I'd rather have the situation where a criminal or madman is not sure who has a gun and who does not.

Doesn't that environment already exist Seamus?

That sure is the democrat way.

Help me out, Apjak, what is your source when you claim that "God-Given rights"? What are these rights? Whose God are we talking about? Help me out, please.

@RobertS
Are you familiar with The Bill of Rights?
Do you understand the reason for it relative to the Constitution?
Do you know how they interpreted and intended the word "inalienable"?

@apljak: if mental illness is "the true fundamental problem", will you support a mental health exam for all gun-buyers?

@essay,
only after they institute one for voting (definitely will decrease the Democratic voting numbers), driving, one's appearance in any public place, etc...

Look in the paper. Every week there is someone who gets sentanced to a term for 3-4 crimes that is less then they were supposed to be sentanced to for just the gun portion of the crimes they committed.
When I see someone who was in possesion of a stolen gun and they are charged with " receiving stolen property" It pisses me off. Its not just property , its a damn gun! No one with good intentions buys or posesses a stolen firearm.

Mark ,there is no ''gun show loophole'' every registered gun dealer at a gun show has to run back ground checks, gun owners such as yourself are half the problem, its hard to educate others when you are passing along misinformation.

Correct, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear from stricter enforcement of EXISTING laws. Instead, the gun-ban idiots think it's preferable to ban all guns they deem unnecessary and create a larger nation of gun outlaws in the process. They couldn't even identify or operate the very weapons they want to ban,,,morons.

Well Bill , what kind of test do you have in mind? All legal gun owners want criminals and the mentally ill to not have access to weapons. So tell us, beyond what we do now , whats your idea? Please do us all a favor and post something beyond the generic " common sense gun laws"

I don't think you can run down and buy an automatic weapon right now; if so please tell me where to do so legally. I don't even think you can own one without some kind of federal tax stamp and then at that it is some serious hoops to jump through; I certainly do not know of anyone who owns an automatic firearm.

Maybe you meant semi-automatic?

Charlie beat me to it. It is nearly impossible to get an automatic weapon in the United States. You need a Class 3 FFL (Federal Firearm License), which is not easy to get. Plus you'll need $15,000 - $20,000 to actually buy one.

Unless of course you mean semi-automatic, in which case the reason I need to own one is that it is the best means to defend myself and my family from an attacker who would likely be carrying a semi-automatic. But then, I don't need a reason, it's my right.

Because armies are dangerous to liberty.

Bill, please educate yourself before posting, ''automatic weapons '' are outlawed , the guns you are trying to talk about but know nothing about are semi automatic. When you can prove you even semi have a little knowledge of the problem then we will take your post a little more seriously.

Oh you mean the imaginary kind. There is no way you could get off 8 rounds a second with anything curently on the civilian market.

@ Robert E

Is this imaginary, the way you believe yourself a citizen of Rhode Island, California and New Hampshire, all at once? The free comment sites are over-run by what appears to be a large number of conservative voices.

The truth is that most of you post in as many places as you can find, to inflate
your numbers. It's not a movement, it's a deception, by the deluded.

First, define "assault rife". Most of which I assume you're referring to is purely cosmetic (ie a common hunting rifle put into a synthetic stock that "looks" like a military weapon).

Secondly, do you know who else is afraid of what you're calling "assault weapons"? The criminal trying to attack you, invade your home, attempt a killing spree, etc.

Lastly, did you know your far more likely to be killed by falling airplane parts than a shark attack? Figures lie, and liars figure..

You have the right to your opinion. You do NOT have the right to attempt to deny others their constitutional rights.

The supreme court in 1934, the last time they took up the issue of what types of weapons civilians could have, said that civilians could have weapons that were used in the Militia. However, DC vs HELLER, a supreme court decision, said that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and need not be connected to military service. Slowly but surely, on the grounds of DC vs HELLER folks have been challenging gun laws, and getting them thrown out.

The second amendment is clear, the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

This wouldn't be the first time in history a majority of socialists tried to take guns away from the citizens. Same policy, different people.

Did I say I owned any assault weapons? No I didn't. You made that assumption. And yes, most of the anti-gun crowd are zealots. Most have no idea what they're talking about. They favor banning flame suppressors, barrel shrouds, stock extensions and pistol grips without a clue what they features are or what they are used for. None of them have anything whatsoever to do with making a gun an assault weapon, making it dangerous, or making it capable of firing more rounds. But the names "sound" like they're scary so the anti-gun lunatics think they should be banned.

As for your statement that guns are dangerous. In a sense, yes. But no more dangerous than an automobile. Your chances of being killed by a vehicle are far greater than your chances of being gunned down. Anyone can kill far more people with a car in a short period of time than they can with a gun. But I bet you don't run away and hide when you see a car.

Now, if you think my posts defending the second amendment are "hateful", please take a look at some of the anti-gun rants on here and elsewhere. You'll see some real hate.

Gee, nice try at trying to slap a guilt trip on the commenter with your emotion riddled rant. Did you know that with few 9 mm pistols equipped with 10 round magazines someone could easily take out just as many students in just as short a period of time? You see, a shooter picks his time, picks his place, picks the exact area to begin shooting, picks his path, picks his timer to reload. He makes the all the rules and calls all the shots. Someone with a 9 mm pistol with a 10 round mag pulls it to defend himself and he does not pick the time or place, doesn't have the place or time to reload, has to get his shots off in a hurry, has to hit the assailant with more than one shot in order to stop him; his chances of a few misses are high given the pressure of the circumstances and the probability that the assailant is moving. When the 10th shot is fired, he's completely defenseless. The assailant is not. I'll stick with my semi-automatic pistols. And I won't feed them with 10 round mags. I'm not going to short change myself. When it's my life or an assailant's, I'm not going to lose that battle.

So if the exact same gun had a pinned muzzle, and a pinned stock it would not qualify under the 1994 assault weapons ban. That means Jack would still be alive right?

It's a terrible thing that happened in that School. I hope we don't find out that it was a elite progressive operative like yourself, that killed all of those children to push the anti-gun agenda to the top of the to-do list. Frankly, being in combat myself, I find it hard to believe that that kid was so effective in the small window of time he had.

@RS
Disgusting exploitation of this tragedy to try and evoke an emotional response for your politics and idealism.
Fortunately, it is so transparent that we can dismiss it and ignore it entirely.

@RS previously said, "Make your argument, but do not name-call. We are not zealots - we are people who have opinions that do not in any way agree with your opinions. We are as worthy as you are." @RS says now, "Gutless folks do not use their real names on these posts. Phonies. Like yourself." Since we're now calling names, I'll just call you a hypocrite.

This is Patch, not Facebook, my choice in a screen name isn't relevant to the conversation. I have no idea if you're name is real, but I don't really care either way.

And yeah, way to exploit a tragedy and to blame people and inanimate objects on people other than the killer. We're all sad about what happened in Newtown, but please stop trying to claim that gun owners are responsible for the deaths of those children.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people (including 19 children under the age of 6) with a bomb made out of fertilizer and fuel, but we never blamed the bomb for those killings, we blamed and executed McVeigh.

Robert, you are a sick opportunist and are exploiting a tragedy to further your political agenda. Now that is disgusting.

Robert Sprague , if thats your real name ,
with main stream media reporting like this one has to wonder what really happened at Sandy Hook as far as what guns the murderer used, dont blame the ''conspiracy crowd'' blame the media and the govts both state and federal,watch this nbc video and try to find the link to the coroner's interview its there you just need to do a little looking ,the coroner is a whack job I wouldn't let him near any of my kids alive or dead.

http://patriotupdate.com/2013/01/assault-weapon-at-sandy-hook-or-not/

One more thing Robert Sprague , look at what your liberal democrat media buddies did to all the licenced law full ,law abiding innocent gun owners in a couple of NY towns when they posted there names and addresses in their ''news paper'' a few of these innocent home owners have now been burglarised because of the liberal democrat medias negligence and then people like you wonder why we wont tell you who we really are ....go figure

The truth is he used the least effctive weapon for what he was trying to do. The ar-15 is not a close quarter weapon he could have killed far more with far fewer shots if he had used a shotgun.

The endless trivia coming from gun enthusiasts reminds me of RPG creeps;
constant bickering about which weapon should have been chosen to slaughter more
children in a more efficient manner - you illustrate the problem.

Too many of you treat this as a conceptual problem, yet it's not a game.
At least the Larpers, Dungeons and Dragons players and Civil War enactors
keep it to themselves. If you can't police your own ranks - and you don't -
it's not a private matter anymore.

FYI - Robert E is like so many on the Patch, retired - unattached and out of State.
"The truth is he used the least effctive weapon for what he was trying to do. "
- Robert E

Bravo, lets critique the next shooting for body count and family grief.
The world has too many people enjoying this for their own sick pleasure.

It would appear these are the same wannabe vigilantes setting up the next one...

You just peaked the crazy meter again Robert...

Robert Sprague we are more worried about people like you than any ''assailants'' that break into our homes and steal our replaceable stuff . ''assailants'' like you, try to rob of us of our inalienable and Constitutional rights.

Sprague - why don't you shut the computer down now and come back here after you've taken your meds. Hurling insults at nearly everyone who posts a comment certainly is backfiring in your face. You see, I, along with others here, feel you're being unnecessarily antagonistic to other posters because you've got a few neutrons firing at the wrong time. That's what your meds are for. They help things up there work the way they should. Now, instead of acting like an equine's rectum (I think you can figure that one out) how about showing us you're a big boy and taking those meds? You'll feel a lot better. And our opinion of you just might improve a bit. Or, you just might convince us that you indeed just plain crazy.

Rick we know it happened. We're questioning why it happened, who was behind it. 6 well placed rounds in each victim, the number of victims, the window of time all scream professional.

I'm questioning what guns were really used, first the ''news media'' and police report that it was 2 hand guns then they say 4 hand guns were found with the dead murderer and they find a Bushmaster 223 in the trunk of his car and then a day or 2 later they tell us everyone was killed with the rifle they found in his trunk it dont add up and I wouldn't put it past any of them to lie about which guns were actually used to kill those kids to further their gun grab agenda
watch this nbc video and try to find the link to the coroner's interview its there you just need to do a little looking ,the coroner is a whack job I wouldn't let him near any of my kids alive or dead.

http://patriotupdate.com/2013/01/assault-weapon-at-sandy-hook-or-not/

JIM, and JGOH, paranoid much? You two should DEFINITELY not be allowed to have weapons, even the NRA agrees something has to be done about mentally unbalanced having access to weapons.

steve what are you babbling about I have NEVER said anything about not wanting something done to make sure guns are kept out of the hands of mentally unbalanced individuals such as yourself

steve did you follow the link and watch the news footage or watch the coroner give his live interview ...probably not, its not paranoia I am just trying to make heads or TALES out of the media and democrat gun agenda

I'm not talking about Alex Jones nutjobs that think 9/11 didn't happen, just the simple consideration that maybe, just maybe, the far far crazy left would do things like this to pass their agenda.

Or maybe, this young kid who had zero training was a natural born assassin.

Paranoid fears? Paranoid that maybe liberals will try to take away our guns? Well, you keep telling us you want to. It's not like the Nazi's didn't create a national gun registry first, take away guns next, then march innocent citizens to the gas chambers third.

Ok Robert, take care.

Missiles are not arms. The right to bear arms, shall not be infringed. Period.

The purpose of the second amendment, once again, was to defend against tyranny.

A marine sniper is lucky to wack off 4 rounds per second. The average fruitloop isnt going to be a better shot. I assumed you knew that.

1) Marine snipers take the time to aim. You don't have to aim in a movie theater or a classroom full of 6 year olds, so as fast as you can pull the trigger.
2) I'm not the one claiming the maximum firing rate, it's those guys that own the guns.

JGONH, the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow states to raise a militia. It says so right there in the constitution.
There are all kinds of 'arms' that you are NOT allowed to own besides missles, the Supreme Court has made it very clear that reasonable limits are allowed under the 2nd amendment.

Like this guy?

http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/oregon-mall-shooting-brave-citizen-with-concealed-carry-may-have-saved-lives/

The Houston shooting was between two idiots having an argument. It was not a scenario where someone started shooting up the place, and another person tried stopping him.

""I saw two dudes basically get into an altercation and ... the dude that shot, he basically got angry and, you know, started shooting the other guy," she said. "A lot of people heard a lot of shots."

"Sheriff Garcia said officials believed that only one gun was used, but he did not have details about it, other than to say it was a pistol."

" But officials said that Mr. Berry was never an “active shooter,” and that he appeared to target only Mr. Neal."

Wow. I guess not everyone from nottingham is a moonbat!

Her Civics teacher needs to go back to college...On Monday, read the true story of how & why the Second Amendment was passed.

well if we send her to some liberal democrat college she'll come out think che chavera and chairman mao were great leaders and George Washington was a terrorist

whose ''true story'' bob ....yours ?

geezer, thats funny !! your messiah obama has done more in 4 years for gun manufacturers profits than the NRA has done in the last 50 years, health and welfare, ya hes done that ! obama has helped the health insurance companies profits too , with obamacare health care policy prices have gone ski high ,as for welfare, well his policies have put more people on food stamps and govt programs than ever before....keep digging !!

So gun control is all Obama's fault--sounds stupid to me..............

so mentally imbalanced people shooting people is the NRAs fault ...sounds stupid to me

using the progressive/communist rational thought process under obamas dictatorship we have experienced more school and mass shootings than under any other president since the banning of ''machine guns'' ......

therefor we as a nation must stand together and ban obama immediately.....
for Gods sake do it for the children !!!

@ Geezer

So, what's your point? Manufacturers of cut pile carpeting aren't interested in anything but "profits" too. Same with those that make fan belts.

FR--Military style deadly weapons are hardly in the same category as fan belts and pile carpeting--where is your logic????????????

But at least the NRA leadership folks are truly hateful fools.

geezer semi auto rifles are not military st lye weapons so your analogy has no ''logic '' either

ok bob show us a link to some of the ''hateful" NRA leadership remarks, you cant because there aren't any , you sound like hateful snob who thinks your _ _ _ _ dont stink, grow up son, you sound like you need a hobby ... I suggest knitting , oh wait never mind, that would put you in control of a couple sharp objects .

Ray its about the same as a mule and a horse the mule comes from a horse but it ain't a horse

actually I can think of a whole lot of words not fit to print here that better describe the whole lot of you progressive/communist democrats

who's we? ...ya got a frog in your pocket ? your a hoot and your little Websters dictionary explanation of who YOU are wasent necessary ,we know who you are.

thought you left?

Sounds fair, Jim.

Oh, great...I've been looking for some swampland.

I'm sure you have bob ...snakes love the swamp

First they will tell you the NRA only supports manufacturers. ( actualy its the other way around) . Then they tell you the NRA supports no background checks. Dosnt make sense. The manufacturing supporting NRA would want all sales to go thru a gun store as the likelyhood of someone buying new vs used is much greater.

Yes, the NRA position is to place armed guards at every school in the United States...that would require tens of thousands of additional weapons. The idea may well be a good one, but it certainly would add to the number of guns (and increase profits of gun-makers).

we should place National Guardsmen in the schools they are already employed by the govt ,armed and paid, so it wouldn't cost any states more tax payer money, you lefty's should love this idea seeings how you trust your govt so much

GUN CONTROL IS NOT ABOUT GUNS ...ITS ABOUT CONTROL

I don't need to join the military to learn about humility or respect, which is why I won't resort to an easier, less diplomatic reply to your idiotic comment. I learned respect in all aspects (including firearms) from my parents, humility from my religion. OBAMA and his crew sent weapons to Mexico, not the NRA. Since when does anyone have to be in the military, or for that matter, the Middle East, to qualify to handle military style weapons. Sports cars are a "style" of automobile and there are no special qualifications to own or operate one of them either.

The NRA is the de facto standard for gun safety education. Their courses are a requirement in NUMEROUS states to obtain a gun license.

If I want to carry a military style weapon I will. I served my country, I've never been arrested, I've never been to a shrink, never been medicated for a mental illness. I don't start fights, and I walk away from confrontations in the public. What right do you or any other tyrant have to tell me I cannot enjoy my second amendment right?

I swore to defend the constitution. Unlike Robert Sprague who was drafted, and spent "Three miserable years" in service that he hated, I love my country, care about our rights and people, and will continue to defend it.

Stop embarrassing yourself with such a display ignorance. You obviously have no clue what the NRA does.

I agree, the wackos are indeed disturbed but that doesn't mean they are stupid. Cops in schools is a great idea to be considered. There are plenty of highly trained service men and women who have tons of experience dealing with a clever enemy bent on destroying people and property- we are overlooking a valuable asset in their potential to thwart attacks and make secure places like schools.

I have been saying it for a long time put 1 or 2 National Guardsmen at each school, the govt already pays them so it wont cost the tax payers or states any extra in taxes ,they are well trained to handle weapons and crises situations and have had mental health screening to some extent through the govt. ,we cover all bases this way and we dont have to hire extra cops or armed guards that will push our states further into the red

I've never had a problem with having private sellers call the same phone # that the FFl dealers do, to ensure the purchaser is not a felon or under a restraining order, history of violence.

I don't support legislation that would require private sellers to have to drive to an FFL dealer, and pay them a transfer fee to sell a gun to private buyer.

I guess the basis of the supposed 'gun show loophole' is that a private seller (non FFL holder) can sell firearms without calling the feds because the requirement is only on FFL dealers. While I'm sure this does happen, I've never had it happen to me and I've bought a LOT of guns from shows. They have always called.

At the end of the day though, if we're really still talking about CT, the kid stole the guns...

JGONH ,I agree 100% if people conducting a private weapon sale could call in for a background check I would have absolutely no problem with that at all, even if it required a short mandatory seminar conducted by the state or feds as to how to perform the necessary steps to complete the back ground check , I'm good with that

Yes, we need to keep the guns out of the hands of the wrong people, not ban specific guns. It's the people, not the guns.

So whats your plan for this? All sales go thru an FFL or people doing private sales can call them in?

Steve,

No. I don't want people to have to go through an FFL, that is absurd. However, if ordinary private citizens could call in and say "I'm selling a gun to Steve Forte, DOB xx/xx/xxxx, such and such a town" I wouldn't be opposed to it.

That to me is a reasonable compromise if the goal here is really to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, and not just ban guns. However, I think the goal of the Democrats is to just ban guns!

F.R,

It's simply because you could be arrested on a Friday night for domestic A+B, bail out, and try to buy a gun Saturday morning to finish the job. With the current system in place, your arrest/no-contact order would be in the system immediately and you would be denied purchase.

Again, I believer every single law abiding citizen has the right to keep and bear whatever arms they want, however felons and abusers shouldn't have access to weapons.

Why is why when folks say the NRA only cares about the gun industry is absurd. The gun industry wants to sell NEW guns, through FFL dealers. So any legislation that would make it easier for them, and harder for private citizens to sell guns would be open and welcome by the industry. The NRA opposes such legislation, because the NRA is about gun OWNERS.

We have always agreed background checks are needed. We have always agreed that criminals should not have guns. Here is what we don't agree on:

1) Magazine capacity bans.
2) Banning guns because they look scary
3) Banning guns in certain areas - you are just making them easy target zones.

Mental people should not have guns, however you accidentally bring up a good point for us. I don't want people calling us crazy just because we have a different point of view than you, and using that to take our guns away. Sandy hook conspiracy? I have no idea what happened there, I just know the facts seem to be changing. We can't seem to get a straight story on if he used the AR15 or not, and this is news from both sides.

Here is one example of why not: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html

The woman in this story fired 6 shots and hit her attacker 5 times with a .38 revolver before he stopped coming at her, and even then he was able to escape (albeit not for long since he crashed his car down the road). If there was more than one assailant she would have been out of ammo and trying to reload while they kept coming.

Also, if the criminal were carrying a gun, he probably wouldn't care much about a ban on magazine capacity and would use whatever he had access to (and criminals would continue to have access to high capacity mags under a federal ban, of course).

PS--Thank you for toning down the personal attacks Robert, this is actually turning into a somewhat well-reasoned discussion. I suspect we'd actually agree on a lot of things aside from the gun rights issue, I'm all over the map politically.

For a number of reasons.

For personal defense, I want to have the most number of rounds I can carry in the weapon without having to stuff extra magazines in my back pockets. In a typical scenario an absurd number of rounds are typically fired until the attacker stops attacking. By limiting the magazine to a specific capacity your making it harder for me to stay alive and be in the fight longer.

For target shooting, I usually go with all my magazines full and shoot until I'm out, then return home. I don't want to spend all day reloading magazines at the range, while other people are patiently waiting in line to utilize the lane I'm on.

Lastly, there appears to be no connection between magazine capacity and crime. Most criminals caught with a weapon have fewer than 5 rounds in the weapon, regardless of the size of the magazine. If we're talking about mass murders, frankly I don't understand why anybody would use a firearm anyway. McVeigh was much more successful with a truck than any of these shooters combined.

The best weapon is the one you are most familiar with, comfortable with, and won't get you killed.

One shoe doesn't fit all, and the same applies to firearms. If you have ever seen in person police qualifying on the range you will see what I'm speaking of. Handful of people all using the same firearm with varying degrees of success. While I try to be as proficient as possible with whatever is in my hands, truth be told like everyone else I'm better with some weapons than others.

I think it was her husbands weapon if I recall. He talked her through using it over the phone.

if she didn't hit any vitals with a small cal firearm that could be one reason or the guy could have been high on meth or some other drug ,most likely she fired the weapon each time with her eyes closed and they were not well placed shots, as for banning high capacity clips its useless legislation it will not stop a determined killer or curb gun crime in any way shape or form

Keltec makes a great weapon called a SUB-2000, which in my opinion is a great home defense weapon for people that have not had military or police training. It fires either a 9mm or .40 cal handgun cartridge, takes standard magazines, and is very easy to operate. For that example, and the example of the house wife/daughter home alone I think it's a great investment.

education ,education education , we will never stop all the crazy people or criminals from committing some of these crimes but better firearms education is our best bet , it should be taught in our schools, the NRA that everyone keeps demonising is all about firearms training , educating people in safe handeling, shooting and storeing of their firearms

To many folks a person with a 12 gauge for waterfowl , a 12 gauge with rifled barrel for deer a 30-30 for deep woods deer and a 270 for field hunting deer And a few handguns of different caliburs is a gun nut. To the owner he is just the man with the correct tools for said job.

Crazy person can't get into safe.

All gun owners I know of have a safe or some locked means of storage (lockbox, locking rack, etc)

How did the sandyhook shooter get access to his mom's guns? Have they released that ?

The problem, as you so aptly described it, is therefore not the guns but the crazy people. Get them out of society and the bulk of the problem goes with them.

Robert, that is common sense, sensible gun legislature.

It takes more than one person to initiate a nuclear launch, so the comparison is not accurate.

The logic is sound. The kinds of weaponry that are tightly regulated and unavailable to Americans will not likely be used by an American to kill another American. Substitute rocket powered grenade launcher or similar military-grade weapons and the logic remains sound. The number of people a weapon or weapons system requires to activate is not meaningfully relevant.

Americans citizens (non military, non LEO) don't have access to military weapons, with the exception of those weapons that were lawfully owned before 1986. The military does not use semi-automatic AR-15's, they use automatic M16 and M4 carbines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

That is the logic I am applying here. Americans do not have access to tightly regulated military-grade weaponry and therefore, under most circumstances, do not have the opportunity to kill other Americans with those military-grade weapons. Hence proving that the combination of tight regulation and extreme limitation of access together do an effective job at eliminating the damage done by those weapons in everyday American society.