Why don't you be more specific with your comment?

Be bold, Be courageous and stand up and admit more gun restrictions, universal background checks and bans will do nothing to curb the violence. Remember Gabby, the wack job that shot you, passed a background check. Nothing but love for ya, but stop supporting your partys attempt to crush the 2nd ammendment.

I wish that just once when she's out speaking that she would mention bringing back mental institutions. Just think if we were still able to identify and house the mentally ill, instead providing them prescriptions and releasing them out into the public, expecting them to take their meds.

Airborne_Dad: Who in their right mind would you oppose Background checks? Who other than those that are banned or those that have bought into the NRA's extreme reaction. Are you in your right mind?

Ok djdenver: I'll type slow so you can understand, since you are from a blue state. It should be a no-brainer to support an expansion of back-ground checks (to include private sellers). It's a very delicate topic due to the 2nd Amend (which I support) but if we police it through without "taking anything away" it's possible to work something out that works for most. Unregistered guns come across the border daily so why won't the gov address that crossing issue if gun control is really their goal? We all know why!!!

CoRavensFan,

Right! Now we wait for them to kill or mass kill, claim insanity and only then place them in a mental institution. Something very wrong with the order of events here!

Gabby wants universal backgound checks. How about the politicians lead by example. Start with the President first.

Mark

Background checks and Laws against "straw Purchase" been in place for Many Years. NRA supported them when instituted and still do!

Mark,

If you choose to instate yet another background check again, fine by me. When it fails to curb violence simply because it too will go unenforced and does not address the criminal element and their way of obtaining guns, what will be your next course of action? Really, who in their right mind would propose more laws that do the same thing as laws already on the books and try to convice people it's the right thing to do?

The person who shot her passed a background check.

Virginia Tech-yep...Cho passed

Aurora...Ditto...he passed

Newtown...owner murdered with background checked guns...psycho carries on

so we need these why?

1994 phone survey concludes 40% of sales were never checked?Survey called into doubt,but millions of gun owners should have a new law ,anyway.

Will this new law stop the mass shooting by psychos....no

Will it stop the inner city minorities fron slaughtering each other over drugs...no.

Will it stifle gun sales between law abiding People...yes

WE NEED IT!!!

NO WE DO NOT

The problem with universal background checks is that it's an honor system without federal registration. This means that it's 100% ineffective against the groups that the laws are intended to work against. If the law is passed, and then there's a private party exchange that occurs without a background check, and the two parties "agree" that the transfer happened before the law was passed, how would anyone know any different? The only way to make it work is through federal registration which, aside from being illegal, would never pass (and arguably, even if it was, it'd be such an immense financial burden and growth of government, it couldn't be funded).

Every gun owner wants guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them, and no one wants these tragedies to continue. But, this is not the answer.

As much as I respect Gabby Giffords recovery I still can’t figure out this incessant background check confusion.

Jared Loughner PASSED his background check.

Here is his story.

Why Jared Loughner was allowed to buy a gun

Despite evidence that Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner is mentally unstable, he was never declared mentally unfit by a court, so his name did not appear in the federal background-check database used by gun sellers.

Evidence is mounting that Arizona shooting suspect Jared Loughner was mentally unstable – and yet he was still allowed to purchase a gun legally.

The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the possession of firearms by the mentally ill. So why was Mr. Loughner able to guy a gun?

The ability to own a firearm is a constitutionally protected right, and depriving someone of that right involves a legal process. Under the 1968 law, a person must be declared mentally unfit by a court or have been committed to a mental institution to lose his or her right to possess firearms.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required the establishment of a national database known as the National Instant Background Check System (NICS), where the names of people ineligible to possess firearms are to be entered.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, such information is provided to the NICS Index by local, state, tribal, and federal agencies.

A store selling firearms is required to check with NICS before making a sale. In Mr. Loughner’s case, when the 22-year-old went to the Sportsman’s Warehouse outlet in Tucson, Ariz., on Nov. 30 to purchase a Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun, a background check was performed and he came up clear, according to the store manager. That Glock was used in Saturday’s rampage in Tucson that killed six people and injured 13 others, including the critically wounded Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) of Arizona.

Arizona, well known for its low barriers to gun possession, also prohibits the possession of firearms by anyone found to “constitute a danger to himself or others” and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored under the requirements laid out by state law.

The best-known evidence of Loughner’s mental issues comes from Pima Community College, where he was suspended last year apparently because of mental problems. The college informed him that he could return only if he obtained “a mental health clearance indicating that, in the opinion of a mental health professional, his presence at the college does not present a danger to himself or others.”

There is no known record that a court had ever declared Loughner mentally unfit or that he had ever been committed to a mental institution.

But even if that had been the case, there’s no guarantee that Loughner’s name would have appeared in the national database. Some states have been slow to report names that belong in the “do not sell” list, even after Congress passed a law in 2007 aimed at punishing states with inadequate compliance records and providing incentives to states with good reporting records.

The law passed after the Virginia Tech shooting that year, in which a mentally ill student killed 32 people. In 2005, a judge had declared the shooter, Seung Hui Cho, a danger to himself and ordered him into psychiatric care. But Mr. Cho was still able to purchase two semiautomatic handguns, because his name did not appear in the NICS database.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reported last Friday, the day before the Tucson shootings, that between Jan. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2010, the number of disqualifying mental illness records submitted to NICS by states and territories had more than doubled – from 402,047 records to 929,254. Adding federal records brings the total to nearly 1.1 million.

But the Brady campaign argues that “millions of relevant records” are still missing from the system. The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records, according to the Brady campaign.

In the wake of the Arizona tragedy, advocates of gun rights maintain that additional gun control is not the answer to preventing future violence.

"We have state and federal laws on the books that already prohibit persons who have been deemed mentally insane from owning and possessing firearms," Sen. Mike Lee (R) of Utah said on CNN's "State of the Union." "I don't think we're going to legislate our way out of the risk associated with people who are insane or people who are bent on performing evil acts to kill another person."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0110/Why-Jared-Loughner-was-allowed-to-buy-a-gun

So, despite having the back ground check done Loughner was still able to buy a gun.

More importantly as the article states,,,

The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records, according to the Brady campaign.

This is compounded by this statistic from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Mental Disorders in America

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Intro

Here’s the problem.

The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records.

But the NIMH states we have about 57.7 million Americans that suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder.

So, do we just ignore the other 55.7 million Americans that suffer from mental illness? Or do we require all those 55.7 million other Americans are included.

And if that’s the case, do all 313 million Americans have to undergo mental health testing? If so, who is going to be responsible for testing this massive amount of people?

What if someone is tested and found to be mentally competent and then goes out and still kills a group of people? Who is responsible? The shooter? The Psychiatrist/psychologist? The gun dealer?

I don’t think many people understand the enormity of the statement, “keeping mentally unfit people from buying guns".

...backround checks for Americans who want guns are fine, but how about backround checks for twenty million illegal invaders?... Congress' silence is deafening....

Yes, Gabby, sounds like a good idea on the surface, but only law abiding citizens suffer. Not to mention that this administration will surely include additional 2nd Amendment travesties in tow. Now, though I truly feel for you, stop taking Celebrity cues from Obummer and his First Celebrity.

When are people going to understand that checking the background of law abiding citizens WILL NOT prevent unlawful minded persons from accessing weapons, of any kind!!!!

Background checks promote nothing but getting your name on a list!!!!!

What is wrong with you Ms. Giffords and your husband? The people who have been shooting you and everyone else lately would not have had any trouble getting cleared to buy a firearm!

You people are just trying to outlaw firearms for those of us that need them for protection. You and the others who want to take away this Constitutional Right can afford police and private security for your own protection - WE CAN'T!

I see no downsideto supporting background checks for all gun purchases. Preventing criminals from obtaining guns means the rest of the law abiding people can own guns and still have their 2nd amendment rights.

ProFreedom -

How would you enforce the law, if you don't know who has what gun when the law is passed?

Background checks for ALL guns sold does not address the criminal side of gun purchase. Even if criminals do submit one (lie and try) when they're denied, not even 1% of them are investigated and prosecuted.

Giffords is being used as a tool of the Obozo Administration to destroy the 2nd Amendment and hence the Constitution of the United States

The only way to get gun control measures passed in the United States is to strongly advocate universal gun ownership especially amongst minority groups, who are statistically (according to the Pew Research Center's poll) less likely than majority whites to own guns.

You see "real Americans" are absolutely terrified of sharing any of their rights and privileges with other groups (see Welfare programs' popularity with majority whites post-Civil Rights/"The Great Society" ) and have historically advocated gun control laws only when it seems obvious that minorities are asserting their own 2nd Amendment rights (see Reagan and the Black Panthers in mid-1960s California). So if you want to make sure guns are well-regulated as prescribed in the Constitution then make sure all Americans have as much access to guns as the average white guy. Believe me, they don't want the average black guy to have as many guns as your average gun-totin' white guy; we're still shooting black folks for brandishing tea and Skittles, imagine how far and fast people will start freaking out knowing that truly EVERYONE is allowed to concealed carry like Vern, Chad, Logan, and the rest of the Weekend Turner Diaries Gun and Book Club do. We'd shut that down with a vicious quickness, better believe that.

Ciewywtb, All Americans do have the access to guns. One way or the other. They are doing a fine job in Chicago shooting each other, and it is not over tea and Skittles..

Hey Gifford - I am sorry you got shot...

but if you wana PUSH for gun control be prepaired to get PUSHED back... get off my rights.

ProFreedom, please change your name. You most certainly are not Pro-Freedom.

Ciewywtb42mh6sps-23

You're full of crap,,,race,who cares?Black,White,Yellow....all legal gun owners of all races join the NRA and other gun rights groups to oppose the loss of your freedoms.

Make the NRA 7 million, stop the elitist liberals from turning everyone,of all colors into their slaves.

Gabby is a survivor, thank God for that, after the terrible attack from the mentally handicapped individual. My concern is that due to her incapacity, she's being used by the liberal/socialist/communist fringe as a posterchild to forward their agenda. Firearms are inatimate. People are not. Control the progressive wackadoos, and the shootings will end.

Ban handguns.

Liberals JUST want more gun control or better yet a complete ban on gun ownership. They will never address the WHY do people do this issue because they would have to attack the press and entertainment establishiments which JUST happens to be part of their base.

Why is it that we must have background checks to buy a firearm, but not for this president that we have?

Ban Takenaka !!

No doubt Mrs.Giffords is 100% correct. But in my state its the second strictest laws to get a permit to buy a rifle even..forget a handgun (even harder). Its the southern and western states that need to upper their buying laws for legal owners..forget criminals they get a weapon if they want too easy.

Most times after all these school shooting last few decades..the parents always say their child had a mental problem..then those households should be denied any weapon permit!

Airborne_Dad:

86% of the NRA membership support universal background checks.

FOR AIRBORNE__DAD. The answer to your question in post 1.9 is--- DEMOCRATS

Geowil -

Most of them assume "universal background checks" means just that. In reality, enforcing universal background checks means registration, which I doubt any NRA members support.

Gabby,

I really hate what happened to you but you and everyone else know that outlawing any kind of gun is not going to stop the killing. I would suport stricter background checks but that will do little if any thing. Example--- when I got a gun I bought in Washington state I was told that I would have to wait about a week unless I had a concead carry permit which I did not at the time so I went to the County sheriff's office and piad my money and within 20 minutes my background check was done and I got my CCW and went back and bought the gun. I must say that to this day I have not killed anyone and do not plan to in the future. You and your husband should be puting your efforts into your rehabbing instead of wasting your time on this.

Here are some interesting facts...5 common things that are harder to buy than a gun...you might be quite shocked!

money.msn.com/personal-finance/c_galleryregular.aspx?cp-documentid=250650831

Well...except of course for the nra-teabagger-GOP whack job we'll be reading about soon...

WUBBA

I agree with you on the POSTER CHILD. I am convinced of that and her husband is backing it up.

@Witchking wrote:

"Giffords is being used as a tool of the Obozo Administration to destroy the 2nd Amendment and hence the Constitution of the United States"

"Obozo"? Really, "Obozo"?

Come on 'Witchking', fess up. Level with us, you're a 12-year-old, right?

I guess this just goes to show that maturity is not prerequisite to becoming a Troll.

shoot me once at safe way shame on you...if i'm stupid enough to go back to safe way...think i'd check out the piggly wiggly...

We shuold start off with banning ''The Right Wing Conservatives'' than maybe we'll have manatory background checks and we'll all feel safer going out.

For the lefties who haven't read it enough yet, the reason we RWNJ's oppose this crap is because it's a slippery slope (that we're being pushed down). Face value - sounds great. But it won't stop there and onumbnuts isn't about to let it pass by. He and the lemmings want the government to keep you/us safe ;) You see...we (Americans) don't need guns, 'cause you see...the government is here to take care of us. After all, history has shown that governments take care of their people REal well...doesn't it(?)

...lemmings...

Let's start by banning the ''Right Wing Conseratives'' than we can pass universal background checks. We'll all feel safer to go about our living in this country.

Joe

You may FEEL safer,but will you BE safer?

Slodon - I think you literally described the difference of the gun control movement and counter-movement in the last 50 years.

profreedom:

I agree. No shortage of 'yeah, but's', however. I'm a gun owner, I support the Constitution in toto - not just those sections that address my toys.

How this will 'punish' we legal gun owners is a mystery to me. Suppose we could consult 'capt', a self-acknowledged 'RWNJ' on the subjects of "onumbnuts ", "lemmings". Aren't we concerned about people with weapons that simply can't remain civil and stable, even while commenting on a thread?

Isn't it all too obvious why some of us oppose mental health screenings before purchasing a weapon?

Isn't it all too obvious why some of us support mental health screenings before purchasing a weapon?

In the world we live in today sex, violence, nudity, volgar language, disrespect for everything from teacher to parent from black to white from brown to yellow the moral fabric of America has come apart and no one knows how or evan whats to fix it. I am 61 years old and I blame my generation the generation of the 60's for the condition our Country is in. I was raised in Gary Indiana I lived there from 1954 until 1968 in 14 years I watched it go from a wonderful beutiful city to what it is now. By the time I was in 7th grade you had to belong to a gang or you just simply didn't get in the doors. I lived on the eastside it was a very ethnic nieghborhood we had all kind of nationallitys we even had black Americans. For the most part we we were all friends it wasn't until they started the busing program that trouble started. We didn't want them there and they didn't want to be there so what happened fights started almost as soon as they got off the bus. One of my best friend was 4 times with a 22 while he talked to his mother in a phone both. Of course there had to be revench and there was we didn't shoot them but they never came back to school again. I my self have never shoot a gun before and don't intend to. But this is America the home of the brave and the land of free and this is part of that freedom just like freedom of speech the right to bare arms is just as important. There will be another civel war if the try to take that right from a man or women who has led a clean and respectable life. It just won't happen at least not in my life time.

But not innocent children. That's why youi need background checks for everyone wanting to buy a gun. Not just a few. Also need major penalties for anyone committing a crime with a gun even if they don't kill anyone.

I don't think you have the ability or the understanding of how to compromise, Compromise now. Talk about being a hypocrit.

Sorry guys but compromise is a dirty word when we are talking about our rights.

But not innocent children.

What about the rights to life of this innocent child??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx8nUWZ63w

How liberals can claim to 'care' and be so heartless is amazing...

If you thinking this has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment you are crazy and shouldn't be allowed near a gun. This has NOTHING to do with you or me owning a gun. I own and have no fear that some boogey-man is going to come take my guns away.

You fools who keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment need a better arguement, because that's just paranoia speaking.

Mark Just listen to Fienstien and hope she never gets her way!

@ Vivian

you dumb broad . back ground checks are done on all dealer gun sales . where do you get off saying done on a few !?! I do believe they should be done on private sales to . but for no fee . so STFU Vivian . dumb Broad

Vivian,

You missed on the first swing and connected on the second. Background checks are required for those wanting to buy a gun. This unfortunately, is irrelevant for the criminal element. More tougher laws for those who choose to commit violence with a gun? HELL YAH!!

I feel bad for Gabby, but it has been proven many times that background checks do not work.

I submit to background checks on every gun I buy from a dealer. If they could come up with an easy way for an individual to run one I would be all for it.

I submit to background checks on every gun I buy from a dealer. If they could come up with an easy way for an individual to run one I would be all for it.

XDM9MM had an excellent post on that one. Your local PD station for a small fee even if it's still voluntary. If your buyer isn't willing to submit to one, you probably don't want to sell to him!

Mark and Gabby have been both witnessed AND recorded doing the very thing that brought this struggle to their door. They know they only have a small amount of time left to irritate people who truly do not hacve any of the incompetent mental states they themselves are in possession of, but they will keep up the farce so long as there are foolish people around to flatter them and make them think they are still considered pillars of the American community.

These are not bright people. Who gives a $hit what spoiled, arrogant and overrated government employees with no shame do?

Lets be clear and lets make it simple. If the main issue is background checks then start assembling the list of those on the list of cannot buy a gun. Anything else has a separate agenda and is not agreeable!!!

Airborne_DAD

I don't sell my guns. I just buy more. As a buyer I am not willing to pay more for someone to check on me. If someone already owns guns then I would not be afraid of selling to them, if I were ever to sell a gun.

Background checks are mandatory for retailers. The only way to avoid them is by buying from a private individual.

They DO check your history and a reputible gun seller will NOT sell to someone who has committed a gun crime or has a history of violence! We need to attack the mental health issues as that is the core of all and any shootings with the exception of self defense.

And selling to an individual with a felony is, well... A FELONY! Private or otherwise. Would you sell a gun privately to an individual you didn't know? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Richard Schmidt, the convicted felon, killer and right-wing neo-Nazi, had 18 guns when apprehended.

James "Whitey" Bulger had 29 guns in his Santa Monica apartment when the 16 year hunt caught up with him.

The NRA dodge/lie/propaganda is criminals will always get guns. They steal them. No, dummies, they buy them. Every single gun they've been able to trace, from these two criminal's arsenals, was bought from a private seller or at a gun show.

What most of us Americans want is to reduce the number/lethality of guns in the hands of criminals, and to trace these guns to the asswipes who sold them to these criminals. Then we want to fine and/or jail these people.

A very small percentage of gun owners (and the NRA of course) block this. The so called "responsible gun owners" are complicit in this, by their silence.

I think you are misinformed again,just go try and buy a gun at a store and see for yourself what they ask you for.The politicians are counting on you not thinking for yourself and taking their word for everything,do you think for one minute the White House tours have to be canceled?THINK!!

I was going to say that there should be a system in place for selling them privately. I also thought of another thing to deter crime slightly: Whoever the gun is registered to shares some liability when something goes wrong. For example, say you don't lock up your weapon or stash in a good location and someone commits murder with that gun. The person who purchased the gun needs to be accountable for some part in that because they failed to secure the gun correctly and other people had access to it for whatever reason. Now on that same page, if someone steals that gun and this is proven and the person reports it then they are not liable. It needs to be handled carefully and on a case by case way. This hopefully will make people work harder to make sure that their guns are stowed away safely so that lunatics cannot get a hold of them. It would also GREATLY deter people from selling them privately illegally. Also there needs to be a way people can buy and purchase them privately. Some people that rent their houses go through private companies for back-round and credit checks. The same needs to be done if selling a gun privately. I guarantee this will deter some from selling and purchasing them illegally. After all, if that gun you bought commits a crime you will be held responsible so don't you think people will pay more attention to storing them etc?

well criminal do not buy lke this they buy hot gun that they can get cheap. for example in our east end park last thur a two guys roled up in a car poped the trunk and began selling pistol and rifles for almost nothing nothing went over a 100 dollars.......... that were most criminal buy guns....... the reason some people would buy from you is they don't want the gov't having a record that they own the gun. not because they our criminals it so it be harder for the gov't to conficate their firearms......... when in the past i bought guns from individual i got there driver lic number for my records so if the gun turned out hot i had a record of who i bought it from.......

How can a gun be "Hot" when at some point someone purchased it legally? How does one make a gun "hot?"

because someone ripped it off from some that bought it leagally and the cops never retrived it

No, dummies, they buy them.Every single gun they've been able to trace, from these two criminal's arsenals, was bought from a private seller or at a gun show.

Really?? They know who these guns were bought from? Did they pay them a visit and ask them why they committed a felony selling guns to felons? No? really??? No prison time for these folks? Either you're full of $hit, or you just described the real problem that even more gun laws are not going to fix! Think about it!!

@ashp

A " hot " gun is a stolen gun ! don't be a Dumb ass, dumb ass!

Thanks cliff for responding to my real question with an insult. I was asking how they rid of a paper trail and the answer is that the gun is still registered to an owner but are sold black market once stolen. I asked this to see how plausable my solution was thanks for your input. Anyways in that case my solution would still work as the owner should report the gun stolen and or missing. It doesn't mean they will find it though but still.

It is also interesting to note that nobody has addressed my well thought out solution. I am starting to think the gun nuts on here don't really want to improve the situation as i suspected but only want to bash anyone with any thoughtful comments about how to solve this crisis. It is a knee jerk reaction i guess that shows the ignorance of the right wing militia types. It is so sad that people cannot come up with something and when someone tries, it is seen as an impedement on your 2nd ammendment rights. Your apathy and insults show where your sympathies lie and it isn't with gun violence victims. It is such a shame.

Your apathy and insults show where your sympathies lie and it isn't with gun violence victims. It is such a shame.

--------------------------------------------

You mean like the gang bangers shooting each other nightly in our big city streets? I don't have an iota of sympathy for them. And, they are our biggest percentage of gun deaths.

frontpagemag.com/.../america-doesnt-have-a-gun-problem-it-..

www.chicagonow.com/.../no-gun-debate-until-gang-bangers-e...

https://plus.google.com/.../posts/TCwNMk61xp3

Want to solve the problem, easy, abolish welfare. THAT has been our biggest contributor in letting the poor breeding out of control. They'd have to get off their butts and figure out a way to pay for their own lives and think beyond tonight whether or not bring another mouth into this world to feed and clothe is worth having unprotected sex.

Who do you think these people shooting each other in the streets are? Because it's, definably, not 'right wing militia types'. Not at all...

Why don't you take your own advice and Hush Up Allready!!! You are one sick puppy and God help us if you are armed?

feel sorry for me...please disarm yourself let some nut bag shoot you...then i'll feel sorry for you who listen to my dumbass...

The only skum I see are those making remarks like this.

WeThinkYouSucks, Big Dummy!

Gee Mr. I(whatever), it sounds like you and your values are just a little bit to the right of Attila the Hun.

Odolph won't allow that because it would actually work.

Obama = FAIL!!!!!

because that would violate the illegals rights.but obammy and the rest of his libtard goons have no problem violating an american citizens rights.go figure!

Arizonatime: YOU and others like you are what is wrong with this country. People like you that have so much HATE in your heart make things worse. Name calling and spewing hate does not help. Try to stop making Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly rich by listening to their hate and try to become a better American. Maybe then you wouldn't need your guns. And by the way, how many Guns do you need? One would be sufficient for anyone if in fact you know how to shoot!

When are people going to understand that checking the background of law abiding citizens WILL NOT prevent unlawful minded persons from accessing weapons, of any kind!!!!

Background checks promote nothing but getting your name on a list!!!!!

one nation how many weapons do you think i should be allowed and what type?when should and how should i be allowed an opinion?when should i be allowed a trial by jury ?when am i allowed not to be illegally search and my property siezed?since you our think OUR constitutional rights are just privilidges that can be dictated by what someone,like yourself ,on what they should be allowed to have!you are phucking clueless!!

str8jkt82: Maybe you need to go back to school and get an education. Hard to read and understand what you just typed! Personally I don't think you should be allowed any weapons! Now go and have another drink!

Neither Gabby, nor anyone else, thinks that background checks ONLY will solve the issues we have of gun violence in America. Just because she didn't mention the need for better access to mental health, stiffer penalties for use of firearms in commission of felonies (already in place in many areas), etc.--doesn't mean she doesn't support those things. She does. Most people who support increased gun regulation (including the majority of gun owners), support a wide range of changes that go beyond just gun regulation.

The comments here are typical--first change the subject a lot, then make personal attacks lumping people together into whatever group the writer considers to be 'the enemy'.

Majority of gun owners? You are making that up. Know one Ive ever spoken to wants a wide range of changes. If you dont want a gun fine. I do so leave me alone.

Gabby Giffords was a D who supported gun rights and still does. NO ONE IS ABOLISHING the Second Amdmt, just looking for appropriate REGULATION - take a look at the second amendment folks, it actually includes the terms "well regulated".

yes, they are going to milk this for all they can get.

I'm glad Gabby got to return to the scene of her shooting if that is what she wanted. I for one, do not want to return to the foreign country where I was shot to pieces. I will move forward with my life; we cannot continue to live in the past, forever. I am a gun owner and still shoot regularly and hopefully always will. Background checks are already the law. obumer will always be looking for something more. He has never put on a US uniform, served or defended any American Rights. Thank you.

"For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know."

Arty Girl,

Well regulated is in terms of a militia. Please stop spreading your ignorance.

It is a damn shame and I am perplexed her husband is going along with it. Political aspirations? You bet. The only thing this show is missing is the leash.

I was thinking the same thing when I seen this latest article. I am glad I am not the only one thinking that. They must get a real kick out of this. I know they did with that moron Sheehan. She was just dumb enough to take the cheese, Gabby isn't mentally competent enough to know any better and her husband is exploiting this as much as the left is.

Thank you, Exactly.

How is she a wacko?

Crown Point: "I was attacked..."

These brainwashed liberals just don't understand, CP.

I do, because I was the victim of a home invasion. Eleven Mexican banditos broke into my house with evil intent. They were armed with Uzis, AK47s and AR-15s, and I could tell with a glance that every gun was stolen from the neighboring town's gun buyback program.

They rushed into the living room where I was waiting in my Abrams M-1 tank. Those evil-doers looked into the 120 mm smoothbore barrel and wet their pants.

I told them to leave at once---they pretended to not understand English but I raised my voice which I've found always works with foreigners---and they left.

You never saw this on the news because the liberal main-stream media refuses to cover stories of arms used to thwart criminals. Also, I never called 911 because I'm the self-reliant sort, and because I didn't want Obama and Pelosi and the other socialist gay Muslims coming for my tank or my guns.

/irony and sarcasm you effing troll

Bob,

Stay in Boston. They need you there.

How has the 2nd Amendment been watered down? You having trouble buying rocket launcher? Not enough lunatics out there armed for you?

even charging $.02 for a "license" and needing permission to carrry a weapon ANYWHERE is infringing. The Supreme Court can go to hell...the public's reading comprehension of the 2nd Amendment and the Federalist Papers needs no interpretation from appointed/annointed lefties. Done deal...

Band, Like tape the Magazines together.

Topfool!

Yes, ban all guns especially in the border states so that the mexican cartel can just come in and take over. You think this isn't a serious threat, do your research.

Solar that was funny as all hell . XD

you won the award of the dumbest post of the day congrats let me guess you think the goverment and the police are gonna protect right hugh you must have voted for obama aswell keep living in you fairytale world and sooner than later its gonna bite you in the arse!!!!! good luck with that let me know how that works out for ya

When the constitution was written, things were not as crazy as they are today. It really sickens me to hear folk try to equate the constitution with behavior of today in many instances. People have changed, they are doing more bizzar things, SEE? When the constitution was written, it was designed for sane people. Today, folk are stooping down doing things that many animals will not do when it comes to hurting each other...When gun laws were enacted, folk were not walking the street with assault weapons...Face it, people have changed for the worst, and the law should be designed to address behavior of the lawless.

Lou Vieceli: NO POLITICIAN IS TO EVER CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION

I'm sure they covered this in your GED prep class, Lou, but we've changed the constitution 27 times. The changes are called amendments. That's kind of a big word, Lou, but work it out.

Also, the Supreme Court (that's a big court in Washington, DC, which is the capital of our country) interprets the constitution for the current times. They do this from time to time. They have interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean that state, local and federal governments can in fact limit a private citizen's rights to buy and have guns.

I know this is a lot to keep track of Lou, but you can do it.

You're right Kiwi

" People have changed, they are doing more bizarre things, SEE? When the constitution was written, it was designed for sane people. Today, folk are stooping down doing things that many animals will not do when it comes to hurting each other......Face it, people have changed for the worst, and the law should be designed to address behavior of the lawless".

ONE OF THE REASONS I OWN A GUN - TO PROTECT MY FAMILY FROM THESE INSANE ANIMALS!

wow bob your a complete ignorant boston fan i see nothing has changed with your attitudes wow you must have graduated from a great school and probably jobless welching off us taxpayers.ONE THING I KNOW BOBBY IS THE GOVERMENT WILL NEVER GET MY GUNS NOR WILL I LISTEN TO ANYONE FROM BOSTON

Shame, shame, shame on you for making such a comment. God created you to be a human being, why is it that you are choosing to conduct your self worst than an inhumane animal by making such a comment? Remember, you have a head and it might not be exempt from someone who chooses to be an inhumane animal as well.

right on

You fail to understand because quite frankly, you are too ignorant on the constitution, or simply choose to be stupid.

kiwi..i think the inner city gangbanging , drug dealing , welfare mooching , never worked a day in their lives thing is ''out of hand''.i've worked chicago hud housing for a client of mine and mind you i will not any more because pat quinn won't let me defend myself but.... i tell you what.... take a walk with me in englewood when one of the animals who has multiple babies by multiple fathers completely destroys his or her taxpayer assisted living home while enjoying every amnity in life for free paid for by ...you...lets go inspect some hud homes ..then tell me what you think. stop trying to condemn legal and lawful firearms owners.

I think you don't understand Mr. Burns. Nobody is talking about taking away your constitutional right to own a gun. You are the one who chooses to act and say stupid things.

Kiwi333, why should we have to have background checks to buy a firearm but no background check is required on the president that we have now? Firearms are not the problem, criminals and nut cases are the the problem. You obviously don't understand the problem.

A person gets it nice post!!!!1