In the wake of the shootings in Aurora, Colo., President Obama addressed the challenge of enacting stricter gun laws on Wednesday, saying that he "the majority of gun owners would agree" that "a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily."
"I, like most Americans believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms," Obama told the National Urban League Convention in New Orleans. "But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals. That they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities. I believe that the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller."
Obama added: "These steps shouldn't be controversial, they should be common sense."
The president acknowledged that after a mass shooting like the one in Aurora, or in Tucson, Ariz. last year, there's "always an outcry immediately after for action."
He continued: "Too often those efforts are defeated by politics and by lobbying, and eventually by the pull of our collective attention elsewhere."
But, he continued, though the White House has taken steps to combat gun violence on its own, "other steps to reduce violence have been met with opposition in Congress. This has been true for some time. Particularly when it touches on the issue of guns. And
Leave a Comment:
I having been saying the exact thing all week.......hopefully something comes of it .....this time.......
http://www.politicususa.com/mitt-romney-busted-buying-twitter-followers.html
Ye old republican cheating game........
wow, TM-great article!
TM - Definitely Interesting !!!!
And your mama should have swallowed...FOAD!
This is a hot button issue and not politically savey but most certainly along with health care reform, the right thing to do.
This is a hot button issue, a brave stance that should be explored, regardless of how politically unpopular. True leadership!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18944097
Tax havens:
James Henry says
A global super-rich elite had at
least $21 trillion (£13tn) hidden in secret tax havens by the end of 2010,
according to a major study.
Gee Whiz -$21 Trillion Dollars Taken Out of America is Contributing to OUR Deficit !!!
Just Another Smack in the Face to America - You Know - The Country That Helped to Make Them Sooo Wealthy !!! Just More Non-Committal to America by The Disgustingly Wealthy as They Turn Their Backs on America and Americans that Assisted in Making Their Wealth !!!!!! GREED - TOTAL GREED !!!!
YOUR whats wrong with this Country.....Get the F**K out of my Country....FOAD!
Dont worry.After November we'll have LESS gun laws to worry about.....I cant wait to buy a Full Auto Machine gun
This is the right thing to do...demonstrate leadership.
Obama has never lead anything what so ever.
He surrounds him self with yes men.
None of them have the back bone to stand up to obama.
Poor re reg politics are so far above his head he gets all confused about who is whom as far as doing what, here is a clue, the GOP congress was called GWB's rubber stamp congress. Oh and lets not forget who it was that called himself the decider or who it was that fired everyone that told him things he didn't want to hear.
bush is the one who surrounded himself with "yes" men.
he had ALL of the repubs in washington saying "YES" to everything he wanted, including saying "yes" to the illegal war in iraq that they ALL lied about. then they all jumped on board to defend their war, trying to overcome the biggest obstacle of the bush presidency (he himself said so), trying to connect 9/11 to saddam hussein and iraq. well, he did convince sarah palin.
repubs all said "YES" to huge tax CUTS that were signed into law, the very month bush/cheeeeeney invaded iraq.
because of bush and his "YES" men, our country is about to go over a cliff, and they are STILL saying "yes" to bush, and filibustering and obstructing progress for the economy as per their promise to each other to say "NO" to every economic policy President Obama proposes.
they complain now that they "can't" be led by President Obama, yet they let bush lead them and our country to the greatest economic disaster since the great depression.
repubs can be led by an ignorant partisan hack (W. bush).
Obama led on ending the Iraq war. Obama leads on ending the Afghan war as soon as possible. Obama led in deciding to okay the raid on Bin Laden which all his advisors including Sec of state and the vice president were against. Obama led on making sure working people got the pay roll tax cut the right might well have ended. Remember Paul Ryan said it didn't have the job growth they wanted a sentiment echoed by the entire chorus of right wing idealists...most would say that suggest they wouldn't have continued it. Obama led on trying to repair infrasctructiure to get people at least temporarily back to work. Obama led in getting Moammar Qaddafi removed from power. Obama led on getting don't ask don't tell gone. Obama led on the auto rescue. Obama led taking on China for unfair practices numerous times. Obama led on sanctions on Iran. Obama led on privatizing the wasteful manned space program. Obama leads on the necessity of investing in research and devolpement as well as education.
Now just what has Mitt Romney led on? Where's Romney's record of accomplishments and leadership? Just what is the Mitt Romney economic plan and how is it different from the failed Bush policies or Obama's policies? Where's the plan? Why has Romney changed his opinion on the issues so many times and now pretends he didn't?
GOP wouldn't know leadership if it slapped in the face and it has Jeb Bush, Huntsman, hell even Rupert Murdoch. Where's the leadership in the republican party? You've got Virginia republicans threatening armed revolution if Obama is re-elected the party chairman couldn't trouble himself to say anything like hey let's not threaten an uprising in official newsletters. No leadership when Allen West goes on his fiction fueled tirades. Couldn't even say a word on Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut 300 times. They ran from any denouncing of Rush. You've got Bachmann which most of the party is now saying they support in her lunatic delusions.
Where's the leadership from the right? Oh yeah it Conspiracy Man(Glenn Beck), Mama Moose Palin, Blunder Woman Bachmann, The Oxy-Limblob(Rush), Weeper Boehner and Moon Man Gingrich
I have been writing about the need for reinstating the assault weapons ban for several years now. Actually, I was more than angry when President Bush let it lapse in 2004. Most police departments and law enforcement agencies across the country supported the assault weapons ban. This law actually worked in reducing the number of gun massacres. The assault weapons ban won't end the horrendous violence we have in this country but it is a step in a right direction. Hunters and gun owners can own bolt action rifles, shotguns, and revolvers like I do. Law enforcement and the military can carry assault weapons. I am no longer in the military so I don't need to carry an assault weapon anymore. We have plenty of murders mostly from hand guns. We don't need anymore mass murders with assault weapons and semiautomatic pistols with high capacity ammunition clips. Weapons of war belong with soldiers in the military and law enforcement authorities. No one in civilian life needs an assault weapon because once they get in the wrong hands, these assault weapons are a public health menace. President Obama showed courage tonight in his New Orleans Urban League speech.
I noticed you're including semi auto pistols. I suppose there wouldn't be any need for the 45 compact I carry as my EDC piece...
This has got to be one of the most misleading and ignorant comments I have ever had the pleasure to read. First off, an "assault weapon" must have fully automatic capability or it is not an assault weapon. Because of that, every assault weapon in this country is an NFA weapon that requires EXTENSIVE licensing to own. Crime is never committed with NFA weapons. I'd also like to add that during the Assault weapons ban, AR-15's and AK variants were still widely available with the same capacity pre ban magazines. The only difference was certain features were removed from the rifles to make them comply with the ban. Functionally they were the same weapons. The Assault weapons ban did not change crime at all. As it stands you have a greater likelihood of being struck by lightning than you do of being caught up in a crime where a media designated "assault weapon" was used. We're not putting lightning rods on every house in america, and likewise we should not blame an inanimate object because of how one person uses it. One person with a CCW could have thwarted the shooting in Colorado, but you refuse to see that. Bury your head in the sand and let who ever is blowing the trumpet march you right through the gates of oppression and always remember that gate only opens one way.
DJ (like the initials, BTW)...
Rex didn't say he would forbid "semi auto pistols"... He said, "semiautomatic pistols with high capacity ammunition clips"... You know, like the one used against Gabby Giffords in Tucson...
The normal clip for that pistol carries 10 rounds, so the maximum shots would be 11, with one in the chamber, but with an expanded clip, he shot 31 rounds, tripling the danger for those people...
You should NEVER need 31 shots for defending yourself or others, unless you're in a war zone or blind as a bat, which would not indicate having a pistol is a good idea... The only reason for such a clip is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time...
Its none of your business how many rounds I need in my magazine. I don't know where you pulled that "normal pistol clip" number from but you're so ignorant its not even funny. Lets take a fairly common handgun, a glock 17. Oddly enough, it comes standard with a 17 round magazine thus allowing me to carry a maximum of 18 rounds if I so choose. Now for the sake of argument lets say Im carrying an extra magazine with me. Now I have 35 rounds at my disposal when ever I need them. Average time it takes someone proficient in firearms to change out a magazine on a modern handgun? About a second and a half. You really think that second and a half is going to make one bit of difference before I can access those 17 extra rounds I brought to the gun fight? In some crazy scenario, maybe. In reality, not at all. Your argument is totally invalid.
Not invalid at all. Remember in the Tucson shooting rampage, the reason Loughner was taken down was because he had to stop shooting long enough to reload. And a ten round magazine is standard for most handguns.
No Haddie I am afraid you're wrong, my browning Hi power that I carry every day carries 13+1. My brother's Glock 19 holds 15+1 and my Fathers XDM holds 19+1. All standard carry hand guns.
Think about it this, what if a good citizen carrying concealed had shot Jarred Lee soon as he opened fire on the crowd. Suddenly those 30 rounds in his magazine don't mean a thing with a sucking chest wound.
No Haddie is not wrong the average magazine capacity for handguns is usually 10 or less and generally no more than 12. That doesn't mean that is true for all hence the "most" or "average" terminology.
Next the entire idea that just because one has a gun that they will use it successfully. If there were more people with guns in the Aurora theatre it's more likely more would have been injured bystanders contrary to your claim. You fail to factor in fear and stress which drops shooter accuracy significantly and can be even as much as 50%. Next different guns have different distance and accuracy. You're forgetting about the dark and the panic if you had a gun in that theatre I would imagine it would be possible to get a clear shot that would not injure anyone unnecessarily without being shot first. People seem to think if you have a gun suddenly your the last action hero, commando person..........
You can talk about how you can carry 30 rounds for your glock or whatever and how fast people brag they can reload....which is funny since no one's talking about multiple clips that add up to 30 it's about the single magazines to begin with...No matter what you have to reload and while you are reloading I'm still the crazy person shooting at you with a 100 round drum so I'd don't have to which gives me the advantage. Furthermore if you have to reload it will have to be behind cover, in order to get a single kill shot you will have to expose yourself to the guy who's still be firing this whole time. You'd be pinned down.
Get real it's not a video game or a movie. Oh and lets not forget Colorado does not have strict gun control laws meaning that everyone in the auditorium had/have ample opurtunity to access guns and concealed weapons permits so to argument that this happened because of little access to guns is laughable.
30 rounds 100 rounds, it only takes 1 round to kill you.
Be more afraid of a person with a single shot sniper rifle, than some crazy loon with 6000 rounds and a AR-15.
Remember about 10 years ago in DC, the dude and his friend shooting people.
Laying in the trunk of a car with sniper rifles.
Fact is machine guns are not that accurate, the MG-42 WWII has a 1200 rounds a minute cycle rate, yet is not accurate at all, in fact after a few burst you need to change the barrel out to continue.
The best effect of the MG-42 was the sound, it would put fear into the on coming soldiers.
As anyone who has ever used a gun or went hunting knows the more rounds you have the better your chances are to hit anything. This is 2012 not 1812 and unlike the past few can get a kill in 1 shot because ammunition is cheap and easy to get so you don't have to worry about wasting ammunition so few will hone their shooting skills, they will just spray the target. I and my friends only used single shot weapons to hunt with because we liked the challenge of only having 1 shot to get our meat.
I live in a ban state and just built an AR-15. I sawed my bayonet lug off changed the flash hider to a compensator slipped in a pre-ban high cap magazine and viola. It walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. Any new ban would do exactly what the pols want it to do and that is to lull the gulible sheep into thinking that all is well. Fact is there are tens of millions of big spooky guns built prior to 1994 still in circulation and many more pre-ban high cap magazines that even people like me in ban states can still buy and possess legally!
Why don't we begin to address the real problem with guns in this country and that being our rampant love affair with them in TV and movies. A constant barrage of gang bang wannabes in music videos. Our so called sports heroes continually being caught up in the lifestyle of a banger, splashed across the media. And really lets be honest about what the true underlying problem with violence in America, that being the vast divide between the haves and have nots. Areas with stiff gun laws such as Detriot and Washington DC have high gun violence because of the level of poverty in those areas. An opposite would be New Hampshire or Vermont. Both states have very lax gun laws yet have low gun crime, they also do not have areas of crushing poverty. Look at Canada, Switzerland and Japan, low crime, low poverty rates.
A new assault weapons ban would do nothing.
Wrong again. The bangers started when Reagan started his war on drugs which increased the cost of street drugs from a few bucks to big money and drug dealers banded together to protect their drug dealing area's. Reagan lifting the gun restrictions in the 70's and 80's made it easier for gang members to get guns, if you had bothered to research you would have seen how gun violence increased in the late 70's early 80's to the street wars of the 90's and beyond. Reagan later changed his mind after being shot and made a half assed attempt at gun bans but by then it was to little to late. No one has made the claim gun bans would stop a thing but as we saw during the gun bans under Clinton gun violence decreased.
The M1911 .45 caliber Colt pistol used by the U.S. Army had a 7 round detachable box magazine. The .45 became popular after the Filipino war because the .38 revolver did not always have the stopping power against charging attackers with "bolos" in an ambush jungle situation. The U.S. Army also came up with a .45 caliber revolver. The .38 came back into favor because of the mass mobilization of WW II. .38's were easier to handle for the non-gun enthusiast who simply had to have a personal defense weapon. Airborne troops, tankers, aircrew and pilots, and rear security troops had a mix of .45 Colts and .38 revolvers. Also popular were short .30 caliber M-1 carbines that were capable of full automatic fire of which about 6 million were produced and used in WW II, Korea, and into Vietnam.
British Army experiences generally run close to American experiences. The British in WW I had a .455 Webley revolver that was rugged and heavy. The problem was it took lots of shooting time at the range to be accurate with it. Busy officers had no such time allowance. The British military found that training hundreds of thousands of soldiers en mass with a .455 Webley was completely impractical so they went to the .38 caliber round. Both Webley and Smith and Wesson made revolvers for the British Army. The British armored car and tanker soldiers quickly learned that their .38 caliber revolver needed to have the hammer filed down or else crew members climbing in and out of tight confined spaces could have tragic results. The Canadian Army and the British airborne units used .38 caliber revolvers because they were the ideal personal defense weapon for aircrews, tankers, airborne troops, and other soldiers with special jobs. Most men could be quickly trained on the .38 caliber. The revolvers were tough and at close range lethal but most importantly the light weight made them more practical and easier to use. Both the American Army and the British Army liked the .38 revolver because it nearly always worked and was much more tolerant of dirt because it was mechanical it never jammed like .45 caliber pistols will do if not properly maintained. .38 revolvers and perhaps some .357 magnum revolvers were used by pilots, security police, and sniper teams that like the mechanical reliability of a revolver. Semiautomatics jam and when you are in a personal defense situation after bailing out of an aircraft jamming is a very bad thing.
There is a wisdom here that needs to be imparted. The most popular type of firearm for personal defense is a snub nosed .38 caliber pistol. .357 magnums are also popular. Smith and Wesson, Taurus, Ruger and other firearms companies sell various types of snub nosed internal hammer revolvers typically 5 rounds. Women especially are buying these types of simple firearms for protection. The mechanical revolver does not jam and its very simplicity is its strongest virtue. Most personal defense situations will be at bad breath range. Typically such events end suddenly and violently in a couple of rounds where one or both parties are either killed or permanently maimed.
These events happen so unexpectedly that having that extra 15 round clip in your semiautomatic Glock won't save you. A woman with her 5 shot or 6 shot .38 snub nosed revolver that she shoots regularly and proficiently will save herself rather than having a semiautomatic that jams when not cleaned constantly. The same is true for men only men get conned by firearms manufacturers into thinking they must spend more money on semiautomatic weapon with a large capacity clip when in reality you don't have any justification for it. But a fool and his money are soon parted.
I go back to my original statement unless you are in the military or law enforcement why do you need a Glock 9mm with a 30 round clip? No civilian needs an AK-47 or an AR-15 assault rifle for deer hunting or self defense. We do have a serious problem with these gun massacres with semiautomatic weapons with large capacity clips. Columbine, Luby's in Texas, the Aurora massacre, Tucson, and many others all had one common feature: these semiautomatics with high capacity clips allowed a gunman to fire off a large number of rounds, in some cases hundreds of rounds, before the police could even arrive. Here is my question: What did those innocent bystanders in any of these massacre cases do to deserve the horrendous punishment of being shot or maimed while going through regular life events?
Whomitmayit was Nixon that started the war on drugs, it was not the increase in the price of drugs that started the banger movement, strangely it was the reduction in the price, specifically the introduction of crack cocaine which ravaged the poorer inner cities. Reagan did eliminate the restrictions of interstate sales of rifles and shotguns, no changes to handgun laws. Gun violence has steadily decreased in America since the 1990's despite the assault weapons ban and its expiration and with the relaxation of concealed carry permitting. So it appears that gun laws either pro or con has had little effect on gun crime in America.
Wrong Nixon had his law and order platform that made drug use illegal but it was under Reagans war on drugs that went after the dealers supposedly, the king pin law comes to mind. That you refuse to see that the gun bans of the 90's and the decrease in gun violence shows you are ignoring facts. What it boils down to is you are not willing to go through the hoops and loops required to make it harder for insane people to get their hands on weapons.
What "gun bans"? Aside from the asethetic assault weapons ban there were no other bans. Did I miss something? What facts? Where are the facts that show any gun law has ever had an effect on gun violence in this country?
Well try google and stay away from NRA sites and you might find your answers. When Clinton banned assult weapons he also banned over sized clips, the clip size was limited to 10 rounds and even you made the claim that gun violence went down in the 90's. So what you are playing is ignore the facts.
As anyone who has ever used a gun or went hunting knows the more rounds you have the better your chances are to hit anything.
The max a hunting rifle/shotgun can have in the clip/magazine is 3 rounds.
If you can't hit what you are shooting at in 3 trys, then you need to stop hunting.
Whom:
Let me make sure I have this right...according to you, Nixon made drug use illegal. That means that before Nixon, it was legal to use drugs.
I can tell that you have definitely been using some serious drugs if you believe that...
just saying...
Yep typical re reg nonsense here is a clue where I live 5 round clips are allowed with 1 in the chamber. Shotguns same deal. The funny thing about your post is you are stating there is no need for larger clips because your state only allows 3 rounds to hunt with so your whole argument that larger clips are needed you just showed they are not.
No State allows 5 rounds in a clip/magazine when hunting.
If so please name the states.
Next how about thsoe country's that have no gun laws.
Ho...
are you insinuating that Whom does not know what he is talking about or even worse, might have lied just to try and make a point?
(sarcasm starts)No way...not him...he is a true bastion of honesty...(sarcasm ends)
just saying...
Well we know you don't know what you are saying because you always claim that you are saying nothing but instead spreading misinformation with your Glen Beck tag line capt re reg.
oh...its a Glen Beck tag line now...before it was Capt America...or somebody..I wish you would make your mind up.
just saying...
No list of states that allow 5 rounds in a hunting rifle.
So what state do you live in anyway?
And what do you hunt?
I gave up hunting helpless animals and started hunting trolls, its more entertaining watching them dance and spin everything when they know they have nothing.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10366_37141_37706-31578--,00.html
Read it and weep.
David: Here is a very good reason for having normal capacity mags.
I carry 4 15 round mags, +1 in the chamber. Safety off and cocked. Anything else and you might as well lock it in a safe at home disassembled. Your idea would force me to carry magazines all over my body, and in summer that would be horribly uncomfortable.
It isn't just how much ammo, it is the types of ammo. The bad guys don't tell you how, and where they will attack, so you need to have the ammo for the job at hand. Check out the youtube video in arizona of the nice tight 9mm shot group, center mass drivers head, and none got through the windshield.
31 rounds is barely enough to get the job done if you are being attacked by 24 thugs.
Rex in minn: Civilians don't have AK-47's, those are fully automatic weapons.
But any patriot should have them because the government has and will use them on us.
military style weapons have no business In the hands of the public-- period!!!
Of course they do. The Second Amendment was put in place so that the government always knew who they worked for. If they have guns pointed at us, we should have the same guns pointed right back.
tell me k/ommando, when will the government turn against us ? Give me a time frame and evidence so that I may also be privy to your info
It doesn't matter when they will turn against or even if they will ever turn against us. The deterrent must always be present. You don't get rid of your health insurance because you don't plan on getting sick. The same way we're not going to surrender the guns that politicians find scary just because they don't plan on restricting our freedoms right now.
I can tell you that you'll have brother turn against brother, families against families and even possibly state against state. But that is way down the road in the future as things are being pushed more and more by those that strongly oppose gun control just like in the wild west.
The wild west argument is possibly the stupidest logic you could have brought into this. Look at EVERY state that has loosened its gun laws and allowed concealed carry. In every state and I mean EVERY state crime dropped, and low and behold average people didn't just start shooting it out over petty things. It may shock you to know but the large majority of gun owners are rational hard working Americans who are every day people like you and I. Gun owners aren't blood crazed psychos looking for trouble. If things go bad we just want to be able to protect ourselves as we see fit. How I see fit to protect myself is none of your business or the governments. Educate yourself on gun ownership before you spout your nonsense.
To your surprise, I do have an small arsenal of guns: i.e.; shotguns pistols and rifles but that does'nt mean that I approve of military style weapons in my property. Also saw military duty over Southeast asia during the Vietnam war as to understanding the familiarty of war violence.
Not to my surprise at all, there is a wide array of gun owners in this great nation. Its your right to choose to not own or dislike military styled weapons and its your right to say what goes on your property. I have total respect for the choices of the individual. Live your life how you please. But please don't tell me how to live mine, and don't tell me what I can and cannot have. If we all minded our own business this country would be a much nicer place.
I gotta go to bed, gotta see my new girlfriend in the morning--good nite
Right here we go again with a John Wayne wannabe. Sorry but the country is not going to conform to you therefore you either conform to the country or you go off by your own self and away from all other humans. What is with you people who believe they should be allowed to do as they please without any restrictions on what they do. You know that is what criminals think as well. Speaking of, if the country did as you wanted no one would bother to stop criminals, after all if someone robs you its none of our business. Oh if someone rapes and murders your sister they shouldn't be put in prison because its none of our business. Oh and you shouldn't whine about your sister being raped and murdered either after all that is not your business either.
You do understand we're talking apples and oranges here. You're spouting off thinking that I want to live in some sort of pseudo-anarchic society where everyone is on their own. Though I do love the Duke and his westerns, that couldn't be further from the truth. Rape, murder, robbery, ect. are all against the law. Laws which I abide by on a daily basis. Forgive me for not being clearer, allow me to explain further. I believe if a person is living the way they see fit within the law and is not harming anybody but themselves with their actions, then let them. Its not my business what you do for fun, and its not your business if I enjoy legally collecting and shooting firearms. If I want to rip through a 30 round magazine as fast as I can at a mound of dirt on my property, why shouldn't I be allowed to? I'm abiding by the law and I'm not hurting anyone. If you want to live a different way that's fine, but don't tell me I can't live how I live because you don't like it.
However, when someone breaks the law, well that's why we have government. We put them in power to serve us, and when laws are broken it becomes their business to see that appropriate action is taken. The fact is criminals don't follow the laws. Murder is illegal and it happens every day, police are somewhat of a deterrence but they can't be everywhere. My Hi power can go everywhere with me. If me having a gun gives me a fighting chance against someone trying to hurt my family, why is that evil? If criminals know the average citizen can carry a weapon, crime will go down. Its been proven time and time again. Why else do you think mass shootings never happen at NRA Conventions, Gun Stores, ect.?
Kommmando - when the 2nd amendment was written there was no such thing as hand guns or assault weapons. That argument is silly. Assault weapons of any kind should be banned period and that includes any hand gun with a large magazine capacity. There is no need for them whatsoever...
ifor1 I must say there is something about the high cap firearm and that being they are pretty damn fun to shoot. Period.
Pat Trundle - while that may be true for you, it only takes one nutjob to kill a lot of people with one (assault weapon or high mag hand gun). Period.
Does that mean that the millions of us that enjoy shooting combat rifles have to pay the price for an extremely rare event?
Well here is the thing you mess, you have to prove that you can safely handle a motor vehicle before you are allowed to drive on the streets. There are no such laws pertaining to gun buying, to buy a gun you just need to be over 18 and be able to pass a criminal back ground check, your abilities or lack of abilities is never checked nor is your mental state of mind checked, unless it pops up during the criminal back ground check, the criminally insane can buy weapons without a problem as long as they have never been treated for their insanity.
I must say I got to give you that one. Don't know how you keep crack pots from getting a gun. Maybe not banning law abiding, legally licensed to carry individuals from packing heat in a theater like they were in the Centruy 16 theater in CO. Perhaps someone would have been able to at least slow down crackpot Holmes.
Now explain how you can tell a legal law abiding citizen from the criminals and insane. By making it harder for people to get weapons and ammunition you are also making it harder for people with bad intentions to get weapons and by giving them a longer wait they might change their minds or get picked up. Stop with the John Wayne nonsense, in a dark movie theater with people running in panic mode another nut with a gun would not have stopped Holmes in fact it would have made the situation worse because more people would have ended up shot.
Pat Trundle #5.15 One lost life is too many that could have been prevented. I see your point too for the many that are law abiding and only want to have fun shooting targets. But how do we stop that one person that uses a weapon to kill?
Why does anyone need a CWP? There is no good reason... Just because you have a concealed weapons permit (CWP) with a handgun on you doesn't mean you can hit the broad side of a barn anyway or when it should or shouldn't be used. This isn't the wild west anymore.
Pat Trundle #5.15 One lost life is too many that could have been prevented. I see your point too for the many that are law abiding and only want to have fun shooting targets. But how do we stop that one person that uses a weapon to kill?
One way would be to allow broader CWP's. people who get CWP's aren't people who are just going to be "bumbling" around with a gun. if you want to make someone earning a shooting certificate as part of the requirement for a CWP, thats okay. I can see that- most CWP's will have such certifcation anyways. but if someone if that theater had one, he may very well have stopped this wach job on Friday.
that being said, you can't "stop" the one person who uses their weapon to kill. of the hundred Million+ guns in this country, very, very few are ever used by LAW ABIDING citizens...and make no mistake- NO amount of gun laws will keep guns out of the criminals hands...they'll find a way to get them. always have, always will.
eduardo: TIme frame, New Orleans - Katrina aftermath. Waco Texas - Janet Reno. Ruby Ridge - first bush. Both parties are more than happy to shoot you.
Obama - now.
ifor: Are you nuts. I have a pistol from before this country existed. Wouldn't want it for everyday protection, but in some places it is the only allowed protection. And one shot is better than none. You stop that one person by putting a bullet through their head. Why do we need to wait 5 months just to have a hearing on this nut. 1 month should be all you need so you can get the dna from the mask, no one is going to id the joker in that getup.
How many were killed by an airplane? Why haven't we banned passenger jets?
gotoleft: But he had committed a felony, and that alone is enough lock him up.
He can't have written his shrink, and signed that he was of sound mind when he bought the guns.
@Ifor1
so with that logic then the 1st Amendment (freedom of the press) would not be relevant today because they did not have typewriters,computers etc when it was written
anyway one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment was to protect the citizens against a tyrannical Government
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Obama is one who stepped-up to the plate; lets see what other congressional politician will have the guts to do the same!!
Ever notice that more laws have never stop crime.
Marijuana is illegal, yet I can buy it in any city in the USA.
Prostitution is illegal, yet I can get one in any city in the USA.
Who said it will stop crime? That is a stupid suggestion, funny how you claim laws won't work for crime but laws will work to stop gay marriages,abortion, and peoples sex life. Just more repeat don't think.
That makes no sense what so ever.
Laws are to deter and or prevent crime.
And what on earth does sex have to due with nutjobs killing people? and gun control?
Laws you are the one who made the clam that laws will not stop crime yet you support a party that wants to make laws to stop people from having sex as well as preventing unwanted products of sex. But then in your twisted mind you can not connect your own dots.
No one is proposing laws to stop people from having sex!!!!
Right except the GOP deny all you want but we know for a fact that the GOP wants to regulate sex by their standards as we have seen them do time after time.
How on earth do you regulate sex???
The reps think all women should be bare foot, pregnant and to keep their mouths shut while they are slaves in the home. That kind of regulation. Relegated to the kitchen and the bedroom.
This is like having an old person legislate the internet. This administration has no knowledge about guns or how they work. I'll bet they think the AR15 is an assault rifle when in reality, it is not. Just because it looks like an M16 doesn't mean it's an assault rifle. This is going to screw a lot of legal and law-abiding gun owners over.
After all, the police are now not obligated to protect you..........I'm not joking......Look it up.
Limit the AR-15 to a 6 round clip and I have no problem with it. If you are such a bad shot that you need more than that best you find a new hobby.
If you need more than that for competitive shooting have the organization supply the larger magazines/clips for you. Problem solved.
@ ifor: So now we're down to 6 shot mags?
Pat - I grew up with a 5 round mag when I hunted (303 British). Never needed more than one. I got my deer every year for the 6 years I hunted and used are you ready? 6 shots total. I quit when a 13 year old kid shot at me because he saw movement in the brush even though I was wearing bright orange and thankfully he missed.
Now if you like to target practice which I know many people do form a club and the club keeps all large magazines in a safe place and are given out on the day of the shoot and then handed back end at the end. Inconvenient a little but that would solve a host of problems. This is just an example but if everyone put their heads together I am sure something could be put in place to satisfy almost everyone.
So, I can have a 30 round mag? I will gladly sign a form that holders people attack in groups of 20 or more in my area. I don't need them for hunting, I need them for thugs.
I keep 10 rounds of AP at the bottom of my loaded mag. If the first 20 shots don't do the job, I need more penetration to get the job done.
The only safe place for any magazine is in the weapon, or next to it for reloading.
So how do you feel about sound suppressors? They don't do anything except let the neighbors sleep while you practice.
Not to mention, this is blatantly unconstitutional.
Im glad the President addressed this issue, Red Flags need to be put in place when huge Ridiculous amounts of Ammo, Guns, Chemicals are purchased, also they need tighten up the laws on people that buy Guns legally and resell them illegally, its just common sense, the last time Red Flags were ignored when some guys wanted to fly Planes but did'nt want to learn how to land them.
There are already red flags in place, and for your information, the amount this guy purchased, from an average gun owner's standpoint, was not a lot......
I don't understand what else you want to do, selling guns illegally is already a crime, what you're saying is, every person who wants to purchase a gun legally is guilty until proven innocent?
How about Straw Purchasers ?
No what you are saying is screw the problem of insane people getting their hands on weapons because it might cause you an inconvenience and god forbid that anyone dares to stop you from getting what you want when you want it.
I'm saying, I don't care if they are insane, lock them up, or fry them.
You are the ones who say they can't be punished for what they do.
Being killed is not a little inconvenience to me. I don't know what is going to happen in the future, so I have to have the means for anything.
No, what we're saying is that if there is a greater deterrent present, it will discourage more and more would be shooters from attacking innocent people. That deterrent being, of course, other armed people. Notice how many shootings have happened in gun free zones? Columbine, VT, NIU, Aurora, University of Arizona, the list goes on. Now find a mass shooting that occurred somewhere where citizens were encouraged to carry their personal sidearms.
One of the myths pushed by right wingers is that having more carry and concealed laws will prevent more gun massacres. This statement is a complete propaganda statement so that large gun manufacturers can sell more expensive guns by promoting fear. The gun business has a basic problem in that most young people in urban areas do not hunt anymore. Video and computer games win over hunting nearly every time. Also young people do not have money to afford to go and shoot guns very often either. The point here is that most people who own guns in America don't shoot them very often. A few gun nuts shoot endlessly but most ordinary people do not have the time or the money to hang out at the range and shoot thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Colorado has had carry and conceal laws for many years but Columbine and the Aurora massacres happened anyway. I'll let you in on a secret: the bad guy always has the advantage because the bad guy can choose the time and place of his crime. The attacker knows the time and place of his attack and no one else usually does especially in these lone wolf cases. The guy that shoots first often has the advantage over the unsuspecting target on the receiving end. The person on the receiving end being armed is almost irrelevant. In an ambush situation the people in the kill zone are often dead or seriously wounded before they even get a chance to react. Carry and conceal advocates also have not considered the problem of being confused for the attacker themselves. If you shoot back at an attacker in a crowded public place who is to say that the police won't think that you are the attacker? How do you know when a guy will attack you when the guy looks exactly like everyone else in a crowded public? Imagine an armed carry and conceal person in the Aurora theater shooting back at the attacker in a crowded, chaotic, and dark theater? Is this the kind of society we want for our children to be raised in where the ghost of Wyatt Earp rides again only now we have assault rifles instead of Colt revolvers? Let's send $200,000 plus and 20 years of your life raising our kids to adulthood only to get them killed by stray bullets in a movie theater gun fight?
The military takes care of this ambush problem by putting a soldier out on point and by security patrols and endless guard duty. The soldier out on point has the unenviable job of finding the ambush first. All patrolling, scouting, and reconnaissance missions work on this guy out on point finding the danger first. The guy out on point takes a bullet or a bomb so that the whole platoon stays out of the kill zone. Those who are behind the point man now know where the bad guys are and respond accordingly. Knowing where the bad guys are is always the crux of the problem that carry and conceal advocates avoid talking about. Policeman face this constant problem of not knowing where or when the gunman will appear. You often times only know that someone is going to attack you after you have been killed or are maimed. Sorry, in the real world the guy that makes his mind up he will shoot someone regardless of the consequences always has the advantage over someone who does not know.
The best public policy is to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We also need to get rid of gun shows. We also need a large data base of gun purchasers for background checks. Why not start taxing bullets to the point of $10 per round? We also can have licenses for gun owners too just like we have driver's licenses for cars.
Does Gov. Romney have as much respect for us as he did for McCain. While being vetted by him he gave 23 years of tax returns.
Jenn, what's more tax returns going to prove? More of what we already know, that he is filth stinking rich? Add more fuel to Obama's class warfare campaign stance?
Typical response got your talking points and you are going to stick to them.
Yeah I see a pattern.
dad+mom123 banned, re-reg of multiple accounter mom+dads basement..
Wake up obama, holems did not have a AK-47, it was a AR-15.
Next gun control is hitting what you aim at.
I'll take my M1 Garand over both.
Awhummmmmmm
Nice what model do you have?
How about an 03A3 M1903 A3.
That's a real nice piece you have there.
Do you reload your own ammo?
Got a RCBS super rock chucker my self.
When you outlaw guns, only oulaws will have them.
Then we get the meaningless NRA slogan.
let's try some real history. Ben Franlikin went to France for several reasons and hardware was one of the reasons.
let the trolls look it up.....who knows maybe they will leave the Bachmann/Palin training wheels and ride like real grown ups............
throwing tea in a bay was a slogun.
actually doing something takes much more than a slogun...........
Franklin went to France to barrow money, and to show the France how helping out the 13 colonies would benefit France with their on going war with England.
Ben was the first secret service role model, He also kept the whores busy while there.
Just think how much better off we would be if he had lobbied to ban kites so the people couldn't have electricity. Electricity kills people, you don't need it to hunt.
3 volts is more than enough to run a flashlight.
now let's see where the difference between Obama and Romney is? took a stand on health care and stayed with it and now taking a stand on gun's and staying with it...........common sense is not Romney...............or a person that stands for anything but the buck...........
Then we get the meaningless NRA slogan.
Notice the country's with anti-gun laws, the only people with guns are the government and the criminals.
And the people with no guns get killed.
Look at the countries with no gun laws gee think for once instead of repeating NRA propaganda.
Here is a clue or two for you.....
Gun Control is a Myth UK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lil51T7UIrc
British Want Their Guns Back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=mKdBxpKqUvs
WHY DO THEY WANT OUR GUNS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4&feature=related
"Honey, can I just kiss you once. Next thing you know you're pregnant."
Name 1 country that has no gun laws.
Cue Jeopardy Music.
The middle east countries, something your boy GWB didn't take into consideration when he invaded Iraq, many African countries, like Somalia. Really you should pay attention to the news, well stay away from Fox because they make their own news just like you make you own facts.
Try buying a gun in any middle eastern country, as for somalia there is no laws at all as there is no government.
Next in somalia notice how has the guns, the bad guys.
many African countries, like Somalia.
Somalia??? REALLY??? thats your example of a "role model" for gun behavior??? with warring factions, kidnaps, killings, all over the place, by the thousands???
what about cities with TIGHT gun laws??? Chicago?? DC?? how are THEIR murder rates with guns trending???
gun murder rates are up in Canada, the UK...why??? because the government took away guns...and guess who are the only people who have them???
Well somalia is clinton's gift to the world. The people managed to take the capital back from the thugs, (using guns), and clinton told them to bug off. The rest is pirate history.
I dare you to take a gun to duebia.
Syrains wish they had guns right now, especially ones that work on tanks, and attack helicopters. No, there is no need for people to be safe from government attacks. It just doesn't happen in the modern world.
You can always tell where the target is from observing the direction the shooter is aiming. Well, at least for those that have their eyes open.
Obama Busted for Lying, by MSNBC, About His Support For A 100% Hand Gun Ban
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1fvwFvyJEE
I'd say it is pretty transparent.
It may not be apparent where you are heading when you take that first step, but remember a step at a time and you realize after a while you have arrived at your destination. Do we want to walk down that road?
Here's a clue...... or two.
Obama Civilian Security
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vKfL2ETnF8&feature=related
From Rules for Radicals......
The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin's speeches during this period was "They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet." And it was. — P.36-37
"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY,
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm
President Obama needs to tell Russia to stop making them.......LOL.
They stoped in 1959.
1st of all- thoughts and prayers to Ed and his wife...I wish them well in her battle with cancer.
2nd of all- its good to be back...
3rd of all- these comments by the PResident are misguided...1) it wasn't an AK...2) of COURSE he is right, that AK's belong in the hands of soldiers (our ENEMIES, since the AK is Russian made), and not CRIMINALS...but thats not the debate here- the debate is tightening gun laws on law abiding citizens...that is who Obama is equating "criminals" too, is citizens.
this scumbag in Colorado would have checked out, on ANY sort of background check. and if he didn't use an AR-15, he would have used legal, just-as-lethal (or more lethal) weapons. and an "FBI watch list" wouldn't have worked either...you can't take ALL evil out of a free society...sadly, you have to take the bad with the good.
They are only law abiding when it suits them to be law abiding. The president was not just saying ban AK-47 but all weapons that only have a military purpose. That you refuse to admit that if Holmes had only been able to get 10 round clips he would have not been able to get as many rounds off as he did. No one is trying to rid the country of all evil, except for the GOP and to the GOP the only thing evil is sex and the products of sex so they want to ban sex unless it meets their conditions, so much for your freedom nonsense.
You can not own a AK-47 in the USA without being a class 3 FFL.
So they are already baned, in the sense you can not own 1.
And again marijuana is baned as well, yet I can buy it in any city in the country.
In NYC they had a law making tattoo shops illegal, yet people still did tattoos and people still got them.
You have be 21 to buy booze, yet teenagers get booze all the time.
he could have reloaded. he would have come in with 10 10-round clips, and he would have practiced re-loading to be quick. or, he would have switched to his handguns, like he did when the AR15 jammed.
the problem isn't the guns. the problem is the person.
what you said about citizens being law abiding when it "suits" them applies to every person in America, every day. a normal person may choose to break the law at any time- speeding, red light, drinking and driving, any other form of crime they may choose to commit. do we ban driving as well, or liquor?
the AR15 is one of the most popular rifles for shooting today, period. just because it looks "scary", is that an argument to ban a weapon, and to let others stay on the market that are more powerful just because they LOOK like traditional rifles?
Whom-
fully automatic weapons are nearly impssoble to get in AMerica...they have been banned for commercial sale for 80 years. i think your argument (as usual) is misguided and weak.
Look who is back.
Missed you too, TM.... ;)...
I thought I smelled something!
thats the sweet smell of truth, xxx ooo...missed you too... LOL...
hey Catt....missed your arse....hey of all the teapubs that come here you are the only that stays with what he says. good to have you back and let's get it on.......hahaha........
Total estimated costs of the Aurora gun massacre could easily hit $150 million plus not counting civil litigation costs that are unknown. The gunman fired at least 100 rounds. We need to remember that each bullet that goes out of a gun in a crowded public place could have costs of more than one million dollars per round fired in terms of total costs for the public. This gun massacre is economic terrorism and a weapon of financial mass destruction that afflicts all of us. You have to look at the total costs of medical care, funerals, lost career productivity, incarceration and trial for the attacker and on and on it goes. I won't count civil litigation because I have no exact idea what this would be. The NRA is a great big liberal organization that expects members of the public to subsidize their crazed right winged ideology that contributes to gun massacres with massive public subsidies. Why does the NRA expect the general public to support the many millions of dollars in costs for the Aurora shooting? Medical costs alone will be huge. Lost work wages, productivity, and pain and suffering for families are all real costs that the public just pays every time one of these gun massacres occurs.
Here is a brief list of costs, based on estimates I have read in newspapers about other cases that will help illuminate the costs of this massacre. Remember the exact cost is not known but we need to understand how much of a public subsidy we give every time one of these gun massacres occur. We the taxpayers pay for all of this and much more too:
1. Trial for defendant could cost about $15 to $20 million: The trial for this defendant will cost many millions of dollars. Murder cases in Minnesota with a single murder can cost more than one million dollars in legal fees and court costs alone. We can figure 12 people killed plus a few others in critical condition who may leave this earth prematurely a year or so from now so we can all it an even 15 people who could die possibly as many as 20 could die later on from complications of gun shot wounds. It will cost at least one million dollars per murder victim to bring this case to trial. It is not outlandish to assume that legal fees, forensic lab tests, ballistic tests for each bullet fired, and court costs could easily reach $15 to $20 million. We also have to remember the other 50 some people who were hit by his bullets all of these people have to have their wounds and medical evidence examined by the court and experts. I am thinking that $15 to $20 million sounds really quite low for this trial. Federal help will be a necessity because Arapahoe county does not have money to pay for all of these legal fees. The county does not have extra money anywhere. I used to live in Arapahoe county and things have gotten worse since then not better.
2. At least $3 million will be spent on incarceration of the defendant. You should easily figure $5 million plus for a death penalty case in post trial legal costs. This defendant will never see the light of day. In Minnesota it costs over $50,000 per year for an inmate in the penitentiary. This man is 24 and could easily live another 60 years. 60 years times $50,000 per year adds up to $3 million for life imprisonment without parole. Death penalty cases will cost at least double because of all the appeals in the legal system. So if you want the death penalty figure $5 million to $6 million in appeals litigation plus 20 years of incarceration before any execution could even take place.
3. The total cost of medical care alone could easily reach a range of 70 million to nearly $100 million. Cost for the wounded are unknown but total costs could reach more than one million dollars plus for the severely wounded. Even people who might be okay now could well have serious medical issues that linger for the rest of their lives. Wounded soldiers at the VA get medical treatment for wounds for decades because medical issues pop up even 20 or 30 years later. There is a story in the Associated Press about one of the victims of this gun massacre in Aurora having a $2 million worth of medical care. This victim is uninsured and is accepting donations on a website. Let's figure a cool million dollars for each wounded person in this gun massacre then add at the two million figure for at least one third of the victims requiring prolong hospitalization. 58 people were wounded and figuring about one million per victim may actually be too low of a figure for medical care. We need to remember that many of these severely wounded people will never work again in their lives.
4. Figure at least $24 million dollars in lost productivity for the 12 murder victims. We have the lessor costs of 12 funerals at about $10,000 per funeral for about $120,000. Figure the life insurance policy of what these young people could have earned over their working lifetimes. We are looking at lost wages over a working lifetime of at least $2 million per victim. Let's assume the person made $50,000 annually and could have worked 40 years. This adds up to $2 million in lost productivity to the economy.
The federal government will probably have to bailout Arapahoe county and the city of Aurora. The 2012 budget for Arapahoe County was $332 million for a county of 584,000 residents. The City of Aurora has a budget of about $234 million for 2012. $505 million is the proposed Aurora Public School District budget. The Aurora Sentinel newspaper reported that the Aurora School district just went through major fighting over its school budget that had significant cuts with teacher furloughs, increased class room sizes, and reductions in school programs. So Arapahoe Country and Aurora are already in economic straight jackets before this massacre.
Now how can we expect Aurora to pay at least $150 million for the cost of this domestic terrorist attack? Will good old Wayne La Pierre get out his checkbook and pay Aurora $150 million for this gun massacre? You tell me if we can afford to have the NRA around any longer? Why is it that my tax dollars have to pay to subsidize the real costs of this gun massacre that could well reach $150 million? Why is someone's personal right to own an assault weapon more important than the real $150 million costs of this gun massacre that I am required to pay for? Screw the damn NRA they are nothing but an economic terrorist organization that believes in socialist subsidies for crazed gunman with automatic rifles. How about a $10 per bullet tax compared to the one million dollars the bullet causes to society in total costs when rifles land in the wrong hands? I just bet you that Wayne La Pierre won't be anywhere to be found when its time to pay for this $150 million gun massacre bill.
WOW! Makes way to much sense for the tea baggers! One round for a AR-15 cost .80 a human life priceless.
Do you think it would have been a smaller number of shots fired if the police didn't just stand around outside deciding who brought what types of donuts?
We may have to change the old saying.....
When seconds count, the police are there waiting till it is safe to bag you up.
xxxooo: No, we want to just spend the 80 cents and kill the sob.
But you got robbed, I pay 33 1/2 cents for my 5.56mm rounds. 6.5 cents if in bulk, but need the money for the machine gun if november goes badly.
he stopped shooting they say because his gun jammed.
A load of leftwignut propaganda on this blog.
Floater still floating around. Zing!
Propaganda from our little friend and re- regs.
See you have had to change Nicks lately?
Where are your other friends llike , stupidita & talliban & 56 panheadd?
Working their way back up the sewer pipe!
Hi TMom! Tell MD to get the BIG plunger!!!
I think that his friend posing as mom+dad, made him so mad & disappointed yesterday that he is taking a rest. He was thinking he might be a nice person.....and he didn't live up to his expectations.
I had to laugh about the press comments that the parents have lawyers. Why do they need one, they are charged with a crime? Duhh, Kasey Anthony's parents weren't either, but she accused them of rape and murder at her trial.
I'm sorry to say its a useless battle for now. But its a great plan by the NRA and the FAKE Tee Potty to get the population down after the default & famine and after those with enough ammo join the neo republican army they to will used to fight in some foreign land for promised meal! Do you think Halliburton will still be in business? Great service I hear if you like contaminated water and long lines waiting for your chow as you a target for the perceived enemy! Good luck future freedom fighters. I wish all gun owners would take an oath that they will NEVER shoot and kill someone over food and water. To late for oil..
Tea Party(FAKE) is a sure way to end this once great country. Wake up and vote Democrat!
Obama/Biden/Heitkamp
yeah, because the Tea PArty has such a long history of violence...all those mean, evil gun owners who go around shooting things up at their rallies...
no, wait, thats Occupy that's violent...hmmm...my mistake...
you keep going with your (FAKE) fear...be afraid of things that don't exist if you want to...i prefer to live in the real world...
it IS a useless battle, because your side refuses to condemn individuals, and wants to politicize a tragedy such as this, every time...you scream for "MORE GUN CONTROL!!!" in the aftermath of every tragedy, and then try to tie it to the tea party (Laughner, and now this bozo in COlorado), and you are 100% wrong every time.
Tell that to the over 5000 dead in Mexico some of them US citizens. Oh that's right you only care if the teapublicans can make it fast&frivolous in a witch hunt to discredit the president and his team RIGHT! FAKE PARTY FOOLS!
Tea Party and the Mexican drug cartels??? wow, now I really HAVE heard it all...what a completely baseless, illogical connection...no wonder I hadn't thought of it...
i care VERY much about "Fast & Furious"...i am shocked that it doesn't bother you, that Holder let this happen, they lost track of the guns, gave them to the bad guys, and let them go...that doesn't upset you??? you call that a "witch hunt???"...and yet, if it had happened under Bush, you'd be calling for the AG's AND Bush's head...
if Bush's AG let guns go illegally into Mexico during "Wide Receiver", then prosecute HIM as well as Holder...but the fact that you call it a witchhunt speaks volumes about where your priorities are- on POLITICS, and not on the safety of our citizens...pity.
Never change your twisted old ways huh! None are as blind are those who refuse to see!
hey Catt....remember Bush and the two border agents? plenty of politics there..........and.......alot to do with an open border tooooooo.........by Bush....
kind of the same principle Bush shows....when it came to the Ladin......
I will shoot anyone trying to steal my property, food, water, or my lawnmower.
But fear not, I will eat what I kill. I won't starve.
Tea party is this countries only chance. The republicans sure don't want it saved.
Dems and rinos are just fighting over who gets to be the dictator, We want freedom. That means you are free to live your life without fear from us as well.
What federal powers scares you so much if the government was follow them and not break the law?
I wish all gun owners would take an oath that they will NEVER shoot and kill someone over food and water
Show up at my front door wanting my food & water, let me interduce you to my 2 frineds Smith & Wesson.
Is that a promise?
Hamburger!
XXX people show up at his door he believes he is John Wayne playing Davy Crockett or some nonsense, how is he to know if they will be unarmed. LOL Typical tea bagged republican bravery on a blog.
Why don't you just give them the food and Water? Too smiple for you? How about some skittles and ice tea? Now that may be worth shooting some one./s/
Why are they called ASSAULT rifles? Wild animals do attack sometimes! Ha ha ha! When the day comes you so called law abiding gun owners come for my food & water you can have it. Enjoy!
I am sick and tired of my tax money going to subsidize the NRA. I hate socialistic costs of supporting the conservatives and their "2nd amendment rights" for assault weapons in the hands of the mentally disturbed. What's a load or crap, is the right wingers failure to understand the total costs of these gun massacres when automatic weapons get into the wrong hands. Weapons of war bring real war costs to the American home front in a big way. War zones can cost tens of billions of dollars per week in places like Iraq. Medical costs for the wounded are extremely expensive as they are here at home. My figures for this gun massacre are probably low at $150 million for the Aurora gun massacre. Its not propaganda these are reasonable estimates of the real costs we pay all for these gun massacres. $150 million for 12 dead and 58 others wounded will be the minimum we will all pay. Then there is civil litigation that will add many millions more to the total costs. Subsidizing the NRA is nothing but pure socialism. You don't seem to like these cost estimates do you Mr. Right winger? I think we should raise taxes in the richest two percent and all members of the NRA to pay for these damned gun massacres. Why should I have to pay for this gun massacre with my tax money. I do not belong to the NRA nor do I own large assault weapons with big capacity ammunition clips. So this is grossly unfair that right wingers expect me to pay for their gun massacres that their NRA/ALEC gun policies helped create.
I have a wonderful idea let's raise Wayne La Pierre's taxes and all NRA member's taxes to pay for their miserable gun massacres? Then we need a $10 per bullet tax on all ammunition except shot gun shells and black powder muskets. People don't want to face the costs of these gun massacres but they are simply atrocious.
The AR-15 can be converted easily to a fully automatic weapon. A trained gunsmith can get some parts from a kit and perform this operation simply and quickly. All you need are some adjustments to the sear mechanism, some machining in the lower receiver, obtain a slightly longer M-16 bolt, and you have yourself a fully automatic weapon called the M-16. Many right winged militia men have fully automatic weapons. You can also take a WW II Garand rifle and convert it to fully automatic fire or most other semiautomatics if you spend the time and money to do it. This stuff is not rocket science and many people like to do this stuff legal or not. I don't recommend anyone doing this stuff because federal laws are strict about this stuff.
Hey Commie....Its YOUR 2nd Amendment too.....FOAD!
Little JimmpG: You are ducking the question: Why the hell do I have to pay for real public costs that these gun massacres that your right winged policies helped create in this country? If you are trying to bully me it won't work Mr. Right winger. I served in six different wars including the Persian Gulf and spent 20 years on active duty. Intolerant right wingers like yourself expect other Americans to pay for their gun massacres that your organization the GOP/ALEC/NRA all help create. How does it feel to support a domestic terrorist organization like the NRA? Wayne La Pierre helps kill more Americans than Osama bin Laden ever did. The John Birch Society needs your kind because you do not belong in regular society. Just remember I served 20 years on active duty so little yellow cowards like you can spout your right winged filth in a free country. The truth is that the Aurora massacre will cost upwards of $100 million plus along with tens of millions of of other dollars we won't know the total bill for years. So we should raise taxes on all NRA members who expect other people to pay for their gun massacres.
I think a $5 or even $10 per bullet federal tax on all bullets needs to be immediately imposed to pay for the medical care of Gabby Giffords and the victims of recent gun massacres. Its perfectly legal for the government to tax things under the constitution and everyone could still keep their guns. We could maybe not tax shot guns and black powder balls for muskets that could be used for hunting. I think this is a wonderful idea that will send a chill up the spine of the NRA because if the public get angry enough a good stiff tax on ammunition will put the NRA out of business real quick. Besides Congress has the right to pass things like tobacco and alcohol that pose a threat to the public health.