thanks, I wish all gun owners did.

More guns more violence

Steven Kage...................well said Sir. It's nice to see a logical level headed informed post from time to time.

It's not gun checks, it's background checks for people. There is a great evil in the world and it is not the American people. It's called zionism. The believe that we(goyem)were put on this earth to serve them. They believe our property belongs to them. They use our sons and daughters to fight the wars that they want with islam. The federal reserve, the media, hollywood and most big banks belong to them. They have been stealing from US for a long time. Fiendstein, Levin, Lieberman, Bernanke are all enemies of our republic. They will get whats coming to them eventually. They can't steal the rest of our country if we still have arms. That is why the push for it now.

Our country has been hijacked by criminals. Is there any patriots left in DC?

riley - 100%

Funny Silverton how you lump everyone who wishes to protect all aspects of the 2nd Amendment right as having some irrational government paranoia. Heres a little bit of wisdom. After I left the military (1st bravo co 2nd bn USMC recon) after the Gulf War I got a job with the Dept. of Justice doing narcotics interdiction. Shortly afterwards I joined a tactical team and hunted narco-terrorists before contracting for the DOD overseas kicking in doors in Afghanistan again with DEA fast teams. I fear my government more than I can ever explain to you. I have friends who are SEALS, US Marsalls and Special Forces (1st and 5th group) and they will echo my sentitment. Know why this is the case? Because we have seen and experienced governmental transgressions both domestically and abroad all the way up the chain of command to the executive branch that defy logic, morality and ethics. Please chew on that because after youve seen what many of us have, its clear the 2nd Amendments erosion is just the first step.

Obama best gun salesman ever, i have bought 3 more since December a draco 7.62.x 39 pistol, rossi ranch hand 45 long colt and a m11 9mm

Riley - you couldn't be more accurate in your statment and description. Husband is retired Army and says the exact same thing. Have friends that were tapped to fly

OK - lets try this again because some stupid F-iong add for McDonalds is blocking the spot where I need to hit edit..only after it blocked the first comment.

Riley you are very right in your comment. My husband after retiring from the Army said exactly the same thing. He had an opportunity to follow a similar career path as you after leaving and chose not to said he didn't want to deal with the BS any longer.

We are one step away from having our rights trampled beyond any recognition and it will happen slowly and barely noticed.

Draco 7.62x39, nice! How's it shoot? Never put my hands on one before. It looks a little cumbersome (as pistols go that is).

Quit in Michigan,

We may not see eye to eye on gun control, but I think we agree that those floating McDonald's ads are irritating and sometimes downright frustrating when you are trying to click on something, but are blocked by an ad for McDonald's coffee!

shoots sweet , A little loud, but nice always wanted one now i got one never thought i would say these words but THANK YOU OBAMA , BEST CHRISTMAS EVER

and a true friend never lets you down in a tight spot.

Keep your guns, but please get them registered. Thank you.

Criminals and mentally ill people don't register their guns.

Now why in the world would anyone want to register their firearms with the government???? The stats may indicate that there are fewer households with firearms than before but that is most likley due to people not telling antigun organizations like the University of Chicago's General Social Survey that they own any. If the truth were known households with firearms is probably up. If not the households with guns have added more than enough to make up for those that don't. Most everyone that was ever faced with a violent situation has most likely wished for a weapon to defend themselves. Oh, that's right just call 911, the police will get there in time to write up the report and clean you off the street.

NoAplogiesforbeinganAmerican,

You must live in great fear all the time.

silverton-2953905 you never know when ,and where you may need it.

@silverton- do you have a spare tire in your car ? never know when you might need it

Silverton are you Feinstein or how ever she spells it - just using an alias? Since the election I have bought 4 weapons - went through the checks, etc. That is all they get. Somewhere is a document that links the serial number of the weapon to my name via the purchase check and paperwork that the dealer is required to complete. That is all they need and reality is they shouldn't really need that. To be honest the Local county or municipality might like to have it out of courtesy - and to save a headache if I should have to protect myself. It saves me from having to find a receipt to show I purchased the weapon.

whiskey eye,

yes, I have a spare tire, but I don't have a dozen Monster truck tires and a couple of racing tires as well.

Why?

Don't need them to feel safe or macho.

OK. Matt you're banned!

hahah!

Grow up, we invented them. They aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm quite grown up, thank you. In fact, guns have been around for over 1000 years. Americans didn't invent them, they just figured out how to turn them into idols to worship. Grown ups don't fall for every scare tactic gun manufacturers use to convince you to buy what they sell. Grown ups don't consider guns as toys to collect. The gun manufacturers win, decent Americans lose and the gun manufacturers laugh all the way to the bank.

by rushing out to buy the exact kind of weapon used to kill them?!

Because we know it is a dependable weapon and Dictators fear them. Any more idiotic questions?

Tell YA What.. When all of the liberal celebrities and politicians get rid of their weapons and armed security teams then I will consider it. I mean, if Obama thought security wasn't necessary in Behghazi then why do he, Ol' Joe and Pelosi need it?

navyvet98,

Probably because the President receives about 4 death threats a day. I think I read recently that President Obama has received around 45,000 death threats since he's been in office.

I think he does an amazing job to keep his cool and preside over our nation when so many mentally disturbed people are gunning for him every day.

@navyvet98 Oh I see. So its proven to be a dependable weapon for killing first graders? I'm overwhelmed with your compassion. And I usually have so much respect for our veterans.

mountain lady?

Tell you what.. speaking of compassion it is a fact that 344 people were killed by a rifle in 2011. That is all types of rifles according to FBI Crime Statistics. Now how many children were physically abused, sexually assaulted or murdered by family members last year? How many children were killed in automobile accidents becasue their parents wre too cheap to bu a 40 dollar car seat. An item given away by most state DHS. How many children were killed by repeat sex offenders last year? How many were killed by drug overdose or left in cars.

So speaking of compassion.. how about for once... just once... you and the rest of the liberal ilk start talking about the real causes of the problems and stop with the knee jerk reactions. Or are you one of those types that feel that the problems with our inner cities can be resolved by a few basketball courts and free school lunch programs?

Want the world to get better? Roll up your sleeves and jump in. Volunteer, get involved, get you friends involved.. look at the issues, help where you can. Mahatma Ghandi freed a nation and never fired a shot. Martin Luther King changed the nation for ever and never fired a shot. They were both assassinated but liver forever. The problem is not the freakin guns.. its your skewed, selfish, violent culture society that is the problem.

BTW.. my front door is not locked for my protect.. its locked for yours.

mountain lady, as navyvet98 pointed out, its clear you dont or wont get it. Guns are not the problem and the knee jerk reaction is often to lash out at something inanimate just to make it appear like someone is doing something. When this "reaction" is ill conceived, like the fervent rush to ban guns, it simple erodes our constitutional rights. How did Hitler take over Germany proper in 1933? Not by force. It was by simple changes in their constitution at the time, which was a great deal like ours since it was drafted by us. Slow restrictions on weapons led to a disarmed nation, one incapable of defending themselves against tyranny when the government became malevolent.

Think this is paranoia here in the US? Look at the tenants of the Patriot Act. Read how the federal government doesnt need a warrant to wire tap or read your emails or conduct a warrantless entry on your home. Evil things imposed upon a society always happen slowly until we realize that we are that frog in the boiling water who didnt realize someone was gradually turning up the heat until we are floating face up. Massive gun restrictions will never disarm bad people, ever. Nor a tyrannical government. George Washington realized this, Jefferson did, Franklin did. They realized that last line of defense is always the people and a disarmed people are easy to push around.

Mountainlady,

I wouldn't expect you to know with your anti-gun attitude, but "military type assault weapons" in the hands of the general public, is not and hasn't been an issue since the late 1920's. It is extremely rare that these are used in crime as they are highly regulated. Generally speaking, there are very few out there, legally owned or otherwise, and to possess one takes a huge investment, special permits and numerous requirements.

The things you are calling "Military Assault Weapons" are not, repeat are not, military type weapons. They look like them, but they aren't. They are guns and they can kill, but aside from cosmetics they aren't much different than many "hunting guns". They are reasonably compact for a rifle, they do function pretty well unless you use them with high capacity magazines. (Yeah, you probably didn't know that either). But let's be clear, contrary to what many are publicly stating, these are not the same type weapons our troop use in Afghanistan.

If there is something about these that attracts the mentally ill psychopaths who commit the acts like the recent school shootings, it is probably the fantasy aspect of their appearance. I suspect many of these guys envision themselves as some type of "soldier" on a mission. The reality is that these are no more effective "killing machines" than a lot of other weapons out there that look far more "innocent". During the previous assault weapons ban, the very same type weapons were completely legal if they were sans a few purely cosmetic, non functional features. That ban that so many say we need to restore, was useless. It targeted a few specific examples, but that made little difference because many equally functional weapons were readily available. The real difference is in perception. A public perception amongst the uneducated, has created a false representation of a uniquely dangerous nature of these guns.

But there are all sorts of false perceptions in the general public. Things like the desirable "green" aspects of hybrids, or the "green" efficiencies of ethanol. Or things like the need to keep "job creators" happy, or they helpful nature of trickle down economics. Or one of my favorites like the moral superiority of religious people. I could go on and I'm sure you know some of these.

Let me address a question in your post #5.0.

Don't I have the right not to have to live in fear of my gun worshiping neighbor and his arsenal?

No, there are no Constitutional rights pertaining to what you perceive as something to fear. I fear religious fanatics and corporate bankers. I fear highly motivated ideological zealots with their "well intentioned" passions. Should we ban these? I'm pretty clear that the Constitution allows for these.

But a right you do have, is to lessen your fears of your meth addicted neighbors possibly going crazy, with the protection provided by having a gun. Whether or not you choose to exercise that right is up to you. Maybe you can just treat them exceptionally nice and hope that if they ever flip out, they will remember what a nice, harmless person you are and go seek out a more fair fight target elsewhere.

As NavyVet98 pointed out, statistically speaking there are far more things to fear than the 300 million plus guns out there that for the most part aren't associated with any crime or acts of violence. Statistically speaking you should be far more fearful of a devastating financial meltdown or a major natural disaster like a large earthquake, wildfire, devastating flood, or even a massive solar event that destroys the power grid. Or that the drunk driver coming toward you crosses the center-line. It might make more sense to fear that the food you eat is slowly killing you or the "safe" chemicals used all around us will later turn out to have horrendous long term health effects. Or that the medication you take may pose a bigger danger than the condition you are treating with them. Or that the hospital and doctors you trust your life to, makes a mistake and accidently kills you like about 100,000 other people annually.

The fact is there are a lot of things out there to fear. And of those, most you can't do a damn thing about to protect yourself. However, some things associated with the threat of violence against you may be somewhat offset if you have the ability to protect yourself. In fact that is what is behind a lot of people owning guns. They are a very effective equalizer. No matter how you try to interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment, one thing that is clear is that the role of the gun is to provide some degree of protection. This is a right that we have. The Bill of Rights is about the rights granted to individual citizens to protect them from abuse.

I am a progressive and I believe strongly in the personal rights of individuals. I believe as a women you have a right to make up your own mind about how to deal with a pregnancy. I believe that gays have a right to choose who they love and should be free to marry that person if they so desire, just like heterosexuals. I believe that minorities have the same rights as anybody else. I believe everybody has a right to believe in what ever God they choose, or to choose none at all and also have the right to have a government that is free from religious bias. I also believe we have a right to protect ourselves from harm at the hands of others and that that right is specifically expressed in our Constitution through the right to bear arms.

I am fine with reasonable regulation associated with all of our rights, provided they don't infringe upon those rights or exempt some while excluding others at the expense of law abiding citizens. Restricting the rights of law abiding citizens does little to stop those who don't worry about laws. In the case of guns, it only serves to give an advantage to the law breakers. That is another valid thing to fear.

Eliminating guns completely won't prevent these tragic mass killings. The individuals who commit these act will just find an alternative. Now you can say that maybe so but there would be less victims. Well, that could be if the alternate method were something like a knife. But if the alternate method were a bomb, fire, poison or a variety of others, the death toll could be even higher. It is purely a theoretical argument. We need to be more focused on the individuals who commit the acts and find way to prevent their mental state from getting to that point. And for those who we can't prevent, we should be focused on how best to stop them as quickly as possible. These people will seek an unfair advantage. Equalizing that advantage will serve the purpose to effectively stop them.

Or a shotgun with 00 buckshot.

(which would have leveled an entire classroom in a second or two)

But, you can't tell anti-guns nuts anything.

They lack in the ability to use logic.

Newday,

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

@ mountainlady,

Go tell your neighbors you hate guns and not to try and ever help you if a gun is needed. They will understand

Mountainlady, You have not met my circle of friends and family. Our range of careers include deputies, surgeons, state reps, special forces, farmers, waitresses, various contractors and many more. We are good people that carry concealed 24/7. We all know our countries history and we know if we give up our arms, that our government will abuse it. Just as they did during Katrina. Did you know the National Guard disarmed all who came to collect food/water and seek a dry place to sleep? Next to the stadium, on the path to the porta-potties, several women were brutally raped and some murdered; they had been disarmed. That is how we became to adopt the "Castle Doctrine"; I will let you research that one.

I am sure that you heard this one, "If you take our guns, then only bad guys will have them". This is true.

I know many women who carry concealed, and they are very well trained in using them. But not only guns, they (along with the men), train in self defense and self awareness. Now, all of this stuff may not be for you. That is your choice, but it only takes once to change your life. Many women (and men for that matter) have come to us for training after being attacked; seems to be a day late.

Here is the category that I think you fit in. This is not name calling, it is stereotyping.

You are:

• That won't ever happen to me.
• I don't know guns, so I don't like them.
• Why are they so paranoid? What are they scared of?
• If I beg, the bad guy will spare my life.
• I don't want to be bothered with it, I'll take my chances.

We do not have the luxury of picking the time and place for the next strike of a criminal. It is your choice not to educate and prepare yourself for these things.

Aside from all of that... Self awareness training is a great way to socially meet good people. Maybe there is somebody in your area that can enlighten you.

I still think that our guns should be registered (okay, let the grandfathered ones take a pass on the fee charged to register them), and also that gun shows should not be able to sell guns without proper background checking, etc.

At least it would HELP keep the guns out of the hands of felons or the mentally disturbed.

In Virginia (a State with some of the least gun restrictions), you can be mentally insane and walk into any gun show and buy an assault-style weapon with a magazine clip and no background check. And don't tell me that I'm wrong.

But is it really an alter if I only have one candle on each side of the gun? Ritually clean it yes, but the floor is much to hard to kneel on.

Riley,

You are entitled to your interpretation, but I think the threats of a tyrannical government were addressed in other ways. Mainly in all the measures to make government by the people. I also think that personal possession of guns would not be the most effective way to oppose a tyrannical government. Granted, an unarmed citizenry makes it easier, but our system is designed to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place. I think some of what you view as tyrannical may be more like "abuse" by the majority and to be truly tyrannical you would have to suspend the democratic process.

When you take the Second Amendment in the total context of the Bill of Rights, it is more about personal rights. When you look at wording in the Constitution, a lot of language was put in to accommodate the concerns of some individuals at the time. And some things were deliberately left out for the same reasons, but the bigger principles are what matters. The Constitution didn't mention women or Blacks and that had a lot to do with the fact it would never have been agreed to at the time, if it did. But the bigger principle is inclusive and many of the framers envisioned it as such. Omission did not mean exclusion.

The Second Amendment is pretty cryptic in its language and likely, deliberately so. We do know though how it was immediately interpreted at the time, and that was as an individual right.

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

I believe the part about the militia was really about illustrating a point while emphasizing that they weren't talking about anarchy or domestic government controlled by a standing army. I read it to be more precisely to cover the bigger principle in this way.

As a well regulated militia is necessary to assure that a given state or region can protect it self in order to be free, likewise the individual must have the right to bear arms in order to protect his individual freedom and therefore these rights should not be infringed.

When you look at the totality of the Bill of Rights, it is about individual rights. It is based on the English Bill of Rights which did exactly the same thing. The right to bear arms in the English Bill of Rights was very specifically clear about individual rights. But English law did not provide for militias. At the time, a strong government presence existed throughout England which also had a standing army. From the standpoint of regional protection, there was no need for militias as such. However in the early United States, militias provided regional protection before the Constitution. These were not standing armies, but were local groups who could be assembled for protection should the need arise. Our Constitution was not about to eliminate militias and that was a concern of some at the time. But the statement, "well regulated" implies that they can not be viewed as entirely independent of the federal government. But militias did not provide for individual protection with arms.

In reality, the statement about militias is somewhat out of context with the rest of the Bill of Rights but it was a regional right that many felt needed protecting and some feared could be disarmed by the federal government. In a practical sense, the new federal government did not intend on a standing army and the militias stood as the first line of defense. They would also serve as the base from which a federal army would be called up. It should be remembered to that the US was considerably different logistically than England. The states had a very real reason to be able to protect themselves against some foreign powers, not the federal government as some interpret.

In the English Bill of Rights, they were quite specific about the personal rights to bear arms and even went so far as to describe the government abuses against Protestants in the statement of the right. Related to that abuse of disarming the Protestants was a justification about maintaining a standing army and therefore eliminating the need for the individual citizens to be armed. In the US Constitution, there was no such need to be so specific. However the basis of our Bill of Rights was very clearly rooted in the English version written almost 100 years earlier. The framers of our Constitution were former English subjects. They knew and understood very clearly the history that came before them.

I think the framers wanted to make completely clear that there would be no attempt allowed by the federal government to disarm its citizens for the simple reason that English history had done just that.

When you take it in its entire context, it somewhat explains the rather cryptic appearance of the Second Amendment. People of the time knew very clearly that it was an individual right and it was one clearly justified by the real history of their ancestors.

The things we should be concerned about protecting ourselves with guns are not about overthrowing a tyrannical government, but all those threats that our government can't protect us from. Be they individual criminal acts or even some larger movement such as a breakdown of order or anarchy that results form some failure of government. Arguably, what you imply as some effort to overthrow the government would in fact be one such thing we would want guns to protect against. In this regard, we may all have arms to protect our government, not overthrow it. In reality it is more about protecting against revolution rather than providing a means for it. You need only look to the Civil War to understand this principle.

I understand your position and I have no doubt that one ore two of the framers may have had very similar beliefs, but that isn't what the bigger principle is about. And I have no doubt that your view at the time had something to do with the cryptic language. Our right to bear arms is a individual right, but it does also serve as some degree of safeguard to prevent a tyrannical government, not to overthrow it. It is far more about our individual right than the later because we have a government elected by a democratic process, we are not governed by a King or similar monarch nor a self appointed dictator. You may see some of our elected leaders as behaving in what you view as a "tyrannical" fashion, but not because they have inherited or grabbed power. We gave it to them through the democratic process and we can take it away in the same fashion. Something the English didn't have. If you conclude that the elected government is wrong and needs to be uprooted, to attempt to do so by force would be even more wrong and you would be right where the Confederate States were in the Civil War.

We may both agree that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, but I think you are misguided as to the reason it is there. If you study history and keep it all in context, the bigger principle becomes more clear even when it may seems bigger or more inclusive today, than how it was confined at the time. Just remember, if you were to engage in overthrowing the government, you are overthrowing the Constitution too. Maybe you don't like what you see happening in government today, but as long as we have the democratic process, that is how you oppose the current status, not with your hands on a gun doing it by force.

@1newday Out there in the gun worshiping wilderness at LAST a few words of intelligence. My father had hunting rifles.... he kept them locked in a cabinet. He did not feel the need to use an AR-15 to shred his deer or elk to ribbons. He was intelligent enough to realize that in the more than 230 years since the constitution was written that times may have changed but gee.... in spite of the raving paranoia of the gun goonies.... not once has the government threatened citizens with the military or tried to take their gun toys away from them. Any reference to fearing that gun registration would lead to an American Hitler would have had him laughing. As far as my neighbor protecting me with his home grown arsenal... get real! I've taken care of myself for years, thank you. I am 62 years old and I've paid my dues to this society. The only thing I haven't done to serve is to fight for my country in the military but when I was the age for that they didn't allow women to do the job. I would have gone. I would have served.

As long as I've been old enough to understand, the gun advocates have been voicing the same tired and illogical dogma about the second amendment. The NRA has been bullying Congress for decades. I stand by my original comment. What about MY rights? Read the statistics in the above article. In the 1950's we had more households with the odd hunting rifle in the closet. Now we have fewer households holding what amounts to arsenals of firepower either because they are compensating for some sexual shortcoming or because they regard them as toys or.... because they "fear the evil government will git em". I don't need some gun toting cowboy wannabe rushing over to shoot someone in my yard to "save" me. I've managed to protect myself just fine over the years. Military style assault weapons belong in the hands of professionals!! Not in the hands of any Tom, Dick or Dirty Harry wannabe that can afford the price. Spare me the "guns don't kill people..... crap. EASY ACCESS to guns kills people! Fragmented state by state gun laws allow guns in the hands of just about anyone. All the manufacturers and gun stores care about is that you can pay the huge price and make them profit. And whatever sickness that affects you people causes you to spend millions of dollars keeping the gun manufacturers rich.

It is clear that we need to ban assault weapons and large ammunition clips. Clear to anyone with a brain. You can keep your hand guns, elephant guns or whatever you need to feel secure and manly. But society at large deserves to be safe from this insanity and I will continue to vote and to fight for reason in the area of gun ownership for as long as I can.

Excellent post 1NewDay. I weary of people like mountainlady who lumps all gun owners as gun nuts or gun worshippers. She really needs to deal with her hysteria and paranoia.

Rex,

I don't find mountainlady hysterical or paranoid. There are many people who agree that there should be stricter gun laws. Those people are not unreasonable.

You feel you have a right to express your need and desire to stockpile weapons.

Some of us feel we have a right to express our concern about those weapons being used by mentally ill, vindictive people, or by those with criminal intent.

I am not against gun ownership. One of my sons and his young wife have permits to carry a concealed weapon, and sometimes do so. I don't have a problem with that. But, they have their guns registered.

If anyone is paranoid, as you say, it is people who fear the government to the point they feel they must stockpile weaponry. Our government may not be perfect, but I have faith in our military protecting us from outside sources, and I do not live in fear of hostile take-over by our own government.

Seems it is only the paranoid gun owners that do not wish to find a compromise.

I don't think you understand much of what you're talking about silverton.

@mountainlady:

I am now a full and certified fan of yours. For a great many years I have held pretty much the same stance as you on guns because of the carnage and cadavers they create. I know we are on the side of what is right, especially when you or anyone else applies the index of what guns are doing to out children in the U.S. This nation can never truly call itself a civilized country as long as there are so many cowards hiding behind and worshiping guns.

mike-v3,

Well, from looking at your previous posts, I would say I know a lot more about my viewpoint than you do about your own.

Your posts regarding gun control have had no substance or knowledgeable material, and the most descriptive words you use are "shut up" or "libtard," and are used against posters who disagree with you and have a good argument that you cannot respond to with an educated comment.

It is people like you who should never be allowed to carry a weapon of any kind, registered or not.

Its painfully obvious that mountainlady is firmly entrenched in her misguided beliefs and will never change her mind no matter how clear and fundemental the facts are. She is just one of those people that believe most everything a news source like MSNBC puts out is fact rather than political propaganda. She will fight you on these issues to her dying breath probably clutching her laptop and the beaming headlines of MSNBC or CNN proclaiming that we are much safer now that only criminals and tyrants have access to the weapons we used to own and used safely and properly.

Well, I guess that would be better than stretching back in a lazy-boy, drinking Bucksnort coffee or Pabst Blue Ribbon, and smoking cigarettes around your kids while you watch Family Guy on tv and clean your weaponry to use when the Big Bad Government Man comes to get you.

LOL

@ Mountainlady

Background: Well I don't think I am compensating thanks... I have always had a caring family that was there for me and I have even owned / had access to weapons since about 7 years of age with plenty of safe handling guidance. Believe it or not being in my mid 40's, I've never wanted to overthrow the government, never planned to kill anyone, I have a Concealed Carry Permit and have even had an Federal Firearm License until wally world came to my town and put me out of business. Oh and I also use a safe for weapons and ammo.

The AR: Its like a Swiss Army Knife (This is where I lose readers I bet); you can add different uppers to fire many different calibers using a 5 round magazine (Except Socom)? you can actually make your AR the standard .223/5.56 which is a bit small for dear but perfectly legal to hunt with, the 7.62X39 and 7.62X51 are great for hunting dear, you can use the 9mm and .45 handgun round uppers for home security which is better control against the shoulder than using a pistol while groggy - if you've never had someone in your back yard at night setting off your alarm system and having the groggy feeling getting a pistol from a safe and trying to get across the house to check on your daughter to get her to your room then you wouldn't know? Yes a little run on but back to the AR, you can also add a .410 shotgun upper for smaller animals and personally my next step is to add a .458 Socom to hunt wild boar. I personally don't know anyone that uses more than a 10 round magazine to hunt and I prefer to use 5 rounders myself, my friends and family have never "Shot Up" the forest over one dear?

I have a police officer and his family next door and he is glad I am near while he is out on patrols, he has 3 young children so no lose firearms around his house but he and his family has all of our contact numbers. I have also taken my .45 pistol for defense of my Niece after she escaped out of her house with my 6 year old nephew after her husband put bruises on her in front of him. Luckily my .45 and my wife's 9mm weren't unholstered that night due to meeting my Niece at an out of the way location, Her husband had several Shotguns in the house with him.

Ban: If a retroactive ban goes into effect how many more weapons are going to disappear, do you know the premium that could be gotten for a rifle a few years after a ban? Did you know the actual "Rifle" is the smaller serialized lower part that can be taken apart and pretty much will fit in a peanut butter jar (No. Peanut butter shouldn't be in it thank you). I'm just saying... think... I personally wouldn't sell anyone a firearm from my collection without a FFL transfer now a days due to these IDIOTS.

If you have made to this point without replying negatively I really appreciate you taking the time to hear me out. I have further misconception info below...

Misconceptions: The NRA didn't shoot up schools but protect our rights and it doesn't matter if the Pelosi ban goes through I'm good and legal either way the Gov will eventually get by with more and limit something you like and then you will be complaining (Erosion of rights), just look at your cigarettes and cigars already? I have never walked out of a gun show without having an NICS performed and filling out paperwork. A grenade launcher, Assault Rifle and "Bazooka" requires a special license and sign off of LEO or a host of other higher ups, I cant afford one anyway, I have also never heard of anyone going nuts with one of these premium devices since the hoops are so hard to go through. You can legally add a 37mm FLARE launcher to your AR which will not fire a 40mm grenade even if you could get one so It all comes down to is how it looks to some people. A flash hider on a rifle just blocks the flash from the top of the barrel and cannot hide it from the front. A silencer will not completely mask a gun shot like the comical .50 caliber to a whisper you see in movies.

Stop following the herd,

Sounds like you are a pretty responsible gun owner and that you have all your weapons registered and are licensed to carry them. It is not people like you that worry me, it is people like your niece's husband who has several guns in his house.

What if your young nephew was caught in some sort of crossfire or a bullet ricocheted and killed him? Or what if someone stole one of the abusive husband's guns (or your guns) and shot up a room full of innocent people? As we know, these things happen.

There are many good reasons to have gun laws and restrictions on who can buy them, where they can buy them, and how many guns or how much ammunition can be purchased at a time.

You sound like a law abiding citizen, although I don't agree with your assessment of the NRA.

I agree with mountainlady on that. The NRA has bullied Congress and everybody who disagrees with them for decades. But I think those days of bullying are soon to be over.

Just one more time, civilian "assault weapons" like an AR-15 are not military weapons.

When we look at what has defined "assault weapons", it's really pretty stupid. It is mainly about something that looks like a military weapon.

A flash suppressor serves a real purpose for the soldier, but is mainly cosmetic in nature for the civilian and it offers no effective killing advantage. The light weight and plastic stocks are very useful to a soldier who must carry the weapon 24/7 in all sorts of weather conditions. They are nice for the civilian too, but again offer no lethality advantage. A bayonet mount really has very little usefulness to either the military today or the civilian, but none the less, this has been considered a characteristic of "assault weapons"

A thirty round magazine which is the current standard for the M-4/M-16. The original military M-16 had a 20 round magazine. It was a trade off for reliability, improvements eventually made the 30 round magazines reliable. Note that the military does not use things like the 100 round drum magazines. Not because they are worried about spending too much money on ammunition, but because these things are unreliable pieces of junk that are extremely prone to jam ups making the weapon inoperable. (Note the Colorado theater shooter had a 100 round drum magazine. It saved lives because it very quickly became jammed turning the weapon into a useless piece of metal and plastic. Few people know this) The 30 round magazine offers the soldier an advantage over smaller magazines because the weapon will fire in full automatic. Smaller magazines become a disadvantage when the second or two that it takes to change a magazine really counts when someone is shooting back at you. That mere second or two for a mass murderer who isn't taking return fire aren't really a disadvantage. A bunch of 10 round magazines would be equally as lethal in this case.

For the civilian there are a couple situations where the 30 round magazine is a nice thing to have. One is at the target range. It saves time and effort reloading magazines. Yes the target shooter could buy a bunch of 10 round magazines but it is economically more efficient to just have a few 30 rounders. The second situation is that it makes it pretty convenient to grab the weapon and go without having to carry additional ammunition. This is useful for ranchers and owners of large tracts of land. Very easy to just carry the weapon on an ATV or truck. It makes a light compact package easy to carry. Although an AR-15 or similar weapon is not what most would call a good hunting rifle for typical game like deer, it is a nice effective package for predators and nuisance game like coyotes and even running ground hogs heading for their hole.

And whether or not they are good hunting weapons doesn't have a damn thing to do with it. The Second Amendment is not about protecting our rights to hunt. The hunting purpose is something contrived by the ant-gun types to create a niche that they would find as an "allowable reason" to possess guns. It is a false argument

There is another situation where an AR-15 is a useful civilian weapon. That is as a defensive weapon against multiple attackers. The grab and go nature of the weapon fits this type scenario. True, you don't read about such things very often, however it is hardly something to be discounted. Such a weapon will offer an advantage in the very real possibility of a breakdown of order as can occur with some large disaster. We can make light of "doomsday preppers", but it would be pretty foolish to discount this possibility. If you live in the country, you are already more vulnerable from the simple fact that in normal situations, police assistance to protect you may easily be a half hour away. A two shot derringer might be just as effective against an up close single attacker, but won't offer much help in these other scenarios. Whether or not you want to accept the possibility of such things, you need to put it in perspective. These weapons will offer real advantages in a defensive scenario. However, they are no more lethal in an aggressive attack scenario against unarmed individuals. The advantage is in a fire fight and not in shooting fish in a barrel.

Personally, I see no real need to have one in my situation and I can't justify the very high cost for something that would have primarily one purpose. I feel I can adequately address these type scenarios through other means. A couple are equally as effective in a defensive situation as an "assault weapon", but they are not classified as such. However, my situation is different than others.

If we really wanted to focus some ban or regulations based on the potential lethality of a gun's design, we would be talking about more than 90% of all guns out there. Even a revoler with a bunch of speed loaders could potentially be just as lethal under these mass killing circumstances. You could conduct scientific experiments to prove this. A couple of seconds to reload and fire again has virtually no impact in such a situation where nobody is shooting back.

You may choose to debate it, but the Second Amendment is about having the right to have guns to protect yourself. The Supreme Court has made that clear. I am fine with reasonable regulation and the Supreme Court has indicated that can be fine. But the real debate is about what is reasonable. If I were convinced that "assault weapons" offered some specific advantage to the psychopaths who commit these type mass killings, I would consider special regulation of "assault weapons" as being potentially reasonable. An all out ban is not reasonable even if they were advantageous in these mass killing situations. The thing is that these events are well planned and the perpetrator will prepare himself as well as possible. The issue is that the perception of these weapons and the reality of them are two different things. One has to remember too, that regulations really only affect law abiding citizens. If I thought this would be effective, I would consider it a a viable option, but anyone who believes it would help is simply being naive. We had a 10 year experiment banning the sale of thse weapons. It did nothing to change the situation.

If you want to get rid of all gun violence, you need to get rid of all guns. That is an unacceptable solution and will only drive these people to seek out other alternatives. You can pretend that as an anti-gun person your goal is not about eliminating all guns, but in reality it gets there eventually. The RWNJ's can say their opposition to the President is strictly about politics, but we all know the reality of that situation too. That's not to say that some in these arguments aren't indeed seeking some middle ground, but the root of most polarizing issues is at the extremes.

All this talk about new gun restrictions is only causing the public to go out and get more guns. Anybody with a lick of sense should be able to see that this is counter productive toward their goals.

When incidents like the school shooting occur, we all react. But we react differently. For the vast majority of us our desire is to prevent such events in the future, but our solutions will be different. The thing is that we need to focus on what is the true common thread in such incidents. It is the persons who commit the acts, not how they go about doing it. It seems like we should all be able to find common ground on this, but virtually no one is talking about how we address the mental stability aspects of these people, all of whom have clear mental problems, otherwise they wouldn't commit such acts.

I do understand the anti-gun reaction even though I don't agree with it. I know I won't change your mind much, but I must appeal to your common sense. The very thing that you perceive as the problem is only expanding at an accelerated pace because of people reacting to your reaction. All the while we are doing nothing to solve the problem. You should realize that ironically, the gun enthusiasts are doing something in the way of utilizing guns in the hands of properly trained individuals to provide the protection that could be both a deterrent and a method to stop such events sooner. I am sure many of you don't agree with this approach but it is hard to deny its potential effectiveness. It is almost always the arrival of armed police that stop these incidents. Maybe not always directly but it is often the triggering event that causes the individual to stop and take his own life. Either way, it stops. It may be just a band aid, but it is in fact consistent with what the Second Amendment is about and why we have it.

Silverton,

In case you didnt see my last post I have worked special operations for the USMC, worked for two government agencies as law enforcement and now work as a contractor for them in Afghanistan assisting DEA fast teams in narco operations. Funny how you stereotype me so that I can fit in your neat little description of a gun owner. Reality is that Ive seen our government do things that defy logic. Since I have a security clearance I cannot run my mouth but Ill tell you that you are way off the mark sir. Any retraction or extra restrictions on gun owners is the first step towards much bigger transgressions. All one has to do is read the Patriot Act or Feinstein's bill in its entirety. The irony here is that Feinstein has a concealed carry permit and feels that she should be protected but you shouldnt.

riley,

My son and his young wife have concealed weapon permits, and carry a gun occasionally. I have no problem with this. They have both passed gun safety tests, enjoy target shooting (as do I), and their guns are registered and stored safely.

Sorry if you felt stereotyped, but I thought my response was humorous considering you were stereo-typing mountainlady in an unflattering manner.

Silverton you sound like a broken record with your registration requests. Your type is one of the reasons our forefathers stated "shall not be infringed". They safeguarded our right from overemotional people who think they are right for whatever circumstance they believe in and "common sense" tells them the 2nd should be changed to fit their desires. They had the foresight to see this and wrote the amendment in very simple terms.

In response to your argument that registration will help the cops track guns that have been used in a crime the answer is very simple.

When a gun is stolen the police are called, the theft reported, and the serial number is given to them by the owner. When the police recover a gun at a crime scene, or off of a perp etc. they can check the number on the gun and return it to the rightful owner. No registration required.

Letting the fox guard the henhouse has never been a sound strategy. Try this on for size.

2.5 million times a year a gun is used to stop a crime. Look it up. and quit pissing yourself.

Well I said what I said Silverton because mountain lady didnt really read anything 1NewDay tried to explain to her about what she calls "assault weapons". She is simply buying into the propaganda the politicians and the press are trying to cheaply sell her. You can lead a horse to water...

One note on the NRA. I have little use for them these days. They used to be a pretty good organization at one time but unfortunately they took a turn and decided the best way to protect gun rights was by becoming a Political Action Committee.

Time was that the NRA was more about education surrounding guns, promoting gun safety and shooting sports. They have always been about supporting the Second Amendment, but they did it in other ways than most of what they do today. Personally I'd like to see them get back to their original traditions. They got caught up in the political game. The gun issue should not be about politics just as other rights of individuals like, women, gays, religion, discrimination and immigration shouldn't be about politics either.

That said, the NRA is not completely off base. They sometimes get it right. Their approach to dealing with the issue of the mass killings was not so far off base. They did not suggest that we should turn teachers into armed guards as some have suggested. In reality, their proposal is a real viable option and many have already gone in that direction. I am reasonably certain that if we asked the kids, the vast majority would say they would feel safer with an armed policeman in their school. Think about it, if as an adult you are in a public situation that appears to be potentially getting out of hand, doesn't the appearance of an armed police officer make you feel a bit more comfortable? I think if you answer that otherwise you are either part of the problem or you aren't being honest.

They also emphasized the need to also address the issue of mental illness which is the common thread in all these cases. I think that makes good sense. I just hope they spend some of their lobbying dollars to bring this to the forefront and help seek solutions.

They also suggested that we need to explore the potential impact of the media in the way of violent movies and shooter games. We can point to things like violence in movies and games as not having any evidence to support their having a negative impact on well adjusted individuals. That may be true, although I'm not completely convinced. But I don't think we have much data on how these things impact disturbed individuals. We do know that some of these individuals do sometimes act in a copycat fashion.

That said, the issue of violence displayed in the various media is an issue that runs into another Constitutional brick wall. I don't think we have to ban this stuff but I think it is something that we as the general public can have an impact on. The reason this stuff is produced is because people will spend money to get it. In reality it is about economics. As a consuming public we can change that. I would also suggest that maybe the NRA can play a role here by reviewing and commenting on this stuff. Maybe their public approval or disapproval of specific examples could go a long way toward changing some minds. The NRA does have a strong following. Again, I see this as a potential opportunity to get back to their origins and playing the educational role. I'd like to see things like a story headline that says, "New movie X, gets a piece of crap rating by the NRA". Wouldn't cost much to do and who knows it could have a positive effect. it might help improve their image a bit too.

I wouldn't mind seeing the NRA become relevant again and not just a polarizing force. Maybe I'd become a member again if they did. I actually think they were reasonably on target on this issue, (no pun intended", but the problem is that very few wanted to even give them the respect to listen.

The NRA is far from my favorite organization, but that doesn't mean they are universally wrong either.

Nice post, 1NewDay,

And you, Jack-364934, before you have a coronary about my request for mandatory gun registration, should know that I have posted many times in the last three weeks that I am not against gun ownership and about my belief that armed guards in lower grade schools is a good idea. They have armed security in high schools and no one seems traumatized by it. I have suggested that kid-friendly police officers who also teach safety measures like bike and traffic safety, staying away from strangers, etc., would be a good way to have schoolchildren look up to the police and authority figures and not be afraid of them or paranoid about the police (as many people in this discussion seem to be). Of course, these kid-friendly police officers would also be armed.

I have also voiced my opinions on the mental illness issue and especially violent video games and movies, all a sure factor in the increasing violence in our society today.

However, I do disagree with 1NewDay's assessment of the NRA and do not think it quite as benevolent as implied.

The NRA has bullied and bribed politicians for decades. If it appears its prime concern is the gun owner and his/her rights, it is only secondary to its first directive.

The NRA loves money above all else.

But it appears the days of bullying by the NRA and its supporters is coming to an end, and new gun laws will be enacted. Of course, these laws will be helpful in the long run, but will still cause a frenzy among those enthusiasts who cannot see any side but their own.

You guys have some very good points. You all seem very smart and concerned about some of our civilians going overboard with the gun thing. We get it! There may be a small handful of people who are building arsenals to overthrow the government, but let us not turn a blind eye on the other realities. Not every incident is on the front page news.

The year that I retired from the service, there were over 350 terrorist attacks against service members; ranging from letter bombs to abductions. That stuff did not hit the news.

During WWII, General MacArthur pulled a battalion of tanks up on the town of Smiths, Alabama making mandates to the Mayor and Governor. Oh! But you guys do not believe that the militia has ever turned on civilians.

During my term in Fort Benning, A squad of Rangers withdrew all of their combat gear and raided a bar in Florida because the regulars there were prejudice. That never hit the big time news.

During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, several women were brutally raped and some murdered; many men had their faces stomped in because the Government disarmed the civilians that wanted to stay in the auditorium and/or get some food rations. Not to mention that our government contracted companies that were hiring ex-convicts to guard exposed properties. I do not recall that being plastered all over the news.

For us to stay competive against the bad guys, we need to be able to protect ourselves with the most effective products; which happens to be high capacity magazines and semi-automatic guns. The big stink seems to be over the AR15. Frankly, the common 5.56 and/or .233 are smaller rounds than what is generally used for deer hunting.

I am assuming that none of you have ever been in a gunfight. That is great if you have not, but let me tell you. When the shooting starts, an enormous amount of rounds go down range in a very short period. If our government only allows us to keep 6 shooters and single load shotguns, we are sure to fail against an assault.

I believe that there were over 1500 rounds expended between all the officers during the Los Angeles shoot out with the bank robbers. It is a scary thought that most of those rounds went into houses and cars. If they had been properly outfitted with comparable rifles to the robbers, the outcome may have been completely different.

If some of these guys want to run out and by a 200 round drum to slap in their AR15, then they are goobers. The drum is nothing but a hindrance in a gun fight.

I have been behind the sites of some of the most powerful weaponry this world has to offer. I am here to tell you that if a group of individuals get out of hand, our local military has the means to take care of them.

Let us get something very straight though. Some of you guys are creating paranoia with the words that you use. You claim that you support the 2nd Amendment, but you are scaring people that are not comfortable around guns (like mountainlady); you are not doing us any justice. Here is my point: Stop calling the AR15 (and like rifles) assault rifles and/or military type weapons; they do not compare. They may be cosmetically familiar, but the mechanics are very different. Its true category is SLR (self loading rifle). The word "assault" started mostly during the Vietnam war was used in a different context. Even the military has changed their terminologies for better public relations and to please the UN.

Which brings to mind, have you heard of the term "search and destroy"? The military officially stopped calling those missions that sometime in the late 70s, I think.

Anyway, I think that some of you are creating a much bigger stink than what is necessary. Can we not just support and pray for the families that are missing their loved ones from this most recent tragedy? That really breaks my heart and I have had several restless nights trying to figure out how we can identify these socially out-casted peons early enough to stop the next tragedy. Look at the last three tragedies this past year. These boys were definitely lacking in social skills.

The trick is to keep your eyes on liberal news outlets.

When you see an indicator, buy, and buy early.

I ordered new magazines and ammo right after the news broke that some idiot killed a bunch of kid's.

Now, we have naked men running around on bath salts or whatever, breaking in homes and trying to strangle big assed dogs.

No need for guns in the home, right?

You do realize the price went up because thousands more of these weapons have been purchased (more likely tens of thousands). High Capacity Magazines have sold out everywhere. The .223 shell is a common rifle round that is used in bolt action rifles, so even if the "Assault Weapons" Ban is re-enacted the ammo will still be available, plentiful, and remain inexpensive once the initial craze has died down. If the idea is to get more of these off the streets, then I have no idea what you are happy about. Now we have many more untrained gun owners with these weapons.

seriously???

GM Warren

of course it is, after all gun control is not, has it ever been, about guns....it about control. it really is that simple folks.

Actually if the FFA was required to use the same DNFL that the FBI/CIA had then 9/11 would not have happened. It was the only reason they go onto the planes.

Navy,

You have to remember that most of the liberal gun haters are followers, sheep if you will. How can you expect to have a logical discussion with a group that believed and then voted for Obama?

Happy new year!!

Ain't that the truth. Here in Colorado background checks are almost two weeks behind.

The funny thing is the NRA still won't take any responcibility for it.

does the UAW take responsibility for auto accidents? same thing different lobby group.

NRA has nothing to do with it. Try blaming the ACLU since they are the ones that make it almost impossible for someone to get an unstable individual the help they need until the unsable person does something "serious". Lets start by reopening those horrible asylums that were closed and the people just turned out on the street. Put the people that need the help back into an environment that can provide it. Lets use some common sense when the ACLU comes sniffing around and decides to take up a cause. In fact as far as I can tell the ACLU needs to go p- up a rope!

Domewars why should the NRA take blame for it. Ford, GM, and the rest dont take the blame for 40k deaths a year.

The American medical Association doesn't take credit for 100k deaths a year.

AARP doesnt take credit either.

Planned Parenthood, whoa! how many kiddies per year are they responsible for.

Actually, the NRA had a big part in that too.

They spread fear that if Obama was elected, he would abolish the 2nd amendment.

Then they doubled down and said he would do it if re elected and that we were all lulled into thinking he wouldn't since he didn't do it in his first term.

Obama never wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment and even expanded gun rights.

So to say Liberals caused the soar in gun manufacturing, is indeed only a half truth. It was also the fear spread by those conning the simple minded into thinking their fire arms would be stripped from their possession if Obama was elected/ re elected.

Mornin' loudmouth.

We are being threatend by the anti-gun nuts wanting to disarm us.

(not that that will ever work)

Or, haven't you noticed?

Why no Spewer, I haven't noticed anyone trying to disarm anyone. In fact, I have never heard anything even close to disarming everyone ever suggested. You sure you aren't imagining this?

I suppose I am.

And I think we are all imagining the fact that gun sales are booming.

Part of Obama's stimulus plan?

Oh no, the gun sales are definitely rising, there is empirical evidence supporting this. What is your evidence that Obama wants to disarm everyone in the country like you gun-nuts constantly claim?

You do not need to look much farther than the past.

It has also been done in modern times by government.

And mostly by liberal "governments".

You need to look no farther than the weapons control laws that have made Australia's crime rates soar to see this.

Not to say that it will happen in the United States (because it won't).

But some of us are like Boy Scouts.

We are always prepared.

You still offer no evidence, Spewer, just some meaningless dribble about "liberal governments" and some vague generalization about how it's "been done." Funny, I seem to remember Australia's gun control being a huge success, but, when living in a fantasy world where Obama is trying to take everyone's guns away, I guess you can pretty much infer anything you want to into the Australia case.

Ya think?

You have a short memory also?

Here, let me help you out.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/australia.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFU1CxYNnG0

Just look no farther than California. They have gone door to door in the past. They even went so far as to threaten a teenager who was a competition shooter with prison time if she didn't give up her target .22 pistol because it had a modified grip that wasn't factory standard. Now they have some of the worst crime in the nation and the worst gangs in the nation. Ever heard of MS-13?

ANY firearm bought through a dealer requires a background check. This includes rifles, shotguns and handguns, but does not include black powder/primitive weapons.

Funny, I was given a tee-shirt for Christmas by my wife that says just that.

just as freedom only has two enemy's ...pacifism and liberals...yet i regress.

I consider myself a Liberal and probably have more firearms than everyone here combined. I have also served 23 years in the Armed Forces.

So let's please stop the stereotypes that every Liberal is a tree hugging , anti military, let's ban all firearms type of person, OK.

All it does, is shows your ignorance by choosing to not use your critical thinking skills by lumping everyone into your easy to use categories.

@ NYMike

So let's please stop the stereotypes that every Liberal is a tree hugging , anti military, let's ban all firearms type of person, OK.

Let's please stop the stereotypes that every Conservative is gun hugging, pro-military, let's all own machine guns type of person, ok.

All it does, is shows your ignorance by choosing to not use your critical thinking skills by lumping everyone into your easy to use categories.

The same can be said about the gun grabbers.

your statistics are incorrect -there is one from Gallup, a much more reliable and objective source: Google it and see, since this site won't allow me to post a link.

http://extranosalley.com/?attachment_id=20954

I have no problem posting links. It's not the site stopping you.

But yes, on the East Coast, the number is about 35%.

However, it climbs up to about 55% in the South.

Actually if you have a relatively new account you can't post links.

@ Night

Yep, I can't post links either because they say my account is too new.

You can dial 911 but since police only react after an incident has occurred they usually only show up in time to write up a report & to take pictures of the corpses. It's not their fault that is just how it is. You're responsible for your own safety.

Yes William because all 85+ million gun owners in this country are paranoid, toothless, inbred, redneck. hillbillies, who are married to their brothers/sisters...Did you also know they all dropped out of school in the 1st grade? In addition, they are all compensating for tiny small penises. Even the millions of women gun owners have tiny small penises. It's 100% true...

Did you also know that anyone hiding behind their guns, you know like our military men/women or police officers, are only doing so because they are total cowards & afraid of the world. It's 100% true.

Too bad all of those gun owners can't be like you William, you know a real man. LOL

So if you are up to it give it a try

Another calm, rational, intelligent gun owner CHALLENGING someone to break into his house so he can use his big, bad penis substitute.

So confusing why the gun control people think you are all a bunch of insecure wannabe's just aching for a chance to be the "macho tough guy"

Go figure.

zorro, your chest thumping challenge does nothing but show people how much you crave to use your firearms.

Here's a better thought. Own a firearm and pray you never have to use it.

Leroy

Don't forget , don't ever travel in the USA again. Let me know if I can be of any further help.

Thanks Kevin, and if aliens should ever invade, I may call to see if you have an extra gun. I could have used "the government coming to take everyone's guns away" as an example as well, but I thought the alien scenario was more likely.

Don't remind them of that Sam, they might start getting ideas!

slaughter-(noun) The killing of animals for food.

The kids were eaten too? Thats disgusting... even tho the word was misused I like it.

You cant spell skaughter without Laughter

Hey leroy, get on your knees and pray that gun owners in this country aren't the neanderthal homicidal crazed animals you and a lot of of jackasses portray them to be.

Actually, it's a FACT that while Gun Ownership and lawful concealed carry have continued to climb to their highest levels in history, the violent crime rate continues to DROP to its lowest rate in thirty years. Just because these terrible tragedies get blasted all over the news, the fact remains that they are quite rare.

Heres a fact for you Concerned citizen.

2.5 million guns are used every single year to stop a crime. How many kids get saved? How come we never hear about this on the nightly news. Thats an average of 6890 times a day in the U.S. Not one mention of it from the media. Gotta wonder why.

We rank number one in the world in gun homicides and gun ownership. More guns mean more dead people.

These rampagers weren't criminals 3rd, they had no underground connections they could use to obtain illegal weapons. They were, however, troubled young men with social and psychological problems that were well known. They should have and could have been prevented from arming themselves.

leroy brown

The kid in Newtown tried twice in the week prior to the shooting to purchase a gun but was turned down both times. The laws in place prevented him from legally obtaining a gun on his own. THEN he killed his mother & stole hers. Laws only stop non criminals. You can't legislate an evil heart.