Nobody is trying to take away your rights.

look at the history of gun control in different countries
1929 Soviet Union established gun control--1929-1953 approx 20million dissidents unable to defend themselves rounded up and killed.
1911 Turkey established gun control 1915-1917 1.5 million Armenians unable to defend themselves rounded up exterminated
1938 Germany established gun control 1939-1945 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
1935 China established gun control 1948-1952 20 million political dissidents unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
1964 Guatemala established gun control 1964-198, 1100,000 Mayan Indians unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
1970 Uganda established gun control 1971-1979 300,000 Christians unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterrminated
1956 Cambodia established gun control 1975-1977 i million educated people unable to defend themselves rounded up and exterminated
20th Century defendless people rounded up and exterminated because of gun control 56 million
With guns we are citizens without we are subjects not saying we are their yet but eveytime this issues is brought up we get a little closer to these facts don't you think terrorist would like to see more gun control in this country

anything close to and including multi clip multi shot firearms should be illegal

Note that the 2nd amendment doesn't say the right to bear ALL arms. Nobody is trying to take away ALL your guns. Just the ones that are the ones most commonly used in school rampages. And even then, nobody's even going to take your assault weapons. Just place restrictions on buying new ones. So Jeez, chill out.

Mark A, the 2nd Amendment says we have a right to bear arms, that means I have the right to choose what type of guns I want to own. It does not mean the Government should tell me what type of gun to own and how many bullets it should hold.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/14/lets-set-the-record-straight-5-common-misconceptions-about-guns-mass-shootings/

BS

Comparing fatalities caused by guns vs. vehicles is irrelevant since there is a difference in intent to commit violence.

A more comparable analogy would be fatalities committed while breaking the law with a gun vs. vehicle. Specifically, during a violent crime and while driving under the influence. Gun control regulations target the law abiding individuals using a naive approach that has proven to be a failure, e.g., drug war, airport 'security', prohibition, standardized testing, quantitative easing, etc. If the same approach is applied to driving under the influence, regulations would make it more difficult for sober people to buy and operate a vehicle.

Rather than looking at what causes these people to do these awful things, this kindergarten country of ours wants to just try to patch it up with a band-aid. Problem is the band-aid only offers a temporary solution and will likely make things worse in the long-run. Restricting access to guns will not fix the problem. Look at the recent shooting in CA. The kid brought a non-semiautomatic, non-'assault' shotgun to school to shoot a couple of specific kids. No gun control regulation would have stopped that incident. There is a good chance that addressing the alleged bully behavior that prompted the incident would have though. (Look up how many of these shooting are committed by people on prescription antidepressants)

Quoting: "... cars are not used as mass murder weapons. ..."

Every year, 17,000 people are killed because of drunken driving. *Another 40,000 are injured. Some recent reports have indicated the 17,000 may be decreasing in recent years. But, the fact remains that cars do kill others because of irresponsible actions. The Newtown, CT event killed 28 people in one day. Every day, 28 people are killed in the US because of drunken driving, yes EVERY DAY.

Guns kill others because irresponsible actions. Guns in and of themselves are neutral. Guns in the hands of irresponsible people wanting to kill others, or at least do harm, is the problem. Yes, we can talk of gun control, we can talk of mental illness, but, in the end, the vast majority of killings are done by those wishing to do harm, often fatal, to others. How many of the 500 murders in Chicago in 2012 were done by those with assault weapons, those with mental health issues? The killings in and around Pittsburgh on a weekly basis, ... how many are done with assault weapons, or by those with mental health issues? Not many. Most shootings are done by those with hand guns, and those who have never been diagnosed or suspected of having mental health issues.

All the raving in Wash DC last week is merely political theater. None of the suggestions would have prevented the recent mass killings. The last 10 such events would have not been prevented. Meanwhile the major fiscal issues of our nation go wanting.

One more thing ...

The certainty of the recent political rhetoric is the large uptick in buying of guns and ammunition. Any time over the past decade, or more, the political rhetoric, meetings, commissions, studies, hearings, and other charades have done wonders for the growth of gun ownership. No amount of advertising or promotion could ever achieve the success as well as the political ranting.

You are right Roger a lot of killings are just plain gangs for revenge and crooks. You are also right this takes away from the financial mess this country is in. The sad thingis we fall for that a lot bring out a major subject to the fore front and we forget the one thing that will destroy this country if not brought under control wasteful spending and massive debt.

Very well said, Jmes. Thank you.

James, three of the top four box office ratings for movies in the weeks following Newtown were movies filled with violence and mayhem. The appetite for this stuff is huge, and the movies are an indicator. We can read all the polls about what people SAY regarding violence, and the pretended outrage, but the ticket buyers ACTED. The actions are clear, "we thrive on violence and can't get enough."

Look at the promos on TV for future shows, or new movies just arriving at the theaters. Without doing a statistical study, I suspect that four of five, and perhaps even higher rates, they are scenes with all manner of mayhem. Many of the promo scenes include use of assault rifles to blow away others. Also, are explosions, hand fighting, and other destructive measures.

Apparently, the public is willing to say they are offended by violence, and pose an outrage, "we must do something about it, ... and now!" but, in reality, support it with their money at the box office.

The video games is another path, which I will let somebody else address.

My point is that the actions of the general public are consistent with the violence, which politicians, psychologists, and others, try to explain away. We claim "everybody is good," and then wonder why the "good people" do violent things. Only when we come to understand that evil lurks within the hearts of everybody, and address individuals' hearts, will anything change.

Proud American, I so agree with you on this. It is I who has to defend my home and I have taught my children respect of guns, that they are not toys. There is to much violence coming out of Hollywood and Video games and instead of banning guns, they should put a ban on Violence in Movies and a ban on how much violence there is in video games.

Quoting: "... Joe Biden needs to have 4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, and 4 Independents as a special committee who have decided opinions about this matter, plus, he needs to listen to them. -- It could work. ..."

The foundational issues transcend political parties. Why do we think that if the right political commissions are assembled, make proposals, and execute, these personal responsibility questions will be solved? Why do we continue to think that external forces will make a real differences?

This is what happens when our society looses its moral compass, and looks to the legal system for answers. We know, from history, the changes at the individual level aren't going to be made through legal means. Do we really think that positive changes will emerge through laws?

Quoting: "... The problem is mental health not guns! But no one wants to talk about mental health because it costs money to fix."

I scanned the PG news stores from the past couple of weeks. I am able to watch TV news and read local newspapers most every day. The news is highly populated with stories of shootings. Sometimes they are drive-by shootings, sometimes in domestic situations, sometimes they are at the local drinking establishment, and sometimes they are part of other criminal activity (e.g. robbery). Several people in the Pittsburgh area have been killed since New Years Day. Others have been injured.

Also, the courts are always litigating cases where shootings are involved.

In none of these recent cases, mental health was never cited as the background problem. In only rare cases do we read that the shooter had a mental health problem.

When we read about gun violence in the deep urban scenes, often the description includes the word "gang." Being part of a gang, and exacting revenge has nothing to do with mental health. When we read about a romantic triangle, and one party chooses a shooting to resolve jealousy, mental health has nothing to do with the matter.

I know it is easy to try to explain behaviors through mental health. To be sure, some people in our society have mental health issues. But, rarely does this explanation provide help in dealing with gun violence.

BS

Bull it isn't the people who own guns legally that are going out and killing people. It is the ones that get them illegally, who are part of gangs or have mental health issues that goes out and does these killings.

You know those guns are make-believe, right?

Jim. What about the anti gun conservatives? Do they know anything about American history?

Bob, your post illustrates one of the fundamental problems with this issue when it gets down to details. That problem is the term "assault weapon". And in your post, you come closer to being accurate than most, you use the term "assault style weapon".

The Assault Weapon Ban Law that was enacted several years ago, and subsequently left to expire was an attempt to legislate the outward appearance of certain guns. They did not attempt to define "assault weapon" in any terms other than what the gun looked like. Now, that Law also had bans on high capacity clips, but lets focus on the term "assault weapon" for the time being.

As anyone with a bit of gun education knows, the appearance of any given rifle is irrelevant to its performance. The prime example in Ruger's mini-14. In its stock model, the gun has a wooden stock and forearm assemble, a standard barrel with fixed sites, a very average looking gun. However, you can modify it with a folding stock, "AR Style" forearm, a flash suppressor, etc....all of the items listed in the aforementioned Assuault Weapons Ban Law...But guess what? Those modifications have absolutely NO BEARING on the the way the gun performs. THAT is why such a Law is inane, and utlimately fails.

Any semi-automatic gun can be made to cosemetically look like a military gun, but it is not an automatic weapon just because it is cosmetically modified. So "assault style weapons" is a useless term that just further clouds the discussion.

Bob, I read your post, and I quote: "assault style weapons with high capacity clips have no place in civillian hands"

While I think you could logically and factually argue against high-capacity clips (although that argument is weak at best), there is no factual or logical argument pertaining to "assault style weapons", simply because the function of a cosmetically altered semi-automatic weapon is EXACTLY the same as the standard looking, unaltered gun that is not "assault style".

Thanks to all of the Patchers for the usual entertainment!

Aluminum Foil Helmets For All!!

Mike,

Its a shame you have nothing adult to add to the conversation.

Oh well...

Ernie
If there was an adult conversation going on here, I'd be concerned.

However, all I'm reading is the delusional ramblings from the far right and far left fringes of our community.
Both of these fringe elements are bullheaded and entertaining.

Mike

Then why not contribute something meaningful, and pull the quality level up???

No thanks Ernie. Arguing with either side in this debate would be as useful as arguing with a park bench.

It's the same argument that has been going on my entire life. Massive changes need to be made.
Folks on the left have to accept that the 2nd Amendment isn't going away.
Folks on the right need to realize that changes are coming and if they want to be included in the changes then they have to abandon the rhetoric of the past.

C'mon Mike!!!!

You state "masive changes need to be made"....well, dazzle us with your insights.

What are those specifice massive changes that need to be made. If they are massive, you must have some fairly specific ideas in mind.

Ernie
Unlike the majority of folks in this thread I have no problem letting the pros handle this issue.
Vice President Biden assembled a lot of learned folks to discuss the issue and propose action.
I'll wait to see what comes of that before I armchair quarterback.

LOL Mike!!!

So much for your "massive changes" that need to be made?

Pros?? You consider the Legislature to be Pros??? LOL again.

Thanks.

Ernie
Of course they're professionals! You do know that there were supporters of the 2nd Amendment at these meetings, right?

You do know that the overwhelming majority of folks invited to those meetings are much more succesful and intelligent than you.
Let the adults work this out and then you can argue afterwards.

And stop saying that I'm being silly! I've avoided making fun of your name, you have to give credit where credit is due.

Mike,

You are some piece of work. You think it is appropriate for Congress to take action, and then we all get to debate it after the fact...or at least that is what your posts seem to indicate.

In America, it doesn't work that way, or at least it is not supposed to work that way. We are founded in public debate of issues and Representatives of the people then formulating laws in response to that public debate. And yet, you think the debate is supposed to wait until after the legislative action.

Like I said, you are a peice of work.

Ernie - I'm letting the industry and government formulate a plan.

Are you with me so far?

And then...We can discuss their proposed plan.

Still with me?

And this all happens before legislation is proposed.

I've attached a handy Schoolhouse Rock link to show how a bill becomes a law. The process can be a bit complicated so you may want to watch the clip a few times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

In other words, your thoughts on the "massive changes that are needed" doesn't really exist.

Thanks for the input.

Your quote: "20 children died because your freedoms allowed it to happen"

Your words are a fine illustration of why this debate always seems to degenerate in to name calling, ridicule, and other such childish drek.

Thanks for your input.

In Japan it's very difficult to buy a gun. They have virtually no gun violence and, despite violent movies and video games being very popular, they have a much less violent society than we do.

In Australia, they passed a strict assault weapon ban in 1996 after a mass shooting there. They also bought up the assault weapons that people owned. They haven't had a mass shooting since.

There are lots of truths out there Jim, not just the anectodal ones that you choose to pick out.

And you can accomplish all of your goals with a Mossberg 500 shotgun.

you are very right Mike and I also have a shotgun because I hunt. But this is America the last time I look and we base our country on freedom of choice not what the government picks for us. They can't even find the AUTOMATIC weapons they put in the hand of drug lords and gang member and they want to go after the law biding citizens of this country. It is not just automatic weapons they are going after it is also semi automatic and gun clips that will be the first step and when the next mental patients uses something else the will take go after another type of weapon. The government tells us what to eat ,how to raise our children ,now how to protect them. I don't need the government to tell me how to raise and protect my family I am responsible enough to do that myself.

Agreed.
It's time to abolish all laws concerning driving, marijuana, abortion, switchblade knives, cold/allergy medicine, building codes, bongs, clothing, pornography and taxation.
I want complete unadulterated freedom. I want to pursue happiness.

Mike,

Thank you for pulling his attempts at adult conversation down in to the childish gutter.

Ernie
Why do you think that your opinion matters more than mine?

If people want unlimited freedom for firearsm then we should have the same thing for everything else.

I'm submitting my explanation to Ernie for his approval. Fingers crossed!!

The topic of this Article and Comments is guns. Not all the rest of your usless list.

Above you stated that "massive changes need to be made". I have to asssume that is in regards to guns in some fashion, so why don't you put away the useless diversions in to other topics and dazzle us with your wisdom on what these specific massive changes that you have deemed necessary????????????

And what about our 21st Amendment rights?!? The government cannot curtail our rights so everyone should have a drink.
Children should have a drink!
Teenagers should have a drink!
It is their Constitutional right and the PLCB is trying to overpower their guaranteed rights!
There are 27 amendments to the US Constitution. Shouldn't all rights be recognized by all?

Mike,

I understand you now. You have nothing to offer on the gun topic other that nonsense.

Thanks.

Dearest Ernie
In my thread I was using a a form of analogy, a tool I picked up in an English class sometime in the early 1980's

Analogy (from Greek ἀναλογία, analogia) is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target), and a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process.

I was discussing freedoms, rights and responsibilities in relation to the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
I'm sorry if you had trouble with that.
I am desperately trying to dazzle you as much as I can.

Next time, I'll just post a link to a Fox News article and type incoherently while blindfolded.
Would that satisfy some of your needs?

Mike,

You dance very well. It seems to be a strong point of young people.

If you want to actually comment on the Gun Debate that is the topic of this thread, and perhaps enlighten the Board on your "massive changes" that need to be made in regards to the Gun Issue, feel free. I am sure that with all of your English education, you will do a fine job of explaining what is on your mind.

Somehow, I doubt you will actually do that. Your posts indicate that you thrive on cute rhetoric, and meaningless drivel. If you actually make an attempt to use facts, data or logic, you might do better...

Ernie
You go first. Enlighten us with your ideas. I'll follow up.

And thanks for calling me a young person! You're a real gem!

Gee, the old you go first dance. What a surprise.

OK Mike, I think we have all the Gun Laws in place right now that we will ever need in America. I agree with the Laws as they stand today.

Now, your next predicitable dance step is to try to tear down my position, while completely ignoring your statement "massive changes are needed"...

Go ahead and dazzle me with your steps Mike.

Ernie
I believe that the current gun laws aren't working. Neither side of this issue are happy with the status quo.

There are way too many laws on the books (local, state and federal) regarding this issue. They often contradict each other or were crafted poorly by bribed legislators

I think the federal government needs to sit down with industry, citizens and legislators to find the common path. Once that is established, strong Federal legislation needs to be framed and endorsed by all sides.
That legislation may include many things which, at this time, we just don't know.

Personally, I'd love to see high capacity magazines to be placed into the same category as switchblade knives. You cannot easily buy them and if you're caught with one you will most likely get into trouble. Will you be thrown into jail for 20 years? Probably not. Probably just end up paying a fine.

This problem needs to be solved culturally more than anything else.
Guns are tools and the folks who are terrified of them AND the folks that fetishize them are both wrong.

Jim - Your comment has made me feel very sick.

Mike, Sorry you feel sick - sometimes cold hard facts will do that to you. Just stick your head back up into your _ _ _ or in the sand and you will feel better....
The figures on the deaths are from The FBI . One correction the 323 is all rifles, not just semi-automatics.

"195,000 Deaths from Medical Malpractice.
SO ----You are six hundred times more likely to DIE by using your Obamacare than by a semi-automatic weapon!! Soo feeling sick yet ????" Jim

"Obamacare"? Which insurance plan would that have been in 2011 exactly? And how many of those who died from medical malpractice that year had that particular plan you name? Yes, there are some sickening things written here.

I am having quite the Dance with Mike right now. He has a lot of rhetoric, but not much else in his arsenal so far. Oh well.

proud American
I've made my opinions known. And *gasp* they're slightly different than your opinions.
And.... I'm a gun owning veteran.

And... from the way you write and spell there are a lot of people on this forum that are more intelligent than you. And they're probably better dancers than you.

And you won't know what's in the Bill until you sign it and have a chance to read it....

proud American - Actually I'm attempting to take politics out of this and you're ramming it right back in.

The current administration did send guns to Mexican druglords.
Should the folks from the Reagan administration who sold guns to the Iranians be asked to craft this legislation?

Ernie - The proposed legislation will be known publically long before a bill is even presented to Congress.

Vice President and his hand picked panel is taking government out of it. I didn't bring up Fast and Furious because of a political reason just because it has happen recently and if was a republican problem I would be just as hard on them.

Mike,

I do NOT share you faith that the public would know the Legislation long before a Bill is presented to Congress. I submit the recent "ObamaCare" Bill as prime evidence.

Bartender - This gun owning veteran would like to buy proud American a paragraph. It's on me.

Mike first of all thank you for your service to our country if what you have stated is true.. Second when you assault people personally who you disagree with speaks louder that words.

Um.....Thanks proud American? (if indeed you are an American?)

What a back handed compliment! "...if what you have stated is true."

Mike the "thank you for your service" was meant because I am a very proud American and feel that every servicemen and women should always be thanked for their service. Because we disagree about a subject will not change that.

proud American - Then why did you add ".....if what you have stated is true..."?

Mike that was a bad choice of words and I will apologize. But just like you stated "if you are an American" and that you insult a person's intelligence that you don't even know. sometimes a debate will get a little out of hand and words are written to quickly.

Jim - You're selecting the numbers that you personally like. We could bring in someone from the other side of the argument who could present just as many numbers to prove you wrong.
I'm in the middle, watching a whole lot of pointless numbers with not much forward movement on the issue.

Did you know that you can eat 25,000 big macs and not die! Therefore, big macs are good for you and promote healthy living!

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2011-05-21-big-mac-milestone_n.htm

As an actual redneck, I have to agree with you.

I'm not sure anyone is taking that leap...

As to a Federal Background Check, that seems fairly useless, unless all State Crimes are recorded with the Feds. If that is the case, the current States that use Background Checks, including PA already meet that requirement. So, I guess I could care less about a Federal background check, except for the additional tax dollars to establish and run such a thing.

High capacity magazines were made illegal with the recently expired Assault Weapons Ban Law. Personally, I did not have a problem with the ban of high-capacity clips. I do have a problem with understanding how that would impact the MILLIONS of high-capacity clips out in the public right now. If the Government holds some sort of "buy back" plan, they will recover a miniscule percentage of them. If they attempt to confiscate them, all sorts of problems arise. And, in any scenario, criminals will keep their high-capacity magazines.

At one point in time, the Gun Law Debate was squarely aimed at trying to prevent public mass killings and such. However, I have yet to see anyone bring up any sort of potential legislation that would have ANY affect on that type of crime.

Ernie
The Federal Background Check, as it currently stands, is ineffective.
That's why it all needs to be torn down and rebuilt to make effective federal legislation that is at least acceptable to all sides.

And the bans in the remarkably ineffective Assault Weapons Ban Law was more toothless than a person who posts to Patch.
Any new laws need to be iron-clad. Eliminate all of the various loopholes and grandfathering to make it a level playing field.

Do you think the PA InstaCheck System is ineffective? Why?

The high-capacity magazine bans in the past Law, were just that, bans on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines. What do you find "toothless" in that Law?? Isn't that what you stated you wanted a new Law to contain?

And there are way too many people making that leap.

James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response is one and Joshua Boston is another.

Ernie - The fact that you could still buy and possess a high capacity magazine was the reason that the law was pointless.

It's like making marijuana illegal to grow or sell but you could smoke it all day in front of a cop.

Under the Law, you could not buy a high-capacity magazine. There were strict limits on the number of rounds allowed.

Again, if a new Law makes them illegal to buy and manufacture once again, what is your postion on the millions of units already in the public hands?

Ernie - I personally saw high capacity magazines for sale at gun shows during the "assault weapons ban" period.
I also saw them in the hands of gun owners during that period of time.

It was a flabby definition of illegal.

OK, so lets say a new Law strictly forbids the possession of high-capacity magazines.

What are your thoughts on how to deal with the millions already in the hands of the public?

As far as existing high capacity magazines out there?
Same as switchblades and pot, I'm sure that they're out there as well but you'll get into trouble if you're seen with them.
The same idea should be applied to high capacity magazines.
When someone pays enough fines and get hassled enough they may think twice before taking it out and about.

I think I could live with that type of Law, but I am still concerned that said Law would have absolutely no impact on reducing the number of violent multi-victim crimes that has gernerated this entire discussion.

So, I have to ask, what is the real purpose of such a Law? The purpose obviously cannot be to eliminate the high-capacity magazines, millions exist in public hands. The purpose obviously cannot be to prevent a killer from using a high-capacity magazine because he would then be committing a crime, he is already committing a worse crime. If the purpose of the Law was to eventually lead to confiscation of high-capacity magazines, then criminals most certainly would not be turning over their magazines to the gov't.

So, I still can't see what purpose such a Law serves???

Every little bit counts. I've had to change magazines on an M16 in a stressful situation. It's not easy.

Now, let's transfer this to the civilian world. If someone has to change out magazines or switch weapons then the chances of them being disarmed are much greater.
If that means that just one life is saved, then it's worth it to make high capacity clips illegal.

You'll still be able to fire that weapon, it just might not be as easy to throw as much lead as previously.

I'm just not sure that is a reasonable scenario.

In any of the recent mass shootings, there was certainly no one who was going to attack the shooter just because he was in the middle of reloading a small clip instead of a big one. Once the first shot was fired, I would just about guarantee no one was looking for anything but an exit.

The numbers support it. The Aurora CO shooter fired 209 rounds from his rifle and 15 rounds from his handgun.
Do you think someone would've been able to stop him if he had to change clips in his rifle?
He had a 100 round magazine that he purchased for his rifle

Imagine if he had been only able to buy a 10 round clip instead.
Do you think he would've been able to shoot 70 people without someone stopping him while he changed clips?
Sadly, we'll never know the answer.
An across the board ban on sale or possession of high capacity magazines could lives.

No Mike, a smaller clip would not have made a bit of difference in the two recent cases, and the reason is quite simple...there was no one there who was going to try to physcically assault the shooter in an attempt to stop him.

Obviously the school had no one in the room to do it, and the theater was a "Gun Free Zone" so no one was going to shoot back at the shooter.

You need to be realistic. Stating that "we will never know" if someone would have stopped the shooter while he changed clips is not being realistic in the two recent cases.

Ernie - That is completely absurd. The movie theater was filled with people who could've taken the 10 second opportunity to physically stop the shooter.
Never underestimate the will to live.
You're the one not being realistic.

Are you telling me that if I point a gun at you AND you're unarmed that you wouldn't do everything to save your life when I change clips or change weapons?!?

If given the chance people will do that. That is why high capacity magazines need to be removed from the marketplace in ways that I've already described several times.

Sorry Mike, but I cannot accept your theory.

If there was guy in front of a theater with body armor, mask and goggles on firing a semi-automatic weapon in to the crowd, I do NOT believe for one second that there would be some unarmed volunteer running to the front to stop him during a clip change. Sorry, but that sort of thing just does not fit the standard model of reality.

Ernie - Then perhaps you live in a separate reality from the rest of us.
To say, with absolute certainty, that no one would defend themselves to the end is absurd.
If you feel that you would lay there and die, then you're definitely a different kind of person than I am.
I'd rather die on my feet, defending myself and others, if given even the slightest microsecond of opportunity.

Congratulations Mike.

And as I make my way to the nearest exit, I will take a look back and watch you take on in the chest and go down.

Wow Ernie. That's way out of line.

Sorry Mike,

Just trying to be realistic since you think I am somehow not so....

I don't think the point of that position is that you could win a war as an individual against the government. I believe the point is that in America, you can at least try.

Jon, the gun slinging cowboys in this country really do believe that they can defend themselves from the inevitable government attack with their ar-15's and semi-auto shotguns. They truly believe they will be effective against Predator drones, M1 Abrams, Tomahawk missiles, satellite surveillance and highly training US soldiers who are brainwashed into attacking the very people they signed up to defend.
You can't argue the point with these people. It's like trying to use reasoning and logic to convince a grizzly bear that it should not maul you to death and eat you.

Keith,

It is easy to win the argument with "those people" when you assign to them what they believe.

Keith: Except the grizzly bear is smarter

proudAmerican says: "Ne12Ukid we all know..."

No, not WE ALL KNOW, it's your opinion. You cannot speak for everyone else.

Sorry NE12Ukid I should have said people who have paid attention the last for years to the blame game.

Practice and talent. That fast change clip guy and others who share his skills are a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population.
Definitely not the norm

The only scenario where clip change time makes any difference at all is if there is either someone shooting back at the shooter, or an unarmed person willing and able to assault a person who has just been firing off shots in the room.

Niether of those scenarios applies to the recent shootings, and the second scenario is not likely to happen in even a small fraction of a fraction of shootings.

Ernie - Of course changing clips would've changed the situation, to say otherwise is insincere.
We don't know what would've happened but I can tell you that if my life was on the line and someone was changing clips I would do everything to stop them.
Those few moments between going dry and putting in a fresh clip can be an eternity.

As I said above Mike, I cannot accept your theory as reality.

And, the point you seem to want to ignore, is if we make high-capacity clips illegal, they still exist in the millions, and they will still be used in crimes by criminals.

Ernie - You say with 100% certainty that smaller clips wouldn't have change a single thing in any of the recent shootings?

You should take your mystical powers and visit the horse track sometime. You'd end up rich!

No Mike, I just need to be realistic.

Ah.....

Man, use paragraphs, seriously. But anyway, nobody is expecting a perfect world, just an improved one. Just like reducing the alcohol limits reduces drunk driving, removing certain firearms from future circulation will help the rampage problem. What you zero-tolerance guys don't understand is that you are vastly outnumbered by people who are not gun lovers. We are the majority and are doing something about a problem you refuse to think about. This is happening whether you like it or not, so you'd better figure out a way to compromise or you're going to lose even more in the long run.

Quoting: "... removing certain firearms from future circulation will help the rampage problem ...."

Surely you jest with a statement like this!!! All the discussion about new controls, the Biden Commission, discussions at state levels, etc., ignore the 300M guns already in existence, some ready for use in gun violence.

I saw a state governor proposing fingerprinting at gun registration. Really???? This political rhetoric might make a news headline, but does a fingerprint addition going to help eliminate, or even minimize, gun violence in some of the urban battlegrounds? Consider all the gun-related incidence in Pittsburgh since New Years. If fingerprinting would have been implemented a year ago, would these incidents happened? How many of these incidents required large-capacity magazines? Or, multiple magazines?

If the problem is so great in Jan 2013, why wasn't it a problem in Oct 2012? Gun violence was as rampant then as now.

I am astounded at the oxygen being consumed in the national conversation on this matter. It tells us how easily and quickly our focus can get derailed. While "Rome burns," and other matters that have a time schedule go wanting, and the chatter gets the headlines. Worrying about magazine sizes, assault style weapons vs. assault weapons (semantics), amount of ammo that can be bought, and all such other nonsense will make no difference in 2013, 2014, or 2024 with regard to gun violence.

James,

In what ways do you think more laws would help? What sorts of Laws? How would they help?

James, thank you for your length, insightful, well thought-out response on how the proposed changes will help. I'm sure the victim of the next store robbery, the victim of the next domestic gun shooting, the next target for drive-by shootings, will agree with your response. They have the most to loose.

Ernie -- Roger -- Keith said all that needs to be said.

Whether you agree with what is done under Executive Privilege or not today, the question really is does it meet the criteria of the President's power under Ex. Priv. If it does not, those actions should be fought because it will set precedent for how this power is used by other presidents in the future....and you may not agree next time.

Exec Privy, although not directly referenced in the constitution, in the past has always been supported by several constitutional articles and interpretations thereof. Yes, sometimes it has been viewed as controversial, but that is usually only by those who disagree with the outcome anyway. This is the same constitution that many 'pro-gun' supports are aggressively promoting as an excuse for no more government action on the gun violence problems that most agree exist in this country and culture.
This double standard on the role of the constitution in this debate severely hurts the credibility and validity of the pro-gun movement. You can't just pick and choose the exact governing functions that you want to suit yourself and then complain about the rest.
However proud American, I will agree with you on your statement about the average gun owner having complied with current laws. But that is not the problem and is not what the debate is about. The problem is the current laws do not do enough to help ensure that guns do not get into the wrong hands or are used for the wrong purpose. Personally, I don't care if you own an AR or an AK, but I do care about how you are allowed to use it, store it, give access to other to use it, and the repercussions for breaking the laws with it.

The office of the presidency is in the executive branch of government, which is to EXECUTE THE LAW. Within the U.S. Constitution, the responsibilities of the President are specified. Executive orders are issued under the 'executive powers' clause: "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. " But still... new laws cannot be created by the President. It defeats the point of having a separation of powers.

In my opinion none of the 23 executive orders are blatantly legislative, but some sure do tow the line. These are particularly worrisome to me:

- Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
- Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
- Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

The above set the stage for an arbitrarily determined health-related Federal restriction on gun ownership with coerced cooperation from the States. And 'dangerous' is ill-defined.

Ironically, the military vets that 'keep us free' could easily lose the very rights they sacrifice their lives for. 20% --300,000-- of the soldiers who have been deployed in the past 6 years have PTSD. 100% of all soldiers are trained to kill-- sounds pretty 'dangerous' to me.

Just to correct the posts, Executive Privilege is something completely different from Executive Orders (google before making derogatory comments about me, they are completely different).

Andy,

You've got to put away any sort of logical, or fact-based thinking to participate in this discussion.

The entire debate is based on "feel good" crap, that has ZERO impact on the so-called target of the efforts: Preventing mass shooting tragedies.

I challenge any and all participants to explain how any of the proposed "laws" will impact any criminial's ability to carry out the EXACT SAME shootings that have happened recently.

Any takers????

They won't simply because criminals don't follow the law...

A "well regulated militia" requires regulations.

Get in a time machine and blame James Madison. He's the one that wrote it that way.

Ernie, I posed the same question yesterday, "...how will ... ?" Nobody answered. I am doubting anybody will try to answer, because they know ....

Of all the proposals advanced yesterday, I was struck by the one asking for money to the CDC to study the reasons for gun violence. Really? Study the reasons for gun violence...? Say what?

Perhaps somebody at the WH attended a recent discussion on the origins of evil. They thought throwing some money toward the question, an answer would be forthcoming. What sense does anybody else make of this request, other than funneling more money to prop up more government sponsored programs? For those supporting this proposal, tell us the expectations of such a study? Help us out here, please. Thank you.

Roger,

The question will not be answered here or anywhere else for several reasons. One, it is a very difficult question, and two the answer is unsatisfying.

No Law of any sort will prevent tragedies such as the two recent mass shootings. That is a simple statement of fact, but that is a terrible fact to many people, and just not acceptable. As if "acceptability" of reality can be changed just by passing useless and meaningless Laws. But, for some reason a large part of the American Population will watch politicians on the TV and cheer them for "doing something" about the terrible problem of mass shootings. Forget completely that they have done ABSOLUTELY nothing to prevent such occurrances, it just feels good at the time to hear them lie to you about it.

At some point in time, the American Public is going to have to come to grips with the causes of these shootings. There seem to be some primary root causes such as Mental Illness, Lack of Value of Human Life, and basic Evil just to name a few.

So, I missed the part yesterday where the president said that they're taking away all of the guns.

I'm thinking that actually didn't happen and it won't happen.

So Mike, because the President hasn't completely stripped us of our Constitutional right, only part of it, we should accept it? Would you be fine with a "tweaking" of the first or fifth amendments? It's short-sighted attitudes like yours that are allowing our rights to be taken from us slowly (but surely). What a selfish and narrow-minded view that is to take. What if the President said that most of the first amendment is still valid, but passed an Executive Order stating that you couldn't say anything negative about the government? Would you still have the same narrow-minded opinion then? Or are you completely willing to give up your rights without thought? How shallow, self-serving and oblivious that comment is.

A "well regulated militia" requires regulations. He wants to apply regulations.

The rest is just Conservative Gun Fantasy.
If you're anxiously waiting for the movie Red Dawn to become real, you're going to have a very very very long wait.

Instead of making things up and trying to convince others that it isn't made up, why not focus on what can actually be accomplished.

Never said he did Mike but every time they have another shooting they will chip away a little more. And DormontDude hit it right on the head well said.Look at the terrorist activity still going on in the world today hostages being held at at a gas plant as we speak maybe the president can ask them for more gun control or he can look for another movie to blame it on. What has he done about the ambassador and 3 other American haven't even hear anything in weeks can't even get the truth from his cabinet. Sure was quick to jump on a tragedy and pass laws to punish gun owners who are law biding citizens. It is very hard to trust a President that passes laws without reading them or late on a friday night now they want no debt limit so they can spend our children and grandchildrens future away. And I'm suppose to trust his decision without thinking there is not a motive. Where is your proof it won't happen?

And there is another issue here. While I'll agree the problem the most important factor to consider is mental health, the president has, what, 4o r 5 items addressing ithis. Who will decide exactly what individuals names will be put in the data base and shared? What are the criteria used to decide who can and can not have a gun based on mental health? What about patient/doctor confidentially. The list opens up a huge area of individuals rights to privacy. These items need to be much better defined.

proud - You're seriously want me to prove that your imaginary gun grab hasn't happened?
How would anyone be able to prove that it all exists in your imagination?!?!

There is a better chance of a leprechaun riding a unicorn showing up at your door and asking you to turn in all of your guns then of what you're imagining.

Jon,

Is your post directed at anyone here in particular, or just a random rant?

Yes DD,

There is a VERY large population of Americans who are "glib" about their Rights, and willing to let Mama Government take care of all of their needs.

Do you also fear elves?
What about sasquatches?
I heard on the radio that Aquaman will be taking away ALL of the guns in Allegheny County. Be sure to keep an eye out for a guy wearing green and orange!!

No one is taking away your guns except in your imagination. Period. End of story.

If you're so PRO CONSTITUTION then you won't mind some regulations being applied to the second amendment.
After all, regulations are REQUIRED as stated by the second amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As far as I see, the President is applying regulations, as written by James Madison and approved by congress and the states.

Did you complain when George W Bush took away part of your First Amendment rights when he pushed through the Patriot Act?

And why do you assume that I'm a liberal? Is it because I'm writing lucidly?

Ernie - Better to be glib than delusional and paranoid.

Mike,

So, there is nothing in between in your mind? Oh well.

You call that lucid? You're being far to flattering of yourself. I see you haven't answered any of my questions, and I also see that you have no idea whatsover how our government works or what the constitution means. Regulations being applied to the second amendment? It goes back to my originial question about have SOME of your first amendment rights taken away. You never answered that, but your last post shows what your answer would be. You are too busy "writing lucidly" to make any sense or have even the smallest concept of our constitutional rights. Applying regulations, as approved by Congress and the States? Do you mean the Bill of Rights that was ratified? I really don't understand your point there. You googled that James Madison was one of the main drafters of the Bill of Rights (yay, you got something about history right), but you must not have read the whole article or understood any of it. Well, you clearly didn't understand any of it, or you wouldn't make statements like "the President is applying regulations" to the constitution! What does that even mean? The President can't just "apply regulations" to amendments he doesn't agree with. A civics lesson is in order, Mike. Please get a library card and study. I'm delusional and paranoid for not wanting the President to dodge the Constituion? And yes, I complained LOUDLY about the Patriot Act. Answer the questions, Mike. I'm curious to see a REAL response, not the gibberish you posted. A real answer

Civics lesson for DormontDude
"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."

3rd word in the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is regulated.
It's right there, written by James Madison.

In order to regulate something you need *wait for it* regulations.
Regulations are rules or laws.

Why are you against regulations?

Why are you against the actual words in the second amendment?

I thought you were PRO CONSTITUTION?

Or are you only PRO about the words that you like?

Is there a different version of the US Constitution? Do you read a "King James" version?

And now to answer your questions, as you've demanded -

How does being pro constitution mean that I'm conservative?
-Because I said so.

Are you saying that liberals can't want to keep their rights?
-Liberals are more concerned with actual issues, not imaginary issues

And how about answering my questions?
-Relax! I'm answering them right now.

Would you be willing to give up "part" of your first amendment right?
-Every time I stop myself from screaming FIRE in a crowded theater I wince at the erosion of my 1st Amendment rights. I also fear the erosion of my 3rd Amendment rights, how do you know that there isn't a platoon of soldiers sleeping in your spare bedroom right now?

Then why the second amendment?
I don't feel that my second amendment rights are being infringed. Regulation is called for in the document!

LOL! A grammar lesson for Mike:

The word "regulated" applies to the noun "Militia" in that sentence, not to the word "Right".

But hey. you have proclaimed your superiority in knowledge of the English Language, so I guess you can change those rules too...

I wish there was a "Like" option. I'd be clicking for DormonDudes 4:27PM post.

Nice dodge Mike, or perhaps just another of your infamous dance moves?

DormontDude you are so right what has made this country so great is our Constitution.

Our Constitution stands alone in the world as a Framework to build a Representative Republic upon. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.

What can be civily debated is just how much any given Congress can do to the Framework without actually going through the Amendment Process...and we have witnessed Presidents and Congress truly stretching the boundries of their Authority to change the Constitution without Amendment.

Mike waiting for you proof we gave you plenty of examples of where this could head and you have yet to give one that it won't ever happen

Comedy is much easier than critical thinking.