Agreed CD

An inexperience gun owner is extremely dangerous.

Similar to a 8 year old driving an F250 in a small parking lot...

That is why I believe that a proper training course for hand gun owners is not a bad idea.

People who think they are much safer just because they own a gun is nothing but a false sense of security. I support people's right to own firearms. I just think that the vast majority don't have the safety they assume they do, just because they own a gun.

The gun nut that proposed it didn't even vote for his own ballot measure. A waste of time and money. Just like the House Republicans voting to restrict abortion or repeal Obamacare many, many times last year with no chance of the bills going anywhere.

OK. Bryon’s five minutes of shame is over. Time to move on.

From the article:

"I feel we accomplished what we set out to do and I hope we will wake this town up," Simmons said. "We made a statement to the federal government that they can't take our guns away."

Well, Mr. Simmons, considering that no one from the federal government is trying to come and take your guns away in the first place, I feel that all you accomplished was to show the rest of the nation your delusional paranoia...

People who think they are much safer just because they own a gun is nothing but a false sense of security. I support people's right to own firearms. I just think that the vast majority don't have the safety they assume they do, just because they own a gun.

to some extent this is true. People FEEL safe when they have a gun in their home, but statistically speaking you're at a minimum TWICE as likely to die by firearm if you have a gun in the home as someone who does not.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Not that I begrudge anyone the right to take that risk if they feel it necessary, I don't think we should outlaw guns. That's stupid.

Well, the people of Byron aren't really Mensa members, are they? People just want sensible gun control laws, not to take away all your guns. Ridiculous story.

Requiring people to own guns? Could anything be more un-American, forcing citizens to buy an expensive, dangerous product that they don't want or need? I'll bet the NRA would love it if we were forced to buy more guns.

What a goofy idea... why not require all households to own a microwave oven instead? It's safer, more useful, and it saves energy.

Anyone who thinks a gun makes their family safer hasn't read the statistics on accidental shootings and suicides.

Paranoia....Big Destroyah....Get it much? Peace, tranquility and public safety....Evil. Streets with bloodshed, gunfire and bullets flying every 60 seconds? Good. This is the mentality of the sick, violent men and women who are paranoid about "protection." They don't want to man up and admit the real reason they are so paranoid about "protection." It's not because they live in a dangerous community. Who the hell knows where Byron, Maine is? What were these gun loonies protecting themselves from if not EACH OTHER? So Byron must be a place where you need guns because your home is every hour of every day located in a town where it will be burlarized and you'll be murdered or raped? BS.

Gun nutties who obsess over protection have a hidden agenda under their manic violent natures...They detest peace. To them, it's an evil they'd be the first to destroy. To them, safe, peaceful streets, schools and public places must not be allowed to be the basis of freedom. Shoot 'em ups and blood and gore...that's their version of "freedom."

Sorry, but when you live in a tiny town and need that much protection, you also need something else...professional mental help. It's hysterically funny seeing all those pushy shovey aggressives trying to prove how wonderful life would be if only the whole country..men, women and children were armed with military weapons. Haul out the war tanks and shoulder fired rockets ...the Byron Maine people need your protection...NOT.

Anyone who thinks a gun makes their family safer hasn't read the statistics on accidental shootings and suicides.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

here's the link from my edit. Its delves into some of that, amongst other things.

Good points, ewent.

The gunners have been fed a diet of fear and paranoia by the right wing, and the agenda there isn't exactly hidden: Buy more guns. Enrich the arms industry.

They are the dupes of big business... nothing ever changes.

You have a right to not carry a weapon, and I have a right to carry a weapon. It's not up to you or anyone else why I carry. That is left to me, because in this country we have individual freedoms given to us by our Founders.

I will most certainly agree with you regarding this portion. It IS your right to own a firearm is you so desire, and I don't think reasonable people are trying to take that right away. Yes, there are the occasional idiots in Congress who stick their feet in their mouthes, one notable instance in the Senate (/sigh, Feinstein had to poison the well on this one), and random posters here and there on the internet, but by and large NO ONE is trying to repeal the 2nd amendment.

If I think I need to carry my M16 in my car with me, then that is MY RIGHT to do so.

this part we most certainly DO NOT agree on, especially if the M16 has automatic fire, burst, or select fire capability (if its true semi-auto, i still don't like it but there are far less restrictions on semiauto rifles).

There is no practical reason why you would need anything more than a handgun in your vehicle for personal protection, and having an M16 in your car makes it a prime target for auto theft (and now some crazy criminal has an M16). If someone tries to carjack you, you couldn't even aim and point the rifle at them (but you could easily stick a handgun in their face). Bad idea all around...

Barry and the Lib media....Good job, NRA membership and gun sells set a record high......that WAS your objective... right?

You can type anything you want, does it make it true...umm no. "I built a safe in my truck" lol really why? So if you are out and need your assult weapon you can open a safe, remove it and try and stop a crime? You say you are a safe gun owner (like you would say anything else). ALL gun owners say this BUT look at all the accidental shootings in the US. If you are all soooooo safe why all the deaths? Your posts are rediculous. Hey by the way I am the King of Tunisia, must be true I just typed in an online comment section!!!

Dawgfan-4710266: "The majority of us are not paranoid. We watch the local news."

If you watch the local news, Dawgfan, you will become paranoid.

Lots of studies out there about how local news picks their stories for sensationalism, titillation and terror. Google it if you want to learn more. It is especially bad with the Fox affiliates.

And, sure, the gun safe is totally not made up. Heh heh. And the $30K rifle.

You have every right to feel that way. I have passed all required checks, fingerprinting, interviews, fees, and local jurisdictional approval for my A2. If I think I need to carry a $30,000 rifle around in my vehicle and it get's stolen, then that's on me. I'm responsible for keeping that weapon and all my other weapons safe and in my control. Obviously being a CWP holder I wouldn't rely solely on a rifle. I always have a handgun on me. I'm well trained in close quarters, low light, carjackings, and basic self-defense. There's also something you don't know, and that is I custom built a safe into my vehicle. It's 1/4 in thick steel plate welded to the car with bio-metric and numeric lock. The locking bolts are an inch in diameter.

I still think it's a bad idea, but whatever floats your boat. And I'm somewhat skeptical as is "Bob in Boston." Anytime a pro-gun person boasts about how "responsible" they are, there is always some super-secure, locktight, biometric, 10 ton safe wherein their guns are housed.

You may be telling the truth, I'll gladly give you the benefit of the doubt here. But even so, the vast majority of gun owners are NOT that responsible and NOT that secure in how they store/handle their firearms, and given some of the rantings I've seen on the newsvine and elsewhere my impression is that far more gun owners are like THIS (see below) than like you (yes, this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWHFMQ8Wlk

I'm one of the responsible gun owners that Feinstein wants to have my rights taken away because of cosmetic features of a weapon. A few of my 12 gauge shotguns would be illegal under her plan because they have a pistol grip and a collapsable stock. I could return it to standard and it would be perfectly legal. Nothing to do with the actual functioning of the gun. My AR's ank AK's could have the flash suppressors removed and a mussle break replaced and a fixed stock and they would be perfectly legal under her plan. Do you see why we think the grabbers are so uninformed?

I think Feinstein's "Assault Weapons Ban" is stupid, and have stated so numerous times on the newsvine. It doesn't matter, as it will not pass either chamber (e.g., the House or Senate). Handguns are used in orders of magnitude more gun crimes and gun violence, and any attention to the issue should be focused there.

Do you support removing shotguns from patrol cars? Remember, cops don't carry guns to protect you. They carry them to protect themselves.

Not relevant. Police Cars don't have shotguns in them to prevent auto theft, they have shotguns in them so the officer has one when responding to the scene of a crime.

Unless you're a law enforcement officer, or you're headed to the rifle range and/or hunting you really have NO REASON to have a rifle or shotgun in the car. Note, this is not the same as saying you shouldn't have the RIGHT to keep one in your car if you see fit, there just isn't a good reason for it.

My next door neighbor has a permit to carry concealed. His house was recently broken into and burglarized, during the night while he and his wife slept upstairs. Several hours later, and after the sheriff had been there and left, I asked him if he checked to see if his gun was still there...he had not, had forgotten all about it, and had a few moments of panic before he found it was still there. "Responsible" gun owner? If you ask him, he'll say he's the picture of responsibility, just like the guy who has a safe in his truck to lock up his necessary gun!

Dan,

I built a safe in my vehicles not just to carry a rifle around. It's because of laws restricting where I can carry. The glove box won't hold up to a fricken screwdriver. I wanted "some" comfort knowing if I have to leave a firearm in my vehicle that it would be safe. I also travel through states where a firearm must be locked up while in the car, and go to shooting competitions.

There are accidental shootings. There are also accidental stabbings, accidental falls, car accidents, construction accidents, kids swallowing things they shouldn't on accident, and all of them kill kids. Car accidents are the number 1 killer of children in this country. My weapons while they have been in my possession have never killed anyone. About half of my collection has at one time been used in wars spanning the Revolutionary war to Desert Storm, and ranges from flint lock rifles and pistols to the most modern weapons platforms available on the market today.

Grover,

Also, to give you a little background on me. I started shooting when I was 5 years old. I was taught by my grandfather who spent 32 years in the FBI. He served in the Airforce during WWII, and brought back a few weapons that were handed down to me. He also handed down his weapons he obtained while in the FBI. Because of a couple of those weapons I have to jump through the hoops to own Class III weapons. Now I don't own a 10-ton safe, but the three Liberty safes I do have are 1,300 lbs each. My grandfather instilled in me to keep weapons safe and secure, never point one at a target you do not intend to shoot/kill, and make your firearm the very last resort.

See the picture off all the residents that showed up for the meeting to vote? That's a picture of what grown-up hippies look like. They all can't have long hair, brown leather suede jackets with fringe, and bell bottom jeans.

DrowningGrover

Not relevant. Police Cars don't have shotguns in them to prevent auto theft, they have shotguns in them so the officer has one when responding to the scene of a crime.

Apparently your theory is that cops should be able to respond to a criminal act with a shotgun but I should not (unless you believe that I will never be the victim of a crime when outside of my house). I do not subscribe to that theory.

Dawgfan-4710266.........you said:

Quote......I have passed all required checks, fingerprinting, interviews, fees, and local jurisdictional approval for my A2. If I think I need to carry a $30,000 rifle around in my vehicle and it get's stolen, then that's on me. I'm responsible for keeping that weapon and all my other weapons safe and in my control. Obviously being a CWP holder I wouldn't rely solely on a rifle. I always have a handgun on me. I'm well trained in close quarters, low light, carjackings, and basic self-defense. There's also something you don't know, and that is I custom built a safe into my vehicle. It's 1/4 in thick steel plate welded to the car with bio-metric and numeric lock. The locking bolts are an inch in diameter.

I'm one of the responsible gun owners that Feinstein wants to have my rights taken away because of cosmetic features of a weapon. A few of my 12 gauge shotguns would be illegal under her plan because they have a pistol grip and a collapsable stock. I could return it to standard and it would be perfectly legal. Nothing to do with the actual functioning of the gun. My AR's ank AK's could have the flash suppressors removed and a mussle break replaced and a fixed stock and they would be perfectly legal under her plan. Do you see why we think the grabbers are so uninformed?.......EndQuote

You (apparently) have no idea how weirdly (even pathologically) eccentric you sound to those of us not possessed by irrational fears of post-apocalyptic anarchy and/or tyrannical government.

Until this nation can implement sensible gun laws which do not subordinate public safety to irrational and paranoid fears, we can only hope yours do not worsen so as to cause you to commit preemptive heavily armed violence against whatever or whomever you fear.

Here is but one reminder of what such weaponry in the hands of ordinary citizens facilitates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb0KowUgIss

Some wonder if it isn't anarchy you folks desire. See-->http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Obama&as_epq=militia&as_oq=%22civil+war%22+tyranny+insurrection&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

Listen, this NRA propaganda BS needs to stop. The government is not going to take your guns. Sure there are some nuts out there that campaign for taking all guns but they are just a radical minority that very few are getting behind. The point is that Democrats and Republicans both recognize that gun ownership is a Constitutional right and neither would vote for a law asking the government to take all guns. Anyone that really believes otherwise needs professional help.

That's where this story about the town in Main comes in. Those that brought this before the city council needs help even though they are playing politics. God I can't wait for Obama's term to end then maybe some of this Republican/NRA BS will stop. I seriously doubt it though because the Republicans spent millions of taxpayers to try to find something on the Clintons concerning Whitewater so for me to believe that the Republicans will ever accept another Democrat as president is a stretch of my imagination I guess.

Creek Dog: I absolutely agree with you, however I think it is a shame that these folks want to leave it up to the government or someone else to protect them. A false sense of security and a bit on the ignorant side. Whats the harm in taking a class or two in firearms safety?

Ian,

See 1.21 and 1.22.

The weapons used in the North Hollywood Shootout were illegally modified to fire full auto. Something National Geographic won't tell you.

I don't want anarchy. I enjoy my freedoms. Firearms my seem eccentric to you, but that may be because you have never been around them? Some people think that Dungeons and Dragons is weirdly eccentric, but I'm not going to ask for legislation banning it because I know nothing about it. The gun control measures being talked about will do very little if anything at all. Answer this for me...

1. If Universal background checks are implemented, how will our govt ensure that criminals run background checks on the criminals they sell weapons to?

2. Assault weapons ban would prevent mass shootings how? The North Hollywood Shootout you posted about happened during the 1994-2004 ban, which also banned large ammo mags. During the 1994-2004 ban there were 151 deaths in school shootings in a span of 300+ gun instances across the nation. 21 of those had more than 1 fatality, and Colombine happened during that time as well.

3. How many lives were saved in the Theatre shooting becasue the large mag jammed? He got off less than 30 of the 100 rounds in the mag. Most victims were killed by a 12 gauge, and those injured were mostly buckshot that was beyond lethal distance, and handgun fire.

4. If these measures are aimed at saving lives, then why do none of the proposals do anything to severly crack down on the actual criminals that commit these crimes?

Some people like to play golf and collect baseball cards. I like to shoot competitively and collect rare firearms.

2cents,

There's no harm in taking safety classes. It's the part about people wanting it to be a requirement for a Constitutional right that upsets many. Let's say we impose a history test or similar requirement to be able to vote? See where that slippery slope comes into play? If it can be used on one right, then it can be used on all of them.

Dawgafan, I fully understand what you're saying about the weapons being modified to be fully automatic but don't you think that is all the more reason to keep those semiautomatic weapons out of the hands of criminals? Sure an honest responsible gun owner like yourself would not do that but criminals really don't care if they break the law. Allowing these types of guns that can be modified to be floating around the market is only asking for trouble in the future from these type of criminals. The "Hollywood shooter" was a known felon that did not have the legal right to own a gun but lax enforcement of gun laws allowed him to buy one from somewhere.

Larry,

You just hit the nail on the head.

The "Hollywood shooter" was a known felon that did not have the legal right to own a gun but lax enforcement of gun laws allowed him to buy one from somewhere.

What makes anyone think more laws will help? It will just be more laws that are ignored.

What needs to happen is long mandatory prison terms for the use of guns during crimes. Say 20 years if it's in your possession, but not used, 30 years if used and noone is injured, and life with possibility of death if someone is injured or killed. And to make it actually work. NO PLEA DEALS.

Are any of you posting on this topic from Maine? If not, you should probably STFU. Maine has some of the most unique politics outside of texas. We take our independence seriously, and politics as a whole are largely a joke to us. We don't spend a lot of time thinking about our state legislature because with such a large state(geography) with a population that was been on the decline for the last century. Our state legislature can't really sneak anything past us as citizens, without us noticing. I don't know these people, but it seems to me it was always meant to send a message. This is how "Mainahs" accomplish political goals. It's only meant to get the attention of the state legislature during this time of gun turmoil and let them know to leave the subject alone. Much of the state has a population that would take over an hour to get a police officer to your residence. Guns as self defense are neccesary. With such a huge diversity of wildlife, and an abundance even, hunting is very big here. Most of the gun owners in this state aren't the ones planning for the apocalypse and hording arsenals. The state has one of the lowest rates of gun deaths in the country. Obviously we are doing fine with our gun laws. The state doesn't need to make any more, and the feds should leave us alone.

Send us the gang bangers of Chicago and we'll show them how to at least hold a piece so innocent people don't get killed!(For anyone confused or looking to start a flame war, this was total sarcasm!)

Grover,

Also, to give you a little background on me....

thanks for the back story. This is why I gave you the benefit of the doubt on your "truck safe" story. Because I know people like you, especially those involved in shooting sports, DO have them.

{As an aside, I'm aware of this because I was childhood friends with the son of THIS man, http://www.shootingusa.com/PRO_TIPS/DOUG_KOENIG/doug_koenig.html from Alburtis, PA.}

Unfortunately however, for every ultra-safe and responsible person like you, there are 1,000 more idiots out there toting their gun in one hand, and a Budweiser in the other, like THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWHFMQ8Wlk

Requiring people to own guns? Could anything be more un-American, forcing citizens to buy an expensive, dangerous product that they don't want or need

Soiunds oddly familiar.....something like Obamacare...hmmm.

Soiunds oddly familiar.....something like Obamacare...hmmm.

make no mistake, at some point in your life (even if it's just at the very very end of it), you WILL need healthcare and it WILL be expensive.

Mandating insurance coverage makes sure everyone has skin the game, since it's undeniable that everyone will use the service. The same CANNOT be said of mandating firearm ownership.

To compare firearms with healthcare is laughably absurd and you lose all credibility in doing so.

Apparently your theory is that cops should be able to respond to a criminal act with a shotgun but I should not (unless you believe that I will never be the victim of a crime when outside of my house). I do not subscribe to that theory.

That's not actually what I said. But continue arguing against a straw man if you wish.

I said that cops have shotguns in their cars to respond to crime scenes which may be violent encounters. If someone is trying to carjack you, a handgun will be infinitely more effective at preventing this than a 12 gauge in your trunk.

If you're not an officer of the law, you should NOT be responding to violent crime scenes to act as a vigilante.

The cops will NOT be happy if you show up in your Ford Fusion at a bank robbery, grab your AR-15 and 12 gauge from the trunk, and try to participate in the hostage negotiations or storm the vault...

Dawgafan

With all due respect I really think you are missing the point. These criminals that are using these guns illegally don't really care what prison sentence they get in fact many of them commit suicide when they are cornered as in the case of the fired LA policeman and the Sandy Hooks shooter. I'll grant you that those two would not have been excluded in background checks but at least if the Bushmaster gun was not available the Sandy Hooks shooter might not have been so destructive or better yet he might not have tried to shoot up the school with a handgun holding only 10 bullets at a time.

When will this gun insanity end? Next we'll be reading a headline saying: "NRA supports new group called, ' Convicted felons against gun control '. It's sickening how right wing zealots in America have stirred up so much fear that people are now going to extremes to protect themselves from a non existent threat.

BigAl

You have point. The Constitution does not say that those that commit crimes shall be excluded from gun ownership so why is it not unconstitutional to disallow felons to own guns? Some say criminals should not own guns because they disrespect the law but the Constitution says that the right to own guns shall not be infringed. Since that criminal is an American citizen he is given the same rights under the Constitution as someone that is not a criminal. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Don't get me wrong because I own many guns and have a concealed carry permit but I in no way want to have to do a gun battle with a criminal. There has to be a way to keep guns out of the hands of those that may use it to do harm to someone else so I fail to see the resistance to gun control laws when it does not affect the honest citizen.

2Cents

All the safety classes in the world just won't help some households. Some people just shouldn't own guns. Not because they are bad people, just because they are irresponsible... they don't watch their kids.. they don't watch their pets.... they don't watch the road when they are driving, etc.... they just don't have their heads and arses wired together.

Larry,

You are focusing solely on mass shootings. The real numbers come from gangbangers, drug dealing, and domestic violence.

The Constitution applies only to law-abiding Citizens when it's "fundamental rights" are ratified. Certain "fundamental rights" can be restricted due to felony convictions, non-citizens, or even child molestors or wife beaters, which clearly fall in this category. Mentally Ill citizens can also have these "fundamental rights" restricted, and that decision must be rendered by competent authority such as the Judiciary under State and Federal Jurisdiction. As to legislated ownership? We did have the Draft, and there was a time when Homosexuality was a "no-no" for serving in the Armed Forces. Race was also a factor...it "limited" service. Things and Times do change. However, "...if the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and this being a "fundamental right" of American Citizenship IF lawful, and "self-defense" is the "central component" of the 2d Amendment, see, McDonald v. City of Chicago (SC 2010), which UPHELD DC v. Heller (SC 2008) supra., that is forever the "Supreme Law of the Land," and the "restrictions" mentioned above noted therein as a matter of Law. Infringement is that State and Local Laws can not supplant this "fundamental right" and cannot pass their own laws to abolish this Right; they may add-to this "fundamental right" but can never "diminish" or "ignore" its intent and purpose. All State and thus Local Laws must be in conformance with this 2d Amendment, that is "fully incorporated" within the 14th Amendment, see, McDonald, supra., and be reminded that this is NOT a privilege but a RIGHT and is now enforecable against the States--all of them, all "57" of 'em, you know what I'm saying?

Dawgfan-4710266......you said:

Quote......The weapons used in the North Hollywood Shootout were illegally modified to fire full auto......EndQuote

So what? Full-auto is mostly useful for fire suppression during an assault or overwhelming firepower in a defensive scenario. It is of little use in a massacre where semi-auto provides both sufficient rounds per minute and time to put them on target. The M4 has only semi-auto and 3 round burst modes. In any case, how do we know that you have not and/or do not intend to modify your personal arsenal to full auto?

....and:

Quote......If Universal background checks are implemented, how will our govt ensure that criminals run background checks on the criminals they sell weapons to?......EndQuote

Virtually nothing in our lives is certain or perfect. For example, background checks for employees in our public schools designed to prevent sex offenders from employment there do not prevent all offenders from gaining such employment. Is this (to you) reason to abandon (or not strengthen) sex-offender regulations?

......and:

Quote...... Assault weapons ban would prevent mass shootings how?.....EndQuote

See answer above.

......and:

Quote......How many lives were saved in the Theatre shooting becasue the large mag jammed? He got off less than 30 of the 100 rounds in the mag. Most victims were killed by a 12 gauge, and those injured were mostly buckshot that was beyond lethal distance, and handgun fire.......EndQuote

Oh, so 30 or 40 rounds (lives) is insignificant to you. What about Newtown? No jam there. Why do you suppose these shooters choose assault rifles. Is it because they don't think they are effective? For that matter, why do you choose them? Is it because you think they will jam in a firefight?

.....and:

Quote......I like to shoot competitively and collect rare firearms......EndQuote

Sure. No doubt that is why you carry a concealed weapon.

kaybeetoys #1.7,

Requiring people to own guns? Could anything be more un-American, forcing citizens to buy an expensive, dangerous product that they don't want or need?

Oh no, somebody (kbt) was sleeping during American history class.

Never heard of the Minute Men? Never heard of the State Militia, made up of 'all able bodied free adult males' (ie. the common citizen).

Oh horrors, they even were REQUIRED to provide their own weapon of the same caliber as in use by the army.

Poor GW, TJ, Adams, Franklin, Hancock adjudged as un-American by that super patriot 'kaybeetoys'.

Oh, the shame, the humiliation, for all those over rated Founding Fathers of America.

..

Oh, just curious, did the teachers and staff at Sandy Hook NEED... expensive, dangerous product...recently?

You know that ol' saw, better to have and not need, than to...

Missed the point.... now didn't ya.

I think everybody missed the point there. Do you know what it was?

They are pro gun but unanimously voted down a measure that they couldn't have enacted anyway....

If there is a statement there I sure as hell missed it too.

I actually think it's more along the lines of "Hey let's pass this and make everyone own a gun"... "Oh wait, you mean it has NO chance at passing? Then let's spin it and say we were just trying to make a statement".

They never intended to "Make a statement". The few tried to enforce their will and when they saw it was failing, they decided to see how they could spin it so they look like they won.

Glinter McDoor

Brian, I think the point is that it is not the government's place to tell a citizen they can't own a gun, any-more than it is to tell them they can't. It was irony.

Maybe so...but as the article says, there are similar initiatives in Sabattus, Maine and Nelson, Georgia.

How much 'irony' is enough?

A certain segment of the population truly believes we'd be safer if everyone owned a gun.

The Statement was that it's not the govt's place to tell a citizen whether they should own a gun or shouldn't. It's not the govt's responsibility to do so. It is left up to the people to make that decision. It is our right to do so. That was the statement.

Brian-546328

I think everybody missed the point there. Do you know what it was?

Ummmm...

the point of the measure, which was considered unenforceable, was to send a message to state and federal lawmakers trying to pass gun control laws.

Is that statement too difficult for you people to understand?

Glinter

Good job YOU get it.

Scooter,

No, it's what actual 'statement' they were making that's the mystery to me. I think the people who say, they jumped into he deep end without knowing it and are gracefully trying to extricate themselves, may be on to something.

Seems like trying to overturn the ban on municipalities enacting this stuff would have been a statement.

scooter

in the article about Colorado - you were talking to your gun and miraculous in this article you get the f#%$-up message that this town in Maine is trying to send.

Like I said before...therapy is not a bad thing

Gotta hand it to our public officials. No better way to get cash from the NRA than to jump on the loony train, but why stop there? The 2nd amendment refers to arms, aka weapons which would include tanks, rocket/grenade launchers, missiles, bombs, fighter jets, whatever. Why not, right? I, for one will not allow that socialist Obama to take my dynamite away. I have a right to hunt and protect my family. Count 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 until the rwnj's chime in to agree with me.

When the 2nd was written, they were referring to muskets.

sane., #2.12,

When the 2nd 1st was written, they were referring to muskets hand printing presses.

OOPS ! NO INTERNET FOR NEWSVINE JUNKIES.

"I feel we accomplished what we set out to do and I hope we will wake this town up," Simmons said. "We made a statement to the federal government that they can't take our guns away."

I must admit, the circularity of that logic is so dizzying, it would make a hyena vomit.

Sophistry raised (or lowered, as the case may be) to an art form by Mr. Simmons.

2.13 <grin>

Ouch!! All those deadly words.

agreed.

too bad, would have loved to see what they said about any felons that live there that would then be forced to own a gun. do they have to move or are we gonna arm ex cons? now i'll never get an answer.

too bad, would have loved to see what they said about any felons that live there that would then be forced to own a gun. do they have to move or are we gonna arm ex cons? now i'll never get an answer.

Haha, good point. That WOULD have been interesting, and now we'll never get the entertainment we so desire.

Good stuff :)

hatr.,#4.2, drown.,#4.3,

SILLY BOYS, exactly when does a city ordinance over rule a federal law (felons ARE prohibited firearms).

If a gun ban is a lie then why is a Democratic congresswoman saying that is the objective.

Video blogger Jason Mattera has Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky saying that an assault weapons ban is just the beginning.

She also says that a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action.

The congresswoman also voices her support for universal background checks. As we’ve previously stated, universal background checks create a de facto gun registry by eventually putting every gun on a Form 4473. These forms can be greatly controlled by the federal government and are already turned over to the ATF when a firearms dealer closes or changes owners.

This should show you what the anti gunners true agenda is. Anti gunner Dianne Feinstein has also said, on video, that her ultimate goal is to ban all firearms.

Make no mistake, these anti gun politicians are not interested in compromises. They are only interested in a ultimate goal of complete gun bans.

Oh no!! The government might know who owns a gun?!?! Pull down your dented venetian blinds... double lock your trailer door (oops, the lock is broken)... hide behind the broken down car parked on your front lawn... the government is coming for YOU!

I'm with you! We rarely locked our doors when our kids were teens, someone was always coming or going, and friends in and out. We always had dogs to alert us to strangers, and always felt if you have a gun, you better be willing to pull the trigger...which I am not.

I'm not opposed to responsible, law abiding citizens owning firearms for their protection, but it seems a lot of irresponsible nut jobs have them too.

How can responsible Americans oppose responsible laws?

I'm glad to see there are rational people living in Maine, no one should, nor could, force me to own a firearm.

If a gun ban is a lie then why is a Democratic congresswoman saying that is the objective?

A is the keyword there.

Make no mistake, these anti gun politicians are not interested in compromises. They are only interested in a ultimate goal of complete gun bans.

Can we spell paranoia, class?

I'm not opposed to responsible, law abiding citizens owning firearms for their protection, but it seems a lot of irresponsible nut jobs have them too.

Gun ownership in the country was at 50 in the '70's, now it is 35%. The same paranoid minority keeps purchasing more and more guns - which no doubt pleases the manufacturers immensely.

So because one politician thinks all guns should be banned that means that's what is going to happen? That would never happen. There's not even really the support to enact the assault weapons ban again, yet you think ALL guns are going to be banned? Get real. Not only would that never happen nationally, there's also many states that would never even think about doing that on a state wide level. I know you people think that if you keep spreading your fear mongering crap that all guns are going to banned that it will in fact become true, but it's not.

Also, save me the crap that "anti gunners" don't want compromise. The "pro gunners" don't either. They don't even want a conversation on anything that could help. There answer is just NO. Don't change anything. You're taking away my rights. Everything else is the cause BUT guns. Get real. Stop spreading your ignorance as fact.

It is you who are woefully ignorant of the Left's desires, yet you are a leftist? Seriously? Do you not know that single payer is the ultimate goal for their vision of healthcare? Yet they'll currently deny it. Or do you not know that encouraging food stamps comes largely from a place of encouraging dependence on the the State, because they are statists; and growing the size and power of the centralized government is what the Left lives for. You don't get this yet?

Do you not know that disarming the populace is just another of these top, 'holy grails', so to speak, to the Left?

If you are telling the truth, how could you be so blind? That I just don't understand about decent people who are on the Left. It's like blinders, or something.

Frequent Male Flyer, no need for that broken lock on the trailer door. They own a gun! Don't ya know that owning a gun prevents crime 100% of the time? Nothing bad EVER happens to gun owners. They are like an invisible shield that keeps ALL crime from ever happening. Illegal guns fell to Earth as illegal guns. It even says so in the bible... This is straight from the bible ... Bubba 3:15 "here y'all, take these illegal guns. they's give legal gun owners reason to keep their shiny egos".

The town is free to vote however they like. It sounds as though many town members are indeed owners of firearms. Though I am a CC myself, I don't believe the government should EVER tell you what you HAVE to buy!

Oh no!! The government might know who owns a gun?!?! Pull down your dented venetian blinds... double lock your trailer door (oops, the lock is broken)... hide behind the broken down car parked on your front lawn... the government is coming for YOU!

I know you're being sarcastic, but I think you perfectly captured the mindset of the most ardent pro-gun supporters out there. The vast majority of the public has no interest in coming to take all their firearms, but they feverishly believe this anyway.

The entire notion of the "2nd amendment protects us from a tyrannical government" is pretty laughable.

First, that's a pretty biased interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Second, it presupposed that the US military would follow orders if directed to enslave the populace (it's an all-volunteer force comprised of your friends, family, and neighbors, they would NOT follow that order).

And third, it makes the assumption that in some strange, far-off dystopian society you'd actually STAND A CHANCE against the brunt of the US military with your AR-15 rifle and "prepper" style underground bunker (as if we don't have cruise missiles that could easily penetrate your aluminum shack like a blowtorch through butter...).

dupe

@ Robert. Again as previously pointed out, One or two Democratic senators is not the entire Democratic Congress or those who vote Democratic. Just as two sentences in a book doesn't explain the whole book.

@ Glinter. The topic is guns,changing the topic to healthcare and food stamps does not enhance that topic only sounds like a loser trying to get a away from the heat

sking111

If you would like something from the bible, read a little bit about Nimrod.

And third, it makes the assumption that in some strange, far-off dystopian society you'd actually STAND A CHANCE against the brunt of the US military with your AR-15 rifle and "prepper" style underground bunker

As a retired combat vet this statement is assinine. Assuming the government decided to circumvent the Constitution and try confiscating weapons, the military would not get involved but would likely join with common citizens. Military members are sworn to defend the Constitution, and defend it they will. No government can stand without its military...period. And in your "dystopian" society example, look no further than Syria, the rebels seem to be holding their own pretty well against better armed (including air power) government troops. So unless the 2nd Amendment is changed, which is not likely, your assertion is idiotic at best.

Great place to live! As a former Bostonian, it took awhile to adjust to the calmer social atmosphere up here, but it was worth the move.

I wish that were true, BeekGirl. I really do.

"What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned."
                                                -Sen Howard Metzenbaum (1917-2008)"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose.
                                                  -Janet Reno"I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns,”                                                  -Ed Kock“Confiscation  could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option."                                                                                                                  -NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo 2013

@Robert, you are quoting a few politicians giving their opinions about guns. Please QUOTE where the federal government has stated that they want to remove guns from the hands of its citizens. You can't, but I'll wait for it.

real., #11.2,

The quotes were from:

A FEDERAL senator, which IS part of the fed govt.

The FEDERAL Atty Gen., which IS part of the fed govt.

The CHIEF EXECUTIVE of a STATE, that's in the top two for attempting to strip guns from citizens.

which IS part of the state of NY govt.

Exactly who in the federal govt has to say that the sky is blue for you to believe it.

Typical GOP approach to everything - Instill FEAR!

The Democrats are the ones trying to spread their paranoid fear of guns onto the public.

Robert, that isn't true. This isn't even about political leanings necessarily. Many Democrats own guns and many Republicans don't. We need to be united on the safety of our citizens and not trying to divide people according to political persuasions.

Paranoid fear? How many shootings have there been in the past year?

Gun control has proven to make our citizens unsafe. Just look at Chicago, total gun ban yet they are the murder capitol. Nothing good has come from gun control. But to be fair requiring everybody to own a gun would also have it's own problems. Yes the crime rate would plummet but the number of accidental shootings would probably go up because some people just wouldn't know how to safely handle a gun. The best choice is for the government to just stay out of people homes.

Oh seriously! I am sick of hearing about Chicago! Look at the areas around Chicago and see where you think all those guns that are used in all the shootings might have come from. Do they have those laws or are they great places to come buy guns from? They aren't the murder capital, and you are being ridiculous saying nothing good has come from gun control. Be honest, Robert. You see the topic through a filter of being so pro-gun and anti-regulation that you have a whole list of talking points and what-ifs you pull out. Just be honest about that. Some see guns are terrifying and don't want anyone to have any ever, just as some want everyone to have all they want no questions asked. They have a filter as well and can't hear reason either. The majority of people don't want all guns removed everywhere, but do want sensible laws on the books and enforced. That is what the majority is asking for, and no, sorry, the government isn't going to take your guns...take about paranoia. We aren't in some other country in some other time period, and that is a fact.

How about we step away from the NRA, which doesn't stand for anything except gun makers now really, and talk rationally about this without having to go to extremes?

Robert: "Just look at Chicago..."

Chicago is not an island.

(An island is a body of land entirely surrounded by water. But in this usage, island is a metaphor. That means, Robert, that island is used to represent something else.)

You know how your daddy can step outside the house in the morning and pick up the newspaper. Or how your mommy can step outside and drive to the school to drop you off, or to the grocery store to pick up some food. Mommy or daddy can then return to the house.

Just like that, Robert, bad people can step outside of the city of Chicago, buy guns, then return to the city. These bad people can use the guns to commit crimes. A crime is like a No-no, only much, much worse.

When these bad people go into the gun stores, both the bad people and the store owners play make believe. The bad people pretend they are good, saying things like, "Ain't it a shame that Obama is trying to take guns from responsible gun owners." And the owners make believe too, they pretend that they don't know that the identification is fake, and they pretend that these bad people are good.

In that way, Robert, the bad people get the guns they want and the gun shop owners get money, lots and lots of money.

They send some of that money to a group called the NRA, which influences laws so the gun shops can stay in business.

This group, the NRA, doesn't mind so much that the bad people use these guns to hurt the people who live in the city of Chicago. Sometimes very young people, Robert, kids who are the same age as you. They don't mind so much because the people that get hurt look a little different, or talk a little different, than them.

The problem is People, Government and horrid leaders. I'll give you a perfect example. I now live in Plano, Texas. Of the cities in the USA of over 250,000 Plano is one of the safest places to live as to murder. Sorry Chicago but you had more murders in one day then Plano, Tx had the WHOLE year. I think 508 murders vs about 5 for the whole YEAR. The leaders here don't put up with criminal or gang activity. They rub it out. You are about 100 more times likely to be murdered in Chicago then here. Next time you bash Texas maybe you should take a look at yourselves instead.

In Plano, TX, where only 5% of the population is black, it wouldn't surprise me if the murder rate or crime rate was lower than Chicago. Homogeneity has that effect.

It wasn't long ago, however, that Plano was dubbed the suicide capital of the USA. Eighteen teens killed themselves in one school year, and a school counselor as well. Not all by gun, but most.

Before concluding that your city's gun policies are wise, or effective, compare all the stats against cities of the same size and racial mix. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Birmingham, Alabama. Boise, Idaho. Durham, North Carolina.

I can tell you this. Plano is in the Dallas Metroplex of around 5 million people. Who cares what the racial mix is. I can tell you that the Mexican population here is huge. Just about every worker at the fast foods places are a minority. If you wish to use size lets do it. Plano now about 300,000 and Chicago lets say around 2 million. Now you wish to compare let say Chicago is 7 times larger then Plano in population and they have 100 more times murders then here. Compare that. Those are the facts that remain and no others. Okay lets take San Diego then. About 1/2 half the size of Chicago with around 60 murders for the year vs 508. Look who runs these cities with lower crime rates. Chicago it seems has been given an easement for murder that dates back decades. Crooked leaders, crooked Unions, just plain crooked people that don't know or even care about the differences of right and wrong. You are what you are in life and only you are accountable for your OWN actions. People are the problem, not guns.

The problem is People, Government and horrid leaders. I'll give you a perfect example. I now live in Plano, Texas. Of the cities in the USA of over 250,000 Plano is one of the safest places to live as to murder. Sorry Chicago but you had more murders in one day then Plano, Tx had the WHOLE year. I think 508 murders vs about 5 for the whole YEAR. The leaders here don't put up with criminal or gang activity. They rub it out. You are about 100 more times likely to be murdered in Chicago then here. Next time you bash Texas maybe you should take a look at yourselves instead.

Plano is an affluent suburb of Dallas, it would be expected to have a much lower crime rate than poverty stricken areas of Chicago. These two examples provide a worthless comparison.

In Plano, TX, where only 5% of the population is black, it wouldn't surprise me if the murder rate or crime rate was lower than Chicago. Homogeneity has that effect.

It's not even the racial makeup that matters, it's economics.

The median income in Plano, TX was $103,913 in the 2010 census. The Median income of Chicago was $45,734 (and likely much lower in the specific neighborhoods afflicted by gang/gun violence), and the cost of living is actually much higher.

Comparing Plano to Chicago is like comparing an Apple to a Volkswagon...

Okay lets take San Diego then. About 1/2 half the size of Chicago with around 60 murders for the year vs 508.

Just for comparison sake, the median income of San Diego is $63, 857 with a 14% poverty rate.

Chicago has a 21.4% poverty rate.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06073.html

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html

Bottom line is 508 murders no matter the circumstances. Gang membership is what it is and has been. If you allow it to fester it will even get worse. Why not compare another city that has less crime then the other. That's why Chicago is one of the most dangerous cities to live in no matter what facts you wish to present. I would much rather feel safe then sorry. I am not giving anyone a pass for murdering someone because they don't have a job or make 12 bucks an hour. Besides here is the scoop on Plano from 2011. Quote "The median household income in Plano is $79,234, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 60 percent above the national average, and 8.1 percent of residents are below the poverty line, compared to a national rate of 15.1 percent. The city is also home to a number of Fortune 500 companies. Here is the link. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45791562/ns/business-forbes_com/#.UT-1gTfxd5c

So you are saying there would be 80 percent less murders in Chicago if they made 20,000 more a year per income?

You have given me a reason why. Hard for me to believe myself killing someone since I never made over $60,000 a year in my life. Never make excuses for the actions of others. Crime is as serious as you can possibly get. Now give me the answers on how Chicago can become a better place to live in. Now that would be great. I'm listening. Tks for the post though and I see where your coming from.

Please name the region where 100% want stricter gun regulations. Is that the same area where 127% of the people voted for Obama

You also have to specify what the restrictions are. A recent poll referenced in the Washington Times said 74 percent support requiring a criminal background check on anyone purchasing a gun.

But the same poll shows that 89 percent oppose a ban on military-style, semi-automatic weapons and 92 percent oppose a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

culheath: "Don't forget that 65% of the population prefers not to own guns making the gun advocates a very vocal, but a clear minority of the population."

I think it is closer to 75%. It depends on whether you are talking about the percentage of adults who own guns, or households that have guns.

The vocal minority: Remember, only one in 3-4 American adults are gun owners. Only one in 15-20 gun owners is an NRA member. Only one in ten NRA members are the survivalists who show up here and spew drivel. I'll do the math for you: 1 in 500. They are organized, so each single shrill voice seems like dozens as they post on right-wing sites like Limbaugh's, left-wing sites like Maddow's and middle-of-the-road sites like this one.

You can't reason with them. All you can do is make them irrelevant. Write your reps at the state level and in DC. Do it today.

Robert-1150796

Please name the region where 100% want stricter gun regulations.

It was New Jersey's 4th congressional district.

I think it is closer to 75%. It depends on whether you are talking about the percentage of adults who own guns, or households that have guns.

Good point and good post.

The problem is that 100% of criminals prefer to own guns making your point moot.

The problem is that 100% of criminals prefer to own guns making your point moot.

You know this how? You know a lot of criminals or you are one or perhaps have polled the multiple personalities inside your head who are all criminals?

Isn't that the point of politics.

Robert-1150796

Isn't that the point of politics.

Just to the Republicants

No one actually READS the articles do they??? Just see the headline and post....

AT LEAST 30%??? Seriously? Try 10% ;)
And they worry me FAR less than the cold sober guy who thinks he needs a 100 rnd mag to go hunting with :-o

Good Idea, first start with banning all guns for inner city minorities, that is who commits over 86% of ALL gun violence in the U.S.

After you disarm the Obama Voters, then come talk to middle America.

Stop yelling. If you want to ban or control something that would do some good try fast food and alcohol. They are far more devastating to our population than any psycho gun nut could hope to be. Get the candy store owners a mental evaluation, make people have to get a permit to buy a cake, and ban all bulk candy, who needs 5 pounds of snickers bars. No plate of hot-wings can have over 6 pieces of chicken. I could go on, but I doubt you would care.

Alain,

Actually you have that completely backwards. Criminals pray for more and stricter guns controls. In fact, a complete ban and ultimately confiscation would have them dancing in the street. You see, they WANT a disarmed public. They aren't afraid of the police but they are afraid of an armed citizen with the conviction to defend themselves. I am totally against any new guns laws until some politician comes up with a workable plan to get the guns out of the hands of criminals first.