Be careful, all the liberals on here will start accusing you of being a gun nut.

At least the police in San Diego have better aim than the police in NYC. In NYC they are more likely to hit an innocent bystander than they are the actual criminal. I am just glad that no one in the theater was injured and that they got this lunatic. Things could have turned out much worse.

Good guys with guns stop bad people everyday. Go Army!

Btw, I get your point completely.

I am a veteran and after carrying an assault rifle (M16) for twenty years, I still have one hanging on my wall. No, not a M16, but a civilian model look alike that will still do the same damage, just a little slower.

For those wondering why I'm still armed after 20 years of military service just refer to the above story and the almost daily report of shootouts at public places like department stores, grocery stores, and theatres. The very places I take my family all the time.

Now before some smart Alec asks how I take an assault rifle with me, I don't. I take it's little brothers, a .45 auto for the car and a .380 for my back pocket. I'm a firm believer in "having it but not needing it, over needing it and not having it".

As long as others behave, they will never know it's there.

This liberal believes in the 2nd Amendment and that we will keep our guns. We just need to:

1. Outlaw Semi-auto guns, clips of high capacity AK-47 type,

2. Make penalties very heavy on the gun owner as well as the perp... this is most specifically directed at parents who have no security for their firearms and kids get to them so easily. If you are not going to be a responsible owner on your own... we will make you pay a big price if one is used in a crime.

What is the deal with people wanting to outlaw semi-automatic weapons? All of a sudden, "semi-auto" seems to be the battle cry of the left. Does anyone else realize that "semi-auto" weapons only shoot one round at a time? Also, most guns in existance right now are semi auto, so all of you jumping on the "ban will solve all of our problems" bandwagon, what guns do you intend to leave legal for the rest of us to protect ourselves from the criminals and evil people who won't obey the ban at all? Also, ever think that I might want a high capacity magazine to protect my self from the bad guy with a high capacity magazine?

OK I'll say it first. Ban movie theaters. This whole thing will never get solved. It's just to big.

@23 skidoo - Do you realize that almost every handgun sold today, and many rifles are semi-auto. There are not too many people who single shot bolt action or lever action rifles these days. You need to think about what you are saying. A standard .45 cal or 9mm handgun is a semi-automatic. Any weapon that does not require you to manually do anything to remove the old cartridge and load a new one in the chamber between shots is considered a semi-automatic. To ban semi-automatic weapons is to ban virtually all modern firearms. As to the second part of your statement, I agree completely.

rodney

Also, ever think that I might want a high capacity magazine to protect my self from the bad guy with a high capacity magazine?

Define high capacity magazines. Are you talking about a 100 round mag? Or are you talking about something between 10 and 20 rounds? I'm not for banding any weapon or magazine. But I am for certain types of weapons and magazine should require a special type of back round check (like they do for automatic weapons).

Gun Nuts (and yes, that's what you are) somehow think it's a good thing that people are walking around in America, armed with deadly force; everyone ready to inflict terrible bodily harm to everyone else. Other countries manage to avoid this. How can this be a good thing?

Gun Nuts just gotta feel that hot discharge from a long, hard, gun barrel.

Hi Porter, the Liberal Left is more than welcome to come take my firearms any time they want. Of course how they are going to do that unarmed remains a mystery to me... The point here is somewhat subtle, so let me make it clear. Security starts with what you as an individual are prepared to do to protect yourself, not what somebody else is going to do to protect you. If you are unwilling to do anything, then you really are part of the problem- and no, telling me that 'I' cannot do anything so that 'you' wont have to do anything, is not an answer.

Hand gun.

This whacko, who the police had to shoot, had a hand gun. I do believe that we need to be a lot more discriminating about who is allowed to purchase a hand gun.

I saw a stat that says there are approx 200,000 hand guns stolen each year.

Hi Porter, the Liberal Left is more than welcome to come take my firearms any time they want. Of course how they are going to do that unarmed remains a mystery to me. ..... The point here is somewhat subtle, so let me make it clear. Security starts with what you as an individual are prepared to do to protect yourself. If you are unwilling to do anything, then you really are part of the problem- and no, telling me that 'I' cannot do anything so that 'you' wont have to do anything, is not an answer.

Rick, are you safer with a gun? How do you know?

Are you defenseless without a gun?

Are you safer with a gun, when so many other people also have guns?

Should everyone have a gun? If not, who should not have a gun?

No one is coming to take your guns away. Relax, if you can.

This was a domestic dispute involving a person with a handgun and the movie theatre was incidental but leave it to nbc to put up a headline that would imply another Aurora type situation.

Rodney-1157549

What is the deal with people wanting to outlaw semi-automatic weapons? All of a sudden, "semi-auto" seems to be the battle cry of the left. Does anyone else realize that "semi-auto" weapons only shoot one round at a time? Also, most guns in existance right now are semi auto, so all of you jumping on the "ban will solve all of our problems" bandwagon, what guns do you intend to leave legal for the rest of us to protect ourselves from the criminals and evil people who won't obey the ban at all? Also, ever think that I might want a high capacity magazine to protect my self from the bad guy with a high capacity magazine?

This is a valid argument. However I disagree that "semi auto" is the battle cry of the left. Semi auto is the bogey man of the unintelligent and lazy reporting of sensationalist media. Your definition of semi auto is spot on given the fact that semi auto when referring to a firearm means that the weapon mechanics allow for a weapon to be fired again automatically after the current round is fired.

Revolvers

rifles

some shotguns

carbines

Machineguns

Eliminating high capacity magazines will do nothing when all a person needs do is drop the current magazine and load another. In the hands of a professional or someone with even basic training it can be accomplished in less than two seconds. Firearms are not the problem, the person pulling the trigger is. The accessibility to weapons isn't the problem, the person making the decision to use it is. Second to that is a rabid and out of control media that:

Glorifies every incident with no regard to the victims and survivors feelings and is as guilty with their in your face round the clock "let's repeat this story until the next one" attitude.

Refers to a tragedy by "body count".

Instead of vilifying the assailant/s they will while on the air compare tragedies in the same manner that sports shows compare quarterbacks in a game: by statistics.

The same media that gives more air time to the assailant than the actual incident.

The same media that takes NO RESPONSIBILITY for literally inviting copycat style repeats.

After all....if it leads it bleeds. You want proof? Unless the victim is someone famous, you will rarely ever read another word about the victims after the story is deemed "no longer relevant "unless they are being compared to the latest incident.

At least the bad guy got shot. In the future, if he survives, he will know first hand what it is like to be on the receiving end of a gun and might think twice before using a gun against another person.

Rick (#1.9 above) is a very typical gun nut answer. Rather than actually answering the question ("How can this be a good thing?") he struts out into the schoolyard, all pumped up with testosterone.

It's clear proof that he doesn't have an answer .... except maybe the one I provided. That must be the way Rick gets his rocks off. It's a shame the country suffers as a result.

@Wyatt - As with most pro-gun types, you have missed the point trying to be put across by most anti-gun types. That is, there is no objection to well trained, stable minded individuals having guns. The objection is to having so many guns available that it is easy for a normally stable individual to lose his temper and take up a gun to use it against the one to whom hisanger is directed. If the perp here was chasing his girlfriend with the intent to slap her instead of trying to kill her, the outcome would be far different.

@Wet Willy - So what headline was supposed to be used? This one is factual. You may be a little too sensitive about it because you continually wake up every day to find another incident has occurred.

Porter Rockwell

you are a sick person you need help. It sounds to me as though you are describing yourself here and not other people.

That good guy with a gun was a cop. They are supposed to have guns. Where were all of the armed citizens who carry guns legally?

Just remember that there are millions and millions of people who sleep in their houses, walk down the street, drive to dinner, go to work, and yes, see movies without the need for a personal firearm.

I don't know where I stand on gun bans or gun control. Do we need them? Do they work? Is it just a big waste of time? I am a liberal and I own guns. I love guns. I love the way they look, I love the way they feel in my hands, I love the feeling I get when I hear the bullet strike the metal plate at the range, I love the way the clay pigeon explodes into a bright orange cloud when I hit it just right.

What I DON'T love is to hear some guy bragging about his guns in a way that tells me that nothing would please him more than if someone was in his house at 2:00 AM and his only decision is wether he should drop him with his .40 S&W, cut him in half with his Mossberg Home-Defense model 12 gauge with 00 buck shot, or double-tap him in center-mass and put one between his eyes for good measure with his Colt .223 (5.56 mm) semi-auto AR with the red dot sight.

I think it would be a literal pain in the butt to carry a gun around with me every time I leave the house. I have lived almost 50 years without ever having a situation where I needed a gun. I think that it puts you in a situation where people (or the courts) ask, "Why did you shoot?" or "Why did you not shoot?"

Gun control is a very personal and touchy subject for many people.

Me, I don't care. I would love to own a tank one day.

"Home invasions" make the news more often than not, and typically (almost by definition) involve multiple assailants, so yes, there is a practical reason for a 30-round magazine. Should the 100-round drum type magazines be banned? No, but potential buyers should be advised that the springs in those tend to get a little weak when you're down to about 20.

Seriously, I live in a large rural county, and while I may have total confidence in the integrity and professionalism of the small sheriff's department I'm served by, the laws of the physical universe put a hard limit on their best possible response time. If I have two or three meth addicts shooting at me, I need to have some capacity to hold them off until help arrives.

BigJeff, I like what you said about personality types, which is a separate matter from guns themselves. I might be getting a concealed carry permit soon, just to have that extra evidence of good citizenship, but I don't really intend to go spend hundreds of dollars on a handgun right away, and if I do, I won't be waiting for a chance to use it. Be that as it may, I need to go to the dentist before I do either of those things, anyway.

JJ-3487307

isn't there strict gun laws in California now?? then how do they work?? oh ok then we can make more,NOT

BigJeff,

"I think it would be a literal pain in the butt to cary a gun around with me every time I leave the house."

I feel the same way about phones. What I think we need is phone control. Otherwise, good post!

I'm a person who enjoys the shooting sports ( AKA gun nut ) I have carried a gun for over 30 years. I have only pulled it twice and never had to fire it. We can argue all day about the merits of the arguments on both sides. All I can say is " the places with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rates". The countries that have outlawed firearms completely England and Australia have seen major increases in violent crime. I don't have to argue with anyone the facts speak for themselves. P.S. "Those who would trade Liberty for security deserve neither". I believe a gun nut named Franklin or Jefferson said that.

A related story: Yesterday, in Chicago, two boys (14 & 15) were shot and killed. I thought Chicago had very strict gun laws? Also, on New Years Day three were killed and twelve wounded in fifteen separate Chicago shootings. Why weren't these stories on NBC, rather than a contrived story about a movie house?

Rocky (post #1.17) ... STILL didn't answer the question.

Didn't I read somewhere that getting your rocks off with high powered weapons turns your brain to mush so that you have a reading comprehension problem?

This, NRA, is why Joe average citizen should NOT have a gun! Chasing the girlfriend across the mall parking lot with a loaded handgun - really? What plausible reason can you find for this idiot to be armed? This guys verbal skills are so bad that his communication device is a handgun?

US crime statistics for armed with gun idiot vs. another person are some of the worst in the world! Other "civilized" countries have less than HALF the gun violence that we do. And yes, they have seriously strict gun control laws.

There are an estimated 60 million gun owners and an estimated 300 million guns in the U.S. In Florida alone we just passed the 1 million mark of concealed weapons permits approved. That means 1 in 17 in Florida now have the ability (and assume most likely do) carry concealed in most of their daily lives (me included). With that many guns owned by legal gun owners obviously it is not the guns that is the problem - it is the parasites that illegally use them.

The responsible gun owner keeps their guns clean and actively practice. I pray I will never need it to protect myself or my family but have comfort knowing when bad people want to do bad things I won't have to be known as the victim. But you will never know I own a gun (actually 7 guns) and I am fine keeping it that way. But having it when needed is most important. Afterall, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

I never trample on your right NOT to have a gun and respectfully request you return the favor.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And if they couldn't steal a gun they would steal a machete, a pitchfork, or make a homemade bomb. Taking guns from legal gun owners is not and never will be the solution. Enforcement of CURRENT laws are the solution.

In this case we had a "good guy" with a gun and stopped a "bad guy" with a gun. But we are told that "won't work". Really? Seems to work every time I see a story where a "good guy" has the opportunity to stop a "bad guy".

The liberal solution? Take the guns away from the "good guy". Kind of backward thinking? Isn't it?

Just Wrong: You are warping the statistics. Yes they have less GUN violence because they don't have guns. But they have MORE violence BECAUSE the people have no way to protect themselves. The criminals just use machetes, swords, etc.

But your statistics only makes sense to the uninformed. That is like an island that does not allow cars having less "car accidents" versus another part of the country. Well DUH!! But they may have more moped, bicycle, etc. accidents.

Either you are uninformed and didn't recognize the incompetence of your statistics OR you intentionally tried to mislead others in this forum. I will let the others in this forum decide which is the case.

At some point the guy, whom is already assumed to be bad by our fellow posters, was wheeling a gun around like a lounitic running through a parking lot in, supposely, pursuit of a girl said to be his friend. The police showed up and the "bad" man ducked into a theater that just so happened had a gun incident just days before. The "bad" man must have not took orders given by police, as they would be justified to command complience based on the information given to them, I'm guessing, and at some point the police must have seen the gun and shot the "bad" man. Case closed or more questions then answers to come?

Just Wrong,

"This, NRA, is why Joe average citizen should NOT have a gun!"

The NRA is just a lobbying group that many gun supporters join, but it doesn't have anything to do with gun ownership. Many people, myself included, own guns but have nothing to do with the NRA. There are also many retired people in this country, myself included, who don't belong to AARP, another lobbying group that is supposed to represent the interests of retired people. You don't have to support either organization to own a gun or be retired. The decision to do so is just a political choice.

Porter Rockwell.....bet you've had your share of feeling 'hot discharges'....I grew up in Wyoming where EVERY home was full of guns and EVERY person had one handy....it was and is a peaceful place cause everyone knows they need to be cool..........

I have my views on the whole gun ownership deal, and they're pretty much a middle-of-the-road stance (common sense moderation on mag size and round discharge speed), but when it comes to any clinically sane person with a pulse being able to carry their guns in public places (either concealed or worse, in plain sight), this is where I have the problem. Plain and simple, if you plan on carrying anything larger than a popgun in your coat pocket, or in a holster on your belt or shoulder, you have better grow eyes in the back of your head! Ladies have a better chance of hiding the fact that they're carrying due to the guns being in their purses. But, the guys usually have this big ego thing going on, and because they have to feed that ego by making sure everyone in a 100-mile radius knows he's armed to the teeth, he's going to not take the caution to hide the telltale bulge on his belt or in his jacket.

Criminals on the street are supposed to see that he's packing heat and run away....lol....when in reality, these criminals will be plotting a way to knock you down from behind (a pipe to the head will suffice) with the one and only purpose of relieving you of your firearms!!! Then what?? What you will have made easy is that you just gave the criminals more arms to use when committing their crimes. Thanks a lot!!

Look, arm yourself to protect your property, in a responsible manner, from whatever dreamed-up government conspiracy you may want to believe....no problem! What you do in your own home is none of anyone's business. But, to blatantly flaunt the fact that you are armed in public is just an invitation to chaos. And, if you think all your gun training is going to make it so you can kill off a stranger, who may have accidentally bumped into you on a crowded street, and not spray your ammo so that others near him/her are not wounded or killed, you are a fool!! And, what if you did hit the guy with one shot from your "manly" 44 Magnum, like Dirty Harry! You may just have killed him, and the person directly behind him!! Ever think of these things, or is "collateral damage" an acceptable circumstance?

I do NOT think banning all guns is the answer, but banning overly powerful, and rapidfiring guns and ammo is something we really need to explore.

Just Wrong....the culture here is the problem...NOT guns or other weapons...we are becoming a nation if self- centered un-feeling narcissistic bullys.

Devil's Advocate,

"when it comes to any clinically sane person with a pulse being able to carry their guns in public places (either concealed or worse, in plain sight), this is where I have the problem."

Here in Arizona they want to make it legal to carry guns in a bar, something I think is absolute madness since it is a well known fact that nothing robs a person of his "common sense", sense of responsibility and inhibitions faster or more effectively than alcohol. Guns should never be allowed in any establishment that serves alcohol. That's just an invitation to disaster.

mickey

I feel the same way about phones. What I think we need is phone control.

Most states have some controls over phones, when you can use them and when you can't. Look it up.

Wow, the gun nuts here and in the media are really doing themselves some damage. They appear totally crazy in every response, no discussion of anything except hate. They are truly their own worst enemy and are going to cost the rest of us casual gun owners our rights.

2Little ... (Is that handle a "Freudian slip" ??)

Ah, Whyoming! Where men are men and sheep are nervous! Home of "Dick" Cheney who taught us all shotgun safety. Where Matthew Shepard received a real Whyoming welcome! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard)

Did your family have fun pumping a cleaning rod up and down the gun barrel every night?

Swallow, I fear you are exactly right! It's that Tea Party-fostered "the goverment is out to get us" overly-paranoid mentality that is their own worst enemy here. They are, possibly unintentionally, antagonizing mainstream America with their extremist views. If they can come to the table with some common-sense ideas on how we can curb gun violence, while still upholding the 2nd Amendment, then everyone can come to some agreement. But, they are not willing to do so, so they risk losing it all.

This incident was reported on this news site because police were involved in taking down the shooter, which would support the agenda of the left that guns should only be in the hands of the police.

However, the other incident briefly mentioned in this article was a somewhat different story. The boyfriend had sent a text to the woman who was in a restaurant that he was coming for her and was going to shoot her and as many people as he could. She had no more finished reading the text than he appeared in the restaurant with the gun.

The people all ran next door to a movie theatre where he followed them; an off duty female officer with her CC fired back at him, bringing him down. True, she was an off duty officer; but if she had not had the concealed weapon on her person there may well have been another theatre massacre. And it was not reported here. The outcome was sensational enough.

screminmimi

but if she had not had the concealed weapon on her person there may well have been another theatre massacre. And it was not reported here. The outcome was sensational enough.

You didn't mention that she (the cop) worked there as security. You also didn't mention, that the guy she shot wasn't just coming into the theater. He had already been there and was coming out of the restroom at the time she shot him.

taking down the shooter

It gets tiring chasing down other news reports to get common sense info. The article suggests he wasn't a shooter. What I would like to know was he waving his gun around or simply carrying a gun??? Did the girlfriend go to cops and say her boyfriend is chasing her and he has a gun or did other people notice?

I wouldn't say this linked article is much longer to read but it certainly answers a lot of questions.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/12/officer-critically-shoots-armed-suspect-in-san-diego-movie-theater/?test=latestnews

Devil's Advocate,

"I fear you are exactly right! It's that Tea Party-fostered "the goverment is out to get us" overly-paranoid mentality that is their own worst enemy here."

If the government turns tyranical and is really out to get them, their handguns aren't going to do them much good. They might try placing a 155 mm artillery piece in every back yard. That would be more effective. A few tanks and anti-aircraft (AAA's or SAM's) sites in strategic locations wouldn't hurt ,either, and don't forget the armored personnel carriers and flame throwers. But handguns against the entire U.S. Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force? Nah!

@ just wrong

yes many countries with strict gun control laws have less gun violence. yet when you look at their crime statistics, they have more violent crime, murder, rape, robbery per capita then the US. you can take away guns, but guess what you will still have the crime. they just find another tool is all, or go black market guns.

Mickey, if i know the risk before i enter the bar, does then that make it right? or do i need others to write rules to protect me from my own possible stupidity. We need to use our rule making skills on business and leave the common man alone. The bar has the discreation to allow weapons and the State permits the business to exist. Public property is just that, but a business is private property that allows for a set of rules even more stringent then the public property, because a business is in reality inviting you in and you then are a guest, it's a contract that is saying this is what i offer and these are my rules, along with all the rules the government adds and all in good faith. But public property is the air we breathe and in most cases the water we drink and the ground we walk on when where not on our own property. When we're on public property, we share with people that may not feel comfortable with, it needs no invitation, it belongs to all and is regulated by the Constitution.

Good morning to all. I started this post this morning but got interrupted. What I am very happy to see this morning is that all the crazy's are not here. Probusiness I thought your post was very heart felt and I agree with a lot of what you say. I am a middle of the road Dem. I own several guns. And I do not want anyone taking any of them. What I don't have and would bet you don't either is Bushmaster AR15's or AK 47's. Why you might ask? Well first I don't live in a place where I feel the need to have a gun on my hip at all times. I don't live in fear like that. I live in Northern Michigan. Maybe in Fl you feel the need and I would never take that right from you. Some day I might want a hand gun and would like to have one if I want one. I just feel like these Ar 15's are just to much, Having said that, if you live on the Mexican boarder, then you should under special permit be able to get these assault Weapons, because you live in a war zone. Other then that, there is no good reason for these weapons in the hands of every day people. If you want to play with guns like that join the Army. As a Dem. I am here to say once and for all. NO one wants to take your guns. We want a better back ground check. Maybe go as far as ask a few personal references too. Newtown showed us that the Mother bought these guns legally, but she shouldn't have been able to have those guns because she had a mentally ill son in her home. That is common sense, and then she took him to the shooting range and showed him how to shoot these guns. So when he snapped, he just took her guns, killed her and off he went. Am I the only one that could seen this coming. We need to do better. She should have never been allowed have bought these guns, any guns. I bet not one in a thousand people that own Guns own gun safes. There are things we can do that don't hurt anyone's rights. Close gun show loop holes, Do a federal back ground check. Find a way of dealing with mental illness better. And we can Out law these assault Weapons and Clips that hold more then 6 or 10 shots. The second amendment as found by the Supreme court, said Guns can be regulated. Less find a way to do that together and stop this madness. Surly we can all agree on that.

wantnot...so if they ever enact this law in AZ (surprising, I know) that allows people with CC permits to come packing heat into a place where alcohol is served, and that person consumes alcohol in a restaurant or bar, and gets intoxicated enough to where he shoots me in the leg because I accidentally bumped his chair while moving past his table, who is liable? Is it the shooter, or is it the restaurant owner? If it's like you say, it the owner's private property, so I guess the shooter gets off scot free? Somebody's gonna get the rap and the bill for my pain and suffering.....who's responsible, wantnot?

wantnot,

"Mickey, if i know the risk before i enter the bar, does then that make it right? or do i need others to write rules to protect me from my own possible stupidity."

You make a lovely argument there about the distinction between public and private property, but just let me ask you this: "Would you feel comfortable entering a bar in which you knew everyone was carrying guns?" Fist fights are commonplace in bars because of the effect that alcohol has on people's inhibitions and sense of judgement. Do we really need gun fights in our bars, too? It's the gun rights people who always make the argument that guns should be used responsibly, and I agree with that. But alcohol and responsibility don't mix.

Porter, it's time for you to come out of the closet. I propose a new law. An amendment to Godwins Law. The first person to refrence a penis during a gun control debate loses the arguement.Porter, if you cannot stay on topic go find a forum that appeals to you.

@flnobody -

Here's part of the story so that we both get it right...

Jesus Manuel Garcia, age 19, entered the China Garden restaurant across the mall from the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater complex in San Antonio, Texas, looking for his ex-girlfriend. Angered that she had just broken up with him, he sent her a text messagesaying that he planned to go to the restaurant where she worked and “shoot somebody.”

Before she could warn patrons at the restaurant Garcia entered and started shooting. One bullet slightly wounded one patron while others scattered out the exit doors and headed for the safety of the theater lobby across the mall. Garcia chased them and continued shooting.

This got the attention of an armed off-duty law-enforcement officer who was working at the theater, Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Lisa Castellano, who chased Garcia to the back of the theater where he ducked into the men’s room. When he emerged, Castellano shot him four times which immediately and effectively ended the threat.

@Porter Rockwell "Gun Nuts (and yes, that's what you are) somehow think it's a good thing that people are walking around in America, armed with deadly force; everyone ready to inflict terrible bodily harm to everyone else. Other countries manage to avoid this. How can this be a good thing?"

If only we lived in your imaginary "fantasy land" or utopia where no other person wants to kill, rape, steal, etc. from others...if only. Why do people want to kill, rape, steal, etc. from others again? Why will they kill, rape, steal, etc. WITHOUT a gun? What drives them to commit these acts?

SINCE WE DO NOT LIVE IN EUTOPIA AND "BAD GUYS" EXIST OUT THERE THAT WANT TO KILL, RAPE, STEAL, ETC. WITH WHATEVER MEANS THEY CAN, WE MUST BE ABLE TO DEFEND OURSELVES. Your brain must be mush if you cannot understand that. How are you going to defend yourself? Call 911 (dial a prayer) and wait the average of 12 minutes for someone to come and save you from danger? YOU WOULD ALREADY BE DEAD MORON. How is a 100 pound women going to defend herself from a male that is twice her size and wants to do her bodily harm? How are you going to take Rick's guns if you are unarmed 1v1, suck him off? How are you going to defend yourself from a wild animal?

Other countries that have stricter gun laws have higher crime rates btw. It is only due to the social safety nets that REDUCE how many people want to kill, rape, steal, etc. from others. They treat mental health problems instead of waiting for someone to commit a crime like we do and then put them in jail (which really helps out their mental health).

You need other people to come and save you from others. Us "gun nuts" do not need anyone to come and save us. We are ALREADY prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure our survival. Weaken yourself, lay down, and die if you want to, but I will am not going down without a fight. I will live and you will die by someone else's hand. You will die when someone else says so since you are unarmed and do not have a say so in the matter. Another moron that does not understand reality or survival of the fittest.

18,000 of the 30,000 gun deaths each year are suicides. People that would kill themselves anyway more then likely. Maybe get them some mental help?

Of the 12,000 that remain over half of those are from "drug" related crimes. Legalize drugs and we could cut that number in half.

Banning ALL rifles will only save less then 400 lives a year versus 24,000. Handguns are over 25 times more likely to kill someone versus any rifle, yet they are the problem... Most handguns hold less then 20 rounds of ammo yet they still kill plenty of people.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Training or classes could help to reduce the 600 or so accidental gun deaths we have each year, which I support.

50% of gun violence is caused by people under the age of 25 btw.

I cannot have a logical or reasonable discussion with people who's brains are mush. How can you defend yourself again? If you are incapable of defending yourself, you will be a victim one day. This guy took 4 rounds to put down, just the other day a guy took 5 .38 rounds and lived. There are tons of reports about people being shot 20 times with .45 rounds or 9mm rounds and living. Gee I wonder why someone would want more then 10 rounds if their life was on the line versus multiple attackers...

Why do we let citizens have hollowpoint ammo again when our troops do not even have it? Maybe it is due to "defense" and so we can kill bad guys faster and more efficiently?

"Gun Nuts just gotta feel that hot discharge from a long, hard, gun barrel."

"Did your family have fun pumping a cleaning rod up and down the gun barrel every night?"

Really makes you sound gay there, which is ok with me if that is your thing. Maybe you look forward to getting bent over, raped, and f***ed in the a$$. But I on the other hand am a man and do not get f***ed in the a$$. I do the f***ing around here (call it testosterone if you want since you seem to be severely lacking). Go back to the utopia where nothing ever "bad" happens, which can only exist in your head mush for brains.

Chuck: We agree on some things and disagree on others. But I enjoy the debate with those who are willing to lay the "name-calling" to the side which you have done and is appreciated. This is the problem with this debate is both sides are passionate and I admit I can get "riled up" but only after countless name calling and diversion from the topic. So to have a person who disagrees with me but does so in a respectful manner is rare and great to see.

So you are aware I am a gun owner and own 7 various handguns. I pray I will never have to USE one to protect myself but always have it with me just in case. Yes, I have a carry conceal and have a gun with me whether I am in the grocery store, Walmart, Home Depot, or pumping gas. At home always in my pocket up until I go to bed and then is in the holster on the nightstand within easy grasp.

Some have called me paranoid. I call it "realistic". Just read the papers. Bad people attack good people every day and, if that unfortunate day ever comes, I will have the opportunity to at least TRY to protect myself or my family rather than my only hope is pleading with a "bad person" not to harm me. Sorry, I don't plead. I will defend.

You say I probably don't have an AR-15 and you are also correct. But we differ there. I see nothing wrong with an AR-15. If a law-abiding person wants an AR-15 that's fine with me. You see this desire for a law would be a "feel good" law but irrelevant. Although I don't have an AR-15 I do have a rifle that holds 16 rounds. That would be illegal with the new law. But the law will not protect you or I.

Secondly, the argument is not the quantity of magazine size either. I have a 40 cal (Smith and Wesson Sigma) with magazines that hold 14 rounds - I have 4 magazines. That would be illegal with this new law (if it were to ever pass). But in the 5 years I have owned it not one person has been harmed. So taking away from me does society no good. And with that gun I can go through 56 rounds (assume 3 seconds to switch each magazine) in less than a minute. So the difference between an AR-15 and what I have is virtually no different.

So it is not the gun that is the problem. Its is those intending to use guns for wrong purposes. Taking the guns, or limiting the guns, to lawful gun owners does no good.

In this country we do not punish people for what they MIGHT do. We punish those who break the law. That I have a gun that MIGHT be used illegally does not warrant taking from me (unless there is legal or medical reasons it is believed I as an individual am a danger). Our focus should be on those intending to do harm.

Guns will get in the hands of bad people. Taking guns from GOOD people in the hope that the bad guys then cannot GET a gun is naive. The solution is to have "good guys" who can stop it.

Virtually all "massacres" of late have been in "gun free" zones. Isn't a "gun free zone" advertising meaning "if you want to do harm come here where it will be unlikely you will have resistance"? James Holmes (the Colorado movie theater shooting currently on trial) drove by MULTIPLE theaters to go to that particular theater. That particular theater advertised itself as a "gun free" theater. So law-abiding people don't bring their guns into the theater. Is it possible THAT was the reason Holmes picked that theater? No one knows for sure - but can certainly say it is possible.

I carry wherever I go (and, btw, the last time I went to the movie theater I DID have it with me there too). I don't carry a gun to use it and that is my LAST desire - but I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

Taking my guns would not have stopped the Connecticut school shooting nor the Colorado theater shooting. It would have no impact at all. We really need to take a step back and recognize that guns don't kill people - people kill people. And finding ways to identify those who MIGHT cause harm before they do should be the goal. Not some "feel good" law of "nationalized background check" (I doubt any thug has filled out a background check), banning AR-15's (will have no impact whatsoever), etc. are the solutions.

Stopping crime should be the focus not stopping law-abiding citizens.

@Porter Rockwell, Would you mind terribly if I was to request a list of those countries that you were referring to that have no Gun violence and while you are at it explain why said countries Like the UK still have a higher violent crime rate and more murders then the US, people just die in a variety of horrible, hideous, morbid and cruel ways, You can't walk down a street in some countries without a knife wielding flash mob dicing you to ribbons, that is what happens when you can't defend yourself. then there is always genocide carried out by a part of society that does not like the other half, hell maybe that's it the Liberals want to disarm the conservatives because they want the odds in their favor when they decide to rid the country of all the people that do not fit into their collective, kind of like the Nazis in WWII, first you sort them all out, disarm them, brand them, force them into controlled neighborhoods, enslave them, then exterminate them, that's how it works, (the general population can ignore what is happening) but first you need more control. I don't like control not for myself or for you. lets forget about control and figure out what is wrong with these people, and figure what to do about the Rampant mental disorders plaguing our society these days that is causing this increase in violence and its not just guns , people are setting people on fire, killing with alternative methods, and building bombs, pushing people off subway platforms wake up its time to get that weapons permit and be prepared to pack a weapon yourself, before some naked person comes out of nowhere an eats your face, its not the firearms doing it its the bad guys. there are murders every day that you never hear about unless a gun is involved why is that, you seldom hear about all the knifing around the country every day but you do hear about every incidence involving a gun, how about all the hangings do you believe they are all suicide even when the hands are tied behind the back, you are being misled by some special interest, I can't say more because then I would have a accident or commit suicide or something, I want to hang around and see what is going to happen, if it doesn't have a happy ending I'll never get another good nights sleep. mind control and subliminal programing have nothing to do with this crime wave right, I mean this is normal behavior right, its not just nerds that snap, its the guns that are doing it, take away all the guns and the world will turn into a beautiful garden and everything you want will be at your finger tips.now for Europe, what causes all the violence in Europe simple Soccer they need to ban soccer. did you know every school shooting involves a school are you going to ban schools? why don't you people just ban everything. everyone just go to your cubicle and stay their, wait till someone comes to tend to you, while you are waiting you will be provided with entertainment, just keep your eyes on the screen, and if we think its necessary a mate will be provided, we will determinewhat you get, or rather who gets you, or even what becomes of you. control baby ant it great, once you let it get started it doesn't stop, its the Camel's nose, the foot in the door, or that first step out of the plane without a shoot! the damage will be done. Remember Tom Sawyer and white washing the fence, Tom convinced everyone he was having fun and got all of them to do his work for him, while he ran off and played, Tom was a leader.

For those of you who do not know the proverb of the camels nose its like this, once the camel gets his nose in your tent the rest will follow. don't be hasty lets find out the real problems before we go off and trade our rights away for no future gains.

Just having a firearm can alter the odds of your spending your last moment on earth looking into the eyes of the person taking your life, that alone times thousands makes it worth it, my life was spared one time some 35 years ago by a friendly gun, not mine but someone who just happened to be their as a group of knife wielding punks were intent on helping themselves to other peoples property and this gun popped up out of nowhere, well it was worth it watching this kid wet himself as his buddies ran off, it was a nice gun and did not attack the kid and it did not file a police report thinking the kid learned a lesson, maybe it should have but in those days we didn't bother with that stuff does no good after the fact, and the cops wouldn'tdo any thing anyways. guns are simply a tool and properly used they can be your most valuable tool, remember a hammer or a screwdriver can kill too! oh how many people died on the freeway yesterday be honest how many? now for the real problem we have a sick society, and what they consider to be Mental health is a joke in this country we should back up and look at how we raise some of these spoiled little brats, perhaps the old fashioned spanking wasn't such a bad thing after all, maybe a degree of discipline is what is missing that and a little self worth blended with some dignity and some morals would not hurt a thing. we can start by not listening to liberals as they don't posses rational thought, they only know what they are told and they all have mentors to inform and encourage them on what to think and do they all have their Rasputin. sorry but its true. allot of citizens today are not with the spirit of what America is about they believe in free speech only if you are talking about what they believe otherwise you should not express your opinion, they think the only laws that we should be enforcing are the ones that they agree with, to hell with the rest, they think they should deny you the right to earn a living if what you do upsets them like logging, keep it up and there will be more hate in this country then we can ever control, not including all the hate that we are importing.

Hey Tired, Can you post a reference that shows societies without guns have higher crime rates?

Devils Advocate, "Is it the shooter, or is it the restaurant owner? If it's like
you say, it the owner's private property, so I guess the shooter gets off scot
free?" I'm saying we are all individually responsible for our own actions; in all case's
the shooter is responsible for damages he or she caused. The business has no responsibility,
unless it had misrepresented its self in its roll or intent of the service it’s
providing. Why Arizona would go out of its way to rule on concealed weapon carriers to be allowed to carry in an alcohol business to me is bizarre. If the rule now is like Washington, no weapons, then I wouldn't change the rule. The rule doesn't effect the freedom of a concealed weopons carriers right to bare arms, he or she can do so in public.

Mickey, I personally feel if I go into an establishment that serves alcohol then I take
extra precautions in my choice of location in the establishment that I may feel
more comfortable being or I simple do not except the invite in, or if I enter
I'll leave. If everyone is backing a weapon the decision to abstain from the
activity would be easier to turn down based on being around people that make me
feel uncomfortable.

I believe rules in my State of Washington instruct business that serve alcohol, to post, not to
allow weapons on the premises, this law holds a business responsible to some
degree of doing what it can to recognize and react to any apparent rule abstruction.

honestly, its a little too late to ban guns. If it had been done years ago when people trusted their government and had more moral ethics than they do now than MAYBE it might have worked. But guns are too prevalent in our society to just stick a ban there. I personally hate the day the "gun" was made. knives were bad sure, but guns made things so much worse. Originally made to make hunting easier, its now made killing other people easier too. Yet, still with so many guns out there its not practical to say "ban" guns. The only thing to do is hire these veterans with no job, give them something to make them proud of, and put them out as guards. We have no choice but to fight fire with fire. As much as i feel gun violence shouldn't be the answer, my standards have lowered for the sake of the people who want to keep their guns and because there are so many crazies in this country to count with guns.

I mean if this was years ago, we would be looking like Japan. their crime rate without guns is wayyy lower than ours. But its too late for that. Too many guns have been distributed. So we have to take the next best alternatives.

I wish you "gun nuts" on both sides of the issue would calm down because guns will never be banned nor will they ever be taken from American citizens and I wouldn't want them to be. Gun advocates will argue that the man could have had a knife instead of a gun and they would have been right. I might also add that the results would probably been the same as he most likely would have been shot by the police as a threat to society.

With that being said there seems to be a problem with unstable young men getting their hands on assault type weapons with rapid fire capability. Everyone on both sides agree that those weapons should be kept out of the hands of unstable people like those that have done the shootings. The problem comes from how to accomplish this. I believe some are forgetting the shooter at Virginia Tech that was an unstable Korean National student that bought a weapon and proceeded to kill 35 people and wound 17 others. He never should have been able to buy the weapon so Virginia and G W Bush passed a law supposedly closing that loophole.

The problem is who determines if someone is unstable? Is it an infringement on a person's rights for a doctor to report a person's medical condition to the federal government? If not where do you draw the line and who has access to that information? What other medical conditions would the doctor be required to report? Could that be the beginning of "Big Brother" that many fear?

What the NRA recommended about a national data base of unfit people could cause more infringements on people rights than banning guns. Who determines who is put on that list, how the determination is made, and how nuts does a person have to be to be put on the list are issues I think would be a problem. I guess the best thing to do is nothing and let people keep killing each other to thin out the population. (Sarcasm in case some miss it)

23 skidoo,

Dont say you are for the second amendment, then say you are for a policy in direct violation of it libby.

Yes!!!! And the bad guy’s will always have guns and you want to take the guns away from the good guy’s. Yep!!! That so make so much since!!!!!

Utah loves their guns!!!!! - “Utah town’s leaders want all residents to own guns
Politics » Spring City plan was inspired by federal push to regulate firearms.”
sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55591431-78/guns-gun-residents-support.html.csp

So are you saying prior service, fire arms instructors and students, and others are not 'well trained'? I will put 5 people in the above mentioned catagories agains 10 of you so called 'well trained' police officers (not counting NYC since they obviously aren't) and we can see who is best equiped to 'defend' someone.

No, Laurino. I'm saying that Wyatt is ignoring that the hero in this situation was a well trained police officer and not some shmuck who passed a single training course four years ago and occassionally goes to a pistol range to fire off a clip or two. Wyatt only wants to focus on the fact that "someone" had a weapon and it helped, and not the person who held it.

Way to insult the entire NYPD, by the way. You should just walk around with a loser sticker on your forehead.

I'm not focusing on the gun, the government is.

@ trynka

i am not some shmuck that passed a training course 4 years ago. i am a 20 year retired member of the military, with extensive combat experience. i carry concealed as well. i also own multiple firearms. i also competition shoot on a regular basis.

trynka do you know that the police really dont go to the range that much. you do realize that the average non-officer gun owner fires their gun at the range much more than a police officer. i have been to the range quite a few times shooting while the officers are there to qualify. i have seen many of them shoot, trust me many of them should not even have a gun in their hands.

Eric. Thank your for your service. No offence but my son did 2 rounds in Afghanistan, in the Army. He will never be the same, He will never be right again. He to managed to get his hands on a Hand gun, witch he should never had gotten. Then he was saving to get a Ar 15. After Newtown he changed his mind. He has come to think that there isn't so much to be afraid of all the time. He just had a baby girl and he has sold his hand gun. He has that illness from combat, it escapes me right now, but he should have never pass that back ground check. He is under car from Mental DR's. He would be the one to pull that gun in a road rage and kill someone. Newtown opened his eyes to that. He has seen enough of that over seas, he don't want to see that here.

ga mimi

Porter Rockwell

2Little ... (Is that handle a "Freudian slip" ??)

Ah, Whyoming! Where men are men and sheep are nervous! Home of "Dick" Cheney who taught us all shotgun safety. Where Matthew Shepard received a real Whyoming welcome!

Did your family have fun pumping a cleaning rod up and down the gun barrel every night?

So, 2Little2Late makes (in so many words) the valid observation that there is no direct correlation between households with guns and shooting death rates, and your reply is personal attacks and other distractions. Why am I not surprised?

Discuss this: Of the 20 states with the most restrictive gun laws, 7 have above-average shooting death rates.

Chuck...it's PTSD, post traumatic stress syndrome...take care of your son, it sounds as though he's a good man

As are the hand-wringing anti-gun absolutists.

take all their guns.. all the guns from the good citizens AKA VICTIMS!

I can't wait, I'm going to become a full time criminal... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

maybe I'll see you? do you have any nice jewelry? or money stashed in your home?

repost from someone else------We're not trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms, we're only trying to take away certain types of arms that no one has any business with anyway.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to free speech, we're only trying to take away certain types of speech that no has any business with anyway.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to religion, we're only trying to take away certain types of religion that no has any business with anyway.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to a free press, we're only trying to take away certain types of free press that no has any business with anyway.

You know? It sounds really damn weird when you try to make these anti-second amendment arguments apply to the first.

And you know, I don't hear anyone complaining about the subversion and erosion of our 4th amendment rights. Our good ol' government recently renewed the warrantless surveillance act. Where's the outrage?

@TraceyS thank God people are coming back to their senses, take away peoples firearms and all will be lost. we will all be at the mercy of people who have no intention of showing a damn bit of mercy.

as long as it contains the word "gun" yes. The theater he entered, AFTER the fact, merely lends for more drama. And fuel the agenda.

Got to keep the wave of mass hysteria rolling if the public stops reacting emotionally they might not be so willing to rewrite the constitution.

after all who needs the likes of Thomas Jefferson,John Adams,or Ben Franklin.We have Joe Biden,

OCinLA. You do know the 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution don't you. We can not believe a law that was added like the second amendment can last forever. So much has changed in 200 plus years. Even thought, the second amendment did say well regulated militia. Now the Supreme Court witch was packed with Republicans said we can and should regulate firearms. That don't mean they can come get all of our guns, but the Government has the right to regulate what kinds of guns we can have. So you people keep kidding yourselves into anythings goes when it comes to guns. We will all be much better off working to find the best way forward. 87% of Americans think something needs to be done now. Here and now. You can't fight the Masses. We have hit Critical mass and this madness is going to stop. We should all want that. The 13% that think they have the God given right to own any gun they want, well you are part of the Problem and you can't win this time. Gabby is building a movement and it will grow fast and hard, and it will crush the NRA. The only way for all the Gun lobby's is to join and help solve the peoblem.

The media is reporting all shootings right now with a hasty fervor. All news outlets have received orders from Soros to promote the liberal agenda of gun control by reporting about every gun that is discharged on the planet.

Chuck you do know that all the amendments were amendments don't you? Where did you get that 87% number from? If you used the voting on this web site alone as a poll it would appear your overwhelming majority is not voting up the gun control agenda.And I wouldn't consider this a conservative site.

87% of Americans think something needs to be done now.Here and now.

You sound like Joe Biden who sounds like a fast talking used car salesman trying to pressure a customer into buying what he's selling before t customer gets a chance to look at what he's trying to sell him.

He got what he deserved. If he survives why don't you take him home with you. Maybe he can watch your family when you are not home.

Smitty, we already have a coliseum. It's called America.

We are just giving the guy facing the lion (criminals) a fighting chance to survive. Your against that?

BTW, I fail to see where gun ownership is a Right/Left thing. I was a Republican for many years and carried, then a Democrat and carried, and now an Independent and still carrying. Politics has nothing to do with protecting my family. Maybe it does yours.

Is that icon of yours supposed to be you having a cup of kool-aid?

I'm not against a punishment. What sounds bad is how you all sound. You sound no better than than the criminal.

fxstc is that icon of yours supposed to be you having a cup of kool-aid?

Keep guessing at this point your wrong.

The Roman Elite class brought down the Empire and its gruesome violence when they all went insane from drinking Water from Lead Pipes. Only the wealthy had running water in their homes.

Nowadays we have cleaner, safer water due to the work of the much-maligned EPA, but we also have a lot of crazies due to the hard work of the Glorius NRA.

Makes one wonder if we are any better off now, then we were then. At least then you couldn't mow down a large group of innocent people in a span of seconds, there were no semi or full auto swords.

Wolfhound 68/69;Nowadays we have cleaner, safer water due to the work of the much-maligned EPA, but we also have a lot of crazies due to the hard work of the Glorius NRA.

That's interesting. The same NRA that has law enforcement training programs? The same NRA that promotes safe and proper firearm handling. The same NRA that stands for a group of law abiding citizens to protect LAWFUL 2nd Amendment rights? The same NRA that is the only real voice in a nation of biased media and control freak politicians that have access to a camera and advertising through that same media? The same NRA that advocates the full punishment of criminals through the existing laws on the books that are rarely enforced like they should be?

Or are you talking about the NRA that freely give firearms to known felons at gun shows? The NRA that stands at the edge of a school zone and arms children? The NRA that stands in the way of law enforcement prosecuting those committing crimes with firearms?

The 2nd NRA, YOUR NRA, doesn't exist in the real world. It's a made up fantasy by a media that pushes every scary term, story, and narrative into your face, regardless of the truth. They will get away with it because they know you won't educate yourself with the truth. YOUR NRA is made up of politicans that crave power and control, and sleep just fine at night in their hypocrisy of wanting to disarm you, but have protection for themselves and their children, because after all....their not really politicians anymore, their stars!

Its interesting that you folks are so accepting of a biased media on an issue you don't agree with. How will you feel when the day comes that the same media machine works against something, some Constitutionaly provided lawful right, that you hold sacred?

Oh, and btw....a sawed off shotgun (pump or semi-auto) with heavy bird shot can cause a lot more tragedy in a large crowd of people much quicker that any semi auto rifle or handgun. But, that weapon isn't part of the narrative "yet". We'll come up with scary terms for it in the next phase......

If we don't focus on the problem, the problems won't be resolved. The stories just keep coming from the areas with the strictest gun control laws, gun free zones, etc..... but we're talking "common sense" here, right?

USApeb. The Same NRA that is the lobby for the Gun makers, The rest is PR, There only job is to protect the Profits of Gun makers and nothing else. They hide behind saying there protecting the rights of gun owners and protecting the second Amendment. That is a Lie flat out. They want to keep the free flow of Guns and Ammo to anyone that wants them. They don't give a good God Dam who ends up getting a gun as long as they can make money from it. The keep playing the same old scary game, there coming to get your Guns from you. That is never been the case. If that were the case, then when the Government went in broke up the many militia that were getting out of hand, where was the NRA? Why didn't they go fight to protect them? they are nothing but all talk. The same NRA that sold America out as do all lobbys. Just as long as they keep making and selling Guns and Ammo. All talk no action. Sounds like the 112 Congress. The NRA days are numbered, There is a new movement coming, a true grassroots movement, lead by Gabby Gilford and her Husband. This is not going away like the NRA hopes for. This movement is common sense and not radical. 87% of Americans are for a movement like this and something will be done. The NRA can not stand up to this kind of movement. This movement is growing fast and powerful like MADD did. There is no stopping it. Best to be a part of the solution. That is what 100% of Americans should want.

USApeb I thought the same thing when Joe Biden virtously proclaimed he owned several shotguns( I'm guessing no rifles or handguns but Joe's a politician that could be a carefully worded statement meant to infer ownership of only shotguns while not denying ownership of other types of firearms). My first thought was he could do more damage in less time in a crowed room with a pump shotgun loaded with double ought and the plug removed than a .223 with a 30 round magazine. But like you said, We'll talk about that later.

Interesting, Chuck....but it seems that the only ones keeping a steady flow of firearms sales alive are from the people trying to ban them. The NRA doesn't sell guns, regardless of how you try to spin it. Obama, Feinstein, etc. have emptied just about every ammo and gun shelf in the nation, again. The NRA has never once made me feel compelled to go buy anything, but the direct words of these politicans and media has.

87% of Americans, huh? I'm pretty sure you'd have a tough time proving that stat. Even MADD didn't try to outlaw cars. They pushed for criminal enforcement of drunk drivers driving cars, not trying to limit the use of cars by law abiding citizens. Thats why they had/have support. I'm not playing a scare game, you folks are with the likes of the aforementioned people that have made their intentions clear are playing the scare game.

You can excercise your free speech using profanity and spouting lies because you were provided that freedom through the use of a gun, and many lives lost protecting your freedom. You're no different than any other name calling individual backed into your little corner with the actual truth and facts. You have nothing else to retort with but lies, name calling and accusations. What a hypocrite you are to sleep at night knowing people were and are dying to provide YOU freedom. Guess it's just like the meat you eat from the supermarket, eh? You don't have to take responsibilty for raising it in inhumane conditions or having to kill it, you just buy that nicely packaged little wrapper of meat.

100% of Americans should agree with what YOU want, huh? What is the word for that? You better hope and pray that the people of this great nation aren't forced to think as one person does. That is no longer called freedom.

Yep, Obama is the best gun salesman the US has ever known.

I think most Americans are OK with armed citizens. I, however, do object to certain types of firearms.

They are, after all, the #1 murder weapon used in the US. Year after year. Way ahead of other murder weapons.

And the murder rate in the US is higher than in other, similar countries, who have much more restrictive gun laws. From that perspective, more guns do not seem to equal less crime.

FXSTC, Will you PLEASE stop making sense. Your confusing the people who live in Mayberry where the only gun in town is Deputy Barney Fife's with his one bullet in his pocket.

For those of us living outside Mayberry, we completely understand what your saying.

And yet Mayberry had a P.D. far superior to most of today's.

@FXSTC I'd rather have a gun and never use it, then need a gun and not have one. I'am with you. We're not nuts.

you are a responsible person, but look at the incident, he chased his girlfriend with a gun in the parking lot. Its those type of people that we are tryiing to keep the guns away from. And I am glad the cops shot him and I want to know more about his girlfriend, she must be an idiot to have stayed with him.

It is doubtful that she was an idiot. She was most likely scared of the boyfriend and what he might do to her. Domestic violence and abuse is tricky, and most people that become involved with an abuser don't know what they are getting into until it is too late. Many have been hurt or killed trying to leave such a relationship. It is good that the situation was brought under control without people becoming victims just be being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Attention Rodney. so called liberals don't want your guns.

Liberals also own guns.

so called liberals don't want your guns.

so true ...gun control is not about guns....its about control.

and thank you Bill Maher for adding that expression to our vocabulary...

New Rules: TV comedians need to stay out of politics

not even close, countless firearms are illegally imported and smuggled into the country every day.

not even close, countless firearms are illegally imported and smuggled into the country every day.

not to mention war souvenirs of old, and home made ( ask any true machinist how hard it would be to make one) .. also too bad you cant get a look at your local P.D.'s evidence room inventory. both checked in and whats actually there.

FBI reported more deaths caused by people using baseball bats last year then with guns. Time to ban these horrid weapons which you can buy now even without a background check.

Herron you submitted the most intelligent coment on this site.

We had at least two murders not too long ago and the guns that was used had been taken by the killers that had stolen the guns when they had robbed homes that had them . If the homes hadn't the guns the ones that was killed would most likely still be alive today. Of course gun rights supercedes the right of free speech that is used against the gun lobby manufacturers NRA and the gun nuts wants Pier Morgan deported because he exercised his free speech rights. Gun rights also is more important than the right to live--

Clayton.

. Of course gun rights supercedes the right of free speech that is used against the gun lobby manufacturers NRA and the gun nuts wants Pier Morgan deported because he exercised his free speech rights. Gun rights also is more important than the right to live--

Gun rights is why you have those freedoms. And P. Moron has a right to his opinion. he is not a citizen of this country and does not have the right to weigh in and start criticizing OUR laws. he don't like it? fine.... planes leave the country all hours....catch one.

Herron, have you ever heard of Fast & Furious? Might be a way for guns to get into the hands of illegals and criminals. Not saying we have an untrusty government (oh, yes I am saying that).

F+F used LEGAL GUN sales from dealers in AZ. Look it up!

Herron is right on target (pun intended). He/she? has put forth the point to regulate. The storing of firearms and ammunition is a key factor to reducing the crimes in the current debate.

So we're supposed to believe that criminals don't obtain guns other than through law abiding citizens, and limiting/disarming law abiding citizens will make the problem go away. How do they get their banned drugs?

We've spent billions upon billions, and even though law abiding citizens aren't holding/using the drugs, the criminals still get them? Interesting....

Scooter so you want to take away the freedom of speech of P. Morgan and any other person that happens to be living in our country because they don't agree with gun manufacturing lobby the NRA. . You hate anyone who uses their freedom of speech . Pier has his right to give his opinion as you do also. The names on that petition should be turned over to the Justice Department and examined for their mental condition and whether there is any felons name on the petition. Since when the freedom of speech is against the law that you claim P.Morgan did ?? YOU ARE STUPID !!

Of course gun rights supercedes the right of free speech that is used against the gun lobby manufacturers NRA and the gun nuts wants Pier Morgan deported because he exercised his free speech rights.

I was disappointed in the Presidents response to that petition. I guess when a foreign national uses his position to preach sedition and attack the United States Constitution, WE have to respect his first amendment rights. But when He doesn't like what an American Citizen is preaching it is okay to assassinate, him without a trial, with a missile fired from a drone. If What Piers Morgan did was not illegal it was in the very least in poor taste to attack the U.S. Constitution and laws of his host country and then hide behind those same laws. More so in light of the fact that he faces prosecution for wiretapping if he returns to his home country of England. At least he's consistent he has no respect for anyones laws.

Wild Bill...well put, and we wouldn't want Piers' fans to know the reason why he's in the US and not back across the pond, would we? At the very least that might confuse the argument, as a foreign national he is not bound to be covered by the rights of the host.

Wiretapping? Hell, that's been illegal in the US for years, for surveillance by police it has to be written off by a judge and all sorts of bothersome proceedings. Just work for Rupert Murdoch, no worries.

Better to buy guns. They are going to increase in value ten-fold if the Feinstein bill passes.

I wish they would report who these murderers voted for in the last election. I am pretty sure the Black gangbangers in Chicago and other major cities did not vote for Romney. Maybe we should just not allow liberals to own and possess guns.

I have a good solution to buying a gun.

Anyone to buy a gun must go to a doctor and have their head examined before allowed to purchase a hand gun or assault rifle then every two years have to have another mental exam to keep their guns !! That should satisfy the NRA since theyare yelling its not the gun owners but the mental cases so how are they going to weed out the mental cases if they don't make the gun owners take a mental exam !!

Ban the drugs that make them un-stable.

Ban the drugs that make them un-stable

Big Pharma's got more money than the NRA.

Clayton, let's all go and have our heads examined. Imagine a stack of ink blots shaped like AR-15s,AK-47s and .50 cal. Barrets. One side of the crowd says "Oh! Look a target rifle." And the other side starts Wailing "DEATH, MURDER, HAVOC, NRA=DEAD BABIES!" See how that looks. All I can say is it's a good thing a lot of people who shouldn't have guns don't want them.

No, it's time to make gun laws federal, not a patchwork of state laws.

The constitution specifically forbade the federal government from doing so. Supreme Court upheld this ban. You will have to first come up with an amdendment to the constitution. This one was left to the states by the constitution.

No, it's time to make gun laws federal, not a patchwork of state laws.

Which Biden announced will be done with an E.O. if no other way. ( google it). And Barry will and has sued states who disagreed with him before. Dictatorship anyone?

Sure, scooter, whatever you say.

Will Obama also take the guns away from the secret service people guarding him - or make sure the 6 secret service people guarding his kids while they are in school are unarmed? Okay for him and his family to be safe but god help any citiszen who wants to be able to defend himself.

SDN

Google it

Watermoon,

Of course we won't take the guns away from the secret service which is protecting the prez. That isn't even a valid argument. The level of security needed by the president and his family is far greater that for the rest of us. I wouldn't want to see any president of this nation without adequate protection.

Ironic that the very people who say that it is impossible to find and deport the 11 million people in this country illegally seem to think that we can find and take the 300 million guns that are presently here.

LA.ScooterTramp

You are right. Also keep in mind that many of these outspoken gun-banners are people with criminal convictions in their backgrounds, and want guns banned from the general public so they don't have to worry about their victims shooting back.

Ya got that right watermoon.

so in the long run which one do you think will do more harm?

Interesting fact. Colorado allows people to carry after background checks and minimal training. Businesses can still declare a "gun frree zone" and not allow these people into their estaablishment. The movie theater in Aurora was such a business. The gunman bypassed two theater chains closer to his home which did not have such a ban an targeted the one where he knew he would be safe. Only place safer for such a madman is our schools where he can shoot them like fish in a barrel.

The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man wtth a gun.

The shooter was wearing body armor, used smoke bombs had multiple weapons and had his apartment booby trapped. He had planned this well in advance. I don't think that a good man with a gun would have made much difference in this one situation. A good man with a gun would have been outgunned and not able to fire in that timeframe with the panic, noise and smoke in the theater. A good man with a gun would have been concerned about his shots hitting innocent people. This incident wasn't a "good man with a gun situation". There are plenty of times that having someone with a CCL would be helpful, but this wasn't one of them.

Actually, he was NOT wearing body armor. Another piece of misinformation that was never corrected once the initial story was made up, I mean reported.

Additionally, isn't it interesting that this criminal booby trapped his apartment with explosives to setup a diversion to insure a free reign of terror, but the reason he was able to kill innocent people was because of a semi auto rifle? They at one point were considering blowing up the apartment building because they didn't know if they could safely difuse the booby trap. But, if we could just ban this rifle he used he woudn't have been able to kill so easily? Really?

Also, Feinstein herself carries a semiautomatic handgun everywhere she goes. She's a firm believer that the privileged, rich and powerful should benefit from things that we "peons" of the general public should not have.

Take a look at the laws that are passed by Congress in which they exempt themselves from the restrictions they place on the rest of us.

Here's part of an article I found by searching "Dianne Feinstein carries a gun":

"Opponents of the Assault Weapons Ban point to Feinstein’s hypocrisy on the issue, as the Senator herself said she obtained a concealed carry permit in California when she felt her life was threatened. In 1995, Feinstein described this experience..."

Me too.

Works much better than sending a principal and counsellor into the classroom unarmed.