Some firearms can be purchased without a background check:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole/gun-show-loophole-faq

Here is the information on the loophole:

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows."

Firearms purchased from a private individual do not need background checks. If you bought a gun and sold it to your neighbor, you would not have to have him/her checked.

Nancy, you are mostly correct, but only long guns can be sold privately without a background check. All handgun sales must be done through a FFL dealer.

I doubt very many criminals go to gun shows to illegally purchase long guns and no law will stop the trade of handguns between criminals. Most long gun sales are most often an old, unused hunting gun being sold to a friend or relative. This whole "loophole" debate is just more smoke and mirrors.

I myself have sold a shotgun that I no longer hunted with to someone that wanted it for his son to use. We did the deal in the parking lot of a WaWa.

I often wonder whow gets polled for their opinions. Nobody I talk to is in favor of more laws or bans on modern sporting guns. Banning certain guns because of cosmetic features that in no way make them more lethal than a common hunting rifle is ridiculous.

Murder is already illegal. Let's work on enforcing that law.

Mike M's link is valid, but his note is incorrect. A gun cannot be purchased at a gun show without a backround check. The loophole is regarding giving guns or inheriting guns, not selling them. No seller will sell anyone a gun without a background check because they would be put out of business stat. Go to Oaks, go to Reading and check it out for yourselves.

In Pennsylvania, you can't guy a gun unless it goes to a FFL dealer and they run a background check. This is a moot issue, but that doesn't stop the ignorance of the statists who call any black, scary gun an "assault weapon". There is not even a definition of one, so what do we call it? I don't think most people know enough about firearms to know what this means.

When the Constitutionally ignorant (useful idiots) are allowed to be polled, this sort of arms length action will be confused as having some sort of validity. It is but one more tactic of the left who will stop at nothing to achieve their dubious ends.

The root causes of gun violence are not found in the many misguided lefty discussions held of late. Most of the proposals put forward are merely emotional flailing with the hollow sense that screams "do something, anything, make us "feel" safe. But will MAKE us safe?

Take a lesson from toughest gun law Chicago... What conclusion do you arrive at?

The conclusion I come to is that a lot of guns come into Chicago from surrounding areas that have much more lax gun laws. Just as many guns come into NY and NJ from VA, where the laws are much more lax.

The fact that college presidents support stronger gun control isn't surprising given the liberal nature of most colleges today. I to question where constitutionality is ignored for convenience sake.

@RosiesDad

Charles Ramsey made a similar comment when asked about the murder rate when he was in Washington D.C. with the nation's stictest gun controls. All that proves is that the criminals will still get guns regardless of the law. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

The useful idiots haven't a clue about our Bill of Rights. The gun control activists are clueless as well. The real issue is not stopping gun violence. You want gun violence to decrease? Start with Hollywood, the video-gaming industry, the gangsta rap industry, and the fact that our govt is gun-running to the terrorists in Mexico, Middle East, and the Mexican drug cartels taking hold in Chicago and in other cities all over the US. Also, our mental health laws also need to be revised, our economy fixed, and the entitlement mentality eradicated. When entitled people do not get what they feel is their due - you will see riots. This is what is being orchestrated. Why would the govt want to take away guns from the law abiding citizens? Think about it. Progressives are working toward a revolution - they proudly announce it, - Cloward and Pivens followers, Alinskyites, OW etc. In order for them to usher in their agenda they must break the current system, create chaos - which is surely coming, and the populace, desparate and unable to defend itself - will call upon the govt to step in to stop it whatever it takes- even if it means surrendering what little freedoms we have left - and a new govt structure will replace the previous one. Then we will be marched to the NWO, one world govt. which has as one of it's goals massive world population reduction. What's coming is ugly, and anyone who thinks the govt cares about "the people"
you must be insane or totally unaware

The "POINT" to remember is the guns used in Crimes are almost always stolen/illegally possessed weapons. NO LAW will affect that. ALL this noise about stricter gun laws is targeting people who already are law-abiding citizens and we have a right to protect our families. Wake up America, YOUR government wants to disarm YOU for a reason and it ain't for your protection.

What evidence is there that people are buying guns legally under the current law "by the case" and then selling them on the street? The guns that are being used in crimes are dominately stolen or otherwise illegally obtained. Legally obtained guns are almost used legally.

meant to say "almost always used legally."

Guns are being purchased in quantities on the streets (yes this is what makes them then illegal). They are also bought through straw purchases than given to boyfriends or others who cannot legally buy them. Raise the penalties on straw purchases and limit the number of guns bought (lets say 2 every 6 months). You will take a bite out of guns making it into criminals hands.

John, laws exist to designate criminality - all criminal laws are created as guidelines for when formerly-law-abiding people break them. Laws can't target criminals, because they aren't criminals until the law exists. Being 'law-abiding' means following the law, even if it changes. If you don't like it, you can choose to change it through legal procedure, or to break it.

Also, nobody wants to disarm anybody - the whole point is to make purchasing guns slightly more arduous to somewhat lessen the potential for people inclined to misuse firearms to have access to them - surely a law-abiding and responsible gun buyer could appreciate that the weapon deserves that kind of respect.

Change the HIPAA law. Medical and education types have been fighting efforts to link mental-health records to a national database for background checks. They oppose this new gun law, because they favor prohibition.

Cuomo already did. He made every law abiding citizen who owns a previous legal 10 round gun now a criminal by issuing the 7 round count. What would really be GREAT is if all the manufacturers stopped making anything over 7-10 rounds. They would not have any reason to. We would all be safe and warm. The manufacturers than would have nothing to sell to the militaries and/police . Oh no, that would be the exception, only the factories do not make enough profit to stay in business. That means we buy from Russia and China our boots on the ground weapons. Gotta love it

First stop blaming an inanimate object as the issue relating to an act. Inanimate objects are by nature not able to perform any act without human intervention. Second, as a society we don't prosecute anyone because of an act that they might do, but because of something that they have done, and one that we can prove in a court of law. As an example we don't gag someone or cut out their tongue when they go into a theater just because they have the ability to shout "fire". None of these proposed laws would have stopped the nut that perpetrated the madness at Newtown. He obtained the weapon illegally and killed his mother and then 20 children and six adults. He then committed suicide when he knew the good guys with guns arrived.

It's funny that we have no problem with law enforcement and most of us see them as good guys. But anyone else with a gun is a bad guy? Why is that? Can those who represent government be bad? Would they use those guns against us if they could or had the "legal" right to do so?

"Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin.

Andrew Mount-- stop trying to compare guns to other inanimate objects, as if the fact that they are made to be killing machines is irrelevant.

And stop going to absurd extremes with your reasoning. I, for example, do not see anyone other than a policeman with a gun as a bad guy.

And stop using that Ben Franklin quote.....you have no idea what he would think of your reasoning or of our society today. He lived back in a completely different context and world. What is liberty anyway? The freedom not to have to worry about being gunned down in a mall or school might be some peoples' definition of liberty.

Just look around at the world (you'll have to switch from Fox News for a moment) and see how other industrialized countries manage to live just fine without everyone having to be armed.

And if your paranoid fantasy of a government takeover occurs, we'll need more than homes chock full of AR-15s and ammo in the end.

@Devon Resident

Then it sounds that maybe you should become a member of said unarmed countries? You see, in America, we have something called the Constitution, you know, that document that gives us the right to bear arms, unconditionally I might add.

Devon Resident,
I didn't compare an inanimate object to another. I suggested to you that the gun didn't commit the crime. It can't, it's incapable to doing so without humans controlling it, so the idea of controlling violence committed by a HUMAN, with a gun by controlling or restricting it, isn't going to work.
As for Ben Franklin, I think that he would be appalled by the condition of our society right now and the things that we have allowed our government to do in the name of protecting or helping the citizens.
I have seen how other countries have managed. England has a very high violent crime rate compared to the US, and now when people attempt to defend themselves from thugs who enter their homes to steal their belongings and rape their women, they are being taken to court for doing so. No thank you, I don't wish to "manage" my affairs that way. And you telling me to stop using Ben Franklins words to remind us of what the Founders had intended is a restriction of my First Amendment rights. Gee, you're not so good with that pesky Bill of Rights thingy are you?

Squidward Tentacles and Andrew Mount, your prickly, condescending sarcasm does not encourage me to try and see your point of view. In spite of that, you may be surprised to know that I do not oppose civilian gun ownership and understand the need for guns in civilian life in certain situations. But I think common sense is needed. You may responsible gun owners yourselves, but not everyone is capable of handling them (i.e. Adam Lanza, James Holmes) and shouldn't be able to "bear" them in spite of the Second Amendment.

As for Franklin's "liberty" statement, if you carry that to it's logical conclusion, then we should all ignore traffic laws and red lights and drive how we want and see how that works out.

When the Founding Fathers whose deepest thoughts you claim to know so well were alive, there were no semiautomatic guns, depression medications, spoiled and coddled children/young adults, violent video games, the Internet, and the large population of anonymous, rootless, mobile people we have now in the US. I think you shouldn't be so binary ("all or nothing") in your view of the Second Amendment.

Devon Resident, I don't care that you don't like my sarcasm. I wasn't sarcastic until you decided not to read my original post and suggested that I was being absurd. You have yet to acknowledge that you can't regulate a persons actions by regulating an object.
A person will either obey the law or they will not. By focusing on the object you are missing the behavior and the individual that commits that act that is illegal.
Do you believe that a gun can be illegal? Yes or no, it's a simple question. Answer it and I'll attempt to discuss this with you in a reasonable manner without sarcasm.

The only current proposed law in the senate is the Feinstein bill. This would effectively outlaw MOST semiautomatic pistols. Are they assault weapons? Hardly. In addition it EXEMPTS federal employees from this ban. I can understand law enforcement being exempted, I can even understand retired military and law enforcement, but exempting any government bureaucrat smells a bit fishy to me.

Kim, I do indeed regret my "panic attack" statements in my earlier post, and realize that sort of comment does nothing to help civil discourse.

Still, I stand by the points I made in my earlier post about how to regulate peoples' behavior.

Resolving the welfare system will help society as a whole, but 99.9% of these random, mass killings I am thinking about are perpetrated by well-educated, non-welfare White or Asian males. Welfare reform won't help that.

"Here's a helpful suggestion, when you are trying to make a point don't demonize the other side."....Kim

"I would rather not have ignorance guide us through." "We see where that got us in the last presidential election.".....Kim

Kim - You go on to make a generalized opinion of people who obtain some kind of assistance "welfare". While I whole hearted agree that some people game the system and believe that we can improve the way we provide assistance however, a generalized comment such as yours is false. Additionally, you have provided us with a generalization about African Americans, who live in Chicago. Have you ever heard of the term "dog whistle"? Well, you have just written a fine example of one.

One has to wonder if you ever take your own advice Kim? And here is a little fact that you should be aware of with regard to the massive numbers of guns in Chicago. Almost all of the guns that are being used in those crimes have been tracked as coming from Mississippi. - This in great part is why 80 % of NRA members want Universal background checks for all.

The reality is that the ovwerwhelming majority of gun violence in the country occurs in densly populated urban settings where there is high incidences of drug use, poverty and single parent families. The crimes in these areas are not committed with "assault weapons" which Sen. Feinstein seeks to ban but, rather, hand guns that the proposed legislation will do nothing to curb.

Really?

Untrue. You do not want anything universal. That means the UN.

I do. Life member. Not sure about the stats given. I think Wayne LaPierre is over zealous in his representation of us members. No one is asking to take guns away. If it is, then we have a fight on our hands. I don't have an issue with background checks and making sure the wrong people don't get guns. We do need a check on the mental stability of people, somehow. It's a matter of how this will be accomplished.

Sorry Barb, but there are many academia that are Republicans. Duane Milne would be just one. Additionally, you might look into the number of Conservative think tanks that are creating their own course offerings in colleges all across this nation as well as people like the Koch brothers who are "donating" money to build class room buildings on college campuses, with the understanding that they will not only decide on the course offerings, but will chose who will teach their approved courses.

As a WCU alumnus, I was happy to see that West Chester University was not included among the colleges indicted in that list

Your right to bear arms is 100 percent in tact and always will be. However, the government does have the right to regulate the type of guns when considering the safety and welfare of the state. That's why we don't have machine guns, tanks, rocket launchers, etc.

American's are required under the law to provide identification when they first register to vote and that right to vote is protected. The scam that was suddenly being run was admitted by several GOP politicians to be an effort to keep American citizens from being able to vote in the last presidential election. That along with suddenly decreasing the number of days to vote early in high democratic voting districts.

Ann, the plan is to ban 150 gun models, including the most popular sporting rifle ever made (about 30 million owned). If we continue to shield mental-health records from police, and criminals ignore the ban, violence will continue, so they will ban 150 more. You get the idea.

No one that I know of is trying to "take away your right to bear arms", just want you to have a background check. Also, when you REGISTER to vote, you have to document your citizenship. Some people registered 60 years ago and may have a difficult time obtaining photo ID. If you have nothing to hide, a background check shouldn't be onerous.

Earnest, new voter IDs were a scam? When the voting system was already corrupted in places, asking voters to show ID was an attempt to correct process that already had "loopholes". Voting has to be secure. Even the women's league of voters leans left now (sodahead source), so who can we trust. Libertarians I say.

The Voter ID law wasn't resisted because it didn't make sense, it was rejected because it was purposefully put into effect at a time to manipulate a specific election. You want bipartisan support for Voter ID? Start working on getting them distributed for the 2016 election in the next 2 years.

Moreover, nobody's talking about 'taking away' your right to bear arms - the 2nd Amendment doesn't speak to the ease of purchase, proof of competence, or make of weaponry. Anyone who respects the power of the gun enough to use it responsibly can surely understand the sociological need for regulation.

The point of universal background checks is an increased effort to eliminate that avenue for illegal gun purchases. It would seem to me that any American that feels the need to own a gun for protection should be all for improving the protection of all Americans instead of whining about having to do a bit of paper work and wait a few days for their gun. The NRA use to be all about gun safety, but the membership has allowed it to be hijacked by people who work for manufactures.

And where did the guns in the trunk come from?

We regulate stupid by looking at the registered republican lists.
republican=stupid

Jack: Sandy Hook never happened, that has already been established. The 'parents' and 'teachers' were crisis actors from a firm in Florida. Haven't you discovered that the 'defense attorney' for the shooter in Colorado was also a 'mother' in the Sandy Hook performance? There were tribute videos for the victims posted a full week before the performance. How was it known a full week in advance that a boy with Aspergers (who couldn't organize a trip the bathroom on his own) would organize a mass killing, and how did they know WHO he would shoot and kill? Oh, both this boy and the one in Colorado had something in common, both of their fathers were to testify in the Libor scandal that would bring down the Federal Reserve and western banking institution. The performance labeled as the Sandy Hook tragedy was put on to help the disarmament of American citizens. Wise up already.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3DR6zTVVFY&bpctr=1360075292

Congrats Jack on your show moving up a couple hours. Say hello to your puppet.

Wow, Sadie...you are an honest to God conspiracy nut. I hope & pray that nothing like what happened to those poor children and their families ever happens to you. And if it does, I hope some idiot out there doesn't get fooled into thinking it never happened. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for being so naive.

Back at ya Marc. What is your source? CNN? Fox News? Ha Ha Ha. Instead of being naive and claiming that it can't be, how abourt you stop playing on Facebook (or whatever is your distraction of choice) long enough to look into it, and do some serious research. BTW, start by proving anything that I said was inaccurate... using a news source that is not bought and paid for.

Saddie Lansford, I hate to break the news to you and not that you would care, but your faith in the make believe conspiracy theory has been debunked. All I can say is that people that believe this nut that makes this stuff up and spit on the graves of those children and heroic teachers and staff that gave their lives protecting them, is a poor excuse for a human being. May God have mercy on your soul.

Sadie: Do you think Barack Obama was born in Kenya? Was 9/11 a secret plot by Israel? Did U.S. Army helicopters blow up the Pentagon? Does your head get warm under all of that aluminum foil?

I don't need your mercy, and don't care that you need to be wrapped in a warm blanket of lies in order to sleep at night. Is it probable that you still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus as well. It's none of my business if you follow the Judas horse into the corral of your demise. However, there are people that want to know, and who will research these matters. It's to those minds that sense something is wrong that I speak. Not one of you has yet to provide proof that I am wrong. It's when you watch the husband of a woman killed in 9/11 ask, 'how did she call me from her cellphone just before the plane crashed?' when you could not make a cell phone call on a plane at that time, that you search for the answer, only to find that it leads to another inconsistance, and another. But nevermind, many minds are too lazy to care, and pandering to your childlike mind is getting boring.

Go to www.assaultweapon.info for the truth.

Yea, a criminal is always going to do what they want so let's just get rid of all the laws and see how great that works out for society. As for ending the sale of certain guns. Once they are not sold any more the numbers of them on the street will stop growing and if they are not used anymore by the military or police the manufacturers will stop producing them... Oh, wait, that is what the whole issue is for the leaders of the NRA they protect the financial interests of the manufacturers.

All the while exempting federal employees from the ban

For all those who say that "no one is attempting to take away your guns" Sen. Feinstein has gone on record as saying just that.

Ummm, the President of the United States has not endorsed any legislation as the politicians are still playing political games with the issue. How many people with guns killed someone else today with their gun?

All she's asking is that you continue to be law-abiding. We create new laws to accommodate changes in our society, and part of being law-abiding is, unsurprisingly, abiding by those laws, too.

The point is to stop gun violence. Look at the statistics on who kills more and who gets killed more than any other group. It is a socioeconomic problem increased by the war on drugs.

Those massacres you mentioned were all committed by mentally-ill people, who couldn't legally purchased a gun, but HIPAA laws prevent the reporting we need to screen them out.

Wait a second...who invited adults into the conversation?

The present violent crime rate (VCR) in the US is 386 per 100,000 people, half of what it was in 1992 (757). The murder rate for the US is 4.7 per 100,000 people, half of what it was in 1992 (9.3). If you look at urban US centers with populations over 200,000 people, the 2011 VCR is 754 and the murder rate is 10.1. Take out the violent crime and murder that is perpitrated in the inner city and the rest of the US looks like Mayberry.

If the purpose behind the weapons ban is to lower the rate of murder and violent crime, then pass legislation that will have an impact on that. What Sen Feinstein has proposed will not do that since less than 1% of murders in the US are committed with rifles, including the weapon used in Newtown and Colordo shootings.

The Colordo shooter had seven different movie theaters to choose from within several miles of his home. Did he go to the closest to do his illegal/immoral act...? NO Did he go to the largest theater to do his illegal/immoral act...? NO. He went to the only one that had a "gun free zone".

In all of these shootings, the perps use that gun free zone to do what they want to helpless people because the politicians like VP Joe Biden, passed stupid laws that say the law abiding citizen can't exercise their Second Amendment right to self protection.

@Chrisy

Let's be real. While the 26 people at Sandy Hook were being murdered that morning, 200 more people were murdered in the cities throughout the country that day and every other day...

Just look at the cities where Charles Ramsey has been with all of the strict gun control laws - Chicago, D.C., Philly and you'll see a pattern. He can't control his corrupt department and officers but he wants to direct the gun control of entire nation.

sad but true. plus I worry about the gov clarifying protestor types like tea party are not sane and grouping them in with truly mentally ill.

Philly's homicide last year count is the same as it was in 2008, despite the population increasing, and the overall crime rate has dropped.

The previous ban did nothing to reduce crime and violence, why waste time and money doing it again?

Fright, my gosh the Repubs are not controlled by the NRA or the Koch bros. Surely your majority in National Government, State Dept, nearly all of Wall St, Mr. & Mrs. Gates, Mr. Buffer, Mr. Robert Gates, the UN, lobbyists galore, nearly all of Academe throughout the world, and the majority of Journalists will have some impact going fwd. The rights of law abiding individual citizens are targeted by those and other elites, because they and maybe you know better. Thank goodness for the NRA frankly, we need the balance.

Frightwingslayer, please tell me how the NRA controls the Republicans and therefore the legislature?

" Did you see the gun-runner, out on bail, who was captured on video in Philly last month? He had multiple arrests for gun-running, yet won bail, and continued his gun-selling business."

THIS is the biggest part of the problem! Banning guns will do nothing but leave the innocent helpless and the criminals stronger. Everyone is arguing for banning, regulations, mental health checks, background checks but who is yelling about our incompetent legal system that puts these people back on the streets? Most of the violent offenders of crime are repeat offenders! I just read a story the other day, (sorry I don't have a link) where a parent was grieving the loss of their child, the killer agreed to never own a firearm again, received 30 days probation because this was his first offense, and set free. He was arrested again shortly after the first incident, he shot someone else. All violent crimes should be prosecuted to the extreme. Drunk drivers killing people and getting off with technicalities, murderers and child abusers getting light sentences. This country I feel, is so afraid of offending someone, being sued for a violation of their civil rights or being accused of being corrupt that our DA, police and judges are actually becoming corrupt (if not already) by being lenient on crime. I'm sorry, once you kill someone, your civil rights should no longer be taken into consideration, just as you didn't take in the rights of your victims.

Yes the term is a manufactured media term. Obviously guns or any other inanimate object CANNOT assault anything. High-capacity firearms are the weapons of choice for people who live in rural areas and want to protect their families and possessions from intruders, emphasis on the Plural, i.e. gangs, rage assaults, etc. These weapons are all Semi-automatic just like a shotgun and have been legal. Nobody robs a store with one do they? SO then... who is worried ? YOUR government servants who already have a standing army to protect them and you are paying for it too. Wake up America.

Thanks. I signed and shared the link.

Crime is actually down nationwide, hard to believe because of major media stories and polls like this, but it is true. There is even evidence that where there are more citizens with you know whats, there is less crime.

Amend....Your comments about access to military grade weapons is already against the law.....has been the law for years! An AR-15 is not military grade, it operates no differently than most handguns and shotguns.

You're referring to the Iran-Contra Affair right?

Stop trolling, Earnest. You know the adults are talking about "Fast and Furious".

Oh sorry, no. "Fast and Furious", which has been ignored. No trials for this one. Also, something that occured in Minnesota this weekend. Still reading on it.

FBI stats show that blunt objects (bats, clubs, hammers) where used in 496 (3.9%) homicides in 2011 as compared to only 323 (2.5%) by rifle. So called "assault weapons" are only a small percentage of that 2.5%.

68% of all homicides were by firearm with the preferred weapon of the criminal being the handgun.

728 (5.7%) homicides were committed by hands, feet, etc. More than double all long guns combined. Are you going to ban hands and feet?

no, that's a waste of money. most of them use their free money for booze, drugs, and lottery tickets. ......no sense testing them

Why would they do that? They would lose a lot of votes in the next election.

Drug test the politicians too!

I get that John. That was actually my point. The legal buyers of guns are not putting them into the hands of the bad guys because they would get busted. Thus Albert's point is invalid.

I don't know what to make of this nonsense. Do you actually think it's OK for the government to ban specific foods? That's part of the problem. Have you consulted the Cookie Monster?

Straw purchases are already illegal.

What's an assault weapon?
What is the advantage of "high capacity" magazines-- whatever those are-- when shooting unarmed victims?
Do you admit that your main argument is "think of the children"?

Elizabeth.....Background checks are already the law. It is against the law to sell military style weapons, has been for many years. There is no such thing as an assault weapon that is just a gun....assault weapon includes knives, fists, anything used in an assault.

Amend, Earnest did @ 8:31. That's why I addressed it to Earnest! I also might add to Earnest that I am NOT trying to get any one on my side as was Devon.

Did you see the video where Bloomberg was asked if he was going to disarm his security detail? To him and others like him, only the elite deserve protection.

Home invasions typically involve at least three perpetrators. How many rounds would you want to defend yourself if you legally possessed the means? Ten? Seven? Or as Joe Biden said, a double-barrelled shotgun is your best defense, TWO shots! For me, as many as it takes to neutralize the threat.

Hitting a stationary target at the range takes practice. Imagine trying to hit multiple moving targets whose goal is to do you harm and only have a limited number of rounds at your disposal.

It's funny how the government knows what is best for us, yet somehow the rules don't apply to them....gun laws....Obamacare....are a couple examples! Leanie, you are missing the point about new laws....they don't enforce the laws that are already on the books. ...big joke! New laws for law abiding citizens won't even touch the problem at hand.

The NRA does more to train citizens and law-enforcement in the legal, safe and effective use of firearms than any other organization.

And for all of you that think the "militia" means the formal military or national guard, think again. The citizens are the militia. Just read Pennsylvania law:

CHAPTER 3
THE MILITIA
Sec. 301. Formation.

Enactment. Chapter 3 was added August 1, 1975, P.L.233, No.92, effective January 1, 1976.

51c301s
§ 301. Formation.

(a) Pennsylvania militia.--The militia of this Commonwealth shall consist of:

(1) all able-bodied citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this Commonwealth, who are at least 17 years six months of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age; and

(2) such other persons as may, upon their own application, be enlisted or commissioned therein.

Welcome to the militia!

Asinine comments really contribute to the conversation. Individuals already prohibited by current laws from owning or possessing firearms don't qualify.

Besides, the militia needs somebody to cook and clean. They just can't have access to guns and ammo.

The majority of gun owners keep their guns locked up except for the ones they might carry daily or keep handy for things that go bump in the night. We invest in expensive and elaborate gun safes to keep them out of the wrong hands.

Guns are not cheap. I wouldn't want to lose mine to some scum bag. Target shooting is costly hobby and firearms need to be carefully maintained for safety and to prevent corrosion.

Criminals ingore the laws in regards to murder, rape, and robbery. A firearm is just a tool of the trade to them. More laws to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens only makes the job of the criminal easier.

No, how about we figure out why the current justice system is not working before we go about blindly implementing new rules only to have them disregarded anyway. We could start with looking at these pansy slap-on-the-wrist sentences for hardcore crimes such as murder, robbery, and rape that judges hand out on the daily. Maybe we should stiffen the penalties? For example: If you murder someone, you go away for life. No parole, no getting out early for good behaviour - nothing, it should be non-debatable. Armed robbery, you get 50 years, period. Maybe people will start thinking twice before they commit the crime.

Great posts, Robert. I am glad you took the time to learn and become an informed firearm owner.

I started out plinking with a .22 when I was about 5 years old.

Many semi-automatic pistols are included in the list of weapons whose sale, import and manufacturing (but NOT ownership) would be restricted by Sen Feinstein's bill:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/dianne-feinstein-gun-list/61374/

Citizen to citizen without a background check only applies to long guns. Hand guns must go through a FFL.

LaPierre works for the manufacturers and uses his position with the NRA to make sure that corporate profits trump public safety. It's all about profits. They feed him their ridiculous arguments of fear and ignore the full second amendment and he goes out and sells their hyperbolic garbage to the fearful, those who live in the middle of know where with little crime, but live in fear of some made up boogieman, and have know understanding of the challenges of the police in bad sections of our nations cities. Bottom line... No one is taking everyones guns away. No one is violating anyones second amendment rights..... The adults are looking at everything from laws that are not being enforced well enough to guns, ammunition, and other issues that will help decrease access to illegal sales and decrease the amount of killings by people with guns in our society.

I also read there are senseless people trying to equate accidents to murder. Why isn't there an outcry to silence their painful ignorance and revoke their first amendment rights. They certainly don't deserve them.

No, we need to ban high capacity buses. Limit them to 10 passengers.

Better yet, anyone named Kevin doesn't deserve any rights. Lets take them all away!

Kevin,

Silly you if you seriously think that restricting access to guns is going to solve the murder issue. Murdering someone is illegal in itself, criminals won't care if they have to illegally acquire their murder weapon.

This whole recent movement to ban firearms is simply a distraction to make people feel better about recent events. Instead of addressing the root of the problem we are simply trying to shift attention elsewhere to give people false peace of mind. I have no doubt that people on both sides know deep down that either way, it won't change a thing, at least as far as murders are concerned.

We don't have automatic weapons so once again ignorance shines through.

Boys with their toys? How about the millions of women that own firearms including AR types?

p bresn,

First off, Moe is right - you have no idea what you are talking about. Second, who are you to determine what people need and don't need. If you don't want to own a high power weapon, than by all means don't, but don't take an unconditional constitutional right from those that do. My entire family has owned various guns for as long as I've been around and guess what...we've never murdered anyone. Shocker, I know.

p, the current legislation doesn't mention automatic guns, so rest easy. FYI, automatic guns have been regulated since 1934, with admendments and changes over the years. The purchase of new auto guns has been banned since 1986.

Exactly. I love how the far left loonies believe that banning certain weapons will get them out of the hands of criminals. Dream on.

Excellent job of repeating ridiculous talking points of LaPierre. No one is proposing that you would not be able to own guns or protect your family. No one is coming after law abiding citizens. We are basically talking about paper work and a few days waiting for a gun vs the loopholes that are being used to get guns in the hands of criminals. Now which is more important the life of a human being or not having to do some paper work and waiting a few days for your gun?

Earnest
"No one is proposing that you would not be able to own guns or protect your family. No one is coming after law abiding citizens."

You need to watch Sen Feinstein in her own words, because she has proposed just what you say no one is attempting to do. http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/

Senator Feinstein is the one who proposed the last "Assault Weapons Legislation" and is the one who is proposing the one now in the Senate. The legislation that she has proposed will go after semi-automatics that are used everyday by Americans hundreds of time or maybe thousands of times everyday to protect themselves and others against the bad guys.

It doesn't matter whether an AR-15 can stand up to a tank. If you want to make that argument, you then acknowledge that perhaps it should be OK for a citizen to own a fully operational tank, should he have the wherewithal. In the 18th century, private citizens owned their own cannons and muskets-- the state of the art.

United....I agree with most of your comments, however you need to watch this YouTube video of our Police & Military in New Orleans after Katrina....Constitutional laws were suspended and Military law took over....it happened and it is frightening to know it happened on our soil. This video is not fake, it is real. Watch it:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8X9JkSudCX4

United We Stand,

I understand your point of view, but you have not taken the full context of the Second Amendment into consideration. It says:" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The militia of the times was what might be the National Guard of today. Citizen soldiers who fought when called upon because the Army was small. The idea was that a militia would defend the State from tyrants or invaders (like the Brits in the 1770s and 1812. It was a militia that Andrew Jackson led to defeat the Brits at New Orleans. The Framers wrote the Constitution to provide for a revolution every four years in the form of an election. The Framers did not envision the need of the US Citizenry to repel its own Government. If you can disprove that claim I have made, please cite a VALID historical reference that does so.

"Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and {426} rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected." George Mason

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." Tench Cox, PA delegate to the Continental Congress

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." James Madison

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Elbridge Gerry

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

In full context: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

Q.E.D., Richard.

Funny, while I don't carry a gun, when in public places I hope others do - for the same reason you mentioned. The more the better to stop the random nut as quickly as possible.

The Trayvon Martin case comes to mind. So does road rage shootings and self- proclaimed vigilantes. How can you feel safer because some other stranger in a crowd has a gun? How can you be sure innocent people won't be caught in the cross-fire? (which happens in Phila all the time). Sounds like a bad western movie.

Elizabeth, no more than I can foresee a lightning strikes, which happens more often than AR attacks. The incidents you mentioned, the ones I've read about, mostly involved illegal gun activity, like the shootouts on Philly's streets. Looking at the victim, Mr. Zimmerman, that shooting might have been a justified response to saving his life.

Wilfredo,
Focusing on the inanimate object, in this case firearms, will not solve the problem. Once we recognize that a problem exists, we need to define the problem and collect facts that will allow us to find solutions to the problems. Nothing that I have seen proposed by either the House or Senate will solve the problem of the violence that plagues mostly our inner city neighborhoods.
Background checks are already done on almost all gun transactions in PA. All handgun purchases must go through an FFL. To sell a handgun without it violates PA and Federal Law. If part of any background check legislation includes a registration of a firearm with the federal government or the Commonwealth, I'm not for that and would do everything in my power to defeat that attempt. If a law can be passed that did a good job of making sure that bad guys didn't get their hands on guns and didn't infringe on the Second Amendment, or make the law abiding, criminals, I would consider that good legislation.

Micky, most folks opposed to ARs never served in the military, and most folks who like ARs did. This issue pits the veterans against the folks at home. When people shoot the AR during their enlistment, and learn what a great, fun target rifle it is, they want a modern sporting rifles for their own. Bring back the draft, and this issue will go away.

Micky, thank you for your service, for putting your life on the line for me and my family.

Micky,

I did face an insurgency when we Marines were the first ground troops to be committed to combat in Nam. I know the tenacity of insurgents. I also know that they lose. They do a lot of damage in a fight, but they do lose in the end because the firepower against them is overwhelming (Thank God!)

I don't mind you having an AR-15. You know how to use it and what damage it can do. If every purchaser of a weapon had to undergo a background check and take a course on weapon safety and use, I'd be more inclined to support your point of view. Remember accounting for every round on the firing range before you could leave at MCRD?

I have no problem with people having weapons for self defense. I have a problem with people who ought not have access to weapons getting them.

Finally, the Constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ........ provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, ......... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Promote the general welfare" encompasses public safety. The history of the Constitutional Convention affirms that. ( I was a political science major in college.)

Thank you for your service to our Nation. I understand the price you paid.I mean it when I say Semper Fi to you.

YES!

Maybe you should listen to this guy.
http://tinyurl.com/bjyhmcp

I'm sure you'll feel safer in NYC where you are more likely to get shot by the police:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/nyregion/police-decision-to-shoot-in-midtown-left-9-wounded.html?_r=0

Amend wun,
Please read John Lott's book, More Guns, Less Crime. He is an economist that has done peer reviewed research that more guns have made people safer. When many states began to allow concealled carry with minimal requirements, those states began to see lower crime rates, not the reverse which many anti-gun folks said would happen. People that felt the same way you do now; they were very vocal about increased road rage leading to gun violence, and domestic violence leading to more shootings and murders. That violence hasn't materialized. After about 10 years of the concealed carry laws, the states that have these laws have seen dramatic reductions in violent crime.
One important point in your comment rings so loud to me that I must point it out. "Anytime I see the handle of a weapon peek out from under under a stranger's shirt, I feel way less safe." You FEEL way less safe. That's your FEELINGS but you haven't THOUGHT about it or RESEARCHED it and found what the logic and numbers tell you. And that my friend is what this is about. Anti-gun legislators are preying on that fear in an attempt to infringe our Constitutional rights, all in the name of safety.

What are police officers but armed strangers with a uniform and a badge? There are tons of people who receive much better training in the use of firearms then the police do.

Does putting on a uniform make someone more acceptable to carry a firearm? If that is the case maybe whenever someone is carrying a firearm they should just wear some type of a uniform.

I don't feel safe around armed strangers, either. That's why I keep a safe distance from any police officers.

well we all have our own views but I still want people to have there own protection . If i am in a store and some nut case pulls out a gun and decides he / she don't want to live and don't care who else does or don't , I want otter people with guns to save lives including mine ! Now if you would like the government to protect you { LMAO } Then by all means turn your guns over ! LOTS OF LUCK

Afghanistan has long been characterized by tribalism and a weak central government. They are living in a society similar to Europe in the Middle Ages, before the emergence of nation states. They still fight each other a lot.

The US has a strong central government, and coherent state and local governments. There is some residual tribalism ("my group versus your group") but it is nowhere near as strong as in Afghanistan.

Invasion of the US by a foreign power just won't happen. Our defenses are too strong, and major foreign powers (I am thinking of China here) can fulfill their aspirations better by economic warfare rather than by invasion.

Nazaretti,
A reasoned and logical arguement. Thank you.

I would suggest though two things.
1. Isn't our present us vs them thing, the 1% against the rest of the downtrodden, the one race against the other, the urban vs suburban vs rural, the haves against the havenots, the legal vs illegal citizen, just another way of saying tribalism?
2. What if the state and local governments were taken over or nuetralized by the federal government? Would this cause a collapse of our society, financially, socially? Could this cause some to resort to violence?
If others could use the same techniques as the tribes in Afghanistan, why wouldn't they work here?

Andrew,
I thought I had answered but do not see my post. I'll try again.

Afghanistan has a weak central government and little national identity. It is a pasted-together group of tribes, which are in almost continuous struggle with each other, often armed. By contrast, the U.S. has a strong central government, and coherent state and local governments.

The U.S. also has built up a strong group identity over more than two hundred years. Sure, we have our groups, defined by culture, ethnic heritage, favorite pro football teams, etc. However, these group identities rarely lead to deadly violence, and for most U.S. citizens are secondary to our self-identification as Americans.

As for foreign invasion, major countries (I am thinking mainly of China here) have learned that they can achieve their aims better by economic warfare than traditional invasion-based warfare. The U.S. has a strong national defense, backed by the National Guard and various police forces; no other country would seriously consider conquest of the U.S. by invasion in the face of our overwhelming forces. This is in contrast to Afghanistan.

Could it be that he knows we live in a Democracy that has been holding peaceful elections for over 230 years. Maybe that our nation is not made up of insular tribal factions fighting for control? How about the fact that the "insurgencies" in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought against foreign powers not a federal government? Do any of these facts hold any resonance?

I didn't say in my post that I would FEEL inherently safer, did I. But what makes you believe that anyone with a firearm is a bad guy? I thought that we were all innocent till proven guilty. Where I live those who have concealed carry permits are just that, concealed. I don't see it and many others don't either including the bad guys, right? But if I don't agree with you, I'm not in my right mind. See how that happens, even you now believe that I'm crazy and I'm not fit to own a gun, right?. See how easy that was?
You say that this has nothing to do with how you feel but you keep saying/typing that it is. If you're not anti-gun why don't you go buy John Lotts book and find out what it says. You ask me to provide the proof and I did even before you asked me.
As far as what is responsible gun ownership and tighter controls, you don't think that the 20,000 laws already on the books aren't tight enough? There used to be a law in Pennsylvania that required Judges to give a minimum of 5 years to those convicted of felonies committed with a gun. What happened to that law? How about we begin enforcing those laws that are already on the books before we infringe on a Constitutional right even more.
Finally, please show me where I suggested or for that matter anyone taking the stand against this type of yellow journalism that this article promotes, that thinks that we should just begin to shoot anyone who we think is a threat to us.

i never said that you mentioned feeling inherently safer. I asked why you thought someone would feel inherently safer. Then I posed the question to you regarding how you would feel about an armed stranger; would they make you feel safer or would you see them as a potential threat? I also never said that everyone with a firearm was a bad guy. What I said was that there was no reason I should feel safer simply because they were armed in my presence. My point was predicated on the fact that sometimes I CAN see a person "concealed" weapon and that that didn't inherently make me feel safer, that it actually made me feel less safe, and that most other reasonable people would also feel less safe in that situation since that person was a stranger. I never called you crazy. I was just pointing out the weakness in your argument. I looked into Mr. Lott's book by doing a google search. The majority of what I found called his finding into question as he used weak statistical conclusions, and that there is no correlating evidence to prove, or disprove, that increases in carrying permits lead to less gun violence. As for tighter controls, no I don't think they are tight enough. Otherwise we wouldn't be having the issues we are with illegal firearms getting into the wrong hands. Finally, the reason I made the comment I did about shooting others was based on my comment about the "stand your ground" laws and the castle doctrine. I wasn't implying anyone on here had mentioning shooting someone.

Amend Wun - after reading your post, I agree that I assumed some things that I shouldn't have. But to some extent you have not addressed the real motive for my post. This issue is and shouldn't be about feelings. This issue should be about facts and logic. Granted TMI's post didn't make much sense and was devoid of logic and reason, however, what Senator Feinstein has proposed is also devoid of the same logic and reason and it isn't going to correct the issues related to Newtown or to violence in general in our society. Taking away or limiting the number and type of firearms or the amount of rounds in a magazine will not solve the problem. Regardless of how one FEELS, logic facts and reason should determine how we address these issues since it deals with an individual right granted by "Natures God".
Google isn't a reliable source for information. It traditionally takes a slant more to the left of center, some would say very left of center and they administer their site to place those web sites, blogs and comments that purport to their views higher in the search engine than those that disagree with their slant. Buy the book, read all of it and then come back and tell me that Lott used weak statistical conclusions. At a minimum, there is no conclusive evidence anywhere that more guns and CC have resulted in more violence, as proposed by so many on the left.

I am always honest. Why wouldn't I call the authorities in an emergency? We have a government that is supposed to provide law and order. Thanks for the attempted straw-man though.

Good. You'd like people carrying firearms to be trained, then? Then why keep trying to disarm them? Why not ask for that, instead of disarming the people piece by piece, outlawing weapons one by one?

Nazaretti - understand that first I don't wish it to come to what I can see as complete and total collapse of our society. However with that in mind, while our system is set up that way, there have been and right now we have people in government that would like to see more power centralized at the Federal level, when our Founders didn't intend that to be. I am concerned that people believe that we live in a Democracy when we don't, and I was and continue to be concerned with a government that thinks it knows best how to tell me how to live my life. I'm concerned with the number and complexity of legislation and laws that go beyond the ability of most citizens to understand and comprehend. I'm concerned when the federal government has federal agents who are armed with automatic weapons to enforce laws concerning pollution and animal rights. I'm concerned with the actions of some in our Federal government, elected and appointed that find solace in the words and writings of people like Mao Tse Tung and Stalin, and don't seem to be bothered by the fact that they are being recorded or broadcast on public airwaves, actions that would have alarmed the general populace of our country just a few short years ago.
With all this in mind, I'd rather be prepared than not.

Elizabeth - There are a multitude of places that you can go to. The internet alone provides a multitude of sources which can be found to provide instruction on gun safety. Do you know someone who is a law enforcement officer or someone who has served in the military? Talk with them and see if they have a contact that would be willing to spend some time both in a safe enviroment and on the range so that you could become familiar with the weapon as well as know how to hit your target.
You really don't need to get rid of a gun to make it safe. Talk to a gunsmith and they will be happy to make the gun safe so that even if loaded, it won't work.

I absolutely don't believe you Tom, please cite your evidence.

Actually, it's just more murders with blunt or sharp objects-- or fists and feet-- than rifles... but note that rifles are what they intend to ban, not handguns. It's a knee-jerk reaction to a misleadingly vivid event.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Hammers have legitimate civilian uses. Weapons of war do not.

What is a weapon of war? And what is a suitable "militia" weapon, if not a "weapon of war"?

Stephen,
I'll go with the Secretary of Defense:

“I am a hunter. I go out. I've gone duck hunting since I was 10 years old, and I love to hunt," Panetta said. "I love to share that joy with my kids, but for the life of me I don't know why people have to have assault weapons.”

@Stephen- i'm not saying i agree with the definition of "assault weapons" per se, but that's what is being discussed as being banned, not all rifles. again, not agreeing specifically with the ban, cuz i get the point about numbers. just saying that your statement is still factually inaccurate, and the only reason i even bother with that clarification is because the hammer to gun example is weak and played out. just stick to the numbers as a defense if that's what you need to do to prove your point. trying to compare a weapon that fires a piece of metal at a target (live or otherwise) to a tool meant to drive a piece of metal into wood just seems desperate.

It wasn't nonsense, David-- just inaccurate. By replacing "guns" with "rifles", his statement is correct. I don't agree that we should ban handguns either, but there is certainly a stronger argument for public safety in that case. A rifle is both a better militia weapon and less often used irresponsibly.

Steve, I thought you said earlier that the statistics also included sharp objects, and fists or feet. Now I am confused. Are rifles responsible for more murders than hammers? I cannot remember the last time I heard of someone getting killed with a hammer. Maybe Lizzy Borden although she used an axe. The theater shooting in CO, the horror at Sandy Hook, and the execution of the firefighters in NY were all commited using rifles not hammers. How do you feel about background checks for all firearm sales?

Let's do both, enforce existing laws and pass (and enforce) reasonable new ones - for example, background checks for ALL gun sales.

I don't know where the author of that information got his information but the information that I can find is much different and much lower than his. I also suspect that his definition of "domestic gun incidents" are is quite different than most, but he doesn't provide any information on it, and neither do you. This type of information is why much of what the MSM puts out isn't trusted by those of us who have and use on a daily basis other sources that clearly put these "journalists" to shame. They clearly have an agenda and allow it to color their stories.

The black helicopters are coming after you, Bill!

I would think any weapon capable of the kind of mass murder we saw at Sandy Hook would be classified as an assault weapon. It sure as hell worked like one.

J, Chris Dorner, the former cop turned mass-murdered, agrees with you. He is on record as vehemently opposed to modern sporting rifles, and a fierce supporter of ant-second-amendment folks, like Piers Morgan and BHO. You are in good company.

David: no gun is capable of mass murder. People have the capability, not guns which are otherwise inanimate objects until a person decides to use it. Your statement is a good example of how anti-gun folks illogically link murderous intent to an object rather than the person that uses that object to do bad things. Tim McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Is fertilizer therefor capable of mass murder? Of course not. He was, however. Yet when it comes to a gun, many are quick to ignore logic and associate a gun with intent. Also, by your definition one could argue that all guns are assault weapons. Virginia Tech (the worst mass gun killing in US history) was committed with simple hand guns. These are not the target of current proposed bans. Are you suggesting the ban be expanded based on your definition? If so, you are advocating an abolishment of the 2nd Amendment.

Buck guy, by your reasoning then all firearms should be legal and available to the public, Fully automatic machine guns, no problem, they don't kill. What the heck why not allow everyone to have a cannon. I never saw a cannon shot itself, so it must be okay. Somewhere in the continuum between both of our outrageous suggestions is a way to reduce gun violence without violating the 2nd amendment. My suggestion would be for background checks for all gun transfers and draconian penalties for anyone involved in straw purchases.

Where is the the liberal code....attack the person!

Addressing mental health issues is an important part of the White House plan to reduce gun violence. You can read the plan here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf

Kim,
Calm down! I never said we should not address mental health issues, that is ONE OF the areas to address. Not the ONLY ONE.

Phillyboy,
We may not be able to "legislate insanity" (whatever that means), but we can take much stronger steps to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously insane. We can enforce existing background check regulations, and extend background checks to ALL sales and other transfers of guns.

There are already limits to our 2nd Amendment rights. As the Supreme Court said in 2008, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

If you really have an interest in learning, read the full article.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/29/the-second-amendment-constitutional-right-or-a-governmental-wrong/#more-21106

Post after you have read and understood the above articles.

It is clear that what is going on today is much like the events that led to the Revolution and why the Constitution is not a flexible document to be bent to every whim.

Or as Justice Scalia has stated: “It’s not a living document. It’s dead, dead, dead.”

Could someone check and see if there is enough room on the "black helicopter". As it stands now, Bill and Kim are in. Scooch on over u two, and welcome Chin aboard.

Can't come up with an intelligent response, heh Dave?

Ignorance must truly be bliss.

The only difference between Obama and the King of England is that Obama doesn't have a crown - yet.

Higher taxes through Obamacare, restrictions of our rights, Obama's DHS army stockpiling weapons and ammunition, cities having "gun buyback and turn in programs".

Read what I posted. Hopefully you aren't too dense or high on the Kook-Aid to see the truth.

Chin,
You must have had a tough time during the FDR presidency, which was way more dramatic than Obama's.

When should we expect martial law to be declared and the 22nd Amendment suspended?

As soon as King Obama signs his next executive order to get his way.

FYI, I wasn't alive during the FDR era, but I was born when common sense, common decency and common courtesy were still in fashion.

You'll enjoy this speech as much as Obama clearly did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyyHegP255g

J.
Here is the list of items covered by Sen. Feinstein's bill:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/dianne-feinstein-gun-list/61374/

Items currently legally owned are grandfathered in. The bill would restrict future importation, manufacturing and sales, but not ownership.

"restrict future importation, manufacturing and sales"

Just like the British in the 18th century during colonial rule.

Freaky Feinstein's goal is totally disarm U.S. citizens, one step at a time.

@Chin, here is a history lesson for you. True Americans vote with ballots, not bullets. All you conspiracy kooks, go against everything that has made our country special. Keep your grandiose fantasies of armed insurrection to yourselves.

I don't want to own a machine gun or tank, but that shows that we have already made some common sense compromises and yet they get and inch and keep taking. This is where compromise gets you and it's time to stop with the compromise.

That's right, Amend Wun. Next thing you know they won't let me hunt groundhogs with my RPGs!

Willy, you sound like an ass! I found the video stunning and scary.

What's assy about today's front pager that read "NJ, PA, taking action on guns"...Boy, aren't you dense!..And you like to characterize people derogatorily...I know you are better than this.

Video?..Could you send me the link on it?

The black hawk helicopters were recently seen over downtown Miami, January 23, 2013, firing blank rounds.
http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21009669615084/military-conducts-training-exercises-in-miami/#ixzz2J2ImImGT
There were also similar drills with blanks being fired in Houston neighborhoods in January.
In all my years I've never seen this done around large cities or heavily populated areas. I believe that these two towns were picked simply because they were in the south were larger populations of Conservatives are found in the big cities rather than in the Northeast or the Southwest.

You sound like Grover Norquist who wants the government to just disappear "Make it so small you can drown it in a bathtub" to that effect...Then what, anarchy?..Talk about ignorance...Any society must have a government (take your pick) in order to function any way it wants...We chose the democratic kind and so let's learn to live with it, not drown it.

On the drones, do you have an alternative?..Otherwise, as Chris Christie would like to say "Shut Up".

Wilfredo - The Founders feared a large government and it is now bigger than it has ever been.
"But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible. We see already germs of this, as might be expected. But we are not the less bound to press against them. The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning-knife; and I doubt not it will be employed; good principles being as yet prevalent enough for that." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, March 9, 1821, written at Monticello http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/jefferson/1821.html
There are many who now fear our Government. Our present POTUS has taken the policy of killing citizens of the US who he sees as our enemy's without due process. Many of these people may indeed be terrorists or supporting terrorist organizations, but if they are citizens of this Country, they have an inalienable right to due process which might include a trial by jury, not summary execution by the President via a drone. More hippocrically, he wants to try non-citizens in jury trials in NYC. We are a country of laws not men. You would be wise to fear your government right now.

Unfortunately, according to the documents recently released, Obama gives himself full authority. Other news, that just came out by Pinetta under questioning, is that he spoke to the President ONE time throughout the whole Benghazi ordeal...one time. He also spoke to Clinton one time. They never called through the night to check the progress of things.....nothing from the administration. What an outrage. Four Americans killed and our commander and chief was absent....unbelievable! Did you know that? What about the gun running to Mexico? I know Bush had a similar program, but with one big difference, the guns were actually TRACKED...not so with Obama! One last problem I will mention that I have with Obama ...the wheeling and dealing he did to get his healthcare passed even though the majority of Americans didn't want it..most still don't support it. What is your position on these issues?

Kim,
I do not believe that the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare. If that were the case they would have elected Romney, who promised to abolish it on Day 1 of his Presidency. You can't believe all the polls you read, as the Fox News followers found out on election night.

Yes bad stuff happens under every president. The Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon under Reagan, the US embassy in Tehran fiasco under Carter, 9/11 under Bush, etc. etc. Good stuff happens, too.

Obama's record so far seems mixed. I would like to see him bring the country together (at least those who aren't irrevocably prejudiced against him) on getting the deficit on a long-term sustainable course during his 2nd term.

I guess I assumed he was talking about the Muslims that are terrorists, not ALL Muslims. I agree that we shouldn't be arming the Muslim brotherhood. You must agree with that...don't you?

@phillyboy- it was never the Allied forces intention to "eliminate" the Germans or the Japanese. In fact, we entered into a program of rebuilding their infrastructure after the war ended. It's estimated some half a million Americans died in WWII. I don't think we've lost even 15,000 in the Middle East. For all that hate from 1.6 billion people, you sure do think you'd see a lot more attacks on Americans and our allies over the past 50 years since all of them are our enemy. Just admit that you're making sweeping generalizations based on your own bias instead of trying to understand the true complexity of the issue. Waving a flag, and saluting the military doesn't make you more of a patriot either, nor does it blanket your hate in return. I'm not sure what your point about drone strikes has to do with your bigotry, but if you must know, I don't really have an issue with drones being used to kill enemy combatants. War ain't pretty, but American has never predicated a war based on hate. We're above that I thought.

So, Amend What? U local.

Come on Amend, I'm sure he meant terrorism needs to be eliminated.

@Bill- I live and own a business in Easton. And if phillyboy meant that terrorism should be eliminated he could have easily clarified such, but instead chose to defend his point as valid. I'm sure he doesn't need you to speak for him.

Thanks Chin

@Chin- it's easy to see correlation in vague comparisons. One could easily say George W. Bush fit that description as well, or the person sitting next to you on the bus.

Chin...You are a wise man !

@Bill- how can you possibly say that phillyboy isn't a bigot? and there is no disputing that the things you listed are bigotry as well. Just cuz others are bigoted against us doesn't mean we should be bigots in return.

A man with brains exposes Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA

Evil will always be with us. Let's reduce the harm evil people do by restricting their access to guns.

Video?..What video?

Nazretti's comment is ludicrous to say the least.
"Let's reduce the harm evil people do by restricting their access to guns."

We already have myriad laws for this purpose. How about enforcement of the laws and strict punishment of the evildoers instead of punishing the law-abiding?

Evildoers don't need guns to massacre the unarmed. Think bombs, starvation, gas chambers, poison...

Chin,
I agree, let's enforce the existing laws against transferring guns to those not eligible to own them (criminals and the violently mentally ill), and against using guns in crimes.

A background check for EVERY transfer of a gun from one person to another will have no effect on citizens without a criminal record or a history of violent mental illness. That should REALLY work, yet it is not being done.

Most private sales of LONG GUNS between two individuals are among friends, relatives, hunting partners, gun club members - people already known to be of good character, sound mind and permitted to own firearms. If the sale of such weapon were to be transacted online, the firearm would have to be shipped to a dealer where a background check would be performed on the buyer. ALL legal handgun sales MUST be done through an FFL.

Again, additional checks on private sales as noted above would make no difference to criminals. The percentage of crime committed with long guns, especially the modern semi-auto types being debated, is miniscule and not with weapons legally obtained.

Checks only work when law abiding people comply with the law. Criminals and the insane have no interest in law. Law abiding gun owners wish to remain law abiding and would not risk selling a firearm to a prohibited person. So yes, additional laws would effect citizens without a criminal record or a history of violent mental illness by the additional cost, time spent and inconvenience of submitting to said background checks. Innocent until proven guilty.

I wish eveyone here whether you are pro-gun or anti, peace and safety from harm and evil. Enjoy your Sunday.

Chin,
Do you know the criminal and mental health history of every one of your "friends, relatives, hunting partners and gun club member"? Are you willing to serve time if one of them uses a gun obtained from you in a crime?

Also, the argument that a particular law is useless because criminals do not obey it strikes me as odd, to say the least. What does that say about current laws against, murder, speeding, etc.? They are useless, too, by your reasoning.

Nazaretti, I choose my friends wisely. And I'm not likely to sell a firearm privately anyway as many of them are family heirlooms. But I would be comfortable selling to someone I know closely, especially if they themselves are in possession of arms and have recently passed background checks to obtain them or hold a valid License to Carry Firearms.

I am not saying laws against speeding, murder and other crimes are useless, but they are rendered useless if we don't enforce them strictly and consistently. Adding another law to be disobeyed by the lawless is what is useless.

A quote from the Utah story:
“There is a responsibility of owning a gun: you need to know when you can lawfully use your weapon,” Horton said. “You’re not authorized to shoot a firearm at a car just because you don’t want it to get away, or to scare them, or disable a tire.”

I agree. You can't shoot at a car just because you're pissed off. Shoot to stop an direct threat to your safety. Once the threat has been stopped or has retreated, it is time to call in the authorities.

"A man's got to know his limitations." - Harry Callahan.

Anthony,
I agree with your conclusion re guns and ammo. Expanded background checks seem to have a better chance of enactment.

If the background check system can be improved without becoming abusive, intrusive or being misused as a path to registration, then I think most everyone would agree to it.

As far as our leaders, maybe a majority still understand that the Constitution doesn't grant the RKBA but AFFIRMS our right to bear arms in defense of ourselves and our nation. The right to defend oneself is a natural right, not something to be handed out at the discretion of a few.

There are some elite politicians that believe they have a right to dictate everything we do in our lives such as how large our soft drinks can be, what medications we take, how we are best able to defend ourselves and so on.

That is not freedom. The government is suppposed to work for us, not dictate to us.
"We the people...".

Correction: Ninety million people own guns and less than 4M are NRA members.

Real impartial web site to cite for a poll.

Wilfredo - please post a link so we can go to the site to verify what you have written. Secondly, I doubt that they used the term "machine guns". "While I'm not sure what you mean by machine gun, most people visualize a FULLY automatic fire or select fire weapons as a machine gun. In other words, one trigger pull fires multiple projectiles. These are not available to most civilians without special permits and hefty permit fees from BATFE. If you don't know what you're talking about I would suggest that you educate yourself before posting information that is misleading at best and a complete fabrication at worst.

"According to an FBI's Uniform Crime Report, those modern sporting rifles, aka machine guns, are rarely useful in self-defense."

Flat out lie.

Those modern sporting rifles are not machine guns. It has been illegal to buy a machine gun without federal clearance since 1934, and remains so. In fact, machine guns have been tightly regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934, in the wake of the gangster era. Legal ownership of a machine gun requires an extensive federal background check, fingerprinting, signed clearance from the chief of local law enforcement (such as a county sheriff), a $200 excise tax, and weeks of paperwork.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

Actually, if you want to cite FBI statistics, it is clear that long guns of any type are rarely used in crime. More people were murdered by hands, feet and fists than by rifles and shotguns combined. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Read recent headlines. In at least two incidents victims defended their homes with an AR-15, one being a teeanged boy.

Moe,
Thanks for the info. Do you think the regulations on machine guns are constitutional?

To Andrew Mount...We quibble so much on what to call a killing machine (yes, machine gun was my term for semiautomatic assault weapon), but why dwell on semantics when we have this humungous problem of gun violence which Obama is asking all of us, gun lovers or not, to curb it...Once again, many gun owners and NRA members are for background checks and other measures to get this problem under control...I beseech all of you to join the campaign NO ONE IS TAKING YOUR GUNS FROM YOU...Below is the link that you asked for.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seamus-mcgraw/nra-gun-control_b_2658712.html

Wilfredo, why do you insist on spouting out the lies of your beloved Obama?

In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s. Here is a link to the FACTS: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221

Homicide by firearms has also been in decline except in cities with strict gun control. More Americans were murdered in Chicago in the last decade than in Afghanistan, a war zone. ("this humungous problem of gun violence "; Obama's home town.)

You ask "but why dwell on semantics...?" It is because we are discussing facts, not knee jerk emotional reactions.

Wilfredo - The link you supplied cannot even be considered a reliable source. While the quote that the author of the article provides, is FBI statistics, his statement is false, or at the least misleading. "While they may have been the weapons of choice for crazed killers in 35 mass shootings since 1982, they are, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, rarely useful in self-defense." The link he provided is the FBI's statistic of "justifiable homicide'. In other words (as defined by the FBI) the killing of another in the commission of a felony. That statement made by the author, "they are...rarely useful in self-defense" is patently false. Not all efforts by civilians result in a homicide. In fact a vast majority of defensive uses of firearms are done so without those firearms ever being fired.
Your link is just another example of yellow journalism mascarading as real news, just like this article that sparked this conversation in the first place.

To Andrew Mount...Re: Link: Can't you at least understand what this gun owner was trying to say?..He appears to have had enough of the NRA and its "cynical disinformation campaign" designed to convince you guys that your right and traditions are under attack...That's what this poor gentleman was trying to convey, but of course, you refuse to listen and insist dwelling on semantics to advance your misguided loyalty to Wayne LaPierre...Many NRA members do not look at LaPierre as their spokesman anymore.

Wilfredo - I read the entire article and I know what he was saying. He also used incomplete, misleading or false information to do so. That's his fault. You can continue to believe what he said or you can check out for yourself. If you check it out and if what I said is correct, then he either lied, he mislead or he's just plain wrong, but anyway you wish to think about it his statement was not semantics it is FALSE. There can be no other explanation. That makes him unworthy of my trust.

Why do you describe him as poor? Looks like a pretty snappy hat to me. I suspect you described him that way because you still believe him and the fact that I busted him on his falsehood, you feel sympathy toward him. Again with the feelings, enough with the feelings. If you want to have an intellegent conversation on facts, then fine, but you have yet to base any of your arguments on facts.

Yes, Andrew Mount, I am with the guy through and through...I wish there are more gun owners like him around.

So the 1934 regulations limiting access to machine guns are constitutional and OK with you?

It is not up to me whether it is constitutional or not, but it is the law and I'll abide by it.

As I stated above, I believe full auto weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens is not necessary. They just aren't my cup of tea, but that is only my opinion and there may be legitimate reasons why someone may own them. I only shoot recreationally and to remain proficient for purposes of self defense.

I'm quite satisfied leaving fully automatic firearms in the hands of the soldiers that fight to preserve our constitution and laws.

For anyone interested, there is excellent firearms informaton on the PA State Police web site: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=4451&&PageID=462425&level=2&css=L2&mode=2

Not only that, but NY's new law limiting firearms to 7 rounds has made illegal the majority of firearms purchased for self defense. Very few semi-auto handgun models other than compact pocket pistols have a 7 round capacity.

I wonder if Cuomo and Bloomberg will make their security details and the NYPD turn in their high capacity weapons.

Typical paranoia...Wayne LaPierre has succeeded in preaching this anti-government mantra "JACK-BOOTED THUGS ARE AFTER YOUR GUNS", Diane Feinstein is leading the way, and many of you took it hook, line and sinker...Sad...Meanwhile, more GUN VIOLENCE (that's what it is, perpetuated by those who have access to killing machines) goes on...Newtown, CT happened because there was a machine gun (call it what you want) available...I am sorry but this is my line of thought and it is not a knee jerk response...On the contrary, I believe it is the common sense approach to senseless killings, FEINSTEINS' WAY.

Wilfredo, I can just picture you sitting at your keyboard foaming at the mouth. Your posts are consistenly shot down (no pun intended) and then all you can do is fall back on your paranoia argument about "jack-booted thugs".

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban's real purpose:"[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."

In a December 21, 2012 email, Maryland State Delegate Frank Turner wrote a constituent that "There will be many bills in January to address the problems stated above. The real challenge is how to collect the thousands of assault weapons already in circulation..."

In Minnesota the Democrats make no pretense: they are pushing confiscation legislation, unapologetically. H.F. 241 relates to “assault weapons.”

Law abiding gun owners in California have to feel uneasy after Democrats rolled out a massive gun control package on Thursday, which includes strict ammunition regulations and even a bill that allows potential confiscation of the state’s 166,000 legally registered semi-automatic rifles.

Wilfredo, I'd hardly trust you with pen and paper (in this case a keyboard), let alone a firearm.

I saw a double feature in the next theater.....Columbine, followed by Newtown, CT awesome!

And some clown thought that the Jews should have guns then, too.

@Mike You get the prize for post of the day.

Wilfredo: "And some clown thought that the Jews should have guns then, too."

This comment has been reported at inappropriate.

Armed Jews certainly made a difference during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising diverting German resourses from the Eastern Front.

Sue, I have to wonder if Wilfredo is a career criminal. He is so fervent in his quest for gun control. Criminals love gun control. Armed citizens are a work safety hazard contributing to violence in the workplace.

Feinstein an idiot?...She has been in the Senate for years and authored many legislation beneficial to the country...What have you done but demonize those who disagree with you in this thread...This is a public forum and we post opinions...Misinformed?..Just because I called a certain weapon machine gun?..Call it whatever you guys want, but it is still a rapid fire killing machine to me...That doesn't change the argument...Let the legislators come up with the right definition of these guns.

Moe, so now, those who are for gun controls are criminals...Majority of our citizens are for gun control measures, including many NRA members...Would you label them criminals, too?..We are debating the pros and cons of gun ownership here...You have your ideas, I have mine...What would you say if I call you an enabler for your love of killing machines and would not join the rest of us on this campaign of reducing gun violence?

Wilfredo, you keep talking about this "majority". Where are they? I'm on several firearms forums and have yet to see this majority of which you speak.

You want to talk about enablers? The fools that create "gun free zones" are the enablers, creating hunting preserves for the wicked and insane.

Go home. You can't post one logical statement. You just rant and insult.

Moe, now I am the one who insults...Didn't you just insinuate that I could be a criminal for believing in gun control?..Your problem is you constantly ignore what is prevailing in this gun control debate, that there is a big chance it could work this time around because so many gun owners, including NRA members are for gun control measures being proposed...Of course, as enablers, you do your best to make sure this won't happen so many more innocents will die from gun violence.

I see you are bothered by the truthful yell by your god LaPierre about "jack booted thugs"...I must remind you that Daddy Bush dropped his NRA membership as soon as he heard this...Other members should do likewise because it is not close to the truth: NO ONE IS TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY FROM YOU...Shed this government tyranny paranoia right now because it is doing us harm (Shrink the government and drown it in a bathtub)...We need the government for the country to survive.

easy....15 year mandatory sentence no parole for crime committed with a handgun, or using a handgun aquired illegally. second offense, 25 years, third, life, fourth, you have to live in that trailer park in newtown

Cheetos - You are being too lenient.
Three strikes and you're out is better, ending with a noose around the neck. Publicly televised during prime time so criminals and wannabe thugs get the message. Rope is cheaper than wasting tax dollars on multiple offenders.

By your reasoning we should not have any laws because some people break them.

Why Soitenly!

Our revolving door justice system is part of the problem.

I was just repeating what I heard/read...That's not my statement...Some clown came out and said so.

What is there to know about killing machines...One of these was just used to massacred little children in Sandy Hook in the hands of a crazed man...All I want is this to stop and we are asking all of you, gun lovers, to join the campaign instead of quibbling with words...Speaking of rights, we, too, have rights to be safe from gun violence...Finally, lady, you can't hold a candle to Ms. Feinstein...You'd be just an insignificant object beside her.

Look who is calling people ignorant...A clueless woman with nothing to show but meanness.

Actually, I don't think Patch appreciated my reponse to Wilfredo and Cheetos! Poor babies!

Actually David, if the 2A falls, who's to say the 1st won't?

The whole "politically correct" thing has got everyone afraid to speak up, that is one reason why problems don't get solved. Nobody wants to ruffle anyone's feathers.

Sue, remember the adage: Do not argue with a fool. He will lower you to his level and beat you with experience.

There are some on here that have no interest in facts or logic, nor do they reply to posts that contain these facts backed up by links, articles and Supreme Court case citings. They are only capable of ranting and attacking; posting hearsay and mistruths.

Can't we just bunk in next to you and Wilfredo? ;-)

No Kidding Naz, what a mutual admiration society. Maybe they can curl up together on the coach and watch Ted Nugent make an ass of himself along with other gun owners tonight. Real patriot. Google how he got out of the VN war. Even outdid Dick Cheney on cowardice on that one.

Whoa, Dave...Ted Nugent!..I won't miss his media tour after the SOTU...Should be fun, unless the GOP block the broadcast.

You can't win the debate with logic so you fall back to insults.

@Chin, logic you say, all I ever hear from you is sanctimonious back slapping and wild delusions about Pres. Obama being a king or something; hardly the basis for informed debate.

I agree that anyone looking for a complete solution is dreaming. Harm reduction, or making things better, is a reasonable goal. Let me just roll over and whisper that in Wilfredo's ear.

Gotta hand it to Nazaretti...Listening to the SOTU last night sounded like Naz's playbook "Harm reduction or making things better is a reasonable goal."..That's what this gun control is all about, not wrecking gun lovers 2nd Amendment one bit...Saving one child's life from gun violence is worth a thousand LaPierre.

Mr. Salcedo, you are aware that heroin is, was, and always will be illegal to own. You may not be aware of the Deep Web. Tor browser. The Onion. Silkroad. You or anyone - perhaps your own Web-savvy child or grandchild - can easily go online, convert dollars to Bitcoins, and anonymously purchase heroin and other narcotics, child pornography, and guns, among making other illegal transactions.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. We own broken systems: law enforcement over to DAs over to judges and finally to prison officials, a chain fraught with weak links. We cannot effectively enforce laws already on the books. Mental health system under-funded; civil liberties attorneys making it nearly impossible to get someone "committed" though he or she may in fact belong in a state mental facility.

Guns to many are scary. Loud and vicious tools of destruction. Actually they are metal parts that, working together, hurl a projectile at a target, which many law-abiding citizens regularly do just as others smack a golf ball. The NRA has over 4 million members. Tens of millions more gun owners simply aren't "joiners" but are of the same mind. Adding more laws when we cannot even enforce the current laws is irrational, and if the Democrats in charge push them through, will only lead to one outcome: voter revolt in 2014 and 2016. Bill Clinton found out the hard way and admits his ban was a costly political mistake.

Hammers have legitimate civilian uses. So-called assault rifles do not.

J- your fact is incorrect. More people died by assult weapons than hammers( no compiled data for just hammers-stat includes knives, blunt objects, etc.).
republican=stupid

Any system that criminalizes private firearms transfers – whether between a grandfather and granddaughter, father-in-law and son-in-law, or two law-abiding gun owners who have known each other for years – is a direct infringement on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Further, criminals will never submit to such a system so it will have no effect on crime – and the only way to enforce “universal background checks” is to create a national registry of gun owners.

The real lie here is posters acting like taking away freedoms is an opinion It's not opinion. It is our nation's law, and part of why we live in the best nation. No new proposed gun laws would have, nor will, stop a Sandy Hook. Be angry? Sure, be hopping mad about what happened. We're all indignant about it. Be angry for the correct solution, however. Focus on locking up dangerous citizens, removing their freedoms to walk among us. Stop focusing on criminalizing the cautious, safe ones.

J.,
The criminal justice system is more concerned with homicide than suicide.

Those statistics and facts have been posted and linked to several times. Some refuse to see them.

They like blame the tool, not the wielder of the tool.

Hammers have legitimate civilian uses. So-called assault weapons do not.

“Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles." ” Anything used to harm another is an "assault weapon".

Firearms do have legitimate civilian uses. Not just for hunting or target shooting but they are used to PREVENT crime an estimated 60 times more than they are used to commit murder.

Look at this picture http://i45.tinypic.com/a1ip9s.jpg and tell me why one is an "assault weapon". They are in fact both Ruger 10-22 semi-auto, .22 caliber rifles, just in different clothing. Just because the appearance of one may cause people to wet their pants doesn't mean it is more lethal or should be banned.

Truth seekers will receive this:

Body count: In the last six months 500 killed (murdered) in Chicago.
More school age children shot and killed than the recent massacre in Connecticut.

Chicago maintains some of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.

(President: Barack Hussein Obama, Senator: Dick Durbin, House Rep: Jesse Jackson Jr., Governor: Pat Quinn, House leader: Mike Madigan,
State Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike), Mayor of Chicago: Rahm Emanuel)

The entire chain of leadership in Illinois - all Democrats. Who can we thank for the combat zone in Chicago. They're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any.

Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country. State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country. Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% highest in country. This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois.

George Ryan is no longer Governor, now in prison. He was replaced by Rob Blajegovitch, now in prison. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned a couple of weeks ago because he is fighting being sent to prison.

The Land of Lincoln is now where their ex-governors make license plates.

As long as they keep providing entitlements to the population of Chicago, nothing is going to change, except the state will go broke before the country does.

Again: can't blame Republicans; there aren’t any. Can't blame legal gun owners; there aren't any.

Why just look at all the cars that have been confiscated after car registration was required! They are coming after you next!

Asinine, childish reponse, Nazaretti.

Jack Minster,
I agree that the law enforcement-DA-judge-mental facility chain needs to be strengthened.

The proposed registry is of criminals and the violent mentally ill (and we could throw in those against whom a restraining order is in force), not gun owners.

Nazaretti,

The NRA supported such a system in the past, then learned the truth, that the overall process is too flawed. A universal background check system will put gun buyers through needless hassle, with little in the way of results. The NRA tried unsuccessfully for such a check for two decades. The NRA in fact proposed it.
The problem is that the mental health lobby and federal laws have prevented the names of people with potentially dangerous mental health problems from being put into a federal database. It costs states money they don't have to register people with adjudicated mental histories into databases, and while many states are trying, it is slow going. Making a new federal law will not improve state compliance.

And again, criminals won't comply.

Banners will turn this universal (background) check on the law-abiding into a universal registry on law-abiding people. Your theory is sound, but the practical application of it is not, and the only step the banners can make to push it is a follow-up with a national gun registry. Such a registry could then easily lead to taxes on guns or to confiscation, both of which Democrats are aggressively proposing right this minute.

Andrew Mount,
I think it should be illegal for convicted criminals and the violent mentally ill to own guns, and for anyone knowingly to sell or give a gun to such people. Universal background check is one way to enforce this.

Great article about the SOTU address:

Tragedy and Comedy at the SOTU

By Sally Zelikovsky
I couldn't help but think of the "tragedy and comedy" Janus masks as I watched Joe Biden and John Boehner dutifully sit behind President Obama as he delivered his painfully long State of the Union speech.

Biden's comedic goofy grins were a knee jerk response to Obama's overtures to help the little guy, whereas Boehner's tragic pouts reflected the harsh fact-driven reality that such policies actually hurt Mr. and Mrs. Main Street.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/tragedy_and_comedy_at_the_sotu.html

I did not watch the speech. I read today that Obama did not talk about a plan to bring the long-term debt under control. A credible, bipartisan plan for this would be all the boost the economy needs.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/02/13/fact-checking-president-obamas-2013-state-of-the-union-address/

I don't know if he is an ass; I do know the man doesn't lead: he spins. Professional spinning is what he does. Spinner in Chief. Remember the debates? I do. Stopping Iran's nuclear progression with tougher sanctions. Bringing peace to the Middle East. Tapping domestic oil sources, hiring more and better teachers, etc. Last night's performance was like a kid bringing home a Straight F's report card and explaining to his parents that today's "F" is the new "B+".

But stricter gun laws will bring it up to an A-.

More than half the nation buys this crap. The real report card is: GDP is down for the first time in years; the size of federal government and taxes to fund its expansion are way up. Small business starts are down, existing ones are closing in record numbers. Real unemployment numbers including those who have given up looking for work are well above 10% and have remained over 10% for years. Feeling the new 2% increase in employment tax?

Evade, spin, distract with gun debates - while our once vibrant economy continues to stagnate and quality of life continues to erode for those who voted for him. Five years into THE PLAN, now. Can't blame Bush or Boehner for any of it.

When will voters throw up their hands and "hire" talented conservatives who understand that a "rising tide lifts all boats" - who are willing to work hard at fixing it?

Gun expo dealers must follow the same rules and laws as if they were conducting the transaction at the normal place of business.

If you want all of the facts, just look up and read the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. I encourage everyone to become familiar with the exisiting state and ferderal laws concerning firearms. Follow that up with a reading of the Bill of Rights and the history that led to their drafting.

I guess you never heard of straw purchases Jack , I guess I should have figured.
I never got a chance to thank you Jack for your spot on analysis of how Romney was going to crush Obama. I can honestly say I look back upon some of your earlier exchanges with fondness. Do you think there is any way to reduce gun violence Jack?...all kidding aside.

Straw purchases are already illegal. How will more laws stop supposedly "Honest Joe" from walking in, passing a background check, buying a firearm of any type and then turning around and selling it to a prohibited person in some back alley? Do you really think Joe and the criminal are going to say, "Hey, let's go to the dealer and make this official."? They would both be arrested on the spot.

@moe, I apologise if this remark does not immediately follow your quote, cannot tell with my phone. But Moe is there any way we can reduce gun violence? It's gotten totally crazy. By all accounts this head case Dorner used an assualt style wepon during his myrder spree. So in recent history we have had the shootings at Aurora, the slaughter at Sandy Point, the executions of the firefighters in NY and now this rampage in SoCal. All with assualt weapons, not hammers. Is there anyway short of dressing our kids in body armor this can be minimized?

@David,
Citizens in this thread are justifying and defending their Constitutional right to legally keep and bear firearms, which include semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic handguns, revolvers, shotguns. I've not seen anyone complain about not having full-auto machine guns, RPGs, tanks, nuclear warheads, etc. You counter with, "So what is your solution to gun violence?"

This is your logic: [Son] Mother I am 16 and have a legal right to obtain a learner's permit, please drive me to the DMV. [Mother] I know it is your right but I forbid you from taking the driver's test because of all the crazy drunks out there. First solve the problem of drunk drivers, then I'll consider honoring your legal right to drive.

The solution is complex and involves the entire end-to-end criminal justice system, prison funding (privatization debates ongoing), the ACLU, the mental health lobby, etc. Criminalizing law-abiding gun owners, taxing gun owners, creating a federal database of gun owners, suing gun manufactures, stamping serial numbers onto brass cartridges, trigger locks, confiscating guns, and every other ill-conceived measure put forth by elected liberal Democrats are not contributing to any solution.
Sending our kindergarten students to school with .45 ACP semi-auto handguns in their Dora lunchboxes makes as much sense. Chaos.

Spend your brain figuring out how best to remove violent offenders from our midst, start there.

@David - The problem is not "gun violence". It is violence, period. Do we catergorize other types of violence by the weapon used? Knife violence. Car violence. Sounds silly doesn't it, but you get my point. Using a term like gun violence makes it sound like guns just decide to get up and start killing people on their own.

The problem we have is violent people with corrupt morals or mental illness. Another factor is the glorification of greed and material wealth. Our society worships the F word but attempts to ban any mention of God, anywhere and everywhere.

Our supposedly enlightened elected officials spend more time demonizing the tool of the criminal instead of the moral decay of society and placing blame on the killers. Experts try to rationalize this bizarre behavior when it is quite clear that many young people are not taught one of the first laws handed down to us: "Thou shalt not kill".

Until we start getting back to the basics of common decency, respect for the life and property of others, the ills of society will not go away.

@David, continued - Considering Dorner's background, his access to weapons may have been above that of ordinary citizens. He is just an example that even the supposed good guys can go bad. Nobody has a crystal ball to foresee this happening.

Statistics indicate that violent crime with firearms has been on a steady decline in most areas. Naturally, the extreme cases you cite grab are both shocking and sickening, but not a normal everyday occurrence.

Kids need to learn respect for others and to be taught core values. Kids should not be taught to fear firearms, but to respect them and the power behind them. Kids need to know the harsh reality that evil exists in the world and that bad people do bad things with guns and other instruments of crime.

Criminals need to be dealt with harshly. The ill need to be dealt with in a way that keeps them in check without being inhumane or degrading.

Lastly, and I think I speak for the majority of people that legally and safely use firearms either daily, seasonally or whether the gun just rests on the nightstand, that we find it insulting to be portrayed as demons and debased to the level of criminals for the types of firearms we choose to own and use.