facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

Battle lines drawn over $500M in gun reforms


Published: Thu, January 17, 2013 @ 12:10 a.m.
  Guns

Miller Rod and Gun spokesperson Mike Miller talks about gun ownership in America

Miller Rod and Gun spokesperson Mike Miller talks about gun ownership in America

photo

Miller Rod & Gun spokesman Mike Miller holds up two guns that look very different but can fire the same caliber of bullet. On the bottom, he is holding a Mossberg semiautomatic .22 long rifle with a 25-round capacity, and on the top is a Rossi pump-action .22-caliber rifle with a 17-round capacity.

Associated Press

WASHINGTON

Conceding “this will be difficult,” President Barack Obama urged a reluctant Congress on Wednesday to require background checks for all gun sales and ban both military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in an emotion-laden plea to curb gun violence in America.

The president’s sweeping, $500 million plan, coming one month after the school massacre in Connecticut, marks the most comprehensive effort to tighten gun laws in nearly two decades. But his proposals, most of which are opposed by the National Rifle Association, face a doubtful future in a divided Congress where Republicans control the House.

Seeking to circumvent at least some opposition, Obama signed 23 executive actions on Wednesday, including orders to make more federal data available for background checks and end a freeze on government research on gun violence. But he acknowledged that the steps he took on his own would have less impact than the broad measures requiring approval from Capitol Hill.

“To make a real and lasting difference, Congress, too, must act,” Obama said, speaking at a White House ceremony with school children and their parents. “And Congress must act soon.”

The president’s announcements capped a swift and wide-ranging effort, led by Vice President Joe Biden, to respond to the deaths of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. But Obama’s gun control proposals set him up for a tough political fight with Congress as he starts his second term, when he’ll need Republican support to meet three looming fiscal deadlines and pass comprehensive immigration reform.

“I will put everything I’ve got into this, and so will Joe,” the president said. “But I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it.”

Key congressional leaders were tepid in their response to the proposals.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s office signaled no urgency to act, with spokesman Michael Steel saying only that “House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was committed to ensuring that the Senate will consider gun violence legislation “early this year.” But he did not endorse any of Obama’s specific proposals.

The NRA is opposed to the measures. In a statement Wednesday, the gun lobby said, “Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected” by Obama’s efforts and the nation’s children “will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.”

And on the eve of Obama’s announcement, the NRA released an online video accusing him of being an “elitist hypocrite” for sending his daughters to school with armed Secret Service agents while opposing having guards with guns at all U.S. schools.

White House spokesman Jay Carney called the video “repugnant and cowardly.”

The NRA and pro-gun lawmakers have long suggested that violent images in video games and entertainment are more to blame for mass shootings than the availability of guns. But Obama’s proposals do little to address that concern.

, other than calling on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research links between violent images and gun attacks.

Government scientists have been prohibited from researching the causes and prevention of gun violence since 1996, when a budget amendment was passed that barred researchers from spending taxpayer money on such studies.

The administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for expanded research.

Obama also wants lawmakers to ban armor-piercing ammunition, except for use by the military and law enforcement. And he’s asking them to create stiffer penalties for gun trafficking, to provide $14 million to help train police officers and others to respond to shootings, and to approve his nominee to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

One of the president’s executive actions on Wednesday was to nominate B. Todd Jones to head the ATF, which has been without a permanent director since 2006. Jones has served as the bureau’s acting director since 2011.

Other steps Obama took through his presidential powers include:

— Ordering tougher penalties for people who lie on background checks.

— Requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

— Ordering a review of safety standards for gun locks and gun safes.

———

Associated Press writers Erica Werner, Ken Thomas, Jim Kuhnhenn and Josh Lederman contributed to this report.

———

Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC


Comments

1glbtactivist(261 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Finally someone had the guts to at least begin to regulate guns. Our society has deteriorated to the point where we are accepting the shooting deaths of children at least once a month. Just so a few people can feel macho. That is not a moral trade off. It is time we had a "well regulated" arms industry.

Suggest removal:

2UsuallyBlunt(105 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

"The only way we can change is if the people demand it!"...ooh ooh ooh...over here....please take the bill of rights, crumple it up and throw it in the trash can...I won't need 'em anymore...I'll let the government take care of all my needs!...
For all of you liberals...THAT WAS SARCASM...morons!

Suggest removal:

3Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

ooh... ooh... ooh... hey, hey.. listen! I need my high powered military assault rifles and high capacity magazines because I have a little phallus and having a big gun makes me feel better about it. So what if a few kids are slaughtered every month? Who cares if a couple of psychopaths go on a rampage now and then and mutilate groups of people in theaters, churches, parks, grocery stores.. etc... I need my gun so I can feel like a BIGGER man.
Hunting rifles and hand pistols aren't enough for me, no sirree, Bob! I need a big gun intended for mutilation in mass quantities.

For all you backwoods hicks, THAT WAS SARCASM... idiots!

Suggest removal:

4fattynskinny(195 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

the regime's proposals will do NOTHING to curb gun violence. if you think this isn't a grab at your freedoms then you're really in the fog. it amazes me how stupid some people are. it all starts with god and family values. if you don't have them then you have nothing.

Suggest removal:

5palefoot(35 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, I'm sure stricter background checks will stop criminals and crazy people from getting guns, problem solved!! Now if we can just get better regulations on forks we can end obestiy in this country, too!

Suggest removal:

6bumbob(137 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

The goals will be tough to accomplish but worth it. Ban assault weapons and close the loopholes on background checks. The NRA zealots and their infatuations need to be curbed.

Suggest removal:

7DwightK(1300 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Looking at these proposals, I'm not sure I understand all of the hulabaloo.

- Universal background checks - Good for keeping guns away from criminals and the mentally ill.
- Tougher penalties for people who lie on background checks - Good, people lying to get a gun definitely shouldn't have one.
- Trace guns used in crimes - Good. We should see who is buying and supplying guns to criminals.
- Ban armor piercing ammo - Good. I live in a city where I don't want rounds coming through my house from my neighbors if he has to use his gun.

These are some suggestions the NRA should endorse. I can't see why anyone would be against them.

Suggest removal:

8Freeatlast(1991 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

OK lets do nothing and it will just keep happing. OR try something , If it does not work we can something else.
But just sitting on our gun butts
( KIDDING) is not the answer .
What does it take ???????

Suggest removal:

9HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Right on DwightK.

These are all common sense proposals.

The controversy is being ginned up by the paranoid who really believe that federal government is coming to take their guns away.
Paranoid behavior is a manifestation of mental illness.

The argument that these proposals will do nothing to combat gun violence is ludicrous. No one can say that with any degree of certainty.

Will it stop gun violence? - of course not.

Will the proposals make it a bit more difficult for guns to get into the hands of "bad men". Shouldn't that be something to strive for?

Suggest removal:

10Lifes2Short(3878 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Does it really matter? In the end, if a criminal wants a gun, the criminal will get one easily. So if a innocent person needs to protect this family or himself and gives up his guns, the criminal wins everytime. And if you don't think the criminals are laughing there a@#es off about these reforms, then your living under a rock. Does the government have to think for you and your content with that?

Suggest removal:

11Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

I saw the President's address and to use children and those who were killed at the school to push his anti constitutional propaganda was disgusting.

The evil doer that shot up the school didn't buy guns. As far as lying on background checks that is a load of crap. How ? If you lie presently you will be caught almost instantly. There is no way to lie. If you make even a small o instead of a capital O the purchase will be halted.That isn't even a lie its a mistake.You either have a record of crime that would prevent you from the purchase or you do not. What is being proposed then is something more. So how does that stop a the bad folks?

keep the violent video games going for little children and all the killings on TV and in the movies but attack Constitutional GOD given rights. Its OK to open the borders and let whoever wishes to invade -just step right in , that's OK but law abiding citizens most be stripped of the option of best means to protect themselves and their families.The Founders would puke. They knew tyranny from Europe and sought something better for us.I guess for some the Constitution that so many shed their blood for is only a piece of paper outdated and useless like liberty itself

Suggest removal:

12Ytownnative(1062 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Do you think this is going to make one criminal in our area get rid of his assault rifle? The illegal guns are illegal I don't know if they can be more illegal. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and they have a newton tragedy twice a month. After the second amendment is gone next will be the 4th. what's the average time a MURDERER spends in prison from Youngstown? 2-5 years per victim? why do we even pay congressmen and senators if oblamer is just going to dictate what he thinks is best for us. I do agree with some points but I totally disagree with executive order thing. Oblamer can't blame his buddies in Hollywood because they are pals but how come, if movies don't contribute, why did they delay so many shows and movies when this happened?

Suggest removal:

13redeye1(4690 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

By the looks of it, some posters feel its better if the Gov't controls their lives. I for one don't feel that way . I have been to NY and Chicago over the past few years . Thses two cities have very tough gun laws and a much higher crime rate then we do here. I don't know if any of you are old enough to remember the city in Illinois that went gun free back in the 80's . They wanted a safe city. They gave up their guns to a neighboring city . Who's mayor made it mandatory that all cittizens have a gun and get mandatory testing with it every year.. Well today the city without guns has one of the highest crime rates in the state, while the city with guns has the lowest .Why? Because the bad people know where they are the safest to commit crimes.

Suggest removal:

14HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Let's hear from our local legislators.

Suggest removal:

15Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

"The evil doer that shot up the school didn't buy guns" ~ Bigben

You're right, he did not. His gun lovin mom did. It was her guns he used to kill her and slaughter those children and faculty.

Perhaps some better education on how to store weapons would have been beneficial. Or perhaps if his mother wasn't allowed to posses such a high powered assault weapon with high capacity magazines, he would not have been able to cause such devastation.

Suggest removal:

16HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

I'd like to hear what our local legislators have to say about these proposals !

Suggest removal:

17Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

"Constitutional GOD given rights." ~Bigben

GOD did not write the Constitution. It was written by men a few centuries ago. Back then we had muzzle loaders not bushwhackers.

Suggest removal:

18Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

"Will the proposals make it a bit more difficult for guns to get into the hands of "bad men". " - - -NO. And even if it did what good is a bit more difficult ?

There are evil people who will continue to be evil. The way to overcome the evil is with good. How about not pumping people who are depressed full of medications admitted right on TV that may cause people to commit suicide. If it can be linked to suicide then what else can it be linked to?

How about stop spending billions on foreign wars to make the rich richer and spend some money on helping the mentally ill get treatment instead of leaving them roving around the streets hopelessly and get them good counseling instead of filling them full of drugs? How about putting more teeth in anti-bullying laws instead of sweeping the incidents under the table?How about we treat the heart of the problems instead of the symptoms?

Suggest removal:

19Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

"Constitutional GOD given rights." ~Bigben

"GOD did not write the Constitution. It was written by men a few centuries ago." - -No not a few centuries ago . Two centuries ago."Back then we had muzzle loaders not bushwhackers."

Hi Sump - -I would say we have cars not wagons and horses too. So what is your point? There is still good and evil. As for the Constituition - -Where did I say God wrote it? You either believe in the Constitution or you do not.

Technology has changed but people are still people.

Suggest removal:

20Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

You said Constitutional GOD given rights. God did not give us the constitution.
And yes, technology has changed. Transportation has changed and with those changes came different laws to protect people against themselves and each other..
Weapons have changed and with those changes should come different laws to protect people from themselves and each other.

Suggest removal:

21Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

My point was that Constitutional rights and GOD given rights are not the same thing. There is no such thing as a Constitutional God given right. just sayin... that's all.

Suggest removal:

22walter_sobchak(1979 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right but there is such a thing as a Constituionally-guaranteed right. The US Constitution gives you no rights - it is a legal document that outlines our federal government and enumerates its powers. The "Bill of Rights", necessarily added by the founders to ensure adoption of the Constitution by the States, is a limit on the government to making laws that would abridge our rights, which indeed emanate from God. As stated in the Declaration :"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The founders believed that to ensure a person's life and liberty, the right of the law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be enfringed.

Barack Hussein Obama doesn't always follow the US Constitution, but when he does it is because it is running away for its very life! We are a Nation of Laws!

Suggest removal:

23Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

@Sum - -"You're right, he did not. His gun lovin mom did. -- What is wrong with enjoying firearms ? Is that supposed to mean something? It was her guns he used to kill her and slaughter those children and faculty. - -Why wasn't there a cop at the school?

Perhaps some better education on how to store weapons would have been beneficial. Or perhaps if his mother wasn't allowed to posses such a high powered assault weapon with high capacity magazines, he would not have been able to cause such devastation."

Well first off his mom was a legal gun owner ? Second I don't know how the guns were stored do you if you do share. As far as high powerd-it is a 223 really used for varmint hunting in the hunting realm and not even suitable for deer hunting because it would be under powered. As for mag capacity a new mag can be dropped and withing a fraction of a second a fresh one popped into place . So ten rounds can be loaded that quickly.

Suggest removal:

24Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Robx - -Wow your comments are strange.

Hman - -Good point. Question does anyone know if the fast and furious scandal involved some branch of the Government selling guns to Mexican drug cartels in order for them to get the drugs into the United States? Is that true or just rumor? If that is true isn't that beyond hypocritical ?

Suggest removal:

25redeye1(4690 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Everyone keeps bringing up the SandyHook shooting. The guy only used two pistols in the shootings, not the AR15. It was found in the trunk of the car he had driven to the school. Maybe, you all should go to youtube.com and look at the stories on there before you judge everyone else. One tape shows the shootings to be false and a Gov't setup. I'm not saying they are right , but they will give you something to think about before youi post something. Americans better wake up to what is happening to our country and very soon!

Suggest removal:

26Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

@Sum - -"You're right, he did not. His gun lovin mom did. -- What is wrong with enjoying firearms ? Is that supposed to mean something? It was her guns he used to kill her and slaughter those children and faculty. - -'

YES, IT IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN SOMETHING. HIS MOTHER KNEW HE WAS SICK YET SHE KEPT HER FIREARMS IN OBVIOUS REACH OF HIM. IF SHE HAD PROPERLY STORED HER WEAPONS FROM HER MENTALLY ILL CHILD THEN HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN THEM AND USE THEM TO SLAUGHTER HER AND THOSE BABIES.

Why wasn't there a cop at the school?

SMALL TOWN SCHOOLS DON'T GENERALLY HAVE COPS ON DUTY. USUALLY THEY AREN'T NEEDED. WE HAVE SECURITY DOORS.

Perhaps some better education on how to store weapons would have been beneficial. Or perhaps if his mother wasn't allowed to posses such a high powered assault weapon with high capacity magazines, he would not have been able to cause such devastation."

Well first off his mom was a legal gun owner ? Second I don't know how the guns were stored do you if you do share.

IF SHE PROPERLY STORED HER GUNS THEN HER SON WHO WAS KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY ILL AND DEPRESSED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCESS THEM. YES, SHE WAS A LEGAL GUN OWNER. I SAW THAT PLASTERED ALL OVER THE NEWS WHEN THEY SPOKE OF HIM USING HIS MOTHERS BUSHWACKER AND GLOCKS.

As far as high powerd-it is a 223 really used for varmint hunting in the hunting realm and not even suitable for deer hunting because it would be under powered.

BUT NOT SO UNDER POWERED THAT IT COULDN'T KILL AN ENTIRE CLASSROOM FULL OF 6 AND 7 YEAR OLDS.

As for mag capacity a new mag can be dropped and withing a fraction of a second a fresh one popped into place . So ten rounds can be loaded that quickly.

PERHAPS THAT IS HOW HE WAS ABLE TO SLAUGHTER SO MANY SO QUICKLY THEN, HUH?

Suggest removal:

27Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

@Sum - -"You're right, he did not. His gun lovin mom did. -- What is wrong with enjoying firearms ? Is that supposed to mean something? It was her guns he used to kill her and slaughter those children and faculty. - -'

YES, IT IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN SOMETHING. HIS MOTHER KNEW HE WAS SICK YET SHE KEPT HER FIREARMS IN OBVIOUS REACH OF HIM. IF SHE HAD PROPERLY STORED HER WEAPONS FROM HER MENTALLY ILL CHILD THEN HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN THEM AND USE THEM TO SLAUGHTER HER AND THOSE BABIES.

Why wasn't there a cop at the school?

SMALL TOWN SCHOOLS DON'T GENERALLY HAVE COPS ON DUTY. USUALLY THEY AREN'T NEEDED. WE HAVE SECURITY DOORS.

Perhaps some better education on how to store weapons would have been beneficial. Or perhaps if his mother wasn't allowed to posses such a high powered assault weapon with high capacity magazines, he would not have been able to cause such devastation."

Well first off his mom was a legal gun owner ? Second I don't know how the guns were stored do you if you do share.

IF SHE PROPERLY STORED HER GUNS THEN HER SON WHO WAS KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY ILL AND DEPRESSED WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCESS THEM. YES, SHE WAS A LEGAL GUN OWNER
AND YES, THE MOTHER WAS A LEGAL GUN OWNER. I SAW THAT PLASTERED ALL OVER THE NEWS WHEN THEY SPOKE OF HIM USING HIS MOTHERS BUSHWACKER AND GLOCKS.

As far as high powerd-it is a 223 really used for varmint hunting in the hunting realm and not even suitable for deer hunting because it would be under powered.

BUT NOT SO UNDER POWERED THAT IT COULDN'T KILL AN ENTIRE CLASSROOM FULL OF 6 AND 7 YEAR OLDS.

As for mag capacity a new mag can be dropped and withing a fraction of a second a fresh one popped into place . So ten rounds can be loaded that quickly.

PERHAPS THAT IS HOW HE WAS ABLE TO SLAUGHTER SO MANY SO QUICKLY THEN, HUH?

Suggest removal:

28Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

@ WalterThere is no such thing as a Constitutional right but there is such a thing as a Constituionally-guaranteed right. The US Constitution gives you no rights - it is a legal document that outlines our federal government and enumerates its powers.

@ Walter I understand what you are saying but no it is a Constitutional right - - -"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Constitution is more than a "legal document" , it is the supreme law of the land . So while I disagree with your basis , I agree with your conclusion.When the Constitution is seen less then what it is then we have problems. It preceded the government that why have today. The government gets its authority from the Constitution not the other way around. There are oaths taken to uphold it. Amendments were allowed, However there is a core within the body of the Constitution that speaks quite clearly and needs no changing. One example is that money is to be the responsibility of the Congress not a private for profit bank for example. In other words there are things spelled out clearly that are not to be changed.

Suggest removal:

29Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Sum So you don't know whether or not the guns were locked up or not and he got a key and unlocked them. Or whether she was irresponsible and left them unlocked. - -THAT WAS MY QUESTION .

"SMALL TOWN SCHOOLS DON'T GENERALLY HAVE COPS ON DUTY. USUALLY THEY AREN'T NEEDED. WE HAVE SECURITY DOORS." - -WELL OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE GENIUS!!!!!!

"PERHAPS THAT IS HOW HE WAS ABLE TO SLAUGHTER SO MANY SO QUICKLY THEN, HUH?" - - -YES THAT WAS MY POINT WHETHER TEN OR 100 THE MAGS CAN BE RELOADED QUICKLY> - - -THE GUNS DIDN"T KILL THE KIDS THE EVIL SICK TWISTED GUY DID.

YOU DIDN"T ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT HER STORAGE THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. IF HE WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THE GUN FROM A MEXICAN CARTEL WOULD THE RESULT BEEN DIFFERENT? THE KID WAS EVIL UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS EVIL IN THE WORLD.

LETS BAN KNIVES BEER CARS ANTIBIOTICS HAMMERS SIDEWALKS BECAUSE THEY CAN ALL BE USED TO KILL.

Suggest removal:

30Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

You still have the right to bear arms. You just have to go through a more extensive background check and although you can still keep and use your 'arms' you can't keep and use high powered military assault rifles or high capacity magazines. But you are welcome to all the hand pistols and hunting rifles you like.
The constitution was written before these types of weapons existed or were even thought about. So naturally there will be amendments. I'm sorry if this scares you. Not all change is bad. You will get used to it and you will see that it IS going to be ok.

Suggest removal:

31Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Don't use your caps at me Mister! I used caps to distinguish between your comments and my reply.

Now as I stated. It is obvious that she stored her guns improperly from her mentally ill child.
If they were stored properly, he would not have been able to obtain access to them. She knew her son was mentally ill therefore extra precaution should have been taken to make sure that no one but her could access her firearms and it is people like you who make excuses that scare the crap out of the rest of us and this is why we would just prefer NO ONE to have assault rifles. Because it is very hard to tell which of you have a brain in your head and which have a brain in their ass.
Yes, guns kill people and twisted people use guns to kill larger quantities of people at a rapid rate therefore assault rifles and high capacity magazines should be banned from civilians.

Suggest removal:

32redeye1(4690 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

BigBen You will never win an argument with a ( bleeding heart) liberal because they only know how to argue with emotions and not with true facts So quit fighting with his stupidity,and emotions. Your blood pressure with appreciate it..

Suggest removal:

33redeye1(4690 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

BigBen You will never win an argument with a ( bleeding heart) liberal because they only know how to argue with their emotions and not with true facts So quit fighting with his stupidity,and emotions. Your blood pressure with appreciate it..

Suggest removal:

34Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Don't use your caps at me Mister! - -You started it with the caps. "I used caps to distinguish between your comments and my reply." - -You could have used quotation marks, no one likes being screamed at including me.

She may have stored them improperly and perhaps she should have gotten her son more help I say perhaps because I don't know what she did. Obviously we can all agree the guy was beyond evil and it was probably the most disgusting crime I can recall.No doubt. She may have locked up the guns and hid the key and he may have found it -I don't know I was curious if anyone knew that.

As far as banning assault rifles I am opposed you are for it so clearly we have a difference of opinion.We need less evil sick people in the world and we should put our focus on that instead of limiting the freedoms of others-that hasn't worked well in the past.EX. (prohibition, it might have prevented a mill worker from going down the street and have a cold beer while it made vicious murdering gangsters rich and the law breakers still got booze.) I am also in favor of teaching the youth morals and the value of other's lives and their own . There are many though who would oppose even that no matter what good could come out of it.

Suggest removal:

35Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

@Hman - -Got it.

Suggest removal:

36AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Many of these mass murders are committed by law abiding citizens. Well, law abiding until they started to "shoot to kill". Nothing was stopping the man from going out and purchasing his own Bushwacker or AK47.

Nothing is stopping any of us from going to the local gun show and buying these weapons. Hopefully there are new laws that atleast require background checks at gun shows. that way we can atleast know who are buying and selling these weapons. I don't know why the NRA is against back ground checks for all weapons tranfers. It would actually give the NRA a lot more credibility to many of us.

Suggest removal:

37Ret(39 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Let’s face a scary fact here, what we really want to regulate are human beings.
It starts with the mother, who thought that maybe her son would be more personable if she did a bonding activity with him by taking him to a shooting range and teaching him how to handle a weapon.
(Hind sight bad move) shame on that human!
Next, I think my kid is really starting to become more personable, I’ll show him I trust him and let him have access to my guns,. Maybe that will be the break though with him.
(Hind sight bad move) shame on that human!
I wish I could tell you what went through this guy’s head next. But I have no clue. I can’t even imagine.
Get use to this fact, we are all human,----------------We don’t have all the answers

Suggest removal:

38VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Food for thought.

Many of you will not agree with what you are about to read, but you need to know what many, many other people in this country feel. This is, after all what we would like to consider a "free country", although that is said with tongue-in-cheek and is becoming less free almost daily.

Wolves, Sheep, Sheepherders.

These are comparisons of the type of people we have in our society. As people settle into working and raising families, they become more and more dependent upon government for their livelihood. They become sheep and depend on government to protect them from wolves as a sheepherder would. Over time the know-all greedy government sheepherders become more and more powerful and turn into wolves and feast on the sheep.

Don't become a sheep...become your own sheepherder. If you prepare yourself, become safety diligent and do what is needed to protect yourself and your family, you will not need government to run and control your life. If more people became sheepherders, we would need less government and we would have less wolves.

Tools needed to become sheepherders include diligence, training, a careful eye, and equipment equal to the times. Equipment such as muzzleloading weapons of the 1700's were at the top of their technology in their day, but as times change so do our equipment requirements. If we want to stay ahead of the wolves, we need to protect ourselves with the best equipment in order to win. If you are attacked by a wolf, you want to be able to win. On the other hand, if the wolves know how prepared you are they will not attack. They will go after the sheep because they know the sheep are easy pickings.

Suggest removal:

39Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

@Toy -The best way to stop an evil doer with a gun is with a gun. People are people just like in the 1700s and 300 BC and going all the way back.

@Another "Hopefully there are new laws that at least require background checks at gun shows." --The school kids weren't killed with guns purchased at gun shows as far as I know. You guys just don't get it. Are we to assume that every law abiding citizen is a potential criminal-talk about paranoid. What is next folks the thought police.

Suggest removal:

40Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

@Toy -The best way to stop an evil doer with a gun is with a gun. People are people just like in the 1700s and 300 BC and going all the way back.

@Another "Hopefully there are new laws that at least require background checks at gun shows." --The school kids weren't killed with guns purchased at gun shows as far as I know. You guys just don't get it. Are we to assume that every law abiding citizen is a potential criminal-talk about paranoid. What is next folks the thought police?

Suggest removal:

41Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Here is an interesting link. I didn't realize Gandhi's views on firearms until I did some research.

http://www.fightthebias.com/Quotes/ar...

Suggest removal:

42soylentgreen(11 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

the constitution guaranteed everyone the right to carry a flintlock, good by me.

Suggest removal:

43Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788

Suggest removal:

44Lifes2Short(3878 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

sump

"IF SHE HAD PROPERLY STORED HER WEAPONS FROM HER MENTALLY ILL CHILD THEN HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN THEM AND USE THEM TO SLAUGHTER HER AND THOSE BABIES.""

If this devil was hell bent on killing the children he would have gotten guns somewhere else real easy.

Suggest removal:

45kurtw(938 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

The human brain is a complicated organ. Lots of wiring up there to get messed up and if something does go wrong "upstairs" a persons behavior becomes erratic and, potentially, dangerous.

It stands to reason, that a person with a home arsenal who likes to go target shooting or is a "survivalist"-- if his or her wiring goes wrong- is far more likely to commit mayhem than someone who enjoys fly-fishing and needlepoint. He has the weapons and the training.

Don't get me wrong- I believe in the 2nd. Amendment- I have weapons myself- but I think the greatest challenge we face is to make sure weapons do not get into the wrong hands- criminals and the mentally unstable.

Gun owners who take a "hard line" and say "screw them"- I have the right to own any kind of weapon are just hurting themselves and inviting a public backlash of enormous proportions (and making themselves look- in the public eye- like whack-jobs).

We should get rid of assault weapons in civilian hands (no matter what the N.R.A. says)- guns with that kind of firing capacity- 40-50 rounds in seconds- do not belong in the hands of the average civilian numb-skull (or, what we saw at Newtown a Nut-job)- the consequences are just too horrible: almost all the casualties at Newtown were the result of a Bushmaster assault weapon (the name says it all "assault").

I first became interested in gun-sports in the 60's reading Field and Stream Magazine. In those halcyon days it was all about hunting and target practice. In the entire magazine I don't remember seeing a military style weapon such as the "Bushmaster". What has happened?

The best thing law-abiding gun owners- shotguns, rifles and pistols designed for hunting, personal defense and target practice- can do is separate themselves from the "lunatic fringe" in their midst- the "survivalists", the people who want to accumulate enormous home arsenals "just in case". In other words, the nut jobs.

Accepting their line of reasoning, why draw the line at assault rifles? Why shouldn't the average homeowner (protected by the 2nd Amendment) be entitled to bazookas, grenade launchers, mortars, etc.- hey, how about a tank in every garage!

Suggest removal:

46kurtw(938 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Re: Sumptintosay: "Big gun substitute for small Phallus.." You're obviously a member of the "femi-nazis" - that wonderful group of people that has given women the same bad reputation that the "loonies" among male gun owners has given men. You two belong together- one "loony to another".

I can't think of a better argument for Zero Population Growth than females such as yourself.

Suggest removal:

47jeepers(127 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Bought a gun years ago when the background checks first got started. Was told it was for law enforcement to check on a criminal record. Great, I didn't want any criminal buying any gun. 30 yrs. later a newspaper decides because this info wasn't properly "protected' it was their right to publish a list of all legal gun owners. I am probably never going to buy a gun, but I would be very reluctant to fill out the form, knowing the info could be published for all criminals to see. Now, if the president wants to really make a difference, compile a list of all who have a mental illness/have been hospitalized for one/ have sought rx for one. Then, have the patient evaluated by a government employed MD. Now, cross reference the lists and there you have a valid list to start with to limit gun violence[or make a difference] Cost would be immense. Lots of loopholes in thi8s system, but it would make more sense than publishing a list of all legal gun owners. Also, trigger locks with every gun sold would do more than you might think to lessen unauthoized gun access.

Suggest removal:

48kurtw(938 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

That kind of information- legal gun-owners- shouldn't be released- period.

New York has just passed a law in which a newspaper isn't allowed to publish that kind of information and that's a good thing.

As far as trying to identify all the nut-jobs (or mentally marginal people) in the country- that would be a huge job because it might involve most of the population- especially in places like Washington D.C.!

As far as trigger locks- if an intruder breaks into my house and my gun is locked-up, what do I say: "Time out, man, hold on, give me a chance to open this thing up so I can shoot you!"

As far as children playing with guns is concerned, the best approach is teach them gun safety at an early age- Drill it into them- so if they encounter a weapon they will understand the basics of safe handling.

Suggest removal:

49Sumpintasay(55 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Hman said~
"@bigben, It is a wate of time to debate with the "lemmings". They wouldn't know the difference between a so called assault weapon or a Ruger 10/22. Assault weapons have a full setting and that is what makes it an "assault" weapon, but to the low information folks(lemmings) thay call everything an assault weapon. With the lemmings you can't fixe stupid, but you can confront it when it raises it's ugly head"

Before calling people stupid you should probably utilize your spell check.

@kurtw
you're way off on your assumptions but that's an interesting concept.

Now did anyone see that thing in Montville Ohio where a couple of gun enthusiasts went out shooting their AK-47 in their back yard and ended up shooting right through peoples homes??
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime...

Suggest removal:

50VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Those Montville men were idiots. I understand they recently purchased some of those weapons and had no clue how far the bullets would travel without a backstop. Idiots.

Just as in driving and texting on cell phones, some people have no clue what they are doing or the harm they could cause with their actions.

The good thing is those Montville men were arrested. The bad thing is, cell phone driving and texting still goes on as we breath.

Suggest removal:

51Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

More intense background checks my rear end . How about some background checks for those involved with fast and furious?The background checks are already intense and thorough. We are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

Suggest removal:

52Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

RobX - -I stand by my original statement your comments are very strange. Obviously I touched on a nerve.

For the record I don't own a military style rifle but if I want one I should be allowed to purchase one if I am a law abiding citizen. And if a person of your level of intelligence and given to rash judgments were to be in charge of whether or not Americans can legally purchase guns then you make my case for me.

"It looks like paranoia plus schoolboy fantasies to me. Real adults don't need GI Joe toys, and people with real courage don't need to carry firepower to feel safe." - - -Just take this rant for example, what is this ? Your now an authority on how Americans should feel safe and then you call guns toys ? Reminds me of The Great Dictator with Charlie Chaplin. LOL.LOL.LOL!!!!
And the there is this one- - -"And not much to do with his life!" - -And yet here you are! See what I mean ?

Now that it has been established that you make goofy , strange judgments rashly I need not comment to you on this subject any further . Good day

Suggest removal:

53HappyBob(285 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Does anyone have problem with universal background checks (for firearms purchases)???

If so, what is your objection?

Suggest removal:

54Rockyroad(149 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

The Whitehouse has announced a mandatory psychological test to be administered to current gun owners as well as anyone purchasing a gun. It consists of two questions:
1. Do you feel a need in your life to own a semi-automatic weapon?
2. Do you feel a need in your life to own a high-capacity magazine?
If you answer YES to either question you will be contacted by the Department of Homeland Security to report to a psychiatric hospital in your area for further evaluation. All of your guns and ammunition will be confiscated pending results of the evaluation.

Suggest removal:

55Rockyroad(149 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

The Whitehouse has announced that it will enforce the full rights of citizens to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. In June of 2013 all gun owners will be required to join their respective state National Guard unit. The National Guard being the "well-regulated" militia under the 2nd Amendment. All gun-owners will be required to report for duty with the Guard two weeks a year as well as to report all of their weapons and ammunition to their Guard leader. They will also be given psychological testing that is required of all Guard members.

Suggest removal:

56UsuallyBlunt(105 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Ya'll go right ahead and submit to background checks, all you want...don't think for 1 minute your government isn't "registering" the purchase. When it comes time for confiscation, just be ready to hand them over or go to the internment camp for programming...

Suggest removal:

57VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

One obvious conclusion I have over reading many of these posts is...no one really knows what an assault weapon is.

Some think it fires 40 or 50 bullets per second. Well, your wrong.
The Bushmaster AR-15, as well as ALL semi-auto rifles fire one bullet at a time with each pull of the trigger. There is absolutely no way anyone could possibly fire that many bullets with a semi-automatic weapon. As a matter of fact even a fully automatic military mini-gun with 6 rotating barrels as seen on helicopters can only fire 11 bullets per second per barrel. As a former helicopter Crew Chief and armorer, I speak from experience. If we had to use Bushmaster AR-15's in our battles, I probably would not be here today. They fire that slowly and we soldiers would not consider them assault rifles.

The semi-auto AR-15 platform has become a main-stay in civilian target shooting, as well as hunting. For hunting purposes, many new calibers have been developed to fire from the AR-15 platform by simply changing out the barrel and firing pin carrier. It is not considered an assault rifle. It has become the rifle of choice for target shooting because many different sights and attachments can be added to improve accuracy and comfort. And it still fires only one bullet at a time each time you pull the trigger.

If I were given a choice in selecting an "assault rifle" I would choose either a Colt Industries full auto M-4, or an AR-10 full auto in .308, both of which are not available to the general public.

Suggest removal:

58VindyPost(436 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

To: Hman (post 41)

think again..on your quote:.."If I want to give my daughter a firearm to keep in her apartment for defense I should not have to seek approval..."

?^^ R E A L L Y ^^ ?

I don't care if it's your daughter, son, friend, or neighbor or co-worker...you're WRONG and IRRESPONSIBLE! Abide the law.

So, if a physician prescribes you prescription strength pain pills, or other meds, this does not give you permission to share them and give to others when/if needed. Frankly, it's the right or title acquired under common law by such possession.
Also, is this how you would handle drivers' license, car insurance, titles, registrations,( Perhaps, an accident?)mortgage,(Burglary/fire) social security cards,(stolen) bank accounts,credit cards and other special documents or valuables, safety dep. box etc., etc., that are assigned and responsibility in your name? Consider fraud or ficticious, malicious acts.
You know the current laws so abide, comply, observe, regarding those laws rules and obligations.
This President will enforce, propose and set gun control in its place.

Now, if you're going to give/gift your daughter a pistol, rifle, AK47, you probably should check with her first, (LOL!) make the purchase WITH her so she can pick it out, SHE get HER registration and license,background check and lessons to load, unload, shoot. WHAT A CONCEPT.

Suggest removal:

59Rockyroad(149 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Hey UsuallyBlunt, you sweet, addle-brained, anti-government, paranoid, Tim McVeigh-type...listen to this... tattoo it in your brain...if the TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT that you fear so much (but doesn't exist) that you need as many weapons as you can lay your hands on decided to use the full might and technological prowess against a donkey like you, no amount of weapons would make you last more than 10 seconds before you were a spot on the wall. This ain't the movies you poor, sweet, paranoid sot. But your weapons would come in handy if that brain of yours slips over that knife-edge that it is balanced on and you decide you want to take your revenge against family members, ex-family members, co-workers, neighbors or just society in general. That's the problem with guys like you having semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines...society's ticking time bombs.

Suggest removal:

60cambridge(3099 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Rocky....great post. If anyone has a question as to why we need gun control just take the time to slowly read most of the previous posts on this thread. Start with usuallyblunt.

Suggest removal:

61Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Anyone know how many mass shooting happen at gun conventions?

Suggest removal:

62AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

I would guess there were law abiding citizens also.

Accidental shootings at three guns shows in the U.S. Saturday wounded five people, including three who were hurt in one incident in Raleigh, N.C.

Authorities say five people have been wounded by gunfire at three separate gun shows around the United States.

Three people were injured Saturday in Raleigh, N.C., at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show, a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people. State agriculture department spokesman Brian Long says a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance.

Suggest removal:

63AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Because there were three accidental shooting just today.

Plus a six year old in Cleveland dead tonight from a gun she was handling.
http://www.wkyc.com/video/default.asp...

Suggest removal:

64Voodoosdaddy(12 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Hey guys I hear they are going to give out 25.00 Amazon gift cards for your guns. You can buy a DVD or something.

Suggest removal:

65AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Hman, Don't be so paranoid.

I have never once said anything about taking anyone'e guns away. Have I? The problem I have is that according to the constitition EVERYONE has the right to bare arms without infringement. I am not against owning guns. As you said, there are many ignorant, stupid, and apathic people, that is what I am worried about.

Remember, ALL GUNS were originally purchased by law abidding citizens.

Suggest removal:

66excel(318 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Obama will save us all from our guns.

Suggest removal:

67jojuggie(1475 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

If guns cause crime, do cameras cause child porn?

Suggest removal:

68AnotherAverageCitizen(1175 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Well that could be a good thing. Then our former vice president would not be able to vote.

"Ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger. It was not Harry's fault. You can't blame anyone else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that shot my friend," Cheney told Brit Hume on Fox, "it's a day that I'll never forget."

Suggest removal:

69VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

What about all the mentally unstable people who were coached and transported to voting booths so they could vote for someone they were told to vote for? Shouldn't we have doctors review voter's mental status and provide the government with an approval letter before they are allowed to vote? Or should people be reviewed by the election board before they are given a right to vote card?

Why is it someone is allowed to vote in the Presidential elections without showing their identification, and without any proof of who they are, but yet if someone wants to purchase a gun, they have to fill out 3 pages of personal information, then wait for the federal government to decide if they will approve their paperwork before they can make their purchase?

Suggest removal:

70Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

@ Another
"I would guess there were law abiding citizens also.

Accidental shootings at three guns shows in the U.S. Saturday wounded five people, including three who were hurt in one incident in Raleigh, N.C.

Authorities say five people have been wounded by gunfire at three separate gun shows around the United States.

"Three people were injured Saturday in Raleigh, N.C., at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show, a quarterly event that usually draws thousands of people. State agriculture department spokesman Brian Long says a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance."

More people probably die in hunting accidents or are struck by lightening then have died of mass shootings at gun conventions let alone from military style weapons at such conventions. Statistically I would say it is a pretty safe place to be far far safer than driving a car.More people probably die on golf courses or are struck by lightening than die from any type of weapon while at gun shows annually. I would also say that the overwhelming cause of death with firearms in the US are suicides and not mass shootings or even any other type of firearm fatalities.

Suggest removal:

71Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

If people stopped killing themselves with guns probably more than half of all gun deaths would cease to exist. Unfortunately they would likely find other means. I would also propose that military style rifles are probably the smallest class or category when compared with other rifles, pistols or shotguns involved in domestic deaths in the United States annually.

Suggest removal:

72Guins(13 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

@VINDYAK where are you voting at? All the polls I've ever been to require a photo ID, even when my neighbors are in charge!

I believe in the right to bear arms, but there needs to be stricter control. Especially for those that may be mentally ill. Maybe a mini mental exam wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but they will probably lie anyways. Oh and as for cross checking with mental health diagnosis or hospitalization one thing HIPPA. No one will get those records without signed consent. At least Obama is trying something its much better than doing nothing.

Suggest removal:

73Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Why doesn't the government encourage morality and work to promote parents to stop purchasing violent video games , music and movies? I heard a song last year about a kid taking his father's revolver and shooting another kids brains out and children were singing it like there was nothing wrong with it? I truly believe this is the heart of the problem folks.

What happened to a family having dinner together and praying together I know it wasn't perfect but the moral fiber of this country has gone south. Look at what is seen on TV today you didn't see that in the 1970s or 1980s. Say what you will but garbage in garbage out.

Suggest removal:

74taxme(345 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

usuallyBlunt. ROFLMAO! Government gonna take your gunns? Sounds like they should. Parinoid people and guns don't mix. You believe in aliens too huh? Gunna need a missle launcher to protect yourself from aliens. Should we make them legal too?

Suggest removal:

75dearthquake(9 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Has anyone else heard the commercial on the radio for some gun store with the woman calling 911?
She says someone is in her house and 911 says police are on the way. She drops the phone as she says, "Stop, I have a gun!"
Then a shot rings out. She picks up the phone and says, "I'm OK."
Statistically she is more likely to be saying, "Oh my God, I just shot my son/daughter/husband/dog!"
I get a kick out of that commercial.

Suggest removal:

76cambridge(3099 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

A peom by Carl Sandburg.

Here is a revolver.

It has an amazing language all its own.

It delivers unmistakable ultimatums.

It is the last word.

A simple, little human forefinger can tell a terrible story with it.

Hunger, fear, revenge, robbery hide behind it.

It is the claw of the jungle made quick and powerful.

It is the club of the savage turned to magnificent precision.

It is more rapid than any judge or court of law.

It is less subtle and treacherous than any one lawyer or ten.

When it has spoken, the case can not be appealed to the supreme court, nor any mandamus nor any injunction nor any stay of execution in and interfere with the original purpose.

And nothing in human philosophy persists more strangely than the old belief that God is always on the side of those who have the most revolvers.

Suggest removal:

77Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 11 months ago

Is someone saying governments haven't taken guns? If that is what they are saying then they are lying it is historical fact.

Suggest removal:

78Rockyroad(149 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

NORFOLK, VA—According to numerous reports, local 62-year-old Earl Bailey, who owns a shotgun and several boxes of ammunition, is currently the last bastion of defense between the United States of America and the federal government’s full-scale takeover.
Bailey, a recent retiree and a proud advocate of gun rights, and is, at present, the only person capable of preventing top-secret forces within the government from striking and forcefully coercing hundreds of millions of Americans to submit to a fascist and brutal New World Order.
“It is every American’s right to be good and armed, and that’s a right that should always be protected,” said Bailey, now the sole American protecting the nation from the government’s hidden plot of disarming all citizens, gradually gaining control of the mass media, and installing martial law throughout the nation’s streets. “Our Founding Fathers intended for each and every one of us to protect ourselves from tyranny. That’s what America is all about.”
“What happens when the feds show up at your front door and start telling you how much meat you can eat or how to raise your kids?”
Bailey, who keeps his gun on his person at all times has reportedly struck dread into the very highest-ranking members of the U.S. government. According to sources, top government and military officials are fully aware that they remain unable to commence with their oppressive, systematic subjugation of the American populace as long as the 62-year-old owner of a rifle exists.
“The way I see it, the Second Amendment’s been keeping this nation free and secure for well over 200 years,” Bailey said, valiantly standing in front of his home that is constantly being monitored by CIA agents and elite Special Forces operatives, who are told to maintain a safe distance from the formidable 62-year-old. “First they’ll come for our guns and next…well, shoot, I don’t really plan on ever seeing what the hell happens next.”
While the federal government is more than adequately prepared to begin the first phase of its plan of convoying Second Amendment adherents to newly established FEMA concentration camps, high-level members of the Obama Administration involved in the widespread conspiracy confirmed that they have been forced to resort to alternate methods due solely to Bailey’s heroics.
“As long as there’s someone like Earl out there with a gun and ammunition, we are unable to carry out our attack on America,” said Maxwell Caufield, a covert military leader in charge of the operation to turn the country into an authoritarian, one-party state wherein the basic rights of citizens are stripped away in order to create total government control. “Try as we did to spread our distorted gun control propaganda—claiming that it would protect innocent people across the country from needless deaths—the man just wouldn’t bite.
“You’ve got to hand it to him, really,” Caufield added. “If it weren’t for Earl, you’d be looking at a totally different country.”

Suggest removal:

79Rockyroad(149 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Recognize anyone in the story above, you paranoid, conspiracy-theorist, Red Dawn movie fantasize-rs??? LOL!!!!!

Suggest removal:

80VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

@rockyroad -good story. I enjoyed it, as I never saw the movie.

I'd say I have owned firearms since my Boy Scout days. Squirrels and crow were our specialty. Never had any trouble with anyone or anything about our guns. None of us did. I even learned to shoot better in the Army. When I got out of the Army I bought a new rifle and began deer hunting. Had a lot of fun and picked up many new friends. Never had any trouble with our guns then either. Now, I spend most of my shooting time picking varmits out of the weeds and punching paper targets. New technology and rifles have made their way into our shooting world and despite their similarity to military weapons, they have become very popular for target shooting and hunting. These fine rifles can be had in various calibers, depending on the type of shooting you are interested in.

Now our world is being turned upside down and everyone wants to demonize us because some wacko, deranged teenager who has been coddled by liberalists goes on a rampage. Well, I have news for you. We are not giving in. We are prepared to stand and fight, because there are 80 million people who feel the same way I do. No, you cannot change the laws simply because you think you can. Don't be so hasty in changing the laws and demonizing the tool, when you do nothing to clean up the trash you let out onto the street. This is still a democracy and we are going to go through years of litigation if necessary to protect our rights, as well as your rights. No one has ever proven to me that once you get rid of guns you will get rid of crime. That just won't happen and everyone knows it. This is just another attempt by Brady Bill gun grabbing foamers to take away law abiding citizens' rights. Don't be so quick to give up your rights. Once you give it up, you never get it back.

Suggest removal:

81redeye1(4690 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Vindyyak GREAT POST Its so true its scarry .

Suggest removal:

8276Ytown(1293 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Interesting site, interesting perspective: Logical Gun Discussion, Gun Law Facts and a Close Eye On The NRA http://nrano.com/anti-gun-lobby-assau...

Also consider: between 39% and 50% of US households have at least one gun (43 - 55 million households). Number of privately owned guns - 190 million to 300 million.

3.4% of adults in the US identify as being part of the LGBT community. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/na...

If only 3.4% of the population (GLBT) has so much influence for their cause, think about the impact the gun owners representing 38 - 50% of our population will have.

Suggest removal:

83Rockyroad(149 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Vindyack...its not about your right to have a firearm...its about common sense and paranoia. If you live in a world of conspiracy-theories about the government, about Armageddon, about foreign invasions and unrealistic threats and this causes your to arm to the teeth with semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, the issue is your mental health and not the 2nd Amendment. However, if you want a shot gun to hunt or for personal protection and if you have a job where a concealed-carry permit is prudent, by all means have a gun. Trouble is the NRA has too many lunatics (Wayne LaPierre...if he ain't crazy no one is) running the show and too many lunatics as members. Just go down this thread and read some of this stuff...pure lunacy.

Suggest removal:

84VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Rocky-the paranoia appears to be within your own self. Especially when you continue blasting respected individuals as being crazy. You live in a self-centered fear of conspiracy-theories, Armageddon, and declare any gun owner as having mental health issues.

The fact you have only 137 comments tells me you have been posting on these pages previously with another name and are either too afraid to use your old name or have been banned from posting under that name. The pure lunacy is the lies and miss-information people like you post in hopes of creating fear and paranoia.

Get off your self-serving stand and come to the realization that we are not going to eliminate semi-auto guns. There are many people who could out-shoot a semi-auto with their revolver. This isn't about semi-auto's. This is about gun grabbing foamers such as you who think no one in America should own a repeating firearm, which I may add have been around for over 100 years. These repeating firearms have never been an issue until recently, when liberal policies, lack of enforcing current laws and allowing mentally unstable people to freely walk our streets, to live among us as though nothing is wrong with them and then when they get ahold of a firearm, people like you blame the firearm for the carnage the mentally unstable individuals create.

Don't blame me or my fellow gun owners for something others have done. We are responsible citizens who live, work, vote, pay taxes and are your neighbors. We are 80 million strong Americans who abide by laws, rules and regulations. We also have considerable strength in numbers and money to insist our elected officials see our point of view and are prepared to fight this thing clear to the Supreme Court, which I may add we have gone that route twice before and have won.

Suggest removal:

85Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Rocky why don't you and Bullwinkle gather your nuts and hit the road.

Suggest removal:

86Rockyroad(149 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Hey BigBen and Vindyak you sweet, addle-brained, anti-government, paranoid, Tim McVeigh-types...listen to this... tattoo it in your brain...if the TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT that you fear so much (but doesn't exist) that you need as many weapons as you can lay your hands on decided to use the full might and technological prowess against donkies like you, no amount of weapons would make you last more than 10 seconds before you were a spot on the wall. This ain't the movies you poor, sweet, paranoid sots. But your weapons would come in handy if that brain of yours slips over that knife-edge that it is balanced on and you decide you want to take your revenge against family members, ex-family members, co-workers, neighbors or just society in general. That's the problem with guys like you having semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines...society's ticking time bombs.

Suggest removal:

87VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Rockynuts...that's right. Normally I do not like to lambast other posters over their right to say what they think, but you have crossed the line. I was hoping you would commit yourself to one extreme or the other and you have done just that. Congratulations on making everyone realize who the nut case really is.

Suggest removal:

88Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65t-Oz...

Suggest removal:

89Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

I agree VINDYACK he crossed the line with those nutty comments.

Suggest removal:

90Rockyroad(149 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

RICHMOND, VA—As the Obama Administration signaled its determination to pass through extensive gun control reforms, a local AR-15 assault rifle told reporters Wednesday that it is beginning to fear it might never actually get the chance to kill an innocent human being in the course of its lifetime.
“Just the idea that I might actually never get the chance to let loose a torrent of bullets on a roomful of bystanders is inconceivable to me,” the rifle added. “It’s awful. I mean, what else am I supposed to do with my life?”
The AR-15 further lamented that gun control advocates’ plan to impose strict background checks on gun sales and restrict firearms access to mentally ill individuals would likely prevent the 5.56 mm, magazine-fed assault rifle from falling into the hands of the type of unhinged individual who would be likely to put the rifle to “[its] intended use” of butchering helpless civilians.
“Believe me, if these new laws go into effect, there’s almost zero chance someone like that ever gets their hands on me,” the visibly emotional military-grade armament told reporters. “At best, I’ll probably end up in some responsible gun owner’s basement, spending the rest of my life plugging paper targets at a shooting range until I rust. Not exactly what you’d call a bright future for a precision-engineered killing machine like me.”
“Imagine if your life’s dream was suddenly just taken away from you, just like that,” the gun added. “How would you feel?”
Though a series of legally obtained firearms have left a staggering body count in recent shootings at Newtown, Aurora, and many other massacre sites, the lightweight assault rifle claimed that its own ambitions are relatively modest.
“Honestly, I don’t even need to mow down an entire schoolyard of shrieking children, nothing like that,” the gun explained. “I mean, that would be fantastic, obviously, but at this point I’ll take what I can get. I would be thrilled to take out even one terrified mall shopper. That’s it. Just one. Or two, if possible. Is that really so much to ask?”
At press time, the AR-15 was praying that the man in the camo pants currently inspecting him from the other end of the store counter had a history of mental illness.

Suggest removal:

91Bigben(1996 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Newton - - -The military style rifle and 2 handguns were not legally obtained by the evil doer , they were stolen. According to FBI stats rifles are in the minority of shooting deaths and military style weapons make up only a fraction of the rifles used to kill folks. I believe it is 2 percent of rifles. And that is factual information from the FBI not from individuals who refer to guns as toys or dream of gun human conversations.

Suggest removal:

92kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

IDIOTS-- An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. Ask any cop or service member if they would rather have an AR-15 or an assault rifle!! An AR-15 RESEMBLES an assault rifle in appearance ONLY!
Take away the furniture...remove the scary pistol grip, the scary hand guards around the barrel, the scary looking flash suppressor, the scary collapsible stock (if so equipped) and you know what you got?? A FREAKING RIFLE. You people are judging on appearances ONLY!! That is racist! It's not even as powerful as a .308. It's a little more than a glorified .22 cal. It's purposes are target and varmint shooting. (YES, it can be used by the mentally disturbed to kill people, same as a car which is intended for transportation can be driven into a wall of a school.) Do YOU know what the difference between a little .380 TCP and an AR-15 is?? The AR-15 LOOKS SCARY!! (and the .380 makes a little larger hole). I get tired of the B.S. about "duh, back in the 1700's all they had was flintlocks...duh".. The founding fathers were not idiots like you...they could think and reason. They said "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" NOT "the right of the people to keep and bear flintlock rifles shall not be infringed". They knew that weapons advanced quite a bit since Cain killed Able and most likely did not assume that the flintlock rifle was the end of the line in weaponry. People like you read Article 2 of The Bill of Rights but do not comprehend it. 2A-101 "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means that to maintain the security of a free state you will (necessarily) need from time to time a military controlled by the gubmint. It's that simple folks...try to comprehend that. They had just been fighting a military that was controlled by a gubmint. They knew that the gubmint could direct a trained and regulated military (militia) on even it's own subjects.

Suggest removal:

93kk80586(227 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

Then (in the copy that was signed and ratified by the states) there is a comma. Because of the aforementioned shenanigans of gubmints the founding fathers wisely understood that the people should be and have the right to be armed.
The beauty is that every military member swears to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC" and "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God". The UCMJ allows for NOT following UNLAWFUL orders (even from the potus) such as infringing on peoples rights. So your straw-man argument about "what are you gonna do when the military comes for your guns and they have an F15 and all you got is an AR-15?" is not valid. I was in the military and I can tell you that after a couple days (or sooner) our military people would get real tired real quick of killing their cousins, uncles, brothers and mothers. To the best of my knowledge the U.S. Military is not even allowed to be operational within our borders (except extreme emergencies). You say the Constitution was written 200+ years ago and is outdated?? O.K. you take away my 2A right and I'll take away your first. I swear, if they ever take my gun or in any way ditch the Constitution and one of you nuts says something I don't like I will beat you death with a jaw-bone of an ass. Fair enough??

Suggest removal:

94VINDYAK(1799 comments)posted 1 year, 10 months ago

@kk80586 - excellent piece of writing. You are very well versed in history and UCMJ and your shock and awe is without equal. Thankfully, there are millions of others who feel the same way you do. I am one of them. I am a veteran, proud of it and proud of all of us who serve and have served. I have family in the service. We are the defenders of our Constitution. We are defenders of freedom and we refuse to let others take it away, because once it is gone, it is gone forever and we are lost.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes