Hello again, Steve:


So you believe the army won't have a problem killing the people they've been fighting for?I believe they'll view you just like Tim McVey or David Koresh, and put you down HARD..

Excon

Not a problem... thesecond also refers to well regulated

Not a problem... the second also refers to well regulated

Let us examine that for a while, because once again you are nitpicking words


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

The word regulate is used in relation to the word militia, in fact, the whole thing is subject to the idea of a militia defending the state. I see nothing in these words that speeks of self defense in the broader context, but only in defense of the nation.

So you should put the idea into force, those who keep and bear arms should be inducted into a well regulated militia because the rabble situation you have right now is unconstitutional.

There is no question about intent. Thefounders made it clear that militia was not a state or national function. It is clear from their writings... including James Madison in the Federalist papers.. that the right to bear arms was an individual right.

Bear all the arms you want except illegal ones. That's the point, some of us want some weapons and ammo illegal to the gerneral public as a matter of safety.

Legal argument aside Tom the document says what it says, it doesn't say, subject to various writings and opinions.

Bear all the arms you want except illegal ones. Thats the point, some of us want some weapons and ammo illegal to the gerneral public as a matter of safety.
Tal
I assure you the best you will get is new standardized registration requirements ,and perhaps restrictions on magazine sizes ,or restrictions on mail order ammo purchases... perhaps even restrictions on the so called gun show exceptions.

tal
I assure you the best you will get is new standardized registration requirements ,and perhaps restrictions on magazine sizes ,or restrictions on mail order ammo purchases....perhaps even restrictions on the so called gun show exceptions.

If you get any restristions it will be a move in the right direction, the whole thing has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous because of rank commercialism. You no longer have the need to have files of men blasting away at each other and that is what eighteenth century armies did

Bear all the arms you want except illegal ones. Thats the point, some of us want some weapons and ammo illegal to the gerneral public as a matter of safety.

And which ones would those be?

What a good idea . Obama gives himself and his family lifetime armed guard protection . I thinkit is well warranted and former Presidents deserve such protection. Prior to this former Presidents only were granted this well earned privilege for 10 years .
Obama OKs lifetime Secret Service for presidents (http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/01/10/obama-secret-service-lifetime-protection-bush/1823961/)

On the other hand ; he evidently thinks the rest of us peons don't deserve the right to protect ourselves. During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26;recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his reelection was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” in order to protect his daughters. There were daughters at Sandy Hook . Why shouldn't they have that benefit ? Obama sends his daughters to Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC.There are 11 armed guards patrolling that school. Our kids go to schools in 'gun free zones' where no one but people with criminal intent is armed.

Another straw man, you have no real facts in this debate, Tom, you are on the wrong side of history

tal
I assure you the best you will get is new standardized registration requirements ,and perhaps restrictions on magazine sizes ,or restrictions on mail order ammo purchases....perhaps even restrictions on the so called gun show exceptions.

That would be a step in the right direction.


And which ones would those be?

Whatever is deemed illegal under federal law. We had a ban before, it took 10 years to get it, and it expired 10 years later. Now its on the table again. The real debate for me is do citizens have the right to bear the same arms as the official Army of the US, or the regulated militia we now call the police. Both have extensive and ongoing training and practice, and answerable and accountable to higher authority for their actions.

Should not a citizen be as accountable, or groups of citizens who deem themselves a militia? Who are they accountable too? With the free exercise of rights is there no responsibility?

We have already seen where a troubled person can criminally get a legal weapon and kill not only the legal owner, but 26 more kids and adults. If you have troubled people in your family, should you have the right to bear arms?

If assault rifles and the high ammo clips were banned for all, how many people would have been saved? For sure we know the some kids at Newtown would have escaped alive.

We had a ban before, it took 10 years to get it, and it expired 10 years later.
And yet we had a number of mass murders in that time ,including Columbine.

With the free exercise of rights is there no responsibility?
yes ,and the law abiding citizens already exercise such responsibility .

TOM,
And yet we had a number of mass murders in that time ,including Columbine.

The Assault Weapons Ban: Did It Curtail Mass Shootings? — The Century Foundation (http://tcf.org/blogs/botc/2013/1/the-assault-weapons-ban-did-it-curtail-mass-shootings)


What is an undeniable truth is that we have seen an incredible uptick of mass shootings since the ban expired on September 14, 2004. To be fair, it also is a small sample size, and 2012 was an exceptionally tragic year, but the fact remains that the number of shootings has gone up over 200 percent since the ban expired.


yes ,and the law abiding citizens already exercise such responsibility

There are enough law abiding citizens taking short cuts and driving through huge loopholes to make it a problem to be addressed, as you have pointed out gun shows, and I add transporting guns from weak gun law states to stronger ones.

I have said earlier I can go with more regulated militias like police, and less unregulated ones like a band of law abiding citizens with good intentions, and a few skills, and looking to wage ARMED war against the government.

I may be wrong but I believe that's a fringe idea, that makes me very uncomfortable. Some of our law abiding citizens are crazy, and not as responsible as they should be. And citizens/vigilantes have killed people.

The Assault Weapons Ban: Did It Curtail Mass Shootings? — The Century Foundation (http://tcf.org/blogs/botc/2013/1/the-assault-weapons-ban-did-it-curtail-mass-shootings)





There are enough law abiding citizens taking short cuts and driving thru huge loopholes to make it a problem to be addressed, as you have pointed out gun shows, and I add transporting guns from weak gun law states to stronger ones.

I have said earlier I can go with more regulated militias like police, and less unregulated ones like a band of law abiding citizens with good intentions, and a few skills, and looking to wage ARMED war against the government.

I may be wrong but I believe thats a fringe idea, that makes me very uncomfortable. Some of our law abiding citizens are crazy, and not as responsible as they should be. And citizens/vigilantes have killed people.



Are we really looking at a genuine uptick or are we looking into the mirror of what society has become? Today most people no matter who they are seem to be under more stress from outside influences then they have in modern times. Much of it is driven by what we see and hear around us. Violent video games have desensitized an entire group of children to the reality of the world around us. Im not talking about space invaders or other games where they are fantasy based but those that appear as real life. The characters look real and the sounds are real and it crosses a line that we may not return from. I have seen things drastically change over my lifetime as far as true respect for others and with the internet being so prevalent it has caused fundemental changes in attitudes. Before when you did encounter a bully then at least when you went home it ended for the day. Now we have online bullying and stalking. Also we have a much greater and widespread use of drugs that alter the minds and are being given out like M&M's. There seems to be no problems that a pill can't cure. We have laws like HIPPA that prevent doctors from reporting as they might when a threat may be imminent. Where do we start to draw the lines?

Hello again,

You and I know that an assault rifle, mechanically, is identical to an ordinary semi automatic hunting rifle.. But, some drug crazed want to be killer may NOT know that, and he MIGHT be dissuaded from carrying out his plan IF he can't get one...

Look. We're not going to STOP the mayhem from continuing... But, if we can reduce it, even incrementally, then we should.

Since an assault weapons ban is only a ban on LOOKS, gun loving America doesn't lose a thing except cosmetics. I don't think REAL gun lovers care much about that. Do YOU need a flash suppressor on your hunting rifle?

excon

One thing for sure, no matter what we invent some will find ways around it, and that includes the law, and unless you stay ahead of the bad guys, or just the crazy ones, then they will be the ones driving the situation, not you, the law, or common sense.

So why is our society so prone to disasters more than other nations that have the same videos and pills and guns? Oh wait, they don't have the same guns as we do, do they?

Could we be so carried away with our rights and abandoned good old common sense? Maybe math and science are NOT the only subjects we have started to fall behind the rest of the world in. Profits over people, I have said that before. Who profits by the mass shootings and culture of violence in our society?

Just asking.

Profits over people, I have said that before.Not only corporations but the citizens value profit (being perceived as wealthy) over people (relationships with family/friends/neighbours). When they cannot achieve that ultimate materialistic goal then the dysfunctions start to appear. Neglected children, lowered value in human relationships, etc.

Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox ,an antidepressant drug Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of youth taking Luvox developed mania, a dangerous and violence prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.

Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif. in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons”. Purdy murdered five children and wounded 30. He was on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, and Thorazine.

Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore. and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He was on both Prozac and Ritalin.

In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill. killing one child and wounding six. She was on Anafranil and Lithium.

In Paducah, Ky. in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school's lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal was on Ritalin.

2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota's Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise was taking Prozac.

47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky. killing nine.

Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh said “I didn't realize I did it until after it was done,” “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”

John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting President Reagan in 1981 Hinckley also seriously wounded press secretary James Brady,and wounded Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty

Andrea Yatesdrowned all five of her children in a bathtub.She claimed inner voices commanded her to kill her children.She had been taking the antidepressant Effexor.
2005 Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals added “homicidal ideation” to the drug's list of “rare adverse events."

12-year-old Christopher Pittman, shot and killed both his grandparents, and burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them. He said “When I was lying in my bed that night ,I couldn't sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. ”I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger . Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can't do anything to stop it.”Pittman's lawyers argued that he had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders.

Virginia Tech murderer of 32 people, Cho Seung-Hui, had been taking psychiatric drugs.
New York Slimes reported, “officials said prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems had been found among Mr. Cho's effects,” His roommate, Joseph Aust, told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that Cho's routine each morning had included taking prescription drugs.

60-year-old Donald Schnell murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil. GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay $6.4 million to the family .

Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret... and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit.

So what meds was Lanza on ? We know he was being treated for mental issues ;and we know that he went over the edge when he found out his mom's plans to have him committed .Was he on meds ? Had he quit taking them ?

This issue ,which I believe is at the heart of many of these mass killings has been swept under the rug in our rush to knee jerk and demagogue about gun control.

Were all of these mass murderers taking their meds correctly, at the right times of day and at the correct dosages?

I had a bipolar grandmother and had POA for her bipolar son (my uncle). I've had clients with OCD or who were bipolar or had AHDH et al. They knocked themselves out looking for reasons not to take their meds. Compliant is not something that mentally ill people want to be.

I have not looked into that too closely yet. But ,I know that other factors could include withdrawal ,improper prescription ,and improper dosage levels . When you look at the lit . There is more information on suicidal tendencies .I suspect the Pharmaceutical Companies would be reluctant to admit to homicidal side effects.

I suspect the Pharmaceutical Companies would be reluctant to admit to homicidal side effects.
Those are written into side effects. Heck, just listen to the pharma TV ads! The cure is worse than the disease.

Dosages have to be closely monitored and adjusted from time to time. That may not be done, depending on a patient's self report. In the days of mental institutions, Nurse Ratched could watch a patient take his meds and make sure he swallowed the pill. No one does that any longer. The mentally ill are their own caretakers. And now they too have rights.

Tom you have put forward a very good case to abrogate the Constitutional right of the medicated to own or possess weapons of any kind. To enforce it so they are denied access you will have to remove the right of family members in the same household to own or possess weapons. You therefore have a great difficulty because now you need a medical register linked to a gun register and regulation to enforce it. You see that this situation wasn't anticipated by your all seeing founders, and so you need another amendment. I wonder if Joe will recommend that as part of his suite of measures. It would be easier to recind the second amendment

You see that this situation wasn't anticipated by your all seeing founders

Yeah ,they didn't anticipate the wussification of the nation . A nation that handcuffs itself with political correctness which results in the mentally ill being denied care .

yeah ,they didn't anticipate the wussification of the nation . A nation that handcuffs itself with political correctness which results in the mentally ill being denied care .

I agree regarding the wussification of the nation but it is a wassification to deal with real issues not manufactured ones. The mentally ill represent a small proportion of the population but a high percentage of offenders in various crimes, that you fail to care for them and provide appropriate accommodation, etc, is shamefull but an indication of the me society which you have become. There are real issues you are not dealing with mental illness, drugs, imprisonment, but I notice one thing, the prison population aren't to blame for recent massacres, seriously; you are locking up the wrong people, you need to get the thought police in full operation so you can single out these potential offenders. Their profiles are known, and you can take a leaf out of Hitler's book and eliminate the threat, that way you can keep your guns in safety knowing you are free from potential offenders

Tom. It is a wuss nation that feels it has to defend itsself from imaginary threats by arming itself to the teeth.

yeah ,they didn't anticipate the wussification of the nation . A nation that handcuffs itself with political correctness which results in the mentally ill being denied care .
They didn't plan for well-regulated militias to be part of personal pleasure, nor did they understand or even know about mental illness

Let's take Adam Lanza and use him as an example. What would have been the best case scenario for him as per his mental illness?

Had his mom succeeded in institutionalizing him then he would've gotten proper monitored care ;and the children of Sandy Hook would be alive.

His mother was a nut who fed his paranoia, she should have been charged as an accessory, and rotted in prison, but unfortunately she too was a victim

Yeah let's regulate thoughts. Good idea.

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-- John F. Kennedy

Had his mom succeeded in institutionalizing him
And why didn't she succeed?

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-- John F. Kennedy

I cannot find a context for this speech or when it was delivered, and to whom. But every militia group uses it.

Please supply a link to its origins.

Hello tal:

Who would disagree with it?

Of course, it does NOT mean buy as many guns as you can, move to Idaho, and join an anti government (IE: anti OBAMA) militia.

Now, if you were a right wing NUT, kind of like Tim McVey, you COULD find that stuff in there.

excon

I cannot find a context for this speech or when it was delivered, and to whom. But every militia group uses it.

Please supply a link to its origins.
You awoke the librarian in me, am searching for the source of this quote. Meanwhile, I stumbled across this one (woo! Woo!) --

A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks. – Thomas Jefferson

***ADDED*** So far, John Kennedy January 29, 1961.

He gave his State of the Union message the next day (and it could be given today with many of the same conditions prevailing) -- http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/174.html

Found it!

Roosevelt Day Commemoration Message - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum (http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/~/link.aspx?_id=9BF26EE8269A4FCCBF3EF0D25E285B20&_z=z)

And why didn't she succeed?

Somehow he found out about it ,and that triggered his rage.

Found it!

Roosevelt Day Commemoration Message - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & MuseumWell done.
It certainly sounds like Cold War rhetoric - the enemy being the USSR.

somehow he found out about it ,and that triggered his rage.
So what does that explanation of why he shot up a school have to do with the inadequacies of the mental health profession?

Like I said ,I have not found out all the details . Heck ,there is no admission yet that he was on medications or under any care or evaluation.We know his mom was concerned enough to consider institutionalization... Beyond that ; All they floated so far was that idiocy that Aspby was a contributing factor .

like I said ,I have not found out all the details . Heck ,there is no admission yet that he was on medications or under any care or evaluation.We know his mom was concerned enough to consider institutionalization ... Beyond that ; All they floated so far was that idiocy that Aspby was a contributing factor .
He may have been an Aspie, but that certainly wasn't a contributing factor. I am eagerly awaiting the report of the details of this young man's mental and emotional journey, and what had been done to try to help him.

He was trained to use a gun, and about to be sent away from surroundings he was familiar with.

Thanks WG for the context of the quote by Kennedy. He wasn't alking about arming the public against the govrnment, but help make government greater through support and participation.

That was my read.

He was trained to use a gun.
Reports are that she was trying to emotionally connect with him.

... and then break that connection?

.........................and then break that connection?
He apparently was incapable of connecting with anyone, even his mother.

He had no history of violence or bad behavior as far as I know. There is no paper trail either.

He had no history of violence or bad behavior as far as I know. There is no paper trail either.
A shop teacher had come forward to say he seemed to have no understanding of pain either for himself (so the teacher had to watch him closely in class) and for others. A few former classmates said he hugged the walls when he walked in school corridors and wouldn't make eye contact. He was painfully shy, even reclusive. The autism characteristics must have fed whatever demons were holding onto him.

Hello again,

Here's what's crazy. When faced with the country's problems, Democrats want to talk... Republicans want to buy guns.

There ain't nothing else to say about that.

excon

Hello again,

Here's what's crazy. When faced with the country's problems, Democrats want to talk... Republicans want to buy guns.

There ain't nothing else to say about that.

excon

Dems talk is my way or the highway. That's one reason we want guns.

Hello again, Steve:

Dems talk is my way or the highway. That's one reason we want guns.It doesn't even dawn on you that the message YOU'RE sending is, it's MY way or the highway, and if you DON'T like it, I'll SHOOT you...

Excon

Dems talk is my way or the highway. That's one reason we want guns.

Funny that's what we say about the TParty. And if guns are YOUR solution to our problems, we are screwed.

Even Tom agrees with some reasonable ideas we share. I mean background checks for every purchase is good isn't it? You know weed the honest citizens from the NOT so honest ones?

What's wrong with that?

Funny thats what we say about the TParty. And if guns are YOUR solution to our problems, we are screwed.

Even Tom agrees with some reasonable ideas we share. I mean background checks for every purchase is good isn't it? You know weed the honest citizens from the NOT so honest ones?

Whats wrong with that?

I don't trust the government to come up with reasonable solutions. Period. I've been trying to navigate the federal government and two state governments for weeks now and the best I can surmise is they don't want to help my WWII vet dad, they'd rather let him die and take all of his money and family land and property in the process. They damn sure don't want to help my daughter, they've literally f**ked up everything in her case and just plain don't give a sh*t, leaving us all high and dry and costing me money I don't have because of their incompetency. So no, I don't look for the government to make this issue any better either.

Hello again, Steve:


I don't trust the government to come up with reasonable solutions. Period.You confuse me with someone who LIKES the government... Nonetheless, MY solutions to our problems do NOT include arming myself. I'm a patriot. I don't know WHO I'd be arming myself AGAINST, if not my fellow Americans...

DOES that make me BETTER than you? Yup!

Excon

I am more than a bit frustrated by the BS myself. Lots of red tape to cut through at the moment. Lots of stupid people who don't help. I kind of feel you right now.

Keep pushing though for your family. Never quit. Good luck.

they don't want to help my WWII vet dad, they'd rather let him die and take all of his money and family land and property in the process.
If he's a vet, the VA should be right there in his corner. I dealt with them for years with no problem. A real person even answers the phone (no stupid menu system).

They damn sure don't want to help my daughter
How about finding an advocate for her and for your dad? A counselor or social worker?

Okay, everyone. Go back to the topic of this thread. Sorry to divert.

If he's a vet, the VA should be right there in his corner. I dealt with them for years with no problem. A real person even answers the phone (no stupid menu system).

How about finding an advocate for her and for your dad? A counselor or social worker?

Okay, everyone. Go back to the topic of this thread. Sorry to divert.

Trust me, the VA is not in his corner. They're the ones (a real person) that made us get him out of there and into a private "rehab" center.

Hello again, Steve:

You confuse me with someone who LIKES the government... Nonetheless, MY solutions to our problems do NOT include arming myself. I'm a patriot. I dunno WHO I'd be arming myself AGAINST, if not my fellow Americans...

DOES that make me BETTER than you? Yup!!

excon

My solution isn't arming myself either, it's protecting the constitutional rights this admin is all too eager to take away.

So I can get a cannon or howitzer for my front yard, and be within my rights. Having limits that are reasonable is NOT infringing on your rights.

And now a rebuttal from other Aussies .
https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

Well that was bound to happen .

home in New York's Westchester County (pictured above) that was identified in The Journal News' infamous interactive map outlining gun permit holders last month was burglarized on Saturday, local TV station WDEF reported. The thieves' target? The homeowner's gun safe, officials said.

Home in The Journal News Gun Map Targeted for Gun Robbery | AOL Real Estate (http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2013/01/14/home-the-journal-news-gun-map/)

I don't suppose they will ever identify homes that were broken into that were not on the interactive map of gun owners.

and now a rebuttal from other Aussies .
https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

Absolute american gun lobby propaganda, yes some people didn't want to loose their prescious guns but the result was we have been safer, no massacres. I don't say we don't have lawlessness, but guns don't feature in it to the extent it does in the US. Our experience has proven, take away the semi automatic weapons and the community is safer. Only yesterday there was a community dispute and riot in Logan Queensland. No guns because the community isn't allowed guns. Had it been in the US someone would have died

We had a collector/dealer caught with 1,400 illegal weapons recently, absolutely no reason to possess such an arsenal. I know personally how guns can be stolen and used in crime. If the guns weren't in the community they cannot be taken and they cannot be used. So what I say to you is learn from others' experience, 270,000,000 guns is 270,000,000 to many

and now a rebuttal from other Aussies .
https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA


Tom, don't you even feel a little embarrassed by posting this garbage. I've seen some pretty bad ones, but this takes the cake.

Let's have a look at it.

'Australia Protests Gun Ban' No, Australia doesn't do anything of the sort. Some of the 5 percent of Australians who own firearms are protesting.

Despite the American commentary trying to depict the government as mounting some sort of attack on our rights ( similar to the attack on your rights), the fact is we don't have a 2nd amendment. Australians who own a gun don't have a right to it. Owning a gun in Australia is a privilege not a right. This is dishonest.

"Armed robberies up 69 percent. ARMED with WHAT? The dishonest implication is that it is with a gun. I have already cited in a different post ( Australian Bureau of Criminology) whereby the vast majority of robberies of ANY SORT, are committed with a particular type of weapon. And that weapon is a knife.

More importantly, where is the source from which these figures are taken? There is none. At least I can direct anyone to my source. In exactly the same way as I can direct anyone to the Australian Institute of Criminology whence these figures were taken.

Between 1991 and 2001 there was a decrease in the number of deaths caused by firearms.

Firearms as a cause of death represent 4.2% of the 333 deaths caused by accidents, poisoning and violence.

I would go on but the rest is a perpetuation of the same type of dishonesty.

Thanks Tutt, not content with polluting that failed libertarian experiment they call their own country with firearms, they want to pollute ours too

Here's another piece of violent americana exported to us
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-shooting-man-dead-20130115-2cr97.html

NRA launches Practice Range gun app for children aged four and over | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/nra-launches-practice-range-gun-app-for-children-aged-four-and-over/story-fn7bsi21-1226554071792)

NRA launches shooting app for ages 4 and up - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/nra_launches_shooting_app_for_ages_4_and_up/)

TRENDING: Poll: Gun control that Americans support – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/poll-gun-control-that-americans-support/?cid=sf_twitter)


Fifty-five percent favor a ban on assault style weapons, 54% back a ban on high capacity ammunition clips, and 53% support a ban on on-line ammunition sales, but again there's a wide partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans on these proposals.

NRA launches Practice Range gun app for children aged four and over | Information, Gadgets, Mobile Phones News & Reviews | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/nra-launches-practice-range-gun-app-for-children-aged-four-and-over/story-fn7bsi21-1226554071792)

NRA launches shooting app for ages 4 and up - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/nra_launches_shooting_app_for_ages_4_and_up/)

TRENDING: Poll: Gun control that Americans support – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/14/poll-gun-control-that-americans-support/?cid=sf_twitter)

There is always a wide partisan divide it is called protecting your own arse

So I can get a cannon or howitzer for my front yard, and be within my rights. Having limits that are reasonable is NOT infringing on your rights.

As if people don't already build and shoot their own cannons (http://www.weaponscombat.com/make-cannons)?

The seller of this App in the Apple iPhone App store is shown as MEDL Media, Inc. MEDL Media allows app developers to submit apps nearly anonymously and MEDL Media puts them in the Apple App store.

Why isn't Apple taking the heat for allowing this App on their I phones?

Also ,we all played arcade shooting games since we were kids . Where is the harm in one that shoots at targets ? I'd hardly compare this to Mortal Kombat ,Medal of Honor ,or Grand Theft Auto,

Explaining away actions by capitalists only enforces the capitalists nature of the NRA and the true nature of their endeavors. Make money.

Huh ?

The seller of this App in the Apple iPhone App store is shown as MEDL Media, Inc. MEDL Media allows app developers to submit apps nearly anonymously and MEDL Media puts them in the Apple App store.

Why isn't Apple taking the heat for allowing this App on their I phones?

Also ,we all played arcade shooting games since we were kids . Where is the harm in one that shoots at targets ? I'd hardly compare this to Mortal Kombat ,Medal of Honor ,or Grand Theft Auto,

Not available for Android yet, I was going to give it a shot.

Explaining away actions by capitalists only enforces the capitalists nature of the NRA and the true nature of their endeavors. Make money.

Unlike Planned Parenthood which makes its millions off the taxpayers.


Planned Parenthood reports record year for abortions (http://washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-reports-record-year-for-abortions/article/2517801#.UPVqbfIkQmY)
January 7, 2013 | 3:59 pm

In its latest annual report for fiscal year 2011 to 2012, Planned Parenthood reveals that it performed 333,964 abortions in 2011 – a record year for the organization.

According to annual reports, the organization performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, 329,445 in 2010, making the total number of abortions in three years to 995,687.

Planned Parenthood reported receiving a record $542 million in taxpayer funding, according to a Susan B. Anthony List analysis of the report, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements. The amount is 45 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue.

“While government subsidies to Planned Parenthood have reached an all time high, so too has the number of lives ended by this profit-driven abortion business,” SBA List’s President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement. “Destroying nearly one million children in three years is not health care and does not reflect a concern for vulnerable women and girls.”

Contraceptive services at Planned Parenthood have dropped by 12 percent since 2009, and cancer screening & prevention services have dropped by 29 percent.


Funny how you libs want to take away our constitutional right to have a gun because some wacko kills someone, but defend far more legal murders on the taxpayer dollar in the name of "health care."

Funny how you libs want to take away our constitutional right to have a gunCan you offer up some proof that liberals want to repeal the 2nd amendment?

I said nothing about repeal, they'll do it through regulations.

Funny how you libs want to take away our constitutional right to have a gun because some wacko kills someone,

Wrong the debate is which guns you have a right too!



but defend far more legal murders on the taxpayer dollar in the name of "health care."

Wrong! Abortions are legal, so its not murder, you believe it is.

Wrong the debate is which guns you have a right too!

Until they tax ammo so high it makes them irrelevant (except for those of us who know how to load our own). I'm sure these docs proposals to tax the hell out of guns and ammo and intrude on our lives isn't the only ideas floating out there.


Harvard doctors call for massive federal tax ‘on all firearms and ammunition’

A trio of public health doctors from Harvard University argued Monday that the federal government should institute “a new, substantial national tax on all firearms and ammunition” to pay for programs that “reduce gun violence.”

They wrote that the practice of periodic government safety inspections of automobiles should be expanded to include firearms, “including documentation of home storage and safety measures.” And they compared the enforcement of speed limits on roadways to now-common proposals to restrict the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines that can hold dozens of rounds of ammunition.

Drs. Dariush Mozaffarian, David Hemenway and David Ludwig wrote that public health crusades against cigarette smoking, accidental poisonings and unsafe driving should be the new models for responding to gun violence like the Dec. 14 school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Read more: Harvard public health docs call for new federal tax on guns, ammunition to 'reduce gun violence' | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/07/up-quick-harvard-public-health-docs-call-for-new-federal-tax-on-guns-ammunition-to-reduce-gun-violence/#ixzz2I3srdctB)

The nannies won't stop, you'd be a fool to think they won't go after our guns and control our lives any way they can.


Wrong! Abortions are legal, so its not murder, you believe it is.

I said it was legal. Doesn't make it any less a murder in my book.

I said nothing about repeal, they'll do it through regulations.

Or executive fiat .Biden said today he prepared 19 EOs

This week here in China a man took a large knife ( sorta looked like a short sword) and stabbed 20 children here.

They don't need guns to kill and cause violence. A crazy person will use the weapon they can get.

Pour gas and set them on fire and so on.

You are very right. No firearm law should be strict.

Where the right screws up is assuming every gun owner is a lawful responsible citizen. Trust but verify.

Where the right screws up is assuming every gun owner is a lawful responsible citizen. ...

As opposed to making claims with no basis in reality.

Where the right screws up is assuming every gun owner is a lawful responsible citizen. Trust but verify.

The problem is playing the blame game. Some gun owners are not responsible citizens, their political hue is not in question although the right does seem to have a higher population of looneys than the left. The issue isn't whether citizens should be allowed to possess firearms, the question is what firearms they are permitted to possess...

Should they possess heavy weapons? This question isn't even on the table yet is just a pertinent. Should they possess military weapons? should they possess semi-automatic weapons? Do they have the right to stockpile ammunition?

Too often legally-owned guns end up in the hands of minors who play with them and maybe shoot themselves or someone else accidentally, of a family member bent on suicide, or of a family member seeking revenge during a fight. Most of the guns legally owned are never used for hunting or to thwart a home invader. My husband owns more guns than I wish to know abfout. Two were found by our sons when they were young, once when we were changing the beds (the gun was between the mattress and box spring) and once when putting away clothes (the gun was in my husband's sock drawer).

Gun ownership also has to be responsible. Mention that to Adam Lanza's mother.

Lots of dead people IS reality. And don't holler about YOUR rights without acknowledging a better idea. What would you propose to help those dead people, and the ones who will surely die?

The issue really is no one needs more than one gun for self protection or for joining a duly appointed militia. Every provision of the constitution or a Law passed by the Congress cannot be properly implemented without regulation to instruct the various arms of government how to implement the provisions. The 2nd amendment does not constitute a right to open a gun shop or to traffic in arms yet there are mores arms dealers than supermarkets

Hello again,

May I just say, that the right wing doesn't catch the prevailing winds TODAY any more than they did in 2012.

There WILL be gun control. There SHOULD be gun control. We're Going to take the word MASS out of mass shootings, whether YOU like it or not.

Exon

Hello again,

May I just say, that the right wing doesn't catch the prevailing winds TODAY any more than they did in 2012.

There WILL be gun control. There SHOULD be gun control. We're GONNA take the word MASS out of mass shootings, whether YOU like it or not.

exon

I agree with you Ex, the existing situation is a recipe for disaster, in fact it is anarchy

Hello again,

May I just say, that the right wing doesn't catch the prevailing winds TODAY any more than they did in 2012.

There WILL be gun control. There SHOULD be gun control. We're GONNA take the word MASS out of mass shootings, whether YOU like it or not.

exon

Nice to see libs still don't give a sh*t about our concerns, just ram some more crap through. One of these days they'll go to far for even you.

In response (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/277521-rubio-slams-obama-on-new-gun-proposals?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed) to Obama's latest imperial decree (surrounded by children naturally), I give you Marco Rubio:


“I think it’s completely misplaced. Because here’s the issue in this public policy debate that’s different from others: There is a constitutional right to bear arms,” Rubio said. “I did not create that and he cannot erase that. It is in the Constitution. If they want to change the Constitution, if they want to believe the Second Amendment should not be in there or if they believe it should be rewritten in the 21st century then let them have the guts to stand up and propose that.”

Waiting for Dems to give an honest response...

No one is taking away anyone's guns.

Who were the children?

If everyone had single shot muskets I don't think there would be an issue.

Good point karma but you cannot reverse history


No one is taking away anyone's guns.

Not yet, but this debate is bizzaire, you are exporting your debate to other places, Mexico watches, hoping there will be greater control in the US, Australia has reinitiated the gun control debate in a nation where gun related deaths are low because there are increasing imports of guns. What is really needed is the business as usual for the arms manufacturers needs to be curbed. It is good pension funds are withdrawing financial support from investment in arms manufacture, if you hurt them in the hip pocket, sanity might return

No one is taking away anyone's guns.

Who were the children?

Ones that wrote letters and some from the school where the shooting happened. It is a true shame our president hides behind children.

Obviously you don't read your own constitution, or have knowledge of the court cases that have already been decided by SCOTUS. I gave you these links before but obviously a review is needed.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )


In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller)


(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Ones that wrote letters and some from the school where the shooting happened. It is a true shame our president hides behind children.

Is that really your opinion "hiding behind children"? Rather he is protecting children because children are for some pecular reason the victims of these gun rampages in a number of cases, meanwhile the parents rant and rave about rights rather than protecting children

Looks to like he is in front of the children he wants to protect. I guess that infringes on your rights too?

Yes you can't stand between a gunnut and his victim, you must wait until he kills someone, then lament the horror

Is that really your opinion "hiding behind children"? rather he is protecting children because children are for some pecular reason the victims of these gun rampages in a number of cases, meanwhile the parents rant and rave about rights rather than protecting children

Yes it is my opinion that he is hiding behind the children. That is all part of his MO. They didn't need to be there at the news conference. He put them there as props. That is very sad to me to try to use children in such a manner.

That's my take too. The Obots use kids as props

Indoctrinated Lib-Kids Shriek About How Horrible The World Will Be If We Don't Reelect Obama - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0FFEEJUeHk)

Yes it is my opinion that he is hiding behind the children. That is all part of his MO. They didnt need to be there at the news conference. He put them there as props. That is very sad to me to try to use children in such a manner.

Any excuse not to get the message, he is not hiding behind children but reinforcing the message effectively, and obviously it hit home because I can hear the bleating from here

any excuse not to get the message, he is not hiding behind children but reinforcing the message effectively, and obviously it hit home because I can hear the bleating from here

Are we talking about the same man that endorses infantacide? He is using the children for pawns in his game. It is not about reinforcing anything. Nothing really changed with what happened today except the erosion of yet more rights and his taking back parts of what he and his cronies already had put into law. He repealed sections of his own law with the stroke of a pen.

Endorses infantacide?? Oh boy!!

Someone is really peed off over there about loss of an inappropriate weapon. Let's face this, this is not about gun rights, this is about pride and ego. The "my gun is bigger than your gun" lobby is in full flight, retreating into their eighteenth century nirvana. I can hear the "you'll never take our freedom" shout from here. When you see the bare buttocks on the hill side, shoot

As Obama pointed out 900 people have died in a month from gun violence, do these people care, obviously not, it didn't happen to them, yet...

The issue has become large because it is out of control, laws flauted, innocents massacred, common sense no where in sight

Looks to like he is in front of the children he wants to protect. I guess that infringes on your rights too?

Bullsh*t. Obama doesn't give a crap about you or the children. Stop being so naïve Tal.

Michael Ramirez Political Cartoons 01/16/2013 - Investors.com (http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/640963)

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMFNclr-011713-gun-IBD-COL.jpg.cms

Speech refer above, your pride and ego is showing

Someone is really peed off over there about loss of an inappropriate weapon. Let's face this, this is not about gun rights, this is about pride and ego. The "my gun is bigger than your gun" lobby is in full flight, retreating into their eighteenth century nirvana. I can hear the "you'll never take our freedom" shout from here. When you see the bare buttocks on the hill side, shoot

As Obama pointed out 900 people have died in a month from gun violence, do these people care, obviously not, it didn't happen to them, yet...................

The issue has become large because it is out of control, laws flauted, innocents massacred, common sense no where in sight

Sure he pointed it out. It is part of the grand plan. But lets look at real numbers.

According to 2011 statistics in the last 30 days:

1,441,666 people died from cardio vascular diseases of some form

383,333 people died from diabetes

133,055 people died from cancer

3,123 people died from drug overdoses

2,692 people died from traffic accidents

852 people died in drunk driving incidents

So really, the liberals could care LESS about the U.S. public. If they did they would be banning hearts, sugar, cancer, drugs (oh wait, they ARE banned), cars and alcohol. Pfft, 900 gun deaths make up less than .001% of the total deaths from just these 6 categories. And they wonder why we question "gun legislation" and their claim they are saving innocent lives.

Source:
900 people died in the last 30 days from guns says Obama (http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/157373-900-people-died-last-30-days-guns-says-obama.html)

Tom all you have demonstrated is the debate needs to widen to ban more weapons. If a ban doesn't work then perhaps financial penalties would work. Let's see, if we valued a human life at a million dollars then each year those who killed using a gun would owe 10 billion dollars, if you did the same for those killed by automobile, at fault drivers would owe 30 billion dollars

Bullsh*t. Obama doesn't give a crap about you or the children. Stop being so naive Tal.

Obviously you don't care either because you rather holler about your own rights and beliefs, and do nothing about the killing of the born babies.

Make them have a baby, and let a nut kill them. That's crazy!!

Sure he pointed it out. It is part of the grand plan. But lets look at real numbers.

According to 2011 statistics in the last 30 days:

1,441,666 people died from cardio vascular diseases of some form

383,333 people died from diabetes

133,055 people died from cancer

3,123 people died from drug overdoses

2,692 people died from traffic accidents

852 people died in drunk driving incidents

So really, the liberals could care LESS about the U.S. public. If they did they would be banning hearts, sugar, cancer, drugs (oh wait, they ARE banned), cars and alcohol. Pfft, 900 gun deaths make up less than .001% of the total deaths from just these 6 categories. And they wonder why we question "gun legislation" and their claim they are saving innocent lives.

source:
900 people died in the last 30 days from guns says Obama (http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/second-amendment-gun-legislation-discussion/157373-900-people-died-last-30-days-guns-says-obama.html)

Not true Obamacare addresses some of these issues but there is such a thing as personal responsibility, something that is as much out the window in the gun debate and it is in the health debate

Not true Obamacare addresses some of these issues but there is such a thing as personal responsibility, something that is as much out the window in the gun debate and it is in the health debate

Personal responsibility is at the forefront of the debate. And obamacare doesn't do anything for most of that list.

But here is some more informal reading if you would like from the other side of the pond.

Guns save lives « Abundant Truth (http://abundanttruth.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/guns-save-lives/)

Hello again,

I don't know how SOME people can't get that a shooter with a HUGE magazine can kill a lot more people than a shooter with a small magazine..

Instead, they'll show me a picture of a hammer and say, LOOKIE HERE.

excon

Personal responsibility is at the forefront of the debate. And obamacare doesnt do anything for most of that list.

But here is some more informal reading if you would like from the other side of the pond.

Guns save lives « Abundant Truth (http://abundanttruth.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/guns-save-lives/)

Yes interesting reading but remember between the magna carta and today there was a civil war which changed the view a little, reality is only rich englishmen could afford a gun in those times and they didn't have the police force they have today. I have looked at the statistics and I see no excuse for the level of violence in the United States, if guns stopped violence the US would be the safest place in the world, it isn't, it is one of the most violent places in the world. When your 2nd amendment was written a fledgling nation needed an armed citizenry because they didn't possess much military capability, and of course, a few decades later you had a civil war fueled by the possession of firearms among the citizenry. All that war achieved was to get hunreds of thousands killed and maimed. It might have emancipated the slaves but it did little to improve their lot, it took a hundred years and an insurrection where guns weren't prominent for the nation to finally live up to the promise

You want abundant truth, it is found in rejecting populist rhetoric and protecting the innocent

I have looked at the statistics and I see no excuse for the level of violence in the United States, if guns stopped violence the US would be the safest place in the world, it isn't, it is one of the most violent places in the world.
Well of course the real issue is how to deal with the violence in the country ;of which guns are but a relatively small factor in the equation. A couple of the President's directives deal with that ,and I applaud that .
America is only "one of the most violent places places in the world " when compared to a few other Western nations . There are MANY nations with higher murder rates per capita. What is notable in that is that most of the nations above the US in murder rates have strict gun control laws if not 100 % bans of guns.

Well of course the real issue is how to deal with the violence in the country ;of which guns are but a relatively small factor in the equation. A couple of the President's directives deal with that ,and I applaud that .
America is only "one of the most violent places places in the world " when compared to a few other Western nations . There are MANY nations with higher murder rates per capita. What is notable in that is that most of the nations above the US in murder rates have strict gun control laws if not 100 % bans of guns.

Is that because most of the countries above you that suffer from higher gun related deaths are third world countries?

America is only "one of the most violent places places in the world " when compared to a few other Western nations . There are MANY nations with higher murder rates per capita. What is notable in that is that most of the nations above the US in murder rates have strict gun control laws if not 100 % bans of guns.

Well Tom either you want to live in a civilised place or you want to live in a backward place ruled by violence. You seem to think this violence is a badge of honour as if it is a positive thing

You seem to think this violence is a badge of honour as if it is a positive thing umm what I said was "Well of course the real issue is how to deal with the violence in the country ;of which guns are but a relatively small factor in the equation. A couple of the President's directives deal with that ,and I applaud that ".

Does that translate different in Aussie ?

Is that because most of the countries above you that suffer from higher gun related deaths are third world countries?

Does it matter ? Your side is trying to make the correlation between legal guns and violence. Almost all the countries with higher murder rates have on their books very strict gun laws.

does it matter ? Your side is trying to make the correlation between legal guns and violence. Almost all the countries with higher murder rates have on their books very strict gun laws.


I would have though it did matter, but anyway, you obviously don't.

Third world countries have lots of things on their books, but are hardly every successful at implementing them. I guess this is one reason why they are still third world countries.

speech refer above, your pride and ego is showing

You have a really odd way of interpreting things... typically you make no sense.

You have a really odd way of interpreting things... typically you make no sense.There you go 'clete, when they run out of arguments they attack you.

I would have though it did matter, but anyway, you obviously don't.

Third world countries have lots of things on their books, but are hardly every successful at implementing them. I guess this is one reason why they are still third world countries.

Yes criminals in all countries typically break the laws on the books... including gun laws.

There you go 'clete, when they run out of arguments they attack you.

You never make sense.

yes criminals in all countries typically break the laws on the books .....including gun laws.

Just look at Chicago for instance.

You never make sense.We don't sink down to your level. :D

Hello again,

It occurs to me that Republicans ABANDON long held positions when Obama starts liking them.. So, if we wanted right wingers on the CORRECT side of gun control, shouldn't Obama support legalizing bazookas?

excon

Just look at Chicago for instance.
Hey! We're working on it! -- stripping people of their guns.

Hello again,

It occurs to me that Republicans ABANDON long held positions when Obama starts liking them.. So, if we wanted right wingers on the CORRECT side of gun control, shouldn't Obama support legalizing bazookas?

excon

Or maybe Obama can tell his AG to stop handing assault rifles to drug lords in Mexico, 220 people killed with them... Stop the madness!!

or maybe Obama can tell his AG to stop handing assault rifles to drug lords in Mexico, 220 people killed with them... Stop the madness!!

The NRA and GOP's Fast and Furious Lies | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blog/172215/nra-and-gops-fast-and-furious-lies#)


An e-mail from the head of the criminal division for the Arizona District US Attorney's office makes clear that the Fast and Furious prosecutors believed that it was legal for a straw purchaser to buy the guns and then transfer them to others, so long as those people were not legally prohibited from possessing firearms. The Republicans have asserted the opposite—that if the straw purchasers certified in their paperwork that they were the true buyers of the gun, but then transferred it after the purchase, they were lying and should have been prosecuted. But the courts in Arizona have disagreed, and thus, so did the prosecutors. Agents protested these decisions repeatedly, but of course were required to abide by the prosecutors' legal judgments. The result: a lot of guns wound up in Mexico, and two were found near the Arizona-Mexico border, where an elite US border patrol agent, Brian Terry, was gunned down.

So of course you again holler about a president who represents your greatest fears, minority with authority, and a "socialist", and head of the government you hate, yet completely ignore what mayors, and law enforcement have been saying for decades in our cities. At the same time you side with loony right wing groups who embrace violent "taking back their country" and racial isolation ideology and honor them as responsible tax paying citizens.

And you wonder why there is a war on you guys?? DUH!!

Tal you are foaming at the mouth . You make a lot of false allegations against me
1. I do not fear minorities with authority
2.I do not hate my government .
3.I do not support violent take back of the country
4.I do not embrace "loony right wing groups "
5.I do not believe in racial isolation
How you could fit so many slanders in a single paragraph is beyond me.


No I'm not finished . We have brought up a number of times the violence in Chicago... where the death toll in Connecticut is a weekly event . Let me ask you this ? Where were the children from Chi town on the President's podium ? Do you think any gun laws aimed at legal gun owners will change that ? Then YOU are the nut .

That's not what he said, its not about the legal gun owners, it was about not making guns available for the illegal crazy ones who get them from the legal ones. I heard him!

If you are not a loony right wing extremist, I apologize, my mistake, don't take it personally. As I have said before to you and Speech, you sure sound like one and obviously I can't tell the difference. Or maybe they sound like you trying to fool us progressives.

I don't know. Seems to me if you are not for all those things I listed, and are not a loony rightie, then there should be points of agreement somewhere. You have acknowledged to your credit that some of the presidents ideas he put forth were not to bad.

There's hope.

Can we all agree that all firearms sales should involve a background check and a paper trail?

Already stipulated

How would that work for a private sale, say, between neighbors?

Can we all agree that all firearms sales should involve a background check and a paper trail?

No I can't agree with that. I don't support national gun registration. I do support the background checks that many states do on the local level. But there really is no need for a paper trail.

No I can't agree with that. I dont support national gun registration. I do support the background checks that many states do on the local level. But there really is no need for a paper trail.

So there are no people in Texas and Florida taking car loads of guns to Chicago or New Jerey and selling them to bad guys?

Hello:

I'm not into registration either. I WOULD be in favor of requiring a gun owner to have INSURANCE. I don't know if Obama proposed that. IF that had been the case in Newtown, the family's would have gotten SOMETHING. As it stands now, they got bupkus.

No, they can't sue the maker of the gun. Somehow, the gun industry ISN'T liable under product liability laws. You know, the laws that say if the manufacturer of a CRIB hurts your baby, you can sue.. But, you can't if your baby is riddled with holes..

Do you think the NRA had something to do with getting that law changed??

excon

Hello:

I'm not into registration either. I WOULD be in favor of requiring a gun owner to have INSURANCE. I dunno if Obama proposed that. IF that had been the case in Newtown, the family's would have gotten SOMETHING. As it stands now, they got bupkus.

No, they can't sue the maker of the gun. Somehow, the gun industry ISN'T liable under product liability laws. You know, the laws that say if the manufacturer of a CRIB hurts your baby, you can sue.. But, you can't if your baby is riddled with holes..

Do you think the NRA had something to do with getting that law changed???

excon


Im not sure which law your talking about. There has been lawsuits against gunmakers when it was thought the product was faulty. Just as your crib example.

So there are no people in Texas and Florida taking car loads of guns to Chicago or New Jerey and selling them to bad guys?

If you know those people then please turn them in. They are breaking federal law by doing it.

There you go 'clete, when they run out of arguments they attack you.

Well of course karma but they always want to kill the messenger.

The issue has gone from gun ownership to violence which is the typical buckpassing argument of the NRA, they have done a good job of brainwashing, I expect that is why there are so many guns in circulation/

Was the gun defective like the crib ? No it wasn't . It goes back to the cliché I don't really care for 'people kill people'. If I drove into you ,intent to hurt you ,you would not have a case against Toyota .

If the mom had not been killed ,then she could've been sued for negligence depending on the state laws for safe storage. That would be easy to show causation . I don't know what type of estate she left behind . I imagine that will go to whatever settlement there will be .

What is defective about the gun, Tom, and particularly the gun used in Newtown is that it is designed to kill many at one time. Therefore the Gun in the person of its manufacturer has the same case to answer as the person who pulled the trigger. Those who designed the gun, manufactured it and sold it are equally cupable, accessories before the fact. If you could just grasp that point the population would flee from guns and manufacture would decline, we would literally beat our swords into plowshares and I say hasten the day

The gun did what it was designed to do, and did it very well. And it's okay that Americans have the right to own one just like it? For what purpose?

That truly is the question for what purpose do americans find the need to possess semi automatic weapons and high load clips, when are they going to confront rampaging zombies or hoards of native americans. I have news for you the British aren't coming again and nor are the Russians and I doubt the Chinese have any interest in destroying their biggest market

Good ,change the constitution as Rubio suggested .

You see Tom the groundswell is beginning

That truely is the question for what purpose do americans find the need to possess semi automatic weapons and high load clips, when are they going to confront rampaging zombies or hoards of native americans. I have news for you the British arn't coming again and nor are the Russians and I doubt the Chinese have any interest in destroying their biggest market

Here are 2 of many reasons.

1) cyote hunting.

2) wild boar hunting.

Both of these animals when left untended can destroy very many animals or crops.

Aside from those there are many that are volunteer LEO's in their local areas that perform ride alongs and also patrol during times of civil unrest.

Your thinking is tunnelvision driven by your past. When might you open your mind to the fact that there are people that recreationaly shoot guns and also participate in shooting events?

It may not be your cup of tea but why do you want so badly to deny others?

And so my Chicago suburban, 80-90 IQ friend owns an AK-47, and it stands in his closet waiting for civil unrest to occur or a wild boar to run through his yard -- or his mother to get on his nerves one more time.

what is defective about the gun, Tom, and particularly the gun used in Newtown is that it is designed to kill many at one time. Therefore the Gun in the person of its manufacturer has the same case to answer as the person who pulled the trigger. Those who designed the gun, manufactured it and sold it are equally cupable, accessories before the fact. If you could just grasp that point the population would flee from guns and manufacture would decline, we would literally beat our swords into plowshares and I say hasten the day

The original design of the gun used doesn't resemble in function the original design of the gun. When first issued it was during the vietnam war era and was a fully automatic weapon. Later it was derated to be a semi auto sporting rifle. Worlds apart from its original design other then the look of it.

And so my Chicago suburban, 80-90 IQ friend owns an AK-47, and it stands in his closet waiting for civil unrest to occur or a wild boar to run through his yard -- or his mother to get on his nerves one more time.

Since your friend is in Chicago my bet would be on the civil unrest before the boar ;)

Since your friend is in Chicago my bet would be on the civil unrest before the boar ;)
He'd be the last person I would want to see shooting that thing. His judgment is very iffy. And his mother does a good job of irritating him on a regular basis.

The only good reason he might have to use it would be to pick off a coyote munching on his mother's Pomeranian in their upscale, leafy suburb.

If you know those people then please turn them in. They are breaking federal law by doing it.

A paper trail could help the cops and prosecute the perps. Especially a national paper trail.

A paper trail could help the cops and prosecute the perps. Especially a national paper trail.

So your position at this time is for a national gun registry ?

So your position at this time is for a national gun registry ?
Why would that be a bad thing?

Yes, so the law can trace weapons used in crimes. And trace guns sold in Texas at a gun show to gang bangers, and prosecute them before they use them.

I think its important to look twice at a person buying a car load of gloks and paying for them on a Walmart salary, don't you?

Here is I think the second causality of the Journal News publishing gun owners' addresses...
of course, there is "no indication of at this time" that it was connected to that list from Journal News. From my local television news :

Thieves steal guns, permits and cash from New City home (January 17, 2013 2:19 PM)

NEW CITY - A New City homeowner was allegedly robbed of guns, cash, pistol permits and a gun safe last night.

Clarkstown police say they responded to a call on Britta Lane around 10:00 p.m. yesterday and found the house ransacked. They say two safes located on the upper level of the home were found to be pried open. A third safe located in the basement was missing.

In total, two handguns, a .45 caliber Colt and .22 caliber Iver Johnson, were stolen along with an undetermined amount of cash, U.S. Savings Bonds, jewelry and a Rockland and Orange County pistol permits.

Police say there is no indication at this time that the crime was connected at all to the gun map that was published by The Journal News.

Yes, so the law can trace weapons used in crimes. And trace guns sold in Texas at a gun show to gang bangers, and prosecute them before they use them.

This makes no sense and a registry isn't going to do anything about it. Checking the status of a person buying guns doesn't require a registry for guns. If the gang banger in question is of legal status to buy a gun then by law it is OK to sell it to them. The law can already trace the footprints of a gun that is confiscated as part of a crime.

How is a registry going to help that? There are things in place already to find out where guns went and where they ended up. Using your logic I guess you would expect someone who buys a gun illegally will rush out to register it with the registry ?

Police say there is no indication at this time that the crime was connected at all to the gun map that was published by The Journal News.

could it be the local police are a trifle unforthcoming?.

This makes no sense and a registry isnt going to do anything about it. Checking the status of a person buying guns doesnt require a registry for guns. If the gang banger in question is of legal status to buy a gun then by law it is ok to sell it to them. The law can already trace the footprints of a gun that is confiscated as part of a crime.

How is a registry going to help that? There are things in place already to find out where guns went and where they ended up. Using your logic I guess you would expect someone who buys a gun illegally will rush out to register it with the registry ?

40% of all gun sales have no background checks. That's a big hole for a criminal to drive through. If all sales had background checks and had to be registered, maybe a criminal couldn't illegally get a gun, or a "citizen"couldn't sell it to a criminal.

So I guess you believe bangers have clean records, and good intentions?

So I guess you believe bangers have clean records, and good intentions?

Well of course he believes that, he believes in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny too, and we must not leave out the Tooth Fairy, he even believed Ronmey could be elected, or that McCain could be elected with Palin at his side.

You know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty so why should an innocent gang banger be deprived of his right to own a firearm and commit mayhem. The law is an @ss and great big @ss and it needs to change to put the onus of proof on to the gun buyer that he/she is a fit and proper person to own a gun. You could begin by preventing any person under 25 years of age from possessing a gun, in addition to excluding mental cases, felons and any person under charge for a criminal offense, or who hasn't resided at their present address for six months

That's my whole point clete as honest folk obey the law but a criminal, or anarchist can circumvent the law in so many ways that the law just can't keep up. Especially if law enforcement doesn't have better tools than the criminals.

40% of all gun sales have no background checks. Thats a big hole for a criminal to drive thru. If all sales had background checks and had to be registered, maybe a criminal couldn't illegally get a gun, or a "citizen"couldn't sell it to a criminal.

So I guess you believe bangers have clean records, and good intentions?

Im not the one passing judgement. All I said was if they pass muster with the current laws that we have in place. Im not against state background checks. I am against a national registry.

Thats my whole point clete as honest folk obey the law but a criminal, or anarchist can circumvent the law in so many ways that the law just can't keep up. Especially if law enforcement doesn't have better tools than the criminals.

Hi Tal law enforcement has to rely on better fire power but you can't even be sure of that, the whole concept of innocence has been carried too far, it should be illegal to carry a conceiled weapon, since there is no reasonable purpose for any person other than law enforcement or security to carry a weapon. It should be illegal to have a loaded semi-automatic rifle or hand gun in a public place. There is an argument whether schools should be protected by armed guards, what needs to be done is to remove the need for armed guards by removing the right to carry in public. Sporting shooters should be registered and should notify local law enforcement when hunting

well of course he believes that, he believes in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny too, and we must not leave out the Tooth Fairy, he even believed Ronmey could be elected, or that McCain could be elected with Palin at his side.

You know that everyone is innocent until proven guilty so why should an innocent gang banger be deprived of his right to own a firearm and commit mayhem. The law is an @ss and great big @ss and it needs to change to put the onus of proof on to the the gun buyer that he/she is a fit and proper person to own a gun. You could begin by preventing any person under 25 years of age from possessing a gun, in addition to excluding mental cases, felons and any person under charge for a criminal offense, or who hasn't resided at their present address for six months


Sure sure, lets just eliminate any law that may hide a criminal in some way. How about rights to privacy - gone. Rights to due process-gone. Rights to property-gone.

I bet that would make the crime rates drop. How about it? How far do you want to dip in your paranoia ?

The needs of the woodsman in rural areas is vastly different than those in the big city, or the average city. But to do nothing about illegal activity is a disaster.

Sure sure, lets just eliminate any law that may hide a criminal in some way. How about rights to privacy - gone. Rights to due process-gone. Rights to property-gone.

I bet that would make the crime rates drop. How about it? How far do you want to dip in your paranoia ?

You see dad the whole debate has swung into the seriel but your suggestion is a good one

lets just eliminate any law that may hide a criminal in some way.

As I said you start with the presumption of innocence, let the accused be given the onus of proof it works in a number of countries. There is no such thing as being an innocent bystander to certain crimes. You also eliminate this nonsense of reading an apprehended person their rights, it is the responsibility of every citizen to know the law and if in doubt, don't do it.. So, you give them their rights at the prelinimary hearing and they can get counsel and so on. What I am saying is you eliminate all this PC bull that protects criminals

The needs of the woodsman in rural areas is vastly different than those in the big city, or the average city. But to do nothing about illegal activity is a disaster.

So if we background check every purchase is that enough?

It certainly would go a long way as well as a withholding period to stop gunshow and private sales getting around the law

Sure sure, lets just eliminate any law that may hide a criminal in some way. How about rights to privacy - gone. Rights to due process-gone. Rights to property-gone.

I bet that would make the crime rates drop. How about it? How far do you want to dip in your paranoia ?

Whoa we don't have to give up our rights to stop a criminal. Just make sure law enforcement has better tools to deal with the crooks. And who needs bullets that can penetrate a bullet proof vest?

It certainly would go a long way as well as a withholding period to stop gunshow and private sales getting around the law


Oh boy. Ok one thing that your not understanding is. There is no gun show loophole. It doesn't exist. It is the private sale that exists surrounding gun shows that created the name. If you go to a gun show and buy a firearm then you get a background check before you can take possession of the weapon. Gun dealers hold what is called an FFL - Federal Firearms License. It is issued on the federal (governmental) level.

My NRA husband says guys, knowing they are in a friendly and accepted place, walk around gun shows with guns slung over their shoulders and bulging out of their pockets, looking for a private sale. That's what is meant by the "gun-sale loophole."

Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.[16][17]

Source/ Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States)


The remaining 99.2% of inmates reported obtaining firearms from other sources, including "From a friend/family member" (36.8%), "Off the street/from a drug dealer" (20.9%), "From a fence/black market source" (9.6%), "From a pawnshop," "From a flea market," "From the victim," or "In a burglary." 9% of inmates replied "Don't Know/Other" to the question of where they acquired a firearm and 4.4% refused to answer.[21

Ever look at who is on the board of trustees for the NRA? You should.

So without the numbers we can confidently say that there is a black market in weapons and this needs to be addressed. Now I thought, mistakenly obviously, that you had the AFTE for this. To do this you need to restrict the sale of firearms at gunshows, whether you want to call that private sales, or not, is irrelevant, you also need to restrict any reseller by requiring registration and transaction tracking, and you can put a transaction tax on it to pay for the paperwork

You see when things are out of control you need to go in hard and clean up the mess, forget it's just business and a little fun, and realise it is the source of a problem.

The job of ATF director has required Senate confirmation only since 2006, but that has never happened, leaving the agency in the hands of acting directors.[41]


The National Rifle Association of America strongly opposes President Obama's nomination of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers. Further, an important nomination such as BATFE director should not be made as a 'recess appointment,' in order to circumvent consent by the American people through their duly-elected U.S. Senators. Traver served as an advisor to the International Association for Chiefs of Police's (IACP) 'Gun Violence Reduction Project,' a 'partnership' with the Joyce Foundation. Both IACP and the Joyce Foundation are names synonymous with promoting a variety of gun control schemes at the federal and state levels. Most of the individuals involved in this project were prominent gun control activists and lobbyists.[42]

“The bottom line is the gun lobby will oppose any nominee who promises to be a strong and effective director of the ATF,” said Dennis Henigan, vice president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Indeed, it was persistent lobbying by the NRA. That helped to get the confirmation requirement instated. In 2007, Bush nominated Mike Sullivan for the position, a U.S. Attorney from Boston with a good reputation, but Republican Sens. Larry Craig and Michael D. Crapo, both from Idaho, blocked his confirmation after complaints from an Idaho gun dealer. In 2010, Obama nominated Andrew Traver, head of the ATF's Denver division, to fill the top spot, but the Senate is yet to hold his confirmation hearings as of December 26, 2012.[43][44]

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosive s)

He made a new choice (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130117/us-atf-director-jones/?utm_hp_ref=green)yesterday.

It is time to get over this fear of tehe gun lobby and appoint an effective director and obviously he should not be pro gun since his job is regulation of the industry you guys are such a lot of pussie's

Antidepressants and School Shootings, Suicide, Addiction. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XHNJyti1gE&feature=player_embedded)

Yeah yeah I know... more propaganda .

It's basically an ad for Truehope: The Leaders in Brain Health (http://www.truehope.com/)
I wouldn't give them my CC number.

Misinformation and propaganda everywhere, must be the fourth reich

That' s because you discount the relationship between mental health and nutrition ? Or maybe you are a shill for the pharmaceutical companies who push these psychotropics even though the adverse affects have been well documented at this time ?

that' s because you discount the relationship between mental health and nutrition ? Or maybe you are a shill for the pharmaceutical companies who push these psychotropics even though the adverse affects have been well documented at this time ?
If the mentally ill don't take the appropriate medications, what recourse do they have? Liver and broccoli?

What is the appropriate medication ? These drugs are killers.

what is the appropriate medication ? These drugs are killers.
The drugs didn't kill my friends and relative, and in fact, made/make life bearable for them.

that' s because you discount the relationship between mental health and nutritionIf it was even about nutrition which it isn't. From the website (if you had bother to do your own research):

"My son who is now nine is no longer on psych meds.He will most likely have to continue taking EMPowerplus™ for life"

That's all well and good . But I've seen real life examples of what the video portrays. The only thing that prevented worse was walking out of the doctor's office and finding a doctor who understands the benefits of changing to a nutritional supplement regimin.

the benefits of changing to a nutritional supplement regiminBecause you sell them?

If it was even about nutrition which it isn't. From the website (if you had bother to do your own research):

"My son who is now nine is no longer on psych meds.He will most likely have to continue taking EMPowerplus™ for life"

And that rebutts my argument how ? What do you think EMPowerplus is ?

Because you sell them?
Because it works

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/751533

The Journal News has made the correct decision to drop the interactive map of gun owners from their web site.
http://www.lohud.com/article/20130118/NEWS02/301180125/A-letter-from-Journal-News-publisher-Janet-Hasson
The publisher has a weasly disclaimer that says they are only doing it because it's been up long enough for everyone to see. They also claim that the reaction to the posting was mixed. It was Not.. The reason is that the reaction was intensely negative ,and what they are probably not saying is how it hurt subscriptions. Here in the Hudson Valley ;the Journal News is the only game in town . It's editorial position is flaming lib. On most issues. And yet ,the publication of the map was greeted with such a strong negative reaction ,that the Journal News is retreating from it's position. It dropped the map ;and it will no longer pursue it's attempt to publish the public information of gun owners in Putnam County .

Why would they do it anyway? Not only is it an invasion of privacy, it is an invitation to criminals to target gunowners, just irresponsible sensationalist journalism

Yes it was dumb, but so is not securing your home properly.

Hello again,

I thought right wingers LOVED the First Amendment. No, huh? As usual, they shoot the messenger. Look. If you have a problem with PUBLIC information, get mad at the legislators who MADE the list PUBLIC.

But, as long as it IS public, the press can report it. It IS a free press, no? I don't understand how wingers can LOVE parts of the First Amendment, and go ON, and ON, and ON, about how their religious rights have been violated, and then HATE the rest.. It makes NO sense.

excon

The public officials of Westchester and Rockland made it public only after The Journal News got the list from FOIA requests . No I blame them and have ended my subscription even though it was the only major local news publisher .

They are the only ones who have rights ex, just ask them.

Hello again,

I thought right wingers LOVED the First Amendment. No, huh? As usual, they shoot the messenger. Look. If you have a problem with PUBLIC information, get mad at the legislators who MADE the list PUBLIC.

But, as long as it IS public, the press can report it. It IS a free press, no? I don't understand how wingers can LOVE parts of the First Amendment, and go ON, and ON, and ON, about how their religious rights have been violated, and then HATE the rest.. It makes NO sense
excon

Neither does your use of this argument while telling us you're going to limit our 2nd amendment rights. Seems we haven't denied the paper's right to do it,

Neither does your use of this argument while telling us you're going to limit our 2nd amendment rights. Seems we haven't denied the paper's right to do it,

Damn phones...

They have the right, but that doesn't make it right. I doubt those folks knew this could happen. You apparently think they deserved it.

Seems we haven't denied the paper's right to do it,

On the contrary ;I used my 1st amendment right to protest ,and am using whatever economic power of persuasion my patronage has to influence their policies . Evidently there were enough similar minded people in my section of blue NY to make a difference .

Hello again, Steve:


limit our 2nd amendment rights.Like we limit your right to drink. We DON'T let children drink. You can't be drunk in public. You can't DRIVE and drink. You can't drink in a car. We prosecute bartenders who overserve people...

NONE of that infringes on YOUR right to drink.

We're going to close the gun show loophole. We're going to make background checks that work. We're going to eliminate LARGE, HUGE, HUMONGOUS magazines.

None of that infringes on your right to protect your family, go hunting, or collect as many guns as you wish.. You can even use 'em to defend yourself against the US Army if you have a penchant for doing so.

Excon

PS> Anytime you wind up on a government list, the list is liable to be published. If you don't want to BE on that list, you could have bought your guns at a gun show, and NOT be on ANY list at all.. My guess is that there's TWICE as many guns in that community than there are on any list... Those people are the smart ones.. Do I think dumb people deserve what happens to dumb people? Uhhh, yup.

1. Everyone is making decisions on high emotions=bad decisions
2. Need to focus on re-establishing the family and moral education, most are not given good examples of this at home.
3. Assault weapons in most of these mass killings weren't even used. Were talking about banning weapons that weren't used. Does that make sense?
4. Getting tougher on guns equals more tax payer money wasted. I will guaruntee that it will not prevent one more event like this, not one more. It's pie in the sky. If you can prevent someone from thinking about doing this, then its less likely to happen. Someone will find a weapon if they want, strict gun control or not.
5. I don't have to worry about this in my kid's school because I know every parent is doing their job in teaching moral education. Yes we have "bad" kids to but Im not worried for one second that something like this will happen. Yes my kids school is very small and dam glad of it.

Excon, I love your last sentence on dumb people. LOL. Aren't we all dumb?

3. Assault weapons in most of these mass killings weren't even used. Were talking about banning weapons that weren't used. Does that make sense?
.

You have to start somewhere so you ban the weapons with the most killing power but I agree with you, semi automatic hand guns are just as dangerous and the ban should extend to them. What you really have to do is ban certain classes of people from possessing weapons, but changing the Constitution might be a bridge too far, so you ban certain classes of weapons to minimise the damage or you become radical and ban the manufacture or importation of these weapons

Hello again, Steve:

Like we limit your right to drink. We DON'T let children drink. You can't be drunk in public. You can't DRIVE and drink. You can't drink in a car. We prosecute bartenders who overserve people...

NONE of that infringes on YOUR right to drink.

We're gonna close the gun show loophole. We're gonna make background checks that work. We're gonna eliminate LARGE, HUGE, HUMONGOUS magazines.

None of that infringes on your right to protect your family, go hunting, or collect as many guns as you wish.. You can even use 'em to defend yourself against the US Army if you have a penchant for doing so.

excon

PS> Anytime you wind up on a government list, the list is liable to be published. If you don't wanna BE on that list, you coulda bought your guns at a gun show, and NOT be on ANY list at all.. My guess is that there's TWICE as many guns in that community than there are on any list... Those people are the smart ones.. Do I think dumb people deserve what happens to dumb people? Uhhh, yup.

So Americans are dumb. I knew that's what you libs thought, hence your neverending quest to nanny us. What gets me is you can't recognize your own contradictory stances. Nanny for me but not for thee.

I don't want or need your stinkin' nannies.

He didn't say Americans were dumb, and he seems to speak for himself, as he always does, but again you put words in his mouth and accuse everyone else of putting words in yours. You do it and cry foul when you THINK we are doing it.

You don't need a nanny, don't get one, but don't be mad at anyone who needs one. And don't try to muddy the waters by saying rules and boundaries take away your rights, or that we don't need a social safety net. Makes me think you are against rules to identify, prosecute, and protect the public from criminals, and seriously deranged people who kill a bunch of people.

That's the issue at hand and what's your solution?

He didn't say Americans were dumb, and he seems to speak for himself, as he always does, but again you put words in his mouth and accuse everyone else of putting words in yours. You do it and cry foul when you THINK we are doing it.

You don't need a nanny, don't get one, but don't be mad at anyone who needs one. And don't try to muddy the waters by saying rules and boundaries take away your rights, or that we don't need a social safety net. Makes me think you are against rules to identify, prosecute, and protect the public from criminals, and seriously deranged people who kill a bunch of people.

Thats the issue at hand and whats your solution?


My solution is to keep things reasonable. But by your posts my ideas seem totally unreasonable. Is there ever going to be a middle ground to this issue or is it always going to ride on emotions ?

I thought it was interesting that there were anti-gun control rallies yesterday and also accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana, and Ohio that left five people hurt.

Hello again, Steve:

No, I didn't say Americans were dumb..

But, let me ask you this.. You don't LIKE the government.. I'm SURE you don't want to be ON any list that the government keeps. (I'm making this up about you. Feel free to stop me if you LOVE the government... ) And, if you FELT that way, and had a CHOICE between buying your gun at a shop where you WOULD be on a list, or buying your gun from a show where you WOULDN'T be on a list, the place to buy your gun would be obvious... NEITHER of those two methods of obtaining a gun are ILLEGAL, of course..

Therefore, to ME, and I guess ONLY to me, the ones who buy their guns from gun SHOWS are the smart ones... I should have put that way in the first place, because it's not NICE to call dumb people, dumb.

excon

I thought it was interesting that there were anti-gun control rallies yesterday and also accidental shootings at gun shows in North Carolina, Indiana, and Ohio that left five people hurt.

Accidents happen. And some people just don't get that. Notice what they didn't say about it is that no one died. A very important factor when your talking about guns. From what was invetigated they were accidents and charges at this time have not been filed against anyone. From what I read about it they were stupid at best.

Accidents happen. And some people just dont get that. Notice what they didnt say about it is that no one died. A very important factor when your talking about guns. From what was invetigated they were accidents and charges at this time have not been filed against anyone. From what I read about it they were stupid at best.
The reports did say no deaths. So, gun owners can be stupid?

LOL, isn't gun safety the issue in light of the possibility of accident will happen? And I don't entirely disagree with you calidad, on all your positions, just some of them which you and everyone else can count on me not being shy about my disagreement.

The reports did say no deaths. So, gun owners can be stupid?

Yep and so can do it yourself home repairers with a nail gun. Around here every weekend the hospitals have at least a couple admittances for " bagel palms" (BRI bagel-related injury)

So what do we do about the innocent victims of bad behavior? The deaths that are NOT accidents. How can we prevent the accidents that have happened?

Doing nothing is the path for more accidents and tragedies.

So what do we do about the innocent victims of bad behavior? The deaths that are NOT accidents. How can we prevent the accidents that have happened?

Doing nothing is the path for more accidents and tragedies.

We can start by doing the job that is already tasked on the books. If these weren't committed by criminals then there would be a solution. The problem is they are not. We have regulated responsibility already for gun ownership. People are being punished for being irresponsible - like leaving a loaded firearm where children have access to it. Heck we even have millions of illegal people in this country. How is it that stacking more laws on a problem seems to solve the problem. That is not what it is about. It is about enforcement of existing law and compliance. That along with education could cause a dramatic decrease in unwanted events. But like has happened many times in our media we blame the object and not the objectioner for the offense. We need to stop that. The demonizing of guns and what goes along with it like ROTC programs in schools just masks the real problem. It is time to take a hard look and see what shakes out in a rational manner and not seep it in emotion. I don't see the calling for the banning of cars yet more people are killed by them then any gun. Where is the sensibility on society ?

What would have been the solution in the Adam Lanza case? (based on what we know so far) Or the Columbine case?

What would have been the solution in the Adam Lanza case? (based on what we know so far) Or the Columbine case?

Mental health advisories for both situations. How often is a crime committed and we think to ourselves this is nuts? There needs to be more proactive parts being played by the mental health community then what there is now to identify problems before they break out into situations like we have seen in the news.

Mental health advisories for both situations. How often is a crime committed and we think to ourselves this is nuts? There needs to be more proactive parts being played by the mental health community then what there is now to identify problems before they break out into situations like we have seen in the news.
But Adam's mom had dealt with the mental health people. Stories are floating around that she didn't like the choices they offered. She even took him out of school and was homeschooling him and allowing him to spend hours in his bedroom with video games. Mental health can't do anything unless he is a danger to himself or others, and even then it's touchy, because the patient has rights. (I'm looking forward to hearing the official details about this case.) And the Columbine shooters were being bullied, it is claimed, and supposedly that had been addressed. The community had been proactive, and it can do only so much.

So if the community cannot deal with the threat posed by the mentaly ill because of their rights then you have to have balance in removing the means for them to kill.

While we Pussiefoot arount the issues of rights more people die
http://www.news.com.au/world/teen-shoots-dead-two-adults-and-three-children-inside-albuquerque-home/story-fndir2ev-1226557855606

Now we don't know the detailed circumstances yet but once again we have an "assault rifle" in the picture and guns do kill people, they just need a little assistance

That is not what it is about. It is about enforcement of existing law and compliance. That along with education could cause a dramatic decrease in unwanted events

I totally agree with this but the only way I see it working is more local, and federal cops with the proper training and tools to actually address the enforcement and compliance issues. And as front loaded investment of social workers counsellors. Bottom line is the money to make that happen.


Originally Posted by califdadof3
Mental health advisories for both situations. How often is a crime committed and we think to ourselves this is nuts? There needs to be more proactive parts being played by the mental health community then what there is now to identify problems before they break out into situations like we have seen in the news.

While I agree, but I see a right to privacy issues, doctor client privileges, and getting people to even seek a doctors help, knowing they could be reported as major stumbling block. Its truly a many layered complex issue.

Then there is the criminals who kill on a daily basis, and unlike crazy people snapping, and they too may be crazy, they seem to get their hands on anything they want, mostly because of loopholes they exploit, and the criminals by ordinary citizens that aid and abet them for personal profit.

Its this reason I think more cops with more tools, like a national database for firearms period, no exceptions, is needed. I will always be against the citizen, no matter how responsible, be on the same level of fire power as the cops, or national guard.

Tal the problem with all of this is culture, the idea that it is okay to have weapons in the home, the idea that society is so weak you have to protect yourself, the idea that you must take affirmative action. Society has gone from relatively isolated dwellings to close urban living but hasn't changed its ideas

I totally agree with this but the only way I see it working is more local, and federal cops with the proper training and tools to actually address the enforcement and compliance issues. And as front loaded investment of social workers counsellors. Bottom line is the money to make that happen.



While I agree, but I see a right to privacy issues, doctor client privileges, and getting people to even seek a doctors help, knowing they could be reported as major stumbling block. Its truly a many layered complex issue.

Then there is the criminals who kill on a daily basis, and unlike crazy people snapping, and they too may be crazy, they seem to get their hands on anything they want, mostly because of loopholes they exploit, and the criminals by ordinary citizens that aid and abet them for personal profit.

Its this reason I think more cops with more tools, like a national database for firearms period, no exceptions, is needed. I will always be against the citizen, no matter how responsible, be on the same level of fire power as the cops, or national guard.

Ok, then lets try to break this down. Fully understanding that laws have been put in place such as HIPPA and others to protect the privacy as well as the doctor/patient relationship.

So how about a waiting period for those that wish to buy guns that are under a doctors care and are perscribed drugs from certain classes of medication. That way if there is at least a question on a persons mental status the doctor can sign off on it. Yes it would be a hassle but it can also act as a safegaurd. That way it doesn't interfere with the operations of others that wish to purchase a firearm.

As far as your second part and this circuler argument that you keep coming to. I believe it is because you don't actually know what your talking about. So Im going to try to explain it to you. There is this thinking in the general public that you can buy anything you want. The actual truth is there are lines that have been drawn as far as what can be bought and sold. It is highly controlled and regulated already. Law enforcement and the national guard are still miles ahead of average joe citizen. Mainly due to the fact they they -entities like police and military. Can and do possess fully automatic weapons. The general public has a great restriction on getting their hands on those types of weapons. They ALL are registered in a national database and fees as well as taxes have been paid to own one. They are not readily available nor are they cheap by any means. The AR in fully automatic will set you back about 25 thousand dollars. So really it has nothing to do with being on par with military nor police.

Weapons are divided into different classes the least of which are airsoft weapons. AKA like bb guns or paintball guns. Next you have the cener fire weapons of single shot to semiauto. From there is full auto. The higher up you go the more regulation there is.

Most weapons used in crimes are those that are from straw purchases. That would be a "legal" person that can past muster of the law buying it then in turn selling to a person that can not purchase a gun legally.

Huge differences here. Also you can't just go buy a full auto weapon nor a supressor at your whim. You have to apply for it and it has to be signed off and approved by your local LEO's. The process can take about 6 months.

Then what about the teens who maybe find out where their dads hid the key to the gun safe (if he was indeed that careful) and take one or more guns and ammo to school and/or shoot up a school? There was a case the other day of an everyday, normal 13-year-old who brought a handgun and ammo (and knife) to school and was showing them off and handing them around on the playground.

Dad it is nice to know there is regulation but it doesn't prevent a large number of killings so there is something not working. This is what has to be addressed. There are ways of addressing it from more regulation to removing classes of weapon from the community.

From personal experience I know that the only way to prevent a person who isn't thinking straight from using a gun to solve whatever problem they have is to ensure that they cannot get access to a gun. My son is still alive today because he could not get access to a gun and when he did steal from a neighbour he couldn't get ammunition.

It is that simple but there is all this emotional crap about rights to wade through

Then what about the teens who maybe find out where their dads hid the key to the gun safe (if he was indeed that careful) and take one or more guns and ammo to school and/or shoot up a school? There was a case the other day of an everyday, normal 13-year-old who brought a handgun and ammo (and knife) to school and was showing them off and handing them around on the playground.

I would have to know more about it to comment on it. Its obvious that you can't stop nor prevent every concievble situation. It as also apparent by what your saying that the child didn't have a clue to what was going on. Im not sure if that was the child's mental capacity to grasp reality or something that originated in the parents.

I would have to know more about it to comment on it. Its obvious that you can't stop nor prevent every concievble situation. It as also aparent by what your saying that the child didnt have a clue to what was going on. Im not sure if that was the childs mental capacity to grasp reality or something that originated in the parents.
I gathered that he just wanted to show off, as teen boys so often like to do. Meanwhile, Sandy Hook was much in the news.

Adam Lanza and other teen killers have had ready access to guns at home. Parenting problem?

I gathered that he just wanted to show off, as teen boys so often like to do. Meanwhile, Sandy Hook was much in the news.

Adam Lanza and other teen killers have had ready access to guns at home. Parenting problem?

Possible. Right now we don't really know except what spin is being put on it. Sometimes parent have very difficult situations to deal with on the homefront. I know some parents that had to give up a child because they couldn't control him. It wasn't easy. And if in this case the mother was aware that things were getting out of hand then she could have had the weapons stored elsewhere.

We don't know enough at this time to pass such a judgement. But a danger no matter what the direction it comes from as a parent you must always be diligent.

Dad platitudes like diligent don't cut it where firearms are concerned. Kids are resourcefull, when they decide to do things they are sometimes irrational, to keep firearms out of their hands requires very stringent measures and even then they don't succeed. It is therefore better to ensure only essential weapons are in the community. Sporting shooter's don't need weapons at home they can store them at a shooters' club or armory, All weapons should be stored in a secure safe and ammunition separately secured but reality suggests that there needs to be a real examination of why gun ownership is necessary at all

Clete
It's obvious your stance on guns and I respect the situation your in with your son. If my neighbor politely asked me about how I store my guns because he had a son/daughter that he was concerned about finding them I would absolutely respect that and do something about it.
As for me having to go to some club or gun armory to pick up my shot gun to go pheasant hunting. C'mon man you know that isn't realistic or necessary or ever going to happen. Clete are you a U.S. citizen?

Those who have been around for a while know that I reside far away but have been contributing to these forums for many years.

As to what is necessary in your particular environment only you can know but I'm sure the residents of Newtown didn't think it necessary to keep weapons out of the hands of Adam because it might have been inconvenient. I am not niaive enough to think that because something happens in one place, that is isolated and cannot happen elsewhere. These days we are all much more closely connected than we think, events echo and have repercussions even in remote places

those who have been around for a while know that I reside far away but have been contributing to these forums for many years.

as to what is necessary in your particular environment only you can know but I'm sure the residents of Newtown didn't think it necessary to keep weapons out of the hands of Adam because it might have been inconvenient. I am not niaive enough to think that because something happens in one place, that is isolated and cannot happen elsewhere. These days we are all much more closely connected than we think, events echo and have repercussions even in remote places


Clete,
I'll turn my guns into an armory when you turn in your right to fly in an airplane.
No one ever discussed banning airplanes after 9/11.

In the spirit of finding a middle ground. I totally agree on enforcing gun control and gun safety. Middle ground to me isn't the ability to check my gun out from an armory like it was a gun library of some sort. Not sure if that's what you were getting at but it kind of sounded like it. I would move to whatever country you live in before that happens.

Clete,


In the spirit of finding a middle ground. I totally agree on enforcing gun control and gun safety. Middle ground to me isn't the ability to check my gun out from an armory like it was a gun library of some sort. Not sure if thats what you were getting at but it kind of sounded like it. I would move to whatever country you live in before that happens.


Hi bigwig

That probably wouldn't work for you because we live in a country where there is no right to bear arms.

Hi bigwig

That probably wouldn't work for you because we live in a country where there is no right to bear arms.

No Tutty that would not work for me. The point I was trying to make is the 2nd amendment means that much to me. I would at all costs avoid what has happened where you live from happening here because there is surely more hell to come if that would happen here. It's a broken system when a govt doesn't trust it's citizens to bear arms.

I have viewed the many videos you guys have provide about the differences between semi, and fully automatic. It seems our disagreement is where the line should be drawn between heavy regulation and less regulations, and completely banning certain weapons. Your distinctions are technical and law enforcement facing semi automatic fire won't draw a technical distinction when he is hit. That's not a position I would want a cop in, or the swat guys and especially not a citizen to have to face.

As far as I am concerned and this is my own opinion,I see no pratical function for such weapons by any citizen. Now I have pointed out the difference between rural areas, and cities, and semi automatic rifles has no place in the city period.

David Koerech was a licenced dealer, or his cult members were, and its hard to make a case for him being a reasonable law abiding citizen.

However, the idea of bringing doctors into the background check process before any purchase or licencing is a good one, but only covers those who have docors and been evaluated. Leaves a big loophole to drive through. Maybe we should all be evaluated young and needs addressed early, not just the obvious ones.

Yes I would also love to see what facts they find about Adam Lanza.


I would at all costs avoid what has happened where you live from happening here because there is surely more hell to come if that would happen here.

Please elaborate the hell that would come without your semi automatic rifles and 60shot clips?

No Tutty that would not work for me. The point I was trying to make is the 2nd ammendment means that much to me. I would at all costs avoid what has happened where you live from happening here b/c there is surely more hell to come if that would happen here. It's a broken system when a govt doesn't trust it's citizens to bear arms.


Hi again bw

Yes, no doubt it means a lot to the majority of the population over there.

It works for us because our population was never armed in the first place. Therefore it is difficult to take away something that the over whelming majority of the population never had in the first place. According to wikipedia gun ownership in Australia is about 5.2 percent.

No doubt some of the 5.2 percent would disagree with the current restrictions.

If I lived in the far boonies and my nearest neighbor was a mile away, and the nearest town even further, I would want the best weapon money could buy for hunting ad security, and enough bullets for a tribe of squaters, poachers, and ner do wells with bad intentions.

But in a city? NO WAY.

If I lived in the far boonies and my nearest neighbor was a mile away, and the nearest town even further, I would want the best weapon money could buy for hunting ad security, and enough bullets for a tribe of squaters, poachers, and ner do wells with bad intentions.

But in a city?? NO WAY.

So what do you think of the old days when you had to leave your gun when you came into town? Should we return to that?

Should we start a new thread with the sole purpose of finding middle ground or lines where we agree to disagree ?

Naw this thread will do nicely and as far as leaving your gun at home when you go to the city, wouldn't that depend on the city? Good luck with thinking your hunting rifle is approriate to carry in Chicago. Or Aurora, Colorado, or Newtown, Ct.

That's not even reasonable in the modern times.

I have viewed the many videos you guys have provide about the differences between semi, and fully automatic. It seems our disagreement is where the line should be drawn between heavy regulation and less regulations, and completely banning certian weapons. Your distinctions are technical and law enforcement facing semi automatic fire won't draw a technical distinction when he is hit. Thats not a position I would want a cop in, or the swat guys and especially not a citizen to have to face.

As far as I am concerned and this is my own opinion,I see no pratical function for such weapons by any citizen. Now I have pointed out the difference between rural areas, and cities, and semi automatic rifles has no place in the city period.

David Koerech was a licenced dealer, or his cult members were, and its hard to make a case for him being a reasonable law abiding citizen.

However, the idea of bringing doctors into the background check process before any purchase or licencing is a good one, but only covers those who have docors and been evaluated. Leaves a big loophole to drive thru. Maybe we should all be evaluated young and needs addressed early, not just the obvious ones.

Yes I would also love to see what facts they find about Adam Lanza.



Please elaborate the hell that would come without your semi automatic rifles and 60shot clips?

I never said anything about semi auto rifles and 60 shot clips... I have a semi auto .22 caliber rifle with a 10 shot clip that I love shooting at targets with, its fun. I do it in an extremely safe manner with my kids. It allows me to TEACH gun safety.

I'm saying if the U.S. Govt tells us tomorrow that we have to "turn in your guns" there would be complete anarchy. Riots, revolts, a completely broken country that would over shadow any cotostrophy that has happened. It would be a living hell in my opinion. Turning in your guns before you go into a city?? Cmon Man.

I saw Crocodile Dundee and they had lots of guns in Australia:)

I never said anything about semi auto rifles and 60 shot clips...I have a semi auto .22 caliber rifle with a 10 shot clip that I love shooting at targets with, its fun. I do it in an extremely safe manner with my kids. It allows me to TEACH gun safety.

I'm saying if the U.S. Govt tells us tomorrow that we have to "turn in your guns" there would be complete anarchy. Riots, revolts, a completely broken country that would over shadow any cotostrophy that has happened. It would be a living hell in my opinion. Turning in your guns before you go into a city?????? Cmon Man.

I saw Crocodile Dundee and they had lots of guns in Australia:)

You see this whole debate goes from the sublime to the ridiculous

First; no one said there weren't guns in Australia but not the types of weapons we are talking about, and you don't really believe that Australia is anything like the characters in Crocodile Dundee do you? We have laws here and they are strictly enforced in a non partisan way

Second: what are you hunting in a city? Why do you need to take a hunting rifle into a city? Now if you live in a city and you go out into the "woods" to hunt, entirely different proposition, How often do you do that anyway?

Third; the gun you have is probably acceptable in that configuration, but there is a big difference between that weapon and weapons of higher calibre and magazine configuration

In teaching gun safety we assume you are talking about shooting targets in a properly constructed range where casual passersby couldn't walk into the line of fire. Look, there was a time when I had a Gun like the one you describe, used to carry it in my golf bag, crows! You know, big nuiance on a golf course. I have grown up a little since then and the laws have changed and some of my life experiences have changed my opinion and my behaviour

You are complaining about use of an armory to store weapons because of inconvenience but such measures don't impinge your 2nd amendment rights. What it does do is ensure only those who should have access, do and that weapons are stored in a properly supervised manner

I think you might find there are more reasonable people in your country than you think there are, oh, the loonies and the moonies will react, you can expect that, you have to ask how appropriate is their behaviour anyway, there will be much nashing of teeth and beating of breasts and more beating of breasts and a few politicians might pay a penalty

You see this whole debate goes from the sublime to the rediculous

First; no one said there weren't guns in Australia but not the types of weapons we are talking about, and you don't really believe that Australia is anything like the characters in Crocodile Dundee do you? We have laws here and they are strictly enforced in a non partisan way

Second: what are you hunting in a city? why do you need to take a hunting rifle into a city? Now if you live in a city and you go out into the "woods" to hunt, entirely different proposition, How often do you do that anyway?

Third; the gun you have is probably acceptable in that configuration, but there is a big difference between that weapon and weapons of higher calibre and magazine configuration

In teaching gun safety we assume you are talking about shooting targets in a properly constructed range where casual passersby couldn't walk into the line of fire. look, there was a time when I had a Gun like the one you describe, used to carry it in my golf bag, crows! you know, big nuiance on a golf course. I have grown up a little since then and the laws have changed and some of my life experiences have changed my opinion and my behaviour

You are complaining about use of an armory to store weapons because of inconvenience but such measures don't impinge your 2nd amendment rights. What it does do is ensure only those who should have access, do and that weapons are stored in a properly supervised manner

Let me address the hunting issue. As far as seasons there are 3 and it lasts for a few months. The first is Bow season. Only Bow hunters are allowed to take game (deer). Second is Black Powder. And last is Rifle. That is what makes up most deer seasons.

Other types of hunting can be year round. Mostly it depends on where you live. In Florida for example if you live near swampy areas you might want one for alligator. Also another in the varmit class is nutria. A rodent that lives in marshy areas and causes great destruction to the eco system. Many areas now are being over run by wild boar. They tear up everything and are a dangerous animal. They travel in packs.

Link for nutria:

Home - Nutria.com (http://www.nutria.com/site.php)


Also most states have varmit laws on the books and you can shoot them year round. Squirels and cyotes and others that can cause harm to property or domestic animals. That also can include Bear.

Let me address the hunting issue. As far as seasons there are 3 and it lasts for a few months. The first is Bow season. Only Bow hunters are allowed to take game (deer). Second is Black Powder. And last is Rifle. That is what makes up most deer seasons.

Other types of hunting can be year round. Mostly it depends on where you live. In Florida for example if you live near swampy areas you might want one for alligator. Also another in the varmit class is nutria. A rodent that lives in marshy areas and causes great destruction to the eco system. Many areas now are being over run by wild boar. They tear up everything and are a dangerous animal. They travel in packs.

Link for nutria:

Home - Nutria.com (http://www.nutria.com/site.php)


Also most states have varmit laws on the books and you can shoot them year round. Squirels and cyotes and others that can cause harm to property or domestic animals. That also can include Bear.

I can understand the wish to deal with small varments but I expect you need something heavy to deal with alligator and bear and perhaps they are better handled by wildlife experts and licensed hunters, I also expect they are confined to certain areas and are not a reason for the general ownership of firearms.

Wild boar is an animal also better left to experienced hunters. We have have people here who hunt them very effectively with dogs and a knife, obviously once the hunting season is over there is little reason for the weapons to be generally accessible but how many hunters do you actually have? With 270,000,000 weapons there really can't be that many weapons being discharged or even hunting would become a public nuiance

I can understand the wish to deal with small varments but I expect you need something heavy to deal with alligator and bear and perhaps they are better handled by wildlife experts and licensed hunters, I also expect they are confined to certain areas and are not a reason for the general ownership of firearms.

Wild boar is an animal also better left to experienced hunters. we have have people here who hunt them very effectively with dogs and a knife, obviously once the hunting season is over there is little reason for the weapons to be generally accessable but how many hunters do you actually have? with 270,000,000 weapons there really can't be that many weapons being discharged or even hunting would become a public nuiance

Interesting question as to how many hunters. Here is your answer.

How many hunters are there in America today?

23 million to 43.7 million

The total population of registered hunters in America today is ranging from 23 million to 43.7 million individuals. This estimate came from the 2001 National Survey Of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Related Recreation, which was based on the annual data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service


Ref:

Number of Hunters in America | Number Of | How Many (http://www.numberof.net/number-of-hunters-in-america/)



Side note: as far as the protection goes with the larger animals is what drives the need not for actual hunting of them. Almost any animal requires a license to hunt. But farms across america are being invaded and owners are hunting actively Boar and Nutria. As well as coyote.

Isn't the game license for both hunting and fishing, so you are counting fishermen there too.

WG... licensure varies by location. In my location you can get a fishing license, a hunting license or a combo.

Isn't the game license for both hunting and fishing, so you are counting fishermen there too.

Yes and no. A gaming license is a start but it doesn't encompass everything. You usually need stamps for certain classes of hunting fishing. Like rainbow trout or salmon may require a stamp. To take deer or duck will require separate stamps. The stamps generate revenue that is normally returned to wildlife preservation and conservation. Some states have reintroduced species from the money and brought now extinct elk and other wildlife back into the population.

Its like having a drivers license. It allows you to drive a car only. But should you wish it can also cover driving a big rig or driving a bus or limo as well as a motorcycle. It is still a license but it covers a much broader range.

Interesting question as to how many hunters. Here is your answer.

How many hunters are there in America today?

23 million to 43.7 million

The total population of registered hunters in America today is ranging from 23 million to 43.7 million individuals. This estimate came from the 2001 National Survey Of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Related Recreation, which was based on the annual data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service


Ref:

Number of Hunters in America | Number Of | How Many (http://www.numberof.net/number-of-hunters-in-america/)



Side note: as far as the protection goes with the larger animals is what drives the need not for actual hunting of them. Almost any animal requires a license to hunt. But farms across america are being invaded and owners are hunting actively Boar and Nutria. As well as coyote.

Yes so maybe 10% hunters population and gun population 80% so it starts to beg the question about gun population. No one is concerned about vermin control, it really isn't the issue, I understand the problems of rural areas, we have vast populations of kangaroo and even boar and camel as well as fox, dog and rabbit and even horse. There aren't too many farmers who go mad with a gun, but of course you do get weapons stolen in rural areas just as you do in urban areas.

No the question truly goes to gun populations in urban areas and undoubtedly that is a law and order question as much as it is attitude or rights, just because a right exists doesn't mean everyone should have an excuse to exercise it, I'm sure most people don't want to exercise their marander rights

Isn't the game license for both hunting and fishing, so you are counting fishermen there too.

Im one of those "hunters" and it truly is a big part of who I am as a person, father, role model, etc.

I don't and have never seen anyone walking around in town with a 30 cal. rifle or sorts and also agree it's not acceptable. If guns were banned in cities it wouldn't be any skin off my teeth except that I fear that they would be banned for hunting some day then to.

As for the armory rent a gun scenario. NO WAY. We need to keep guns out of wackos hands.

Even in Australia I read homocides are down only 9% and assaults up 40%
Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html)

I'm simply questioning that hunters and fishermen are all lumped together under "game," so real numbers of actual hunters aren't available by using this method.

Yes so maybe 10% hunters population and gun population 80% so it starts to beg the question about gun population.


Lets look at this for a minute. Just the hunting aspect. Most persons that are avid hunters don't just own one gun. You don't go squirel hunting with a 30-30. So there might be a few different ones more suited for the game your after. The casual number would be 4 or 5 per hunter on average. Small ones for little game and larger ones for larger game. Also most carry a sidearm when they hunt because you always need a backup for oh crap situations. Even highly experienced hunters have misjudged when an animal has passed or had a weapon failure. And for that matter also for putting an animal down in a humane fashion instead of a slow kill because of a missed shot.

I'm simply questioning that hunters and fishermen are all lumped together under "game," so real numbers of actual hunters aren't available by using this method.

They are valid because of the stamps that are required. Also if you take an animal (except on private land) then you have to have it tagged and inspected. There are limits set by local law on how much you can take during a season.

They are valid because of the stamps that are required. Also if you take an animal (except on private land) then you have to have it tagged and inspected. There are limits set by local law on how much you can take during a season.

A back up gun is always along on my hunting trips as well. How many guns do I own now? Three Shotguns, Two rifles. I would like to purchase a hand gun as well for target shooting purposes only. I don't intend to carry nor would want to take on that responsibility while in town/city. Its not something I want to have to be concerned about. If others want to fine with me. Ive never seen a lay person shoot a gun in a city in a "self defense" moment and hope I never do.

Even in Australia I read homocides are down only 9% and assaults up 40%



Statistics like that lie, we are coming off a low base so it doesn't reflect anything like the level of incidence over there

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2D8A0E67E40926FECA257A150018FACA?opendocument

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime


I think the statistics embedded in this article, particularly the graphics, speak for themselves

http://guncontrol.org.au/2012/09/our-strict-gun-laws-have-saved-thousands-of-australian-lives/

Lol NY Andy Cuomo was so knee jerk to move on gun bans ,that he banned most of the weapons that law enforcement uses in the state . The law bans clips over 7 rounds (which of course almost no guns use so in effect he banned bullets) . But ;most of the standard issue revolvers for the police forces use 15 rounds.(and of course their rifles are 30 round "assault rifles") .

In their haste to beat the President ;and to prove that NY will have the toughest laws ,they forgot to add appropriate exemption for law enforcement .
Now I'm sure that when the Legislature is back in session tomorrow ,they will pass some kind of amendment to the law.

But today is MLK day ,and the State Government is taking the day off.
So any cop that uses their standard issue weapon today will be using an illegal gun.
Frankly I don't understand the police concern. After all ;the new law makes weapons with higher capacity magazines illegal ,then theoretically they will never have to take on a criminal with such a weapon.

Hello, again,

Let's see if we can solve this CONSTITUTIONALLY.. Right wingers LOVE the Constitution, don't they? Let me quote the 2nd Amendment;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.The National Guard is the militia. THEY'RE the ones who are authorized to bear arms. Let's round 'em up, and turn 'em over.

Excon

The Federal Government routinely calls up the National Guard to serve the interest of the government . Your definition of militia is distorted . The militias at the time were to mobilize against a tyrannical government ;not to serve it.