.
January 18th, 2013
06:00 AM ET

Common ground: gun owners and Obama

By Jim Roope, CNN

Follow on Twitter: @JimRoopeCNN

Editor's Note: Listen to the full story in our player above, and join the conversation in our comments section below.

(CNN) – Gun owners and enthusiasts may not be on the same page as President Obama when it comes to gun control, but they are in the same book.

[:34] “I’m for a universal background check for everybody.”

Russ Bacon owns High Desert Guns in Minden, Nevada. He sells everything from pistols to high-capacity clip rifles.

He and others who attended the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, the largest gun show in the world, said that all potential gun buyers should go through background checks. That includes weapons bought privately from friends and family.

Some, like Billy Conn, co-owner of Las Vegas Gun Range and Firearms Center, would even be OK with registering their guns with the federal government.

[4:50] “It’s not a crime to have a gun and it’s not a crime for the government to know I have a gun. I don’t think the government’s coming after me and I’m not going after the government.”

Other gun enthusiasts say registering guns with the government is a slippery slope.

Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. And listen to CNN Soundwaves on our SoundCloud page.

Posted by ,
Filed under: Culture • Politics • Soundwaves • Stories
soundoff (537 Responses)
  1. this link

    I am really inspired along with your writing skills as well as with the format for your weblog. Is that this a paid topic or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to look a nice blog like this one today..

    January 22, 2013 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Jason B.

    Think about it, the government already kknows what guns you have, why would they need you to register them?

    They want the registration fee ~$200.00 per gun depending on what type coming from millions of Americans.

    You do the math. They spend billions of dollars internationally without a referendum or a national dialogue, get the country in severe debt and now we have to bail them out. Absolutely ridiculous

    January 20, 2013 at 4:58 am | Report abuse |
  3. Mike

    A universal background check is just full implementation of a practice already in place. I agree there is a fair amount of common ground here among those willing to concede that gun control has some place in the U.S.

    Registration is about as far from common ground as you can get. First of all, it adds a stigma to gun ownership and requires that the government watch you with greater scrutiny if you (legally) own a gun. Via this pseudo-bullying, it marginalizes gun ownership. It also increases the likelihood strangers can learn that you have a gun (or don't). With that, it's only a matter of time before a legal, reasonable government takes away the right to bear arms from a now-powerless minority that are fully registered and tracked. And from there, the stability of freedom will be weakened. Eventually, it will fail, as it has in the past around the world. I'm not talking about a decade, maybe not even a century (fingers crossed, in lieu of actual physical defenses), but the time will come that the people regret the decision to give up freedoms for a little safety. As with essentially every other societal problem, education is the key; this nonsense is smoke and mirrors. You can't force people to not do evil things any more than you can force them to love.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:24 pm | Report abuse |
  4. wskibum

    I think a warning label should be places on all guns "Shoot responsibly" like the booze that kills thousands every year, or how about "The DOJ has determined that shooting this gun at someone can kill or maim them" like cigarettes that kill thousands every year. Come on people, be smart for a change and put a stop to this show boat politics.

    January 18, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
  5. JamVee@hotmail.com

    Background checks, NO PROBLEM!

    However, I don't have nearly as much faith in our government as some do.

    I am totally against gun registration, because the Brits and the Aussies didn't ever expect their government to take away their guns either . . , BUT THEY DID. Down through history, governments have use such "registrations" to take guns away from their citizens, when the political climate changed.

    January 18, 2013 at 5:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kianasmum

      No please – please no – say it ain't so. Please register your guns. If you have to register your guns, those people with no criminal records will be discouraged from buying guns for their friends with criminal records. Think about it, if you were intending to buy a gun for someone else – someone you know will be doing crime, would you want your personal information on record? Come one folks – no one wants to take your rights away. They just want to make sure it's harder for the mentally unstable and criminals to get their hands on one.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kianasmum

      Really?! What are the chances of your government changing from a democracy to a communist or dictatorship? Seriously – that's polical suicide and there are enough people in the military who would turn on the government if they ever tried that. Please stop being so paranoid. Paranoia results in little girls in costume on halloween being shot by her uncle because they were mistaken for a skunk or that other not so bright boy playing a trick on his aunt wanting to scare her by wearing a mask only to be shot and killed by his step-father.

      January 18, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Me2You

    “You have the right to bear arms, but only if the arms are of the following list:”

    “You can have freedom of speech. But only on the following topics:”

    “You can have freedom of religion, but only if you believe in the following:”

    January 18, 2013 at 4:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Duh

      There has never been an unlimited right to anything. If that were true, you would be encroaching on the rights of others, as they have individual rights as well. Take the first amendment for example. You don't have an unlimited right to free speech. Forms of speech including slander and defamation, perjury, leaking classified information in an act of treason, false statements leading to injury or death, statements related to committing a crime, hate speech, etc. are not protected under the amendment either.

      January 18, 2013 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Andrew

    I am a proud American gun owner and I do not believe in gun control. We should have access to the same weaponry as the army so that we can overthrown the government if it becomes tyrannical. I should be able to wield flamethrowers, RPG launchers, grenades, and light machines guns wherever I go. I should be able to operate attack drones, construct atom bombs in my backyard, and drive around in a tank–it's my second amendment right! We have to make sure that we have the same armaments as the army.

    January 18, 2013 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • alpg49

      Are you aware that advocating the violent overthrow of the US government is treason. You're in the same category as al-Qaeda.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • alpg49

        Oh, wait! It's a troll. Sorry.

        January 18, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sam

      Just make you follow the law and keep them concealed!

      January 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • JamVee@hotmail.com

      Geez Andrew, you sound like a total nutcase!

      January 18, 2013 at 5:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mhuq

      Is the USA is country of savages? It's not. But somebody reading this treasonous comment will think it is.

      January 18, 2013 at 5:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kianasmum

      Thank you Andrew, as a former girlfriend of a major gangbanger in Canada, I can honestly say that our gun culture here, which is very small compared to yours, appreciates what you and others like you do. The criminal element here gets their guns so easily from the USA because their American friends will rob legal gun owners of their guns when they're not home or break into police cars, etc. – it's like taking candy from babies – you folks have so many to choose from. Or they get friends with no criminal records to buy as many as they can and smuggle them here with the help of friends working at the border or at airports. Fortunately, the guns here are mainly used in gun battles with the police, other gangs or targeted individuals who have gotten involved with the wrong people for monetary gain. Here, no sane person is afraid of a criminal with a gun. Honest, tax paying citizens are rarely harmed by gangs because the gangs want to limit the amount of police activity in the area – police don't work so hard to solve the murder of known gangbangers. However, the lone wolves – the crazy ones who rape people, molest children, kill people for their property because they need drugs, alcohol or because they're just mentally unstable and want to kill their ex-girlfriend, ex-husband, etc. you know, the ones you really need to fear, they strke usually without warning and usually..... without a gun (ie. knife) or with a legally owned one. I was smart enough to get away from that gang culture over 25 years ago and I'm smart enough to know that a big dog does more to deter someone breaking into your home than having a gun that can't do a darn thing if no one's home. I've never owned a gun. Honest citizens can get guns legally here too but they have to pass 1-3 courses on gun safety and the law first (1 for long-gun, 2 for restricted/hand guns or 3 for hunting purposes) before applying for a licence. This process is too time consuming for the mentally unstable lone wolf – it's much easier for them to get from an American "friend" if they really wanted a gun. Thank you Andrew for being one of those "friends".

      January 18, 2013 at 5:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kianasmum

        Oh and by the way, why bother protecting your property with a gun? You can hit the jackpot and get all the latest tvs, computers, etc. and even more than what was stolen by claiming the loss with your home insurance company. Let those crooks have last year's models – good people have nothing to fear. Oh and btw... as a woman who has woken up not once but twice in my early years with a strange man in my room, I was left unharmed because I wasn't scared and said the right things to make them leave – I didn't even have to report to the police, no harm done. However, that being said, I should have reported the incidents – they probably left and found someone else to entertain themselves with. Lol.... thinking about it now in my 40s, those thugs probably thought I was insane and had some std when I said, "I'm too tired" and turned my back to them saying "let yourself out when you're done". LOLOLOL!

        January 18, 2013 at 5:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andrew

      That was a reductio ad absurdum, folks.

      January 18, 2013 at 5:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kianasmum

        LOL!! Andrew! You got me! After reading all the comments from other article, I thought you were serious. I was. LOL!! My apologies – I will go back to my igloo and bask in the Canadian white north.

        January 18, 2013 at 5:51 pm | Report abuse |
        • Kianasmum

          I just have to put this out there folks – I care, I really do care for the human race. I just want to give you some perspective. In Canada, we too can get guns legally if we want but with our laws and restrictions, it makes it harder for bad guys to get them and why bother robbing houses – most people don't have one. They really do depend on their American friends as a gun resource.

          In 2011 – gun related deaths per 100,000 people in Canada 2.13. In the USA, 10.3 which means there's an 83% chance of getting killed by a gun in the US.

          We get unbiased news here in Canada and no one is taking your right to bare arms away. They just want to find a solution to keep them away from the mentally unstable and criminals. However, that being said – you'll never find a solution and a mass shootings will happen over and over and over again so long as legal gun owners have to leave their guns at home unattended to work, go to class, whatever. Seriously, the USA is like a farm growing guns – criminals just have to wait for the right time to pick to harvest.

          January 18, 2013 at 6:07 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Leonard

    I'll keep it simple for you. Do you trust the politicians that obama has appointed to to head the new gun control legislation for the saftey of our children? They represent the most antigun political extremists who have tried countless times over decades to take the rights of law abiding citzizens 2nd amendments rights away.
    This is not what they want, it is a political lever, a wedge to set a precedent for their agenda. Look who he picked to spearhead this! These are not nuetral politicians on this contitutional right, that might make unbiased decsions.
    The deck has been stacked. Give an inch, they take a mile. They mainpulate the moment and you for their own gain at the cost of your freedom.

    January 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Report abuse |
  9. shawn poland

    hmmm why was this deleted? did it not fit the current agenda??? i n f o w a r s . c o m /forbes-deletes-popular-pro-gun-story-linking-psychiatric-drugs-to-murders/

    January 18, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Nick

    I don't mind registering with the government but it is indeed a slippery slope as they will then know where to go when they do decide to confiscate. While not illegal it does raise the question of what the government does have a right to know about what I do in my house. If guns today, where will they invade our privacy next?

    Now onto mental health: what is the difference between a mentally ill person that suddenly obtains a weapon (regardless of type) and a police officer who experiences PTSD? The latter will have more firepower than you ca imagine, yet they'll be the "legal" holder of that firepower.

    January 18, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
  11. advocatusdiaboli

    "Well, our country was also founded on the principles that black men couldn't vote and were 3/5ths of a citizen, women couldn't vote, slavery was legal, poll taxes were the norm, etc, etc."

    Not true at all true: those happened to be custom and law, but nothing in the funding documents (Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, nor in the speeches of the Founders espouses those restrictions—those were common in EVERY society in Europe at the time and still are in many nation including Africa. I think you just hate America and are biased against her. Jealous maybe,

    January 18, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Steve

    They will never outlaw guns, it's big business for the U.S. Look at how many are killed each day with alcohol and tobacco. Yet they won't outlaw that stuff, it takes in too much money for the feds. and state. Gambling is an adiction yet they keep building casino's and selling lottery tickets. Yet yard darts hurt a few people, they outlawed them. A baby buggy pinched some fingers, outlawed. A child choked on a toy, outlawed. Asbestas in insulation caused health problems, outlawed. Thousands dead from drunk drivers, that's not bad enough yet, not outlawed. 75% of smokers get cancer, not bad enough yet, let'm keep puffin' away. A few die from guns, oh man, we need to change the laws to save at least one person. Aren't we picking at a branch when we have the whole tree to contend with?

    January 18, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • exlonghorn

      Are yard darts, etc., actually illegal, or was it simply too great a risk to the seller to continue producing them from a product liability standpoint?

      January 18, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
  13. widget

    What a pointless conversation. Don't like them, don't get one. background checks, bans, whatever. Just feel good motions that will change nothing. It's not like guns will ever go away in this country.
    What is funny is that some people seem to think that passing new laws is going to stop mass shootings or anything else.
    Just like drugs being illegal makes sure our country is nice and sobor at all times right?

    January 18, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Report abuse |
  14. John Deatherage

    How do you fail a background check? what's the criteria? an arrest? a misdemeanor conviction? a felony conviction? an involuntary psych evaluation? a voluntary psych evaluation?

    January 18, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • nomad2003

      first use a search engine for: florida questionaire for gun permit
      then read the questions, your finger prints are also sent with the completed form
      this form is sent in. data bases are checked, court records, FBI files...

      then when you do a purchase, the form has to done again and a call is made for another background check (you could have been arrested or a court order to stay away from your spouse or....) then you get to buy......

      January 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • JustinFromNJ

      Felony convictions, domestic violence misdemeanors, and involuntary psychiatric admission are the major ones that will cause you to fail the NICS background check.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Report abuse |
  15. asdljlk2lkjlkslk

    Background checks are fine, i fully support them. They wont stop true criminals, if they want a gun they WILL find it no matter how illegal it is. But it will stop some cooks or non committed criminals and that's good.

    I'm completely against a gun registry tho. The government should NOT have this type of information. The government should be in fear of its people, it works for us, not the other way around.

    I am for a mandatory gun safety course for first time buyers tho. Just a little gun safety would go a LONG way to stopping most of the accidents that happen. Its not like its hard.

    Don't load a gun unless you want something to die, don't point a gun at something unless you want it to die, don't put your finger on the trigger unless you want something to die. Lock up a gun when its not in use, especially if you have children.

    If you have children, don't just hide a gun in your house, teach them about the gun. Teach them how to use it properly, and to respect it.

    January 18, 2013 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      You should modify one of your statements, to be consistent, to "lock up your gun unless you want something to die"
      That would go a long way toward keeping something like Sandy Hook from happening. What if the mother had kept the guns safely locked at all time, and only she would have access, then her son would not have been able to take them and use them to slaughter innocent children.

      If the gun in your possession is used by someone else to commit a crime, then the original owner who failed to secure the gun should be held criminally liable to the same degree as the perpetrator.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • advocatusdiaboli

        Only if the gun owner failed to "reasonably" secure the gun—the same way you can reasonably fail to secure your car and be liable. Nothing more than that. And, by the way, the already exists in law. yet another example of peopel ignorant of firearms suggesting "new" laws that already exist but are not being enforced.

        January 18, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Krush

        Locking up guns when not in use is a very good idea. Still, even his mother's guns were locked up, the Sandy Hook shooter would have stolen guns from someone else or bought them illegally. The only reason the Dems want to know who has guns is that it will make it easier to disarm the population. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". Well, here we are looking at the first obvious steps of the would be tyrant, Barak Obama and his cronies, the Democratic Party.

        January 18, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • asylumet

      It really is a shame that more people don't view it like this. I agree entirely. The government and media have recently shown us specifically why gun registration is a terrible idea. They can't guarantee to protect the information any more than they can protect us and it can be used against us as a whole by the criminal element and by any terrorist or foreign enemy. It is not acceptable to further endanger our people to push feel good legislation. One requirement of common sense gun control would be the common sense part and clearly the administration has none.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
  16. saganhill

    Again, no such thing as "High capacity clips". However, there are high capacity magazines.

    January 18, 2013 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nabob

      Look friend, I'm with you but this is a pointless argument. It doesn't really matter what people call them in casual conversation. We all know what they mean and they really don't care that they don't use the proper terminology. In fact, maybe we should encourage people to use the term "clip" – perhaps we'll get lucky and they'll ban "high capacity clips" and we can laugh and keep buying magazines.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • Krush

        I bet you're the same kind of person that uses nauseous instead of nauseated. With politicians, the devil is in the details.

        January 18, 2013 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
  17. Beleef Syance

    I’m a gun owner. I have two hand guns for home defense. I registered when I bought my guns, I have the required insurance for my cars, I faithfully renew my driving license, etc., etc. In short, I am a proud member of a civilized American society that strives to keeps its citizens safe. A civilized society does things to ensure the safety of its citizens. Most of these safety mechanisms come in the form of government regulations, for instance, building codes for fire and electrical systems, air bags and seat belts for our cars, UL testing for our home appliances, etc. It’s wrong to think government regulations like gun control are infringing on our personal liberties. Many of these regulations keep us safe on the job and at home. Gun registration to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally disturbed individuals is not an infringement of the Bill of Rights. Neither is banning assault weapons for the general public which is the same as banning other weapons of mass destruction like hand grenades and tanks. These are common sense responses to a proliferation of weapons that will still take years to get under control – but we’ve got to start doing it, our civilized society depends on it.

    January 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jared

      Tanks are legal in most states if you can afford one.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • pazke

        You can own the tank, but not the guns and ammo that go with it. As soon as some lunatic drives his tank through a school wall and runs over 27 people, then we'll worry about tanks. I agree with Beleef. We have the right to bear arms, and the government has the right to regulate us. It's right there in the wording.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
        • nomad2003

          wonder if anyone would report a tank driving down the street?

          January 18, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
        • Joe42

          Actually, the word "regulate" has more than one meaning. It also means "in working order". If I were to say that I have a well regulated wrist watch, does it mean that I have placed a lot of laws and restrictions on my wrist watch? Or does it mean that my wrist watch is in working order?

          January 18, 2013 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
        • dan

          Well I have a friend that has a tank. Well not an actual tank but an armored vehicle from WWII has FFL for the machine gun on it. It is on rubber tires licensed it as antique vehicle and drives it down the road. Machine gun had to be removed in order to put it on the road. Has been in parades and seen now and then parked at the local watering hole. You can own a lot of things if you have the money and get proper clearances. He also has several other fully automatic weapons all totally legal. The problem is not in what kind of weapon you own but how you use it. Even tanks and machine guns can be owned responsibly however I would not suggest that just any one be allowed to possess these types of weapons. Nor do I believe that any type of gun ownership does not come with regulations and restrictions.

          January 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Khym

      You'll need to define "assault weapons" and explain why they are any different than the semi-automatic firearms commonly used for hunting and target shooting.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • klend

      "....our civilized society depends on it." You, sir, are the voice of reason.

      January 18, 2013 at 5:49 pm | Report abuse |
  18. Calvin

    It figures that a gun store owner would be all for background checks – they make from $25-50 per check in fees they charge! GUN OWNERS do not agree with this, GUN STORE owners might!

    January 18, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      They might CHARGE $25-50 for each check, but do you actually think it doesn't cost them anything to run? I know I was in the shop for about an hour when one was run on me, and the employee doing it was actually inputting information and verifying it about 15-20 mins of that time. So they have labor and (though I don't know this is fact) I'd assume they have to pay fees to either subscribe to the various databases or a per-use fee, all of which add up. They're not making a lot off each background check.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • john

        How about a permit to purchase requirement like Minnesota has. Renewed yearly or whatever would get rid of most of purchases by those not allowed

        January 18, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
  19. wellsbells

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

    i don't understand why they are still saying an AR was used?!

    January 18, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • pazke

      I don't care what NBC 'admits'. They are not the authority on anything.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      Enough with the tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense. It has been verified that all the children were shot dead at close range with your precious AR-15.

      January 18, 2013 at 5:36 pm | Report abuse |
  20. jesse

    I'm all for background checks (with the obvious exceptions). I think better registration/tracking is probably ok (heck the government already knows I own a car among other things, which can be just as deadly). The high capacity magazine restriction is probably not an undue burden on the 2nd Amendment, but the practical effects (as others have pointed out) are unclear. The assault weapon ban is another matter - the definition is arbitrary, and slope just a bit too slippery for my taste.

    January 18, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike in NYC

      Jesse – the entire thing is a farce for public show. "Assault" weapons ban??? C'mon .... the problem is most people don't know squat about fire arms so for a politician to say "lets ban assault weapons and everyone will be safe" is just ridiculous. I have a Remington deer hunting rifle that is fully compliant with the proposed ban that is FAR more powerful/lethal than the AR-15 that everyone is soooooo freaked out about. The AR-15 LOOKS mean so it has become the poster child for the assault weapons ban bandwagon.

      As for "high capacity" clips. The effect of banning anything higher than a 10 round clip will affect more than military STYLE weapons. I have a Ruger SR40 handgun that is manufactured with a 15+1 (15 in the clip – 1 in the chamber) capacity. It (along with MANY other handguns) would automatically become illegal. So for those who say this has nothing to do with removing handguns from the people are being disingenuous at best.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • markthefile

        MIKE IN NYC: One of the reasons there is so much flack in these posts about 'rednecks, hillbilly, etc.' is due to the fact that people responding are not quoting FACTS, but they continue to say that the guns they own will be illegal. You have done that in your post. AND THIS IS NOT TRUE! I really wish people would ACTUALLY READ what the proposal says. The guns you NOW OWN would NOT BE ILLEGAL, you just have to go through a background check (if you haven't already), and register your guns. Too many people are NOT READING THE FACTS AND JUST YELLING AND SCREAMING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TAKE THEIR WEAPONS AWAY. This is what is so da*** irritating! Spreading falsehoods. The more you say it, the more people believe it without doing a check on the facts for themselves. This in turn leads those who DO KNOW THE FACTS to lash out and call others names.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
        • Mike in NYC

          Well Mark – having lived my entire life in NY I doubt anyone will ever call me a redneck – so I'm not concerned about that. You are incorrect in one respect. IF the proposed limit on magazine capacity is put into effect then IF I were to fully load my Ruger it would be in violation of the law. So yes ... limiting magazine capacity WILL effect handgun owners.

          January 18, 2013 at 3:27 pm | Report abuse |
        • GeorgeN

          The reason any kind of gun control makes law-abiding gun owners nervous is because of the words of those that advoate it:

          "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
          Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
          The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

          I believe in telling the truth and I don't want to live in a "Socialist America"

          " If I had my way, sporting guns would be strictly regulated, the rest would be confiscated"
          Democrat and House Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi (b. 1940)

          If I could have banned them all...I would have!
          Diane Feinstein (b. 1933)
          Gun owner with concealed carry permit
          Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995

          Waiting periods are only a step.
          Registration is only a step.
          The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.
          Janet Reno

          "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. "
          US Senator Diane Feinstein
          Gun owner with concealed carry permit
          60 Minutes episode

          So, don't try to tell me that registration of all guns does not have a more sinister purpose.

          malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

          January 18, 2013 at 5:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Diraphe

      You don't register your car for safety reasons. Its so they know who to tax.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:33 pm | Report abuse |
  21. DigitusImpudicus

    If all the gun violence stopped... what would the media have to sensationalize?

    January 18, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • datruth

      they would go back to making fun of the ignorant gun-nuts for their other traits, being toothless in-bred white trash. They provide ample material

      January 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • John

        You son are and ignorant inflammatory Troll with too much time on your hands.....Go play with your sisters dolls and enjoy the made up Utopia you live in. Now leave us grownups to talk.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike in NYC

      They would start sensationalizing knife violence ... or blunt instrument violence.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • pazke

      GMO foods.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
  22. John

    Why do so many of you refer to gun owners as "Whacked out....Crazy...paranoid..ect..ect..."

    Do none of you realize that what is happening here is the same as if they were trying to ammend or change "Freedom Of Speach"? if we allow these changes to be so easy it sets precidense.

    have you stopped to think that for many of us it has less to do with the guns and more to do with the Constitution and how easily this administration thinks it can change or limit it.

    January 18, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • JesterX212

      Unfortunately, it's that kind of point that leads us to think gun-owners are "whacked-out".

      Nobody, Obama or anyone else, has proposed amending the constitution of changing it. So when you keep making that claim, it leads reasonable people to think it's "whacked out".

      January 18, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • tyler

        wronng if they ban a single fireARM they have changed the constution we have the right to bare arms they didnt need to put what type and to step off topic i bet all those senetors and our president all love there sercuty haveing the guns that hold 25 bullets but we cant protect out selfs

        January 18, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
        • Nick

          You are wrong. Read the Constitution before you claim it is being violated. Article 1 Section 8 clearly states that the power to regulate "the militia", including weapons, falls on Congress.

          January 18, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lawless4U

      I suppose you're right................if you think the 2nd Amendment was intended to mean that individuals are supposed to be able to own guns.

      It doesn't. The 2nd Amendment was drafted when the US didn't have a standing military and the only means of defense were it's citizens in a voluntary manner. And even if it has come to mean that we as citizens are free to own weapons it surely doesn't give us the right to own semi-automatic weapons with 30 or 100 round magazines.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • schapkj

        The militia is still a part of the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR Section 10). It still exists. In order for there the be a militia, citizens have to be able to own guns.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
        • datruth

          We no longer need a Militia, tool. We have the Armed Forces, and last i checked, the british are NOT coming anymore.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jared

          The second amendment is the lynchpin that secures all other rights. Without it a government may become oppressive. Our founding fathers feared that and if you don't believe me just look at the structure of our government. It doesn't make for an efficient government, but it does help prevent a few people from becoming powerful enough to use it to suppress the people.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • John

        "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"

        NOTE the comma seperating the militia and the people.....they are two seperate entities in the same sentence....and it says "WILL NOT BE INFRINGED" where exactly does it not say we have the right to own firearms?

        in·fringedin·fring·ing
        Definition of INFRINGE
        transitive verb
        1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

        perhaps you can back up your stance with some substance...doubt it.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
        • Gene

          The Constitution calls for a 'well regulated militia' not non-regulated as the NRA proposes

          January 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
        • Joe42

          @Gene

          Yes, the 2A uses the word "regulated". I'm sure you're aware that "regulate" has more than one meaning. Besides the definition you used to mean control with rules and regulations, "regulate" also means to keep in working/functioning order.

          January 18, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
        • Nick

          The Constitution, Article 1 Section 8:

          The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

          Clearly, the power to regulate weapons for "the militia" falls on Congress. Therefore, regulating guns is Constitutional.

          January 18, 2013 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Stephen

        You are incorrect, the second ammendment does allow for individuals to own weapons. If you read it in context of the rest of the amendments, the verbage " the right of the people " is used in the context of free speech, assembly, and the right to bare arms. Unless the other rights are only applicable in a general national context, then it can only be surmised that in the second ammendment it is meant as an individual.
        Also the supreme court upheld it as meaning individually.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
        • John

          Thank you Stephen, glad to see another person who has actually read the Constitution join the debate.
          These folks are the crazy ones....

          January 18, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
        • Nick

          This is true, but the Constitution also clearly puts the power to regulate weapons on Congress. It is NOT unconstitutional to ban certain weapons. It IS unconstitutional to ban ALL weapons. That being said, I don't support banning ARs, and I think there are lots of other steps we can take to minimize gun violence while upholding our right to bear arms.

          January 18, 2013 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
        • Joe42

          @ Nick,

          SCOTUS ruled in McDonald vs Chicago that the 2A protects ownership of weapons in "common use". There are over 3,000,000 Bushmaster AR15s in the US and Bushmaster is only one of several manufacturers of AR15s. The AR15 is clearly in "common use". Tanks, aricraft carriers, missile launchers, nuclear weapons, etc are not in common use.

          January 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • datruth

      We call you crazy because you are more concerned with metal tubes then getting an education on the english language there, speach.

      lmao

      January 18, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • John

        Congrats....your lame comment provided no substance to the conversation.
        Move on troll.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • sid

      Can't yell "fire" in a theater, and you shouldn't be able to pull off 30-100 rounds either. Hey, guess what...my wife she can vote these days. Reasonable gun safety laws (i.e., "well-regulated...") are right there in the 2nd amendment. Gun violence will never be eliminated, but it nees to be reduced, and reasonable gun safety laws are one mechanism. I know, I know, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" rounds out the 2nd. So, machine guns aren't allowed anymore...are we less free now than when Dillinger and Capone were shooting up the streets, because we don't have machine guns? How about a rocket launcher? That's an arm...I guess I should be able to have a rocket launcher, yea? I'm not against guns, and by and large I'll bet that most gun owners do so responsibly, but the discussion here is all about reasonable gun safety laws, that's it. The big bad govmint ain't comin' after everyone's guns, but if you think so, then you've probably already got your arsenal stocked, so what are you afraid of or surprised by (?)...all your paranoid delusions are coming true.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Nick

        We need more rational voices like this to speak up. The Constitution clearly puts the regulation of weapons on Congress. The 2nd Amendment does not provide a mechanism for anyone to own anything. There are lots of things we can do to uphold our right to bear arms while reducing gun violence.

        January 18, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Really?

      The principles this country was founded on, are great as a foundation, but cannot be used excuses not to change laws based on society as it is today. Our constitution was written for our citizens in the 1700's who did need to arm and protect themselves based on the the way of life back then. Lets also not forget that one of the Presidents who used the executoive order like it was going out of style was the one in office before our current president. The previous administration used executive orders as a way to govern and change policies to their agenda. This current executive order is in response to CHILDDREN AND INNOCENT FATHERS, MOTHERS, BROTHERS, SISTERS being shot to death by very unstable indicuduals who were able to get their hands on these types of weapons way to easily. I own guns, but believe that there should be more extensive background checks and regulations, DEAL WITH IT.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • markthefile

      JOHN: Do you not know about all the changes that HAVE BEEN DONE to the Constitution and what it takes to make those changes? Your post shows your ignorance as to how things work when it comes to amending the constitution. Here's a little clue: 1 person, the President himself, CANNOT make the change! DUH!!

      January 18, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nick

      Actually, what they are doing is exactly what the Constitution says they are supposed to do. Article 1 Section 8 clearly gives the power to regulate "the militia", including weapons, to Congress. And since the 2nd amendment clearly states "A well regulated militia... right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon", it is unconstitutional NOT to regulate guns.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Report abuse |
  23. Calidip

    A huge disservice to sell a 76 year old first-time pistol user a .45 pistol. At the minimum, a .380 or 9mm and ONLY after the 76 year old has shot one.

    January 18, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      It really depends on his size and form. I'm 6'3" and can shoot my G21sf with no problems. I find that a 9mm and 40 cal are a snappy recoil vs the slow of a .45 acp. It's just a matter of getting used to it.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • datruth

      eyy! yar infrangin on cleetus' rights ter own a booms stik. all yer liberals with yar largic n reazonin mak me sic!! I cante understannn you, go back tar yer countrry, white power!!

      January 18, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
  24. Tynda

    Universal background checks sounds good, and I basically agree, but there are needs for exceptions. President Obama recognized this in his 23 points, which allows for transfers between family members. Under this, a family could purchase a self defense firearm and any family member could use it. Those with hunting traditions could buy and give a firearm to their otherwise under age 18 son or daughter so as to join them in hunting. Hunting starts at an early age here and the federal background check automatically denies applicants under age 18. But that they could not directly walk in and buy their gun is a good thing. There is a hole here to universal background checks, but a necessary one.

    January 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      You've always been able to purchase firearms for your children. HOWEVER there is and should remain a law that says the adult has possession until the hunting trip or range trip. Someone over the age of 18 should always be in possession of the firearms when not in use.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
  25. William Tatro

    I am a gun owner. I have been around guns since I was a young boy. I was taught to respect and handle them properly. I have a license to carry from my town. The authorities know I have guns and there is no slippery slop here. No authority tells me if I can or cannot own guns. I agree with the presidents proposals. I have no need to own an assault rifle or high capacity magazine and cannot see why anyone outside the military does. Common sense needs to prevail and the extremists on both sides need to be shouted down. calm deliberation and common sense please.

    January 18, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • bob

      Thank you for that. There are so many reasonable gun owners out there. I wish the paranoid, fringe group called NRA didn't get so much of the press.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gene

        I'm with you Bob and I cannot understand how so many of these people who fear registration have no qualms about listing their name into a NRA membership database the easily be hacked into or sold to the government they despise so much

        January 18, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • WC

      thank you for being a reasonable gun owner. i think the main problem here is that neither side wants to give in, thinking that "giving in" will be a slippery slope which leads to the banning of all guns. there are many reasonable proposals that we should be able to agree on, like background checks for everyone. lawful, responsible gunowners shouldn't want crazy people or criminals with guns either.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • keith

        -common sense needs to prevail...plain and simple.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      10 rounds is not "High Capacity", what this 10 round nonsense serves to do is make a huge amount of available semi auto pistols illegal....as a gun owner I would expect you to know that. minus some small pocket pistols and revolvers almost all modern pistols have a capacity of 10 or more rounds.
      beware the double talk my friend, when they refer to "High Capacity" it is not our normal definition, it is thier agenda driven definition.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jared

        Buy American made. I think most Kimbers have a 7 round standard capacity.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Report abuse |
        • John

          Yeah, because every American in need of protection can afford a Kimber right. Cmon man.
          All they want to do is make the Glocks, Double stack 45's, or other full frame semi auto's that folks are carrying illegal...That is all that the 10 round limit will achieve.....At least for law abiding citizens, once again the thugs will still have illegal pistols with more than 10 rounds...WHY..BECAUSE THEY DONT CARE ABOUT LAWS.
          impeding the right of the law abiding citizen......isnt that a shame.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
        • michael

          Jared, you're talking about Kimber single stack 1911s, which naturally have a capacity of 7 or 8 rounds. are you suggesting that we outlaw every other semi-auto pistol aside from the 1911? Outlaw only single stack pistols? Why 7 and not some other arbitrary number?

          January 18, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jared

          John,

          Glock will come out with modified magazines and it won't be a huge expense. As inconvenient as it will be, it won’t be the end of the world.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ruger

        They will make magazines that only hold 10 rounds if they don't already. Just because a certain pistol holds more than 10 rounds now doesn't mean that it will be illegal! I have one that holds 17 rounds and they make 10 round magazines already for it.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
        • Stephen

          Another thing to remeber is that the previous ban grandfathered in already manufactured weapons. I am sure the current one will also, so noone will have to give up what they already have.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Me

        @Jared....I do buy American made, it is call Springfield Armory. The vast majority of their semi-auto guns are high capacity. I about fell over when you said Kimbal I would but one of those crappy pistols if you paid me!!! When will you liberals get it through your slimy heads that it is about our RIGHTS!!!!! The second amendment was create so WE THE PEOPLE keep our government in check. In order to do this we must have access to similar guns that they do!!!!! If you don't like the constituion then you are free to leave!!!!!!!! I like my rights and want to keep them forever thank you very much!

        January 18, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Report abuse |
        • Me

          Correction, Kimber, typing to fast.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jared

          Nice of you to assume I'm a liberal. I understand the purpose of the second amendment, but if you are relying on high capacity magazines then you might spend a little more time at the range. It isn't the end of the world even though I don't think such a ban will curb violence.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
        • Bob

          Last time that I checked Sprinfield armory XDs were made in croatia, and the 1911 frames and slides all came from Brazil.

          January 18, 2013 at 3:13 pm | Report abuse |
        • GunNut

          FYI. A vast majority of Springfield's high capacity guns (the XD series) are made in Croatia.

          January 18, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mike in NYC

        Exactly. By banning "high capcity" clips my Ruger SR40 that has a 15+1 capacity is suddently an illegal firearm – at least if I fully load it.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lawless4U

      Well said William.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      How is it common sense to say what someone should be allowed to own? I own many firearms and they all have different applications. My AR15 with a suppressor is my right as a law abiding citizen. I shouldn't have to explain why I should be allowed to own it. The fact that I'm responsible with my firearms is good enough. I'm so sick of people thinking that they can prevent things from happening. There always has to be an answer to something. What if the answer is that people have evolved technologically, but not instinctively? Your ego blinds you from the fact that you are just a socially complex animal with language. We have been killing each other since we've been around. It's a wonder how many events don't happen. Just think of the amount of people we have. I'm 25 and have never been witness to a violent crime. I just don't think the problem is big enough to even look at. People are only getting the illusion of safety.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • oldprof

        I have a common sense question. You are a young man – likely with a lot of interests. The AR 15 is expensive and has no practical use outside the military – why do you want it? With a 10m round clip it might be perfectly legal forever, but why?

        January 18, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • datruth

      You should run for president

      January 18, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • markthefile

      WILLIAM TATRO AND BOB: Exactly! I'm so tired of seeing the posts from the fanatics about how their guns will be illegal, when that is NOT TRUE. If you are truly a good and honest gun owner, you should have no reason to balk at having a background check done on yourself, if not already done, and to register your weapons. I have weapons as well, but never will I ever own any that hold more than 6 rounds. That's just not necessary.

      January 18, 2013 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
  26. Rick

    How about this? Why don't those who want an "assault weapon" ban and high capacity magazine ban watch this video and then decide what you want? Maybe after you educate yourself as to what is and what isn't an "assault weapon" and what good it will or will NOT do to ban high capacity magazines you MIGHT be able to make an intelligent decision.
    Try it why don't you? Watch this: http colon slash slash www dot youtube dot com slash watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0

    January 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • WC

      The assault weapon ban and high capacity ammunition ban don't have to be linked together.

      If someone can tell me why owning a high capacity magazine is necessary, I'm all ears. The fact that it's fun or cool isn't good enough. If that were the case, I'd like to buy a Predator drone and some nuclear bombs, those would be cool too.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jared

        I don't think it is necessary, but I also don’t think banning them will do anything. I have a few 50 round magazines for a .22. It allows me to keep shooting without have to reload the magazines so often. I doubt any mass shooters have ever taken the time to reload a mag though. They just carry as many as they plan to use. It takes less than a second to change out a mag if you’ve practiced it.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
        • oldprof

          Tucson shooter was tackled while attempting to insert another 23 bullet clip

          January 18, 2013 at 5:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • Independent

        I will give you two excellent reasons:
        Criminals have them.
        The Government has them!
        Enough said.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
        • keith

          I assume you're a gun owner? How many times have you had to use your gun to fight off the government? How many times have you had the need to shot 30 rounds at a criminal? Hey, you know what?? If you're reponsible, and passed a back ground check, then have as many guns as you want. Hunker down and get ready!! The governments coming to get you!!! you better be ready to protoect yourself!!!

          January 18, 2013 at 2:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Chris

        You've clearly never loaded a high capacity ruger 10/22 magazine. You can blow through rounds very quickly while target shooting. Why shouldn't I be allowed to own larger magazines for it? I don't have to give you a reason as to why I should be allowed to own it. Fact is I don't break the law and I'm a sane adult. That should be all I need. Just because you don't see a need for it doesn't mean I and the many others don't. You can pretend this will make you safe, but I better dollars to bloody donuts we will see more of these mass shootings...even with lower capacity magazines.

        Why don't you look up competition shooting. There are people that can hit 5 targets accurately in under a few seconds. What this means is someone could take out 5 people in under a few seconds. They even show how fast those guys reload. The issue is people, because without them and training...a gun is a piece of metal/plastic.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • keith

          that's a good point. People who are responsible gun owners should be allowed to own whatever they want. Regardless of need, or if it's necessary shouldn't be an issue. Criteria should be set, on the mental state, and criminal history of a person, and that should be the basis. It boils down to keeping these weapons out of the hands of idiots, and people who intend to do harm to others.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        I've been thinking about this a lot lately, actually. For me, it wouldn't be how much lead that I can throw at some bad guy before I had to eject the magazine, which by the way takes almost no time. I think, for men at least, it comes down to annoyance at the range. Just like others have said, you can go through a lot of ammo at the range, quickly (which admittedly gets expensive, but it's my money, right?), and I can either bring, for instance, 5 30 round magazines, or 8 20 round magazines. Or even, 15 10 round magazines. The thing is, at the range, that would become a real nuisance to the person shooting. So, as lame as that may sound, for me it wouldn't be a coolness factor, but an ease of use factor. Being a responsible firearm owner, that matters to me.

        January 18, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • markthefile

      RICK: NOPE! Don't bother me with this crap!
      WC: Good reply WC – I'm with you!

      January 18, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
  27. Darkseider

    Background checks I am OK with so long as they are all drawn from the same database. Otherwise there is absolutely no point in it. As for gun registration that's a big NO. Plain and simple is that if you passed a background check and are not mentally impaired and not found to be a felon then the purchase is final. What's yours is yours and there is no need for any central registration or database. Plain and simple is that history repeats itself. Our best teacher is history and seeing how many great nations succumbed to the guise of safety and security to which point it became tyranny and tens of millions died. To think that this cannot happen here is foolish simply because that was the exact same thing that every other country and its' people that went through those trying times thought as well. Always be vigilant and never surrender your freedoms.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Independent

      Well said!!!

      January 18, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • ValF

      are you renewing your car registration? Do you object? Can you drive it with no up-to-date "safety inspection" sticker? Do you object? Do you register yourself with the local DMV ( Your driving license show displasy your current address. Right ? Can you drive your car with no liability insurance? Can you drive it been intoxicated. So what? Why one can not apply the same kind of rule to the gun ownerships ? What is wrong with that?

      January 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Well you see, owning and driving a car is not a right protected under the Constitution. The reason that the 2nd Amendment is in place is to keep that tyrannical history from repeating itself in our country, where the people were oppressed. No, I won't object to being required to register my vehicle. Car ownership is a privilege, not a right.

        January 18, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Report abuse |
        • oldprof

          As far as this nation goes – in 200 years the only tyranny has been foreign. The framers were very aware of this, an the whiskey rebellion. Both without a standing army, so the wanted to be prepared with a militia – now known as "National Guard". Where does the idea of tyranny within our government come from – only the NRA. There has been absolutely no action in over 200 years upon which to base such a charge. The NRA says "You've been lied to by the government" and that's true – Bush Jr lied about WMD to start a personal war – but not here.

          January 18, 2013 at 7:32 pm | Report abuse |
  28. keith

    i can't believe there are people here that are against universal background checks. If you have nothing to hide, then why is it an issue. If the system is streamlined, and refined–it shouldn't take up much of your time, and it's for a pupose. It's intent is to try and keep guns out of the hands of people that will do harm to other people with. WIll it be perfect, NO! But it's a step in the right direction. IT's the governments responsibility to put laws in place that can increase safety and the well being of ameriancs. Dummy it down a bit–it's the law you stop at a stop sign. Why, becuase if you run that stop sign, you coudl hurt someone. Putting a stop to gun sales to people who have no business owning them is a pretty good idea in my opinion. It's much broader than that, and there's a lot more to this debate. I'm not from the USA–but i have common sense–unlike a lot of people who post commnets here

    January 18, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Woody

      The point is that the Government has no right or buisness in who owns what riffle or pistol.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • keith

        oh man–i'm not even going reply to that.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
        • keith

          actually, YES they should have the right to decide who can, or can't have a gun. If you're a nutcase, or have had issues that should prohibit you from owning a gun, why shouldn't that person be stopped??? There has to be a line drawn between what is right, and what is wrong.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
        • Chris

          But Keith...they already do that. If you have been shown to be mentally adjudicated or have committed a felony you can't buy firearms. It's there brother. If the FBI checking you before buying a gun isn't good enough then what will be? The point we are all trying to make is that it doesn't stop there. Laws don't seem to just go away. They get worse and worse as the laws pile on. Eventually in 30 years you won't be able to own anything but a shotgun. Of course by then it's to late.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • WC

        Absolutely stupid.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
        • keith

          Chris,
          Does this occur on all gun sales?? What's this statistic i keep hearing about 40 % of gun sales don't require a full back ground check? IF you purchase a gun a trade show, do these laws apply??

          January 18, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
  29. Steve

    It's not the bad guys we are worried about. Drug dealers and gang members are shooting at them selves, leave them alone. It's the frustrated or cuicidal young person we need to lock away the guns from. Look at how many shooting there has been and the shooter isn't a gun owner. Where are they getting them? Mother, Brother, Friend.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      Yeah lets just ignore the 300 kids gunned down by drive by shootings from gang violence and focuson the 26 from CT. YOU'RE A MORON.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Chris

        He's not ignoring them. He's point out that the media ignores them. Dense much?

        January 18, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • oldprof

      One!

      January 18, 2013 at 7:38 pm | Report abuse |
  30. crodeo

    I just build my own guns. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAH!

    January 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      I think that brings up another interesting point. What happens when we find out someone created their own firearm to be used during one of these events? Of course it's already illegal to build your own firearm without ATF approval, but what then?

      January 18, 2013 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
  31. CBruce

    There's no legitimate reason to keep track of who *owns* a firearm. If they commit a crime using a gun, and you catch them with said gun...then you know it belongs to them.

    The only valid use of registration is to track where someone might have *illegally* gotten a gun. If you trace their registration back to the previous owner, then you know where they got it. And if that person knowingly provided them with the gun, then that's a punishable offense. That's great. We all want to clamp down on people knowingly providing guns to prohibited people.

    So register who *sells* a gun. If you collect a gun from a crime scene and it still has it's serial number intact, you'll know both who it currently belongs to, or you'll know where it came from and can find out who it was transfered to.

    The person who sold the gun no longer owns it, so there's no benefit for the government to track them unless the person they transfer the gun to is prohibited. If you own a gun, your gun isn't registered and the government can't track you. A system like this serves all the purposes of being able to trace an illegal gun transfer or straw buy and protects the law-abiding gun owner from having their personal information and type of gun they own in some database that can be exploited or abused...such as by publicly releasing a map with the names and addresses of all gun owners. It even protects the privacy of people who simply don't trust that the government won't come for *their* guns.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hawk83

      sounds good.. but guess what.. the criminal that stole my gun filed the serial # off.. now what???

      January 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
  32. Hawk83

    Okay so the right to bear arms is a Constitutional Right protected by the 2nd Amendment. Freedom of public assembly is also a Constitually protected right under the 1st Amendment. We have to get permits for parades... why not permits to buy sell and/or own a weapon. No one is taking anyone's weapon away, all I've heard is proposals to restrict high capacity mags and closing the gun show loophole on background checks. What I find truley amazing is how simple proposals to try an improve the society we live in together all of a sudden become a venue for wacked out, aggressive, gun owners to take center stage... Gotta love our media's drive for ratings I guess.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ax

      "why not permits to buy sell and/or own a weapon"

      Many states already do this.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      The problem is that these proposals(Not the ones Obama signed) to ban parts or certain guns DONT improve society. The problem is that it's just an illusion of safety. We all know criminals break laws...so why would they care if they are using something considered "illegal"

      January 18, 2013 at 3:06 pm | Report abuse |
  33. Al bundy

    I have the definitive solution. Shoot all the criminals and crazies. Then only the law-abiding will have guns.
    For those who are humor impaired, this is a joke.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • MartinR

      Americans gun and non-gun owners are actually good people despite what our media and the rest of the world would have you believe.

      UNESCO the UN data gathering group post yearly gun violence scores for each and every UN member country, and some interesting FACTS that the media has not reported can easily be looked up.

      If you discount gang violence the citizens or the United States are an incredibly safe and kind people, and our "gang free" gun violence scores put us in the same territory as Sweden and the U.K.

      The U.S. ranks #1 in private gun ownership, yet we would rank about number 153 out of 193 U.N. countries if we could solve gang violence. What does that mean? Well in short U.S. gun owners are safe, respectful, and not the nuts media would have you believe.

      While the U.N. does not like the fact we allow private gun ownership, their own research supports the fact that America does not have a gun problem instead we have something that is much harder to fix.

      Rampant poverty, Inner city blight and failing school systems.

      While Sandy Hook and Aurora Colorado create a media storm causing us to focus our attention on mental health, gun control, and other issues. We need to address our societal shortfalls on a daily basis and not wait for the system to fail.

      Things have gotten so so bad and we have become so jaded that the media barely report the vast majority of daily horrors that occur, because we have simply stopped caring.

      Every single day 180 children go missing in our country.
      Every single day 250 females are raped in our country.
      Every single day 27 people are killed in gang violence.

      Despite the fact the U.N. report shows that guns are not a problem in the U.S. we would like to blame them as it lets us avoid the real issues.

      I do ask that you forward this info if you feel so inclined, as it's about time the American people stop kicking ourselves somehow believing we are inferior to the rest of the world.

      But on the other hand that doesn't mean you get to slack off and let your elected officials ignore the real issues in this country.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rajin Cajun

        Well said

        January 18, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • oldprof

        US murder rate is five times UK, Australia, Sweden,etc, etc. You attribute that to drugs and gangs – but they have the same problems – just better gun control.

        January 18, 2013 at 8:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • ameeholvid

      lol, that's funny and people should know it is a joke, but you know it has gotten so stupid that there would be SOMEBODY out there that would take you seriously.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • maine liberal

      "Gotta love {the nra's} drive for money"

      January 18, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
  34. Ed

    What a bogus article. It makes it appear that both the administration and gun owners agree there should be a universal background check. That's just not so.

    To begin with, both of the comments cited are from gunshop owners, who already have to do background checks. They lose business to private sellers who do not have to do background checks. So of course they favor leveling the playing field. That's understandable. But it hardly supports a contention that gun owners support the checks.

    Further, background checks may make us feel like we are doing something, but it would not have stopped most (if any) of the massacres that are being used to support the push. The guy in Newton stole the guns. In upstate New York, the guy had someone who did pass a check buy the guns for him. At Ft. Bragg, they guy was a military officer. In Tucson, they guy passed. In Aurora, I'm not sure what happened. Did he buy from a private seller? Otherwise it wouldn't have made a difference there.

    Now, some might say a background check system might stop gun violence other than the big massacres. But, if that's the case, why are they trotting out children from Sandy Hook to display in the background?

    Universal background does serve one major purpose: It tells the government who has guns. And that is precisely why many gun owners are concerned about it. Say the government won't go after guns all you like, but many of us just don't trust that to be true. Many of us look at it to be akin to the registration of Jews in Europe in the 30's. First, learn where they are. Then go after them.

    Now, here's how you can get your universal background check: Make it part of the law that after the background check has been performed and the individual has passed, the government may not keep any records regarding the check. Not the name of the person, not the gun purchased, not even the store. Nothing the government could use to compile a list of firearms owners. Let the store keep records in case there is a question concerning compliance, but establish rules to prevent the governent from getting at it. Once you take away the concern that firearms will be tracked, you'll have a lot more people supporting the idea.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Fernandez

      With all due respect Ed that is a load of crap. I wish people would see that a universal background check isn't the 'one' answer that will solve the problem. There is no one answer. It is a very good and constructive move forward that any sane person should agree on. We should all agree on the absolute common sense basics and then go from there. Background checks should be an absolute given. And not being able to track guns? Why on earth would you not want to track guns? I believe the only argument here is how it can be done without letting costs get out of control for doing it.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rajin Cajun

        Spoken like a true liberal. "See, its all really very complicated. There's no one answer. You can't actually PROVE I'm worng because you don't know all the factors in me being right. It's so complicated that I can't get someone like you to understand. Just trust me." All I can say to that is "Uhh, na. I don't think so."

        January 18, 2013 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Zack

        There is a VERY good reason why the Government should not have a database listing all gun owners... The main reason behind the 2nd amendment was to give Citizens recourse against a tyrannical government.

        Think our Government would never abuse that info? Bet you thought the US would never murder a citizen without a trial too. They now can do that. They can also detain you without even admitting that they have done so and hold you indefinitely without a trial. Stalin ring a bell?

        Look at what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. They had an ordinance mandating that all firearms be registered. The nice law abiding citizens obeyed the law. The Mayor and Police Chief of New Orleans used that list to CONFISCATE guns from law abiding citizens. Amazingly enough, (sarcasm intended) they did not take guns away from the criminal element. Why? THEY NEVER OBEYED THE LAW AND REGISTERED THEIR GUNS! Imagine that.

        Disarming, or registering CITIZENS gun ownership will do almost NOTHING to eliminate gun crime. It will, however, make it much more likely for the Second Amendment to be infringed.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
        • Chris

          Watch this and tell me you have the same view

          watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

          January 18, 2013 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Independent

        I don't understand, is liberals heads so thick that they can not comprehend or absorb what people say??? Once AGAIN, they government has no business knowing who owns guns and who doesn't, I am ok with background checks, I don't think a felon should have a gun but the government does not need to know I or anyone else owns a gun. Just as the gentlemen stated in his post, if they government knows they can track you down and take them. I am not saying they will today or tomorrow but who knows they might in the future if you get a power hungry person in the White House.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:02 pm | Report abuse |
  35. Dennis

    Irrespective of what any laws are passed about guns, how will it stop criminals having any weapon or magazine they wish?
    Because of the scare that assault weapons may get banned, hundreds more have been bought in the last weeks. These would not have been bought if there wasn't a scare on.
    If the assaults get banned will people be able to use the ones they already have? Will they be able to buy one privately?
    Will they be able to sell on?
    Will they be able tp will them on?

    January 18, 2013 at 1:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • matt houston

      By this logic, why don't we let people do whatever they want since they are going to do it one way or another?
      The world is not black and white. Folks need to examine things in detail and understand the grey areas and come up with solutions that are appropriate for that context. Not just blanket statements like "no universal background checks" etc...

      This black and white posturing and ideology is nonsense and causes more harm than good whether it is the public doing it or the government imposing regulations. Let's try to be logical adults and look at both sides of the aisle in all situations.

      I like guns and think they are pieces of art and design. However, I don't own one nor do I desire to own one. But I don't care if anyone else owns them. That doesn't mean that I think high capacity assault weapons are necessary for the public or hunters. Those things are just to sooth the machisimo of many aggressive people who want to feel power...like a person buying a lamborghini...as if they are gonna be able to drive that supercar to its limit in the city.

      Point is, if high capacity units are available to buy...then they will be bought. Heaven forbid an angry kid should be able to get a hold of one of these things and come to school to prove something to the world. Lots of dead people would result. But if he had to reload often, the carnage would be not as much since police could take him down while he reloads.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Independent

        understand what you are saying but I still fully believe in our 2nd amendment and that we need to keep our government in check. If a child gets a hold of a high capacity pistol then the issue is with the GUN OWNER NOT the GUN! That gun owner should be held responsible. I use both high capacity and "ARs" on a regular basis because I shoot in competitions, there are even olympic sports that use the same weapson ant-gun people call ARs. The fact of the matter is they are not ARs, they just look like them, they are rifles that look scary but do not function like a true AR (which is already illegal to own in the US). If we want to keep our government in check, which was the whole reason for the 2nd amendment, we the people must have similar guns as the government does. I know all you people say it will never happen in our country, but I would bet pretty much anything that the people said the same thing in countries where it did happen! Also, if you practice for as little as a half hour, you can change a clip in less then a second so your argument does not hold that it will stop killings as much as you think it will.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Curious_G

      Hundreds? Try thousands.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • oldprof

      "a scare on" is exactly how the NRA operates. They say it's all the fault of violent video-games – ban them! Then the very next week they offer one for sale.

      January 18, 2013 at 8:55 pm | Report abuse |
  36. Steve

    You buy a fire arm according to the class of license you have. Just like a car. It depends on your training and ability to handle what you buy. Each gun has a registration and title and is taxed each year as long as you own it. You would have to have gun insurance, cost depending on what size and type of fire arm. Every year, for a small fee, an inspector would come and certify your weapon as registered and in a safe place. If it's stolen, you report it stolen. If it's damaged, you turn it and the title in for scrap. It doesn't enfring on rights. I should have the right to drive a car without a license or insurance or to pay registration fees. I should have the right to have health care or not. I should have the right to drive drunk if I feel like it. I should have the right to spank my kids or let my teacher smack them if they need it. I should have the right to free signals in the air but I pay for them. Owning a gun rights change because of people who use them to kill others, we're forced into rules not all of us like. Gun owning is going to become a costly privilage, wait and see.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dennis

      You work for the Government?! Go run up a shutter.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pat

      Does an inspector come to your house each year to inspect your car? What if he told you that your car was non-compliant and you had to buy a new one?

      January 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • Richard

        Try living in Tn, SC, and all the northern eastern states, and other like em. its already here.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
        • Pat

          Do they come to your house? Do they throw you in jail if it fails inspection?

          January 18, 2013 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • historysheltonj

        Actually, we do have to do yearly e-checks on our car in Northwest Ohio in order to keep our registration. Seriously, all the most dangerous things in the world have a lot of security and regulations around them: cars, airplanes, drugs, etc. Why would it be any different for GUNS??

        January 18, 2013 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
        • Pat

          Because I don't use my car, drugs, or airplanes to protect my family or myself from criminals.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
        • Zack

          Which OTHER parts of the Constitution do you think should be ignored?

          January 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • maine liberal

        "was non-compliant and you had to buy a new one"

        you dont live in Maine: yearly inspection 45 dollars, fail cant drive the car until it is compliant, cant get compliant than buy another that is, driving uninspected see you in court.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
        • Pat

          Move to another State or vote Republican. You get what you deserve.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          Steve would you like to spend $50k on a corvette and then have the government turn around and be like "well we decided this is illegal now" an confiscate it with reimbursement of $1000. you'd be madder than hell.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • CBruce

      You have no *right* to drive a car. You have a privelage that is granted to you by the state and dependant on their laws and rules concerning operating a motor vehicle on their roads.

      Your license to operate a motor vehicle isn't even valid in other states on anything other than a temporary basis. IE, if you move to another state, you must go through *their* process for getting *their* license to operate a motor vehicle.

      Owning an arm is an individual right, in inalienable right, one that every man, woman, and child is born with. It is a right protected by the constitution.

      Big difference between the privelage of driving a car and owning a gun.

      Suggestions that they should be tread the same are as insulting as suggesting that we should issue permits for people who wish to exercise their religion, to make sure they're not part of some dangerous radical cult...or to test people for mental health before we allow them to write letters or speak out against the government. It is antithetical to the basis for our country and the individual liberties that we are all supposedly born with.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dennis

        CBruce.

        "You have no *right* to drive a car. "

        Are you sure you are not brain washed- Why should any goverment be able to stop you if you are behaving like a decent ,responsible citizen?

        January 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
        • Mike in NYC

          Dennis – I guess you haven't looked at a drivers exam or exam booklet in a while. Right there on the first page in big hold letters it tells you that driving is a privilege and NOT a right. You have no RIGHT to drive a car. The state grants you that priviledge based on your ability to demonstrate knowledge of the rules of the road and the ability to demonstrate your diving proficency when tested.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jose Martinez

        Bruce, you are correct it is a right however, it is a right that should and must be accorded to law abidding citizens only. I am sure you wouldn't want any ex-cons purchasing guns and the only way to assure this is with a universal background check and I mean where local state and federal records are available, this way if someone has a criminal record in lets say Nevada he can't go to a show in Florida and purchase a gun because his Nevada record won't show up in Florida's data base.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • VEW2012

        The right to own a gun is not without limitations, and I think the last paragraph in the ruling states where banning some guns for certain reasons would be legal, and that taking measures to insure they do not fall into the wrong hands is the duty of the government for the safety of all law abiding citizens.

        Below is the Court's decission in D.C. vs. Heller – 2008.

        "In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

        The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand. At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights.

        The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."

        January 18, 2013 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Trebor

      Tax and register? Well that wouldn't work because taxing by the type of gun would be denying rights to those that make less money. This is not a luxury item – it is a right outlined in the Bill of Rights. The fact that news media can get information about who does and does not own a gun is already indicating that we have shared too much information with the government that cannot be trusted to keep it secure.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Russell

      Never going to happen. Just as the government cannot force you to pay for an attorney (one will be provided to you if you wish not to pay), the government cannot require you to pay an annual fee to own a gun.

      Even if 1.) anyone was suggesting your proposal and 2.) It somehow made it through a republican controlled house of representatives and a senate with over a dozen vulnerable democrats in conservative states who are not only highly gun rights sensitive but also highly tax sensitive, the supreme court will absolutely shoot this asinine proposal down.

      Also, last time I checked, there's still plenty of unregistered cars, and unlicensed drivers out there. Nice try though.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • pazke

        It should be noted, that if this situation were to exist (which I seriously doubt it ever would), the government would only waive the fee on the first registration. Any guns purchased in excess of that should be taxed and registered at the owner's expense.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Russell

      Also, as people have mentioned, this is an actual right protected by the constitution, unlike most of the "rights" you just espoused, which are not actual rights and could be taken away by law.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Independent

      @Steve....You are completely ignorant, does the constitution guarentee you the right to own a car or any of the things you are spewing??? Didn't think so!

      January 18, 2013 at 3:25 pm | Report abuse |
  37. brian

    Ok all you "responsible" gun owners. can you spot the gun safety violation in this picture?

    January 18, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pat

      The gun in his holster is cocked, but that doesn't mean that there is not a safety on it. I don't know what model that is or it's safety features, but I know several people who have their guns cocked in their holsters. I don't because my 9mm is single action trigger.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Brianna

      Im guessing your referring to the hammer being cocked on the 1911-style handgun the shop worker has holstered. Thats commonly referred to as cocked-and-locked (hammer cocked with thumb safety rendering the firearm safe) which is proper in this carrying scenario.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • CBruce

      Your own belly is not a safe direction to point a gun.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • dont be a sucker

        you missed the part where he function-checked the weapon to make sure it was clear and safe

        January 18, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Pat

        Probably won't fire very well with those strings through the chamber.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard

      Yeah ..........failure to register. The rest?....I'd stand behind the 300 million registered Americans...than the 1000,000 or so plus illegal "users" to watch my back. I'm American....and WE have each others backs.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • mike

      The gun in the holster is a variation of a 1911. The recommended way to carry these is cocked with the thumb safety, which is further down in the holster, engaged. The thumb safety cannot be engaged unless the gun is cocked.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Trebor

        it is a 1911, but the safety is just below the slide. The model shown in the photo has an ambidextrous safety – meaning that it is on both sides of the frame. Normally it would only be on the left side of the pistol, as used by a right handed person – which he is since he is carrying on the right side of his body (and not in a cross-draw holster). If you look closely the safety is at an angle to the slide, indicating that it is active. If it was parallel to the slide it would be "off". So – the gun is "cocked and locked", and is in standard carry position for that type of pistol – Single Action Only.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Curious_G

      Don't see one. That is the proper way to carry a model 1911.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Calidip

      Selling a first time pistol user who is a 76 a .45?

      January 18, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • SemperFi

      appears that someone has left a magazine in the weapon being shown..... I certainly would not consider it cleared.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
  38. Brendan

    Well, one guy thinks it's OK. I guess that settles it.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
  39. ROBERT

    cnn you LIE AS BAD AS OBAMA YOU ARE CALLING GUY SHOP DEALERS GUN OWERS AND MAKE SOUND LIKE GUN OWERS WANT THIS. GUN OWER DONT WANT THIS . DEALERS WANT THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YOU DAMN RIGHT ON ONE THING GUN SHOP OWERS WANT THIS SO EVERONE HAS TO COME TO THEM EVEN WHEN YOU GIVE DAD OR SON AGUN THEN THEY CHARGE YOU FOR DOING THE PAPER WORK!!!!!!!

    January 18, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • VEW2012

      I feel for safety all gun sells and transfers ... even to family members should include a background check and registration...any family member would need to do the same to provide a clear title to transfer a motor vehicle to the child's name for insurance, tags, registration, state tax....why not a gun?

      Maybe stop and think who used, and who would have inherited Nancy Lanza's guns? Get that picture in your mind!

      So it costs a few bucks.... is that all you can think of about this situation? Isn't it better safety for everyone that the first option be to keep guns out of the hands of those who would abuse the right to own a gun?

      January 18, 2013 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Jack

    Look I want my guns and no one is going to take them. Maybe kids will die, kids die every day. Suck it up, its a price we need to be willing to pay. I AM GOING TO KEEP MY GUNS AND YOU WILL NOT TAKE THEM FROM ME! Got it?

    January 18, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • c.flynn

      Jack, if that is your view towards humanity, then I don't want you near anything more dangerous than string (and I'm hesitant on that one).

      January 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
  41. Aerin

    This is why everyone should NOT have a gun.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-fails-second-amendment-rights-gone-wrong_n_2490579.html

    January 18, 2013 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pat

      Ever see how many videos of people using guns safely and responsible? #LOGICFAIL

      January 18, 2013 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • SS

      Taxation and licensing on breeding will save for lives that taxation and licensing of firearms

      January 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
  42. Sagebrush Shorty

    It just seems as if the people who make up these gun laws are the ones who know the least about them. New York is the perfect example: A .22 revolver that holds 8 rounds is illegal, but a .45 with 7 rounds is OK.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse |
  43. BO Lies

    We all know that the democrats agree that selling automatic rifles to the Mexican drug gangs is a good idea.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
  44. Sagebrush Shorty

    It's none of the government's business how I chose to defend myself and my family.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Er

      Example of a stupid comment. If you think just a little about what you say before you type it, that would be great. So the United States shouldn't care if you decide you want to create a nuclear submarine to protect your family?

      January 18, 2013 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Woody

        Nobodys talking about some nuclear submarine. Go back to junior high. I will not let the Government take my guns and they have no buisness in knowing what I have or how many. It is my right of being an American that I can Purchase and own a gun of my chosing without the Government involved. I and many others have Fought for and many have given there lives for the freedoms we have and that most who have never lifted a finger for there country take for granted. And I have and will protect my rights at Home and Abrod.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dan

        While limited, you absolutely if you wanted to should be able to defend your family with a nuclear submarine. Assuming you had the billions required to build the nuclear reactor and properly certify it with the NRC, and the regulators were satisfied with its design and safe operation. A nuclear submarine of course being just any sub powered with an atomic steam turbine system.

        Of course what weapons you could use on that sub is an entirely different matter – You can't and shouldn't be able to own and use nuclear weapons (see weapons of mass destruction), and the ATF does regulate (more or less satisfactory) high explosives used in Torpedo's, so in essence you have a sub where you can hide from whoever without being used offensively.

        So yeah, I don't have any problem in the legal sense if you want to go out and do this, and laws shouldn't prevent you from using the power plant as long as you can meet safety requirements. This is assuming you have the billions to own one as well, and frankly there are better ways of defending youself, so pretty much an academic argument.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Richard

      That's a good thing. NOONE will take my right to defend mine. I didn't defend this conountries rights to be told I couldn't defend mine.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:49 pm | Report abuse |
  45. PS

    Typo: "high-capacity clip rifles" should be "high-capacity magazine rifles" as the last service weapon to use a "clip" was the M1 Garand. It used an 8 round en-bloc clip. All commonly issued US ARMY infantry weapons since have used detachable box type magazines, most recently the STANAG 4179 type 20 and 30 round magazines.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • TC

      Dude, as you can see from my posts, I am an ardent supporter of gun rights, but this point is useless, does nothing whatsoever to advance the argument, and only stands to make gun rights advocates look silly. Please focus on the real issue- else you stand to detract from the cause…

      January 18, 2013 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Curious_G

        I think the point is the people are preaching have no idea what they are talking about and haven't taken the time to understand what seek to ban.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
        • dont be a sucker

          Ding DIng DIng...we have a winner !

          January 18, 2013 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse |
        • TC

          Certainly agreed that people are misinfirmed, but many people with semi auto guns call them clips. This is not a good way to illustrate the ignorance of our opponents here...

          January 18, 2013 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rosemary

      You know, perhaps we should just take them at their word. No guns with large capacity "clips." Put away your M1-Garand, and everything else is legal.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
  46. Kevin

    Registration was tried in Canada. It cost billions (think of the US cost with 10 times the population) and was never proven to be effective. Even those supporting the registration where caught admitting that the VAST majority of gun crimes were commited using illegal handguns, usually smuggled in from the US... consider how much more crime could have been prevented had the funds used for the registry been used for law enforcement/prisons/rehab/etc...

    Fortunately the registry was finally scrapped in 2012

    January 18, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • concernedin2103

      This is interesting. I wasn't aware that the Canadians had tried this. I will research it further. I am a gun owner and I also own some NFA items. I have been wondering lately if a national registry for all firearms would help address the accountability issue with have in the U.S..
      In 1986 when the U.S. Firearm Owners' Protection Act was put in place all machine guns had to be registered or they could be confiscated if found by law enforcement. The guys who ran out and registered their weapons now enjoy a $20,000 price tag for something that is built from $200 in materials. I would think introducing a registry fall all firearms would provide a similar (but not as dramatic) incentive to register your weapon as failing to do so would prevent that weapon from ever being legally bought/sold resulting in a drop in value.
      I am also in the military and we use CAC cards for everything. If all gun owners had a similar federal ID that they could use to securely log into a federal database to perform private sales, register weapons, and perform a quick private sale background check I would think it would be useful. The same registry could be used to report a firearm stolen as well since all of your serial numbers would be in the database. Of course this information would have to be kept private as I do not want my inventory accessible by anyone but myself and investigating agencies.
      With all debates some give and take is needed. I would ONLY be in favor of such a national registry IF, AND ONLY IF, ALL states nominalize on the same gun laws. I used to live in an NFA friendly state but I recently moved to one that is not. It drives me crazy to have restrictions on the types of firearms I can own because I moved 100 miles further east. As long as the tax is paid, fingerprints are taken, a background check is passed, and the weapons are registered I don’t see why I should be restricted to only certain firearms. Legalize everything, just hold owners accountable for security and transfers.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
  47. AngelofLife

    A person with a conceal and carry handgun is your friend and guardian angel in times of trouble.

    Policemen are responders – they are employed to respond after a crime to report what happened. Policemen are not paid enough money to be your bullet shield - remember they have a wife and children at home too.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • first timer

      I'm confused – so the person with the conceal and carry handgun doesn't have a wife and kids at home? This is just some lone angel gunman, wondering around rescuing people?

      January 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • Trebor

        Don't be stupid. Of course the guy with concealed carry is not there to be your guardian angel. He is taking care of his own security and the security of his family. If you choose not to carry – you have made the choice to rely on the police, who will show up after the crime has happened.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
  48. TC

    Why do we turn a blind eye the cultural issues so dramatically prevalent in the problems we have with violence? It's common knowledge that a gigantic majority of gun violence is inner city and minority on minority. This is simply an observance of reality, and I am stunned that we ignore this fundamental issue problem in the whole gun debate. To me, it shows a societal callousness to the plight of these folks, and that in itself is racism in my view. Why is does this debate focus so much on a much smaller component of the issue? It strikes me that those on the left are more concerned about mass shootings that may affect people that look like them and they don’t so much care about the people affected by 90% of this issue. Please enlighten me on this?

    January 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • TC

      Any takers on this one?

      January 18, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rosemary

        Makes immenent sense to me, but I don't think any gun grabbing Liberals will address it.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm | Report abuse |
        • DougW

          First, saying that the violence is 'minority on minority' shows a very shallow understanding of the issue. In the areas where this is taking place, the people in question are not the minority, in fact they usually are an overwhelming majority. They can be black, hispanic or white, depending on what part of the country you are looking at. What they all have in common is extreme poverty, very poor educational opportunities and low levels of law enforcement participation in the community. Why don't rich kids in Beverly Hills strut around with guns and shoot them off at the least provocation? Two reasons, one being that they have way too much to lose, and the second being that they do not feel the overwhelming sense of anger and frustration felt by those in extreme poverty neighborhoods.
          Next, the reason that the gun control aspect is played as being so important is that it is an issue that seems so overwhelmingly obvious to people living in high-population areas where poverty exists. One of my best friends grew up in Alaska, and he has explained to me many times that owning a gun in many parts of that state is just good common sense. You often need the gun to deal with wild animals, and the 'wild-west' attitude of many of the state's residents also makes it a good way to keep from being seen as an easy target. In highly urban settings like Chicago and New York, however, a gun ownership percentage like the one in Alaska would be an unmitigated disaster. Homicides would skyrocket, many arguments that today end in fisticuffs would instead end in death. In these setting, a policy of very few guns is actually the safest. That's

          January 18, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Joe

        No I agree completely. These "mass shootings" statistically speaking are not a big problem, particularly when you take into account the amount of guns sold in the US. It's enlightening to hear another voice of reason. I will admit I never looked at it like that, and although I wouldn't go so far as to call it racism as much as I would an economic issue. As a Hispanic I can say that certain neighborhoods, even Hispanic ones of a better economic standing do have have a lingering fear of gun violence. Did Sandy Hook awaken us to a lingering problem we have in America, yes but the problem isn't the sales of legal guns, it's also NOT with video games or movies either. It's with apathy and concern and involvement in the community, and respect and most of all responsibility. Politicians have been pointing fingers at each other for decades, blaming one another for the countries fails, they taught us that no matter what bad things happen in our lives,,, it's always someones else fault.... good post TC

        January 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • Joe

          TYPO:
          I meant Hispanic neighborhoods of okay economic standings do NOT have a lingering fear of gun violence.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
        • TC

          I certainly agree that this is more fundamentally an issue of poverty- it's just unfortunately true that minorities are over represented in that category, and as such, this is a crisis of those communities in my view that we spend way too little of a concern on... I think any higher socioecomic neighborhood doesnt live in fear of gun violence, whether that be a predominantly whote, black or hispanic area... My point is that the real crisis is ignored...

          January 18, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rajin Cajun

      Alright Dorothy! You keep pullin at that curtain in the corner of the room and exposing the puppet master we'll have to ask you to leave!

      January 18, 2013 at 1:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • TC

      I challenge someone to address this concern???? This is fundamental to why I question the motives of anti gun people, and in the absence of a reasonable counter argument, I can claim victory on this position alone. I ask you to read my posts on this thread and expand your minds to the broader context of this issue...

      January 18, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
  49. DB

    All of this hot air by the White House does not accomplish anything, it is only a power grab. If legit sale occurs and the person passes a background check, then a nut of a kid who played violent video games in the cellar his whole life steals it and kills 26 people. What did the background check accomplish?? NOTHING! Beware of your rights being eroded! Universal background checks mean NOTHING. It is a step closer to registration and confiscation.

    The people that KNOW NOTHING about gun control are screaming the loudest.

    January 18, 2013 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • cw

      Yeah, so we shouldn't check anybody. Free guns for all!

      January 18, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • USVET

        The newspapers have reported repetedly about cops who have used guns in the commission of a crime. They are supposedly background checked, given mental health evaluations, and licensed by the government. Yet, some always fall through the cracks. Are they any better than the criminal who gets their guns through illegal means?

        January 18, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • DB

        Enforcement of responsible gun ownership.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Democrat and Proud of it.

        I like that idea. Bring back the wild west!!!!

        January 18, 2013 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rajin Cajun

        You didn't get the point. Background checks haven't been shown effective at squat. Quite honestly, so many guns out there already that it's a pointless exercise to waste taxpayer money and force businesses to waste effort on it. No matter how many laws REGULATING guns, you will always be behind the criminals. BANNING guns is off the table as there are far too many legitimate needs for guns. Here's what happens every time big government gets into the prohibition business ====> EPIC FAIL! As much as we would all love a Utopian society, freedom comes with risks. Eliminate risks, and you kill freedom.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
  50. TC

    Advocating gun rights is no extreme position. There are a great many people who see gun restrictions as threat to their freedom. It was not casually placed into the Consitution- the right to bear arms was meant as a check against oppression of freedom by helping assure the survival of the rest of the rights in the constitution. As such, a threat to that right should be viewed as a threat to the rest. Both recent and more distant history show this to be a well placed notion. Look at the US or Texas revolutions or the conflicts in Libya or Syria more recently.

    It is naive to think we are forever safeguarded against oppression in the US as much as I of course would like to see that. I think many of those who don't see this make mistaken assumptions around how this is envisioned to play out. It is not likely that we would go from point A freedom to point B tyrrany in one step. The issue is the slippery slope that puts tyrrany as point Z with many incremental steps in between, so it is best to prevent that process from unfolding as history teaches us...

    There are multiple examples where constitutional rights have to be restricted (the yelling fire in a theater test), so the question with regard to the 2A is to what extent is it accetable to restrict gun ownership? There is broad agreement across the board that criminals and crazies should be restricted from having guns, and as such, there is broad agreement that a more intensive background check process and increased investment by society in mental health issues are acceptable restrictions on gun freedoms. The NRA in large part agrees with this stance. Where the NRA is strictly opposed to restriction as am I is limits around assault rifles, clips sizes or establishing some sort of registry. The SP in Heller v DC in 2008 established that weapons commonly used in the establishment of a militia cannot be restricted from individual ownership, and ARs and larger clips are clearly common to that purpose. You can GOOGLE THE GALLUP POLL on gun ownership (can't post a link here), and you will see that a majority of Americans agree with this despite the misplaced assumption that a small minority is hijacking the dialogue on this issue. And establishment of registries can only be viewed as a prelude to confiscation without any other real benefit.

    So there is no doubt that we have a well conceived constitutional right to bear arms, and changing that right means changing the constitution. Changing the constitution obviously ought to have a very strong justification in the interest of a broader societal benefit that outwieghs the threat to freedom. As we have seen from the stats, there does not seem to be a strong case for that as it relates to gun control having its desired effects.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • Eric

      We already have registries in several states. These registries are not used to take guns. They are used to help solve crimes where a gun is used by making it easier to determine who owns (or had access to) a particular type of gun. To state that registries have no use other than rounding up your guns is clearly incorrect.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • USVET

        I've had law enforcement agencies tell me that some gun records are destroyed after a defined length of time. In fact, they were unable to trace a gun that was found inside a sheetrock wall for that very reason.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • TC

        I somewhat misstated my position on the issue of registries- my position is that the marginal benefits of registries in solving crimes are far outweighed by the capacity they create for confiscation. Because guns haven’t been confiscated with existing registries is a weak argument against the possibility of that happening. Do you not think there are large numbers of liberals who would support confiscation? So long as that instinct exists as prevalently as it does, a registry is a very bad idea.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Report abuse |
        • concernedin2103

          Look at NFA weapons. All of them are registered and tracked. Also note that very little crime involved with these weapons which most utilize high cap mags and full auto rate of fire.

          Would you be willing to register all of your weapons if the fed would prevent the state govt from restricting NFA weapon ownership in all states of the union?

          I don't think the confiscation is a big concern. Citizens would outright revolt if the govt attempted to do so. Just too many gun owners. It would be a nightmare for the govt to do so. Hell look how hard it is for a major car company to coordinate a recall.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
  51. Rick

    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. – Ayn Rand I will never register my guns and the government will have to kill me to confiscate the ones I have. And I will take as many of them with me as possible.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marlin

      So a metal tube that flings other pieces of metal at high speed to kill things is more important to you than your life and the lives of other people around you. Good to know.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • USVET

        There are people trained by the U.S. government that can use household items to create weapons. Guns aren't the only thing that can kill.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • Richard

        Yer an idiot. I can use a piece of rolled up cardboard and and make an ice spear and stab ya with an ice cycle and the evidence is in the water. People kill people... as do dogs and falls and stupidity, (Darwin awards.com). Grow some balls..and stand for something. ...as evidenced...you have fallen for some idea about being passive and justice is a given. Let me know how that works out for ya. Justice is rooted in truth, truth in reality, and reality is rooted in effort, accountability, responsibility, and accountability.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rick

        You can vilify me as much as you want. But, yes, my right to keep and bear arms is more imporatant to me than my life. But let's NOT leave out one thing shall we? YOUR right to keep and bear arms is ALSO more important to me than my life. And when they come for my guns they're coming for yours too, and however morally sorry I consider you to be, I'll be dying for YOUR rights as well as my own.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Democrat and Proud of it.

      You are sick, as well as the ilk of Limbaugh, Hannaity, Levin, Savage, et. al.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
  52. ChrisM106

    As a firearms owner, I do not object to universal background checks in principle but I'll wait and see what they have proposed, If it's an improvement of the current NICs or an expansion of what can be bought under a collector's license, fine. If it's background check that costs me $200 and takes up to six months for approval, no way.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
  53. Blade1975

    Who cares....

    When a legit person buys a gun, if someone STEALS it. Like the Newtown gunman.... doesn't f**king matter now DOES IT.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • concernedin2103

      If we had an owner friendly registry the user should be able to report the firearm stolen immediately via local authorities and the registry. Not much can be done to prevent a criminal from hurting someone. I agree. But I would like to be able to transfer the accountability of firearms to new owners when doing a private sale and I would also like a tool that allows me as a private owner to run a serial number on a weapon as well as checkout the person I am buying it from. If the registry was built with private owners in mind it could be a really useful tool.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
  54. ug

    Don't try that suckup game with me! NOBODY that owns any firearms agrees with anything that Ovomit wants to do with guns! NOBODY! just another ploy by the WH and lib media freaks to try and talk nice to you and then stab you in the back!...you will never take my guns...I dare you to try it.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Juan

      Please, if you don't have respect for the man at least have respect for the office. Now, you seem to hold childish logic. If President Obama said oxygen was good, would you disagree with him just because you don't like his politics? Come now.

      Personally I don't really care about background checks. They take a 15 minute phone call. Registration I'm more concerned about. After Katrina there was rampant confiscation. No easier way to do this then with a registry. Also, the fact that, that idiotic news agency in NY created maps is abominable and irresponsible. But the law made it all too easy with records they made available to the public. I commend the county clerk who refused to give up the documents. That man should win a medal.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Proud American

        I have respect for the office of the President of the United States howver we have odumbo filling that office at the present time. I have no respect for socialism or his socialistic agenda he is trying to ram down everyone's throat.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
        • jpzipp

          He was duly elected, too bad you lost!

          January 18, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
        • Seriously

          I think the odumbo your referring to was George W. Do you remember what the economy was like when he left. It's doing much better now. Just saying

          January 18, 2013 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |
        • cw

          Please cite the specific examples of socialism that you so hate.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
        • markthefile

          PROUD AMERICAN: Per your own words: 'I have respect for the office of the President of the United States howver we have odumbo filling that office at the present time.' This DOES NOT SHOW RESPECT in any way shape or form. You have negated your own words with your own words. A clear sign to all of us with brains and common sense that you are THE DUMBO.

          January 18, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Eric

        Why does that map have you so up in arms? Do you not want other people to know you have guns? Are you ashamed of them? If anything, that map makes the gun owners safer. If I'm going to rob someone, which house do you think I go to first? The one with guns? Or the one without? 🙂

        January 18, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
        • USVET

          I hate to burst your bubble but there's already been one reported burglary of a residence that was exposed by the Journal News listing. Luckily the guns weren't stolen. I sincerely hope the District Attorney has the courage to prosecute the Journal News editors for aiding and abetting a crime.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:26 pm | Report abuse |
        • MRA

          The map of gun owners had police officers names and addresses on it and people hiding from abusive spouses. Another point is, if I want to take a gun now I know which house to rob during the day time when no one is home. If I want to harm someone now I know which house to break in at night.
          My question to you is: If your wife was home alone at night with your children and a man breaks in with a knife, what are her chances of survival? Please keep in mind this happens everyday and many times a gun owner defends them selves and survives, but it is not reported by the media.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:31 pm | Report abuse |
        • concernedin2103

          Dude, nobody wants their privacy infringed upon. What if that map was of people with teen age daughters? If you had a daughter and you were on that map, how would you feel then? It isn't a matter of being ashamed of gun ownership it is a matter of not knowing what some wacko is going to do with the information. It is just wrong to publish stuff like that.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
        • Susie-q

          It just depends. What are you going to take when you rob me? I don't have much to resell on the black market (i.e. jewelry , tools, technology) what I have are my guns. Now you know I have them so if you are a criminal who is looking for guns guess where you are going to look first? Not at the house that isn't listed , you're coming to mine. As a matter of fact I read an article right here on CNN where that example has already happened. The homeowners guns were the only thing taken during a break -in. This happened just shortly after their name was posted in the paper. Go figure.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dirk Dank

      You are correct redneck-!!!! Guns are a tool to help control human population. I haven’t heard any of you gun nuts state that one. When was the last time you needed to use your guns to save your life or help you protect your family? If you answer with a reason I call you BS. You & I have a better chance of winning Power Ball.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Insurance

        Dirk Dank, do you have insurance? A gun to a law abiding citizen is like an insurance policy. You pray you don't have to use, but you have it there for a piece of mind just in case you do need it. It is better to be safe than sorry and when you say that you will never need something to help is when that something will bite you in the butt.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Report abuse |
        • markthefile

          INSURANCE: Okay, here's one for you. This happened within the past 2 weeks. 3 young men forced their way into the home of an elderly woman. This elderly woman had a gun....she was never able to get to it to use it. Hmmm. What do you do, what do you do? I cannot help but to laugh at all these people who claim they have guns to protect themselves or their family. How much time do they have to get to that gun? If there are children in the home, is it loaded, or must you load it first? Is is locked up and you have to unlock the cabinet to get it? Realistically, a person MUST ALWAYS have the gun on them, loaded, or see the danger approaching and know for CERTAIN that they must fire this gun in order to actually use it for defense. Waking up to someone leaning over you does not allow you time to go get that gun! Or, running into a person in the hallway, you cannot say, 'hang on a minute! Gotta get my gun.' But, there are always going to be those Macho dreamers out there who think they can save the world, or at least their little world.

          January 18, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • concernedin2103

        In a free country you should not have to justify to anyone gun ownership. Just like you don't have to justify owning a motorcycle that goes 150MPH. It is not a matter of need it is a matter of rights. As long as you are not harming others and you follow the law nobody should care.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
        • Dirk Dank

          Another redneck (NASCar racing fan) or x-military…

          If you cannot legally drive 150 mph – why do you need a bike that can do 150-? (unless you legally race it on a track)

          And the insurance reasoning. If you need a gun then God has determined your time has come up. Hey I could be on a business trip in Malaysia and some Muslim freak group could capture and want to torture me so should I travel with a cyanide pill-?

          You go with life's blows.

          January 18, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Calif240

      "Nobody that owns guns?" – Don't paint all gun owners as uncompromising or unwilling to listen to common sense. I own many guns, including ARs. I agree with many of things in Obama's plan... Increasing Mental Health Awareness, closing gun-show loopholes, requiring thorough background checks, increasing the effectiveness of current laws. I don't agree with limiting magazines and the AWB, but most everything else that is listed in the true proposal isn't radical and I'm willing to consider if it means possibly less children dead without giving up the 2A.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Marlin

      I owe guns. I agree with backround checks and magazine limits.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jared

      I'm both a gun owner and a Republican and I agree in theory with most of what the President is saying. The devil is in the details, but I'll wait to get "up in arms" so to speak until the details are known.

      I don't want crazies out there with guns, so creating a stronger background check system sounds good to me. I'll wait to see what it looks like before I complain. I say lets fund research, close some "loopholes", give schools funding, and see if we can find ways to curb violence. I don't think the guns ban or magazine capactiy ban will help anything though. But I think most of the rest of the President and I agree on at least in theory.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
  55. BAROWNER

    All of these mass shooters have been registered democrats. Nobody is talking about banning democrats-maybe we should!

    January 18, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Seriously

      You know 50 percent of statistics are made up on the spot. Oh wait, I meant to say 60 precent of statistics are made up on the spot.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • rhinohouse

      I dare you to prove that!

      January 18, 2013 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • BlueHorseshoe

      Well BAROWNER, I'm not sure 'banning democrats' is the argument we gun owners want to make. It tends to negate those arguments the gun owners on the lunatic fringe like to make by comparing gun registration to Hitlers reign. The last think you want to do is suggest suppressing people you hold contempt for. The Second Amendment is very important, but not more so than the sum of our Constitution.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
  56. Protest NYS SAFE Act

    I will not obey the SAFE Act laws passed by the NYS legislature. You wanted me to be a criminal so you made me a criminal now come and arrest me.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dirk Dank

      This is all nuts

      January 18, 2013 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • TC

      There is a solid case for civil disobedience of laws that don't square with the constitution. NY's new law is in clear conflict with Heller v DC, 2008. NY's new law will be thrown out by the SP if not by a lower court first.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
  57. Jim

    I'm fine with background checks across the board. Registration kinda scares me, plus I'm sure it will cost more money. One thing I will never support is banning rifles and magazines. That makes no sense at all. Someone will just come out with an AR-whatever that is the same thing with different cosmetic features. Magazines are pretty simple devices, a criminal could tape a few together to get "high" capacity.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike in NYC

      Keep in mind Jim ... the AR-15 that everyone is up in arms about (no pun intended) because it LOOKS like a military weapon is LESS powerful/lethal than my Remmington deer rifle! Its just rediculous that people who know NOTHING about firearms are screaming the loudest for bans.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      The only thing that is accomplished by banning high capacity magazines...is the number of magazines one would carry...anyone with minimal training can swap out a magazine in less than a second....it really is a false sense of security to think that dropping the number of rounds from this to that solves anything.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Blade1975

        2.5 seconds.

        odd high capacity magazines also have a much higher jam factor than say a 20-10 round one. Odd how people make these assault rifle feature make the weapon more dangerous.... Bayonets if attached harm aiming as well as a flash supressor just disbuses the muzzle flash over a bigger area.

        Mini 14 does the job just as well. No one freaking over that gun.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • concernedin2103

        As if the criminal would bother abiding with the law as he/she commits the crime. Too many high cap mags are already out there and they are too easy to fabricate. The ban and mag cap is pointless. It really is. Instead we should focus on weapon accountability. Owners should have to prove they have the means to secure their firearms. I know it sounds hard to do but it comes down to accounting for all of the weapons and ensuring they are secured. I have been in the military for 18years. We hand machine guns to 18yr old kids every day. The difference is respect, training, and accountability. Private ownership should be the same. Don't take away someone's rights. Just make sure they have the means to responsibly own firearms.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ken form Canada

      Registration of firearms doesn't work and is costly. We have gun registration here and it has not stopped one crime. It was originally supposed to cost 2 million for the national registry and is now over 100 million and we only have 10 percent of the population you do. After almost 10 years the government has agreed that it doesn't work and is in the process of scapping the entire registry. It was primarily usaed by politicians to be able to wave a flag and say look we did something.

      Background checks and maybe a madatory safety course would be the best course of action..

      January 18, 2013 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
  58. Reasonably

    For those that don't want registration: You agree that you want anyone – regardless of criminal history – to be able to purchase any gun at will. Any meth-head with a felony record?

    I know, I know – criminals will always get guns...zzzz...so you want to make it easy for them, then? Glad to know you're on the bad guys' side.

    Get over your fear that some mythical tyrant will come to confiscate your guns. We live in a different world than any of the events listed in your arguments. Background checks and registration make sense. As does increased education.

    Grow up and realize there's a middle ground here.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • hadenufalready

      crooks/drugheads can get guns easier than you or I can get them regardless of background checks. They just meet their source in an alley, give the money and call it a day. No getting in a car, going to a store, paying with it on their charge card or cash.

      Think about this...Come on....

      January 18, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Joe

        Right.... so the question is this. Do we call it illegal when they to buy that gun in the alley (without a background check), or do we call it a legal private sale? Because right now, under federal law, it's perfectly legal to meet someone in an alley and buy as many guns as he'll sell you. (Some states are more restrictive, but not where I am.) Well, I take that back, it's sorta legal... if you KNOW you can't pass a background check and therefore you avoid a dealer, but the other person doesn't know that, then you are engaging them in a crime without their knowledge. What sense does that make?

        Making something illegal doesn't stop it from happening, of course... but it adds an element of risk. We should never make things EASY for criminals, even though we should make them easy for law abiding citizens. Universal background checks does that.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:54 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jared

          That would depend. If the weapon is stolen then it is illegal sale.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bryan Wells

        So that means we should do what we can give the meth heads guns so they dont have to get guns from back allies? Oh how considerate of you!

        January 18, 2013 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • concernedin2103

        I think is is due to the lack of a decent registry. The problem is the initial sale of the firearm goes through all of the checks. But after that.... well no accountability. The gun just gets lost in the system. Imagine if we had a registry and you were responsible for every firearm you own unless you transfer ownership to another person via the registry or report it stolen. Also when buying from a private owner you could run the serial number to ensure it is registered and clean. We have too many guns floating around with no real accountability.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • markthefile

        Crooks and drug heads got those guns from your house! They broke in stole them and are now selling them on the street. It's great knowing that we can own as many guns as we want to buy, but how good are the owners at keeping them locked up and protected from thieves? And when you get home and find those guns gone, you call the police to file a report. What info can you give them? Do you have all the SNs written down? Do you have pictures? Do you have special locks on them? I certainly would like to give all this info the the police so they would know that I was not out there committing the crimes with my guns. SN was etched off a gun? Well, here you go, I have a bullet that went through that gun. Match it! Responsible ownership goes a long way, including making it harder for criminals to get their hands on and use the guns.

        January 18, 2013 at 5:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dazzy

      No, the background checks are to keep meth heads and any other criminal from getting them.

      The only reason to require registration is to keep track of who has what guns and how many. There is no other reason.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rick

        Kuhscheise! Registration is so they can confiscate everybody's gun all at once, and there's no way we will believe ANYTHING else.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Joe

        I'm sure police would like to know if a household has a gun in it before a raid. Of course, many guns will go unregistered.... so even if nothing shows up in the system, they still have to proceed with caution. So it's a system that can have false negatives, but that doesn't mean the accurate positives aren't worthwhile to consider.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
        • rds801

          During a police raid it's already assumed that firearms will be there

          January 18, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • dtuttle2000

      It's not the registration that bothers me, it how that information gets used. I'm not a conspiracy nut, just one that saw exactly what happens from gun registration. You have liberal nuts that use the freedom of information act to obtain the names of legally registered gun owners and then publishes their names in the news paper in New York.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • logic101

      Registration only creates a list of who has what, after its bought. I don't want the government knowing what guns i have, they dont need to know that. There already exist a system that allows law enforcement to track the legal owner of a firearm based on whose name is on the background check forms. Registration does not PREVENT any type ownership it occurs after the fact. Universal background checks wont prevent all criminals from getting guns but they may slow some of it down. Dont be so naive as to think there does not exist of black market for gun buyers, not to mention that there are people that can manufacture their own firearms, all-be-it much slower than a factory and its highly regulated by the ATF for law abiding citizens to do it. The gun has been invented, the cat is out of the bag and you cant put it back in so there is no way to STOP gun violence so lets not infringe on freedoms of law abiding citizens. Give universal background checks a try seems fair to me.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • JK

      The only individuals who will follow any law regarding a national registration or any other gun control measure are by definition "law-abiding" citizens. Criminal behavior is outside of any law we adopt so we can pass whatever we want and it will have little or no impact on crimial behavior except to likely force some gun entusists to violate what they pecieve as unnecessary, intolerable restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights. Where we should focue is on items we have control over that has a real possibility of making an impact such as 1) require training for all gun-owners before they can legally buy a gun (we don't put people in cars without driver training). 2) enhance the background checks required prior to allowing a gun purchase (especially on assualt style weapons which can easily converted from semi to fully automatic and have high capacity magizine capability) 3) move to make access to schools, day-care facilities etc. more secure with access control and alarms and possibly some type of "air marshall" type program

      January 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • concernedin2103

        JK,
        I agree that only the law abiding citizens will use the registry. But think back to pre-1986 when everyone had a chance to register machine guns and sears. Some people did. A bunch did not. The ones that did went up in value because they can be bought/sold legally on the market. The ones that didn't.... well I am sure they are locked up in a cellar some place or got destroyed when the owner realized how much trouble they could get into by keeping them.

        With any large organization that has firearms the most important thing is accountability. Our country has none. You can't expect perfection but I can't help but to look ah the NFA system. Lots of machine guns legally changing hands in a very controlled fashion. If the system were made a little more user friendly we could gain far better control of the number of firearms that move from legit hands to the black market.

        I want me freedom to own firearms of all types. I am just concerned that by not getting the system under control some bad apples are going to drive this country to the point where some MORE really stupid laws get passed.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • USVET

      The twice convicted felon that was arrested with a gun is his posession was released on bond just weeks later despite the violation of his parole. The cops couldn't legally hold him without bond for the gun charge so they had to let him go. Within 4 months...he killed a person in another car while driving with meth and alcohol in his system. Too bad someone had to die to qualify him for bond denial.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
  59. Ian Brown

    As a Canadian I watch the whole gun debate and just shake my head. There seems to be nuts and whack jobs on both sides of the debate. But I think everyone agrees there is far too much gun related death and crime in the states. Some of your large cities have more murders a year than all of Canada which is mind boggling. In Canada owning a gun is a privilege and not a right (kind of like your driving license). You need to apply for a sort of license that requires you to buy a gun and or ammunition. So it is hard to compare the two countries because you have a right to own a gun. But there has to be a smart way to limit guns from ending up in the wrong people's hands. No American wants another school slaying or a nutjob with an assault weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammo... Instead of worrying about not being able able to purchase an assault weapon, 30 round clip, etc. ask yourself if you want the general public to be able to easily acquire them including every nutjob you pass on the street. Did you see the Colorado movie theater whacko??? He looked in his mug shot like a seriously deranged individual but he had the right to buy his guns and ammo. Take a close look at his photo and ask yourself should we be trying to make it easy for guys that look like that to buy guns??? What if he was your neighbor? Maybe jumping through a few hoops to buy guns isn't so bad...

    January 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • shawnL

      You are canadian. Enough said. America was created with the gun, and liberties protected and won with guns. If the anti gun lobby wishes to change our rights to own or possess weapons, there is a mechanism in the constitution to change that right. However, they need a 2/3rds vote in both houses to do so.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • TC

      The idea that there is deep resistence to better checks on who gets gun is a false position presented by gun opponents in an attempt to marginalize gun rights adovcates as extremist. In fact, there is pretty braod agreement on both sides on your points. Where a large majority of gun rights adovcates draw the lines are measures that undermine the fundamental intent of the right- this would include registration that is too easily a prelude to confiscation when the political winds make such action possible, and limits on the type of weapons that would commonly be used in the establismnet of a people's militia. Call this position paranoid as you will, but this is indeed the intent of the 2A- not sporting and not just home defense when it comes to the notion of having to god forbid shoot another person. The intent of the 2A needs to be proven faulty in order to justify the accusations of paranoia, and a very strong case can be made that both recent and more distant history provides a reasonable justification for a healthy distrust of our government.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Greg

      We do want to keep them out of the hands of crazy people. the best way to do that is to report crazy people. the guy in CO was seeing a shrink at his school and the school knew he was dangerous. but he left the school so they decided not to report it cause it was not their problem. the guy that shot one of our congress women was actually removed because the school decided he was a threat. they didn't report that cause it was not their problem anymore. Virginia tech, basically same story.

      The problem is not the guns or the bullets or the hoops. those guys jumped through the hoops but it did no good because of a lack of reporting.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • wil

      I own several weapons and I do not have any problem with universal background checks. I wholeheartedly believe that everyone who buys a weapon should have to go through the wringer to ensure that they are legally capable of buying weapons. I do not even have a problem with lower the magazine capacity of assault type weapons. I do oppose placing a cap on magazine capacity for handguns. My regular carry weapon holds a total of 17 rounds. I specifically decided on the weapon because of the capacity and it's ability to allow me to engage a bad guy without having to worry about running out of rounds at an inopportune moment. Lastly, I oppose any ban on so-called assault type weapons. To ban a class of weapons simply because of how they look cosmetically is ridiculous. If I put a wood stock and foregrip on it I basically have my grandfathers hunting rifle which would never be banned.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • MRA

        Good luck on keeping anything you own in the future if you allow the government to limit the magazine capacity on any gun. Case and point in New York, they had a ban on so called assault weapons, and now they have a 7rd capacity limit on handguns too.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • David

      You pointed out the Joker from Colorado which is very valid. The problem there, and in so many cases like that one, people knew well a head of time there was a problem, but were unable to do anything about and in the end it does not matter if he had guns or bomb(s) or even if he used a car to run down people, because nobody could stop him. That has to change, when people see others going wacko, we need to get them the help they need ASAP, even if that means taking them into a mental health facility, before they harm themselves or others. Right now, people that are flipping out can try to seek help, but we cannot force them to get help, which is ridiculous.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
  60. kdf

    you have to register to hunt or fish! why not be required to register your gun. I agree 100% with this and anyone who owns a gun, it is not taking yoru right away from owning it, but making you more responsible and reliable with your weapons!

    January 18, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Not a Scholar

      I don't have to register in order to own a fishing pole or a tackle box full of hooks. And here in Florida, until recently, I could fish in salt water from land without a license. It was only until the Federal Government stepped in that Florida had to change that law. But they were gracious about it and there is no fee for the license. Why did the feds have to get involved in that?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • USVET

      A fishing license doesn't tell you what type of reel or fishing line you can use.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • lav25

      Hunting is a PRIVILEDGE not a RIGHT. There is no comparison. We loose our hunting priviledges all the time at the hands of people who feel we dont need to hunt a certain way, time, location, animal etc... So what would stop the people who control the gun registration from imposing more rules/laws/fees/fines on us? There is also no requirement for a background check on who can hunt/fish. License is bought over the counter, only proove you took a Hunter Safety class at some point in your life. Someone who commited a Felony who can no longer own a gun can still hunt with a Bow.

      January 18, 2013 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      Kuhscheise! (The english translation of this has to do with bovine end product.) I can't believe you are as gullable as you seem to be. The only reason this government and the liberals want registration is so they know who has guns that they can confiscate. They will never confiscate mine as long as I am alive and able to shoot.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
  61. Citizen1974

    I'm a father, former federal and state govt. employee and now a teacher. We need 0 new laws on guns. They don't work. Tragic murders are going to continue to happen as they have since the beggining of human history. The best defense is armed citizens who refuse to be victims. Police can't be everywhere at once. Usually police do not stop crime, they only deal with the aftermath. This federal power grab is also dangerous to Liberty. If you want to curb gun violence put prayer back in school. teach christian values to this generation. We less govt., less police, and more empowered citizens. We have a duty to protect our lives, property, and families. I choose to do that with firearms. Gun free zones are lunacy! A suicidal or homicidal maniac does not care about breaking state or federal laws. These maniacs choose places to kill like gun free zones where people are defenseless. You don't see them going to gun shows and doing mass shootings.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • Reasonably

      Please lease religion out of the conversation. Since we have religious freedom remember you are advocating for all religions – christian, islam, pagan – to get the same rights you are advocating.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Zanzy

      I will tell you this right now.....You give some of my neighbors guns and tell them it's their right to use them to protect their property....They will shoot ever black man who walks down the street. We allow police to have guns because a) they know and respect the law b) they know and respect their weapons. The average citizen doesn't have that training and some do not have the respect for either law or weapon.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jay

        Why would your neighbors shoot every black man walking down the street ? I don't understand.
        Are you associating black men with criminals that would warrant being shot at ? Are you a racist ?

        January 18, 2013 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • Jeff

          No Jay. Zanzy is saying that his neighbors are crazy. They don't respect others. His statement would have been just a vaild if he used any other ethnic group.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • USVET

        Not all cops respect their weapons. The newspapers have repeatedly run reports of officers using their guns in their own domestic disputes, road rage where they brandish their gun, or even committed suicide.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
  62. Zorg

    What is Obama going to do when the CDC recommends banning 16-22 year old inner-city black males as the means to curb gun violence?

    Take responsibility for the culture – stop blaming inanimate objects. Blaming guns is like a fat person blaming forks.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Zanzy

      Wow! You actually made this a racial issue.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • TC

        You don't see a cultural issue in the problems we have with violence? It's common knowledge that a gigantic majority of gun violence is largely inner city and minority on minority. This is simply an observance of reality, and I am stunned that we ignore addressing this fundamental issue. To me it shows a societal callousness to the plight of these folks, and that in itself is racism in my view. Why is does this debate focus so much on a much smaller component of the issue? It strikes me that those on the left are more concerned about mass shootings that may affect people that look like them and they don’t so much care about the people affected by 90% of this issue. Please enlighten me on this?

        January 18, 2013 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
  63. bugmetoo

    The five worst mass killings have a common thread. Hint #1: they don't belong to the NRA.

    Ft Hood~~~ Registered Democrat ~ Muslim
    Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals
    Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff ~ Registered Democrat
    ... Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal
    Connecticut School Shooter- ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

    Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

    Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men, and none of them had a strong male father or role model in the household. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and viloent video games.
    Our problem isn't weapons, it's boys without boundaries. Who live in 'progressive' households.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Natch

      That's because "progressive" people, aka "liberals", want to get along with everybody.....until you disagree with them. Then they're the most disagreeable people on the planet!

      January 18, 2013 at 12:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • WasabiPotPie

      I guess you left out the shooting at the Sikh Temple because it does not jive with your 'Let's blame Liberals' theory. Please do more homework and try again.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • want2believe

      McVeigh, Bundy, BTK killer...all republican christians. Should I blame republican christians for those? Don't think so. I guess I could just name drop a few to imply blame though?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • Woody

        There are alot of crazys who have done mass killings , but were talking assault weapons in mass killings. isnt that the issue here, Assault Weapons and why to ban them.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • JK

      Agree completely

      January 18, 2013 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • K

      What I would like to know is why the government is intent on making this about gun control. If we have a massive pile-up on the interstate, we don't talk about eliminating vehicles. We discuss the causes of the wreck and what to do about preventing those causes. So what causes these nut jobs to shoot kids? It ain't the gun!

      January 18, 2013 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
  64. David

    I have no problem with a background check, or a waiting period, as long as it is some what reasonable, like no more than 30 days. I am even willing to do a drug test, and you can throw in a fire arms safety course along with it, but that is were I draw the line. Registration at this point is way to dangerous, and not so much by the government, but by technology and our society in general. People are capable of hacking into any kind of system nowadays, and we don't need criminals or crazies running around with shopping lists of our homes. Also what the newspaper did by pinpointing law abiding citizens, that did way more bad than any good they were hoping to achieve. They not only jeopardized the gun owners, but actually put the community more at risk by doing that. There is also a lot of other reasons for not doing any kind of registration and way to much to list... Next, some want some kind of mental screening, first off, what is really considered normal? Who will be the judge? Not to mention psychiatry it self in not perfect, and to there is to much room for human error. Bans, gun control, gun restrictions are just plain ridiculous. We have already had to many of or rights taken away already, and even the anti-gun people continue to point out like you can't own a full auto weapon, and it is like thank you for pointing that out, because it actually made me realize we have enough restrictions and laws on the books already. Taking more guns away is not the solution, or the answer. Guns are not the problem, it is a people problem we are having.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
  65. tonoffun80

    Gun regestration won't work look at Canada's regestration it's been dismanteled after spending millions on it.
    In ten years not one crime was solved with the information Any gun that was regester that was used in a crime cameback stollen. It'll be a huge waste of time and money.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:17 pm | Report abuse |
  66. Hot Carl

    With registration comes registration FEES. Look at your car. How much do you pay to register it every year? You registered it once, why do you have to do it again? I'll tell you why.......$$$$$$$$.
    Why should I have to register my guns if gun ownership is a right, guaranteed by the Constitution? And don't tell me the government won't start charging for it either. If you believe they won't, you're already in trouble.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
  67. LVSam

    At base, firearms should be regulated like automobiles. That's the least we could do. (People freaking-out in 5,4,3,2.....)

    January 18, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • David

      Just a counter point, no freaking involved. Do you understand what rights are? Do you understand what privileges are?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • WasabiPotPie

      Okay, let’s stick with the automobile analogy. Most people should realize that a Monte Carlo on the NASCAR race track is not the same as the Monte Carlo driving down Main Street. The same can be said for the AR-15. The military uses the M16 (call it the NASCAR Monte Carlo) and civilians can get a basic AR-15 (call it a regular Monte Carlo sold at the local dealership). Yes, both rifle and automobile can be tricked out to the Nth degree but at the end of the day the matter rests on responsible use. We cannot blame Bushmaster for the deaths of people just as we cannot blame Ford Motor Company for drunk drivers.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:27 pm | Report abuse |
  68. Bhawk1

    The solution is TSA style searches to enter the mall, movie, schools, and everywhere else. And even that will not work because in some states a permit to carry a gun allows you to carry it everywhere except the airport, even if the property owner does not want it on his property. The solution accept the killings and just say "awww, thats a shame" then bury the dead. Most of the shooters broke no laws until they fired–too late then.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Woody

      Most Firearm Related Deaths and Crimes comited in this country are done with stolen weapons in the hands of thoughs who are criminals from the start.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • welshmj

      There are NO states where you can legally carry a fire arm into a "gun free" zone which includes private property. If someone comes on your property with a gun and you don't want that person with his/her gun there, then he/she is trespassing (which is illegal).

      January 18, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Calif240

        welshmj: What are you talking about? Indiana, much like many other states I can carry my handgun into any place that is a "gun free" zone that isn't mandated by government (schools, federal buildings, certain federal property). I carry my gun in places all the time that are "gun free" (movie theaters, restaurants, etc). I'm not committing any crime by doing so. The owner can only ask that I leave. If I refuse to leave, then I can be arrested on the spot for trespassing. States vary on what is required to post in terms of signage, but Indiana (like other states) you can't be arrested for carrying anywhere except where explicitly listed in the law.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • rhino

      sounds like nazi germany... show me your papers, no guns, check points. not in my country!

      January 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • jdd

      Wow you are misinformed. Most states that allow people to carry concealed weapons also allow for business to post signs stating that you are not allowed to carry on their premises. Also most states have a list of places where you are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon. (i.e. court houses, schools, bars, stadiums etc.)

      January 18, 2013 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
  69. Stephen

    I am for registration. If nothing else it would help to get guns returned if stolen. My mother in law had four antique guns stolen, and there is no way to track them down (she never even wrote down the serial numbers). I am for background checks on 100% of gun sales, including private sales, and inheritance. (I recently inherited 2 guns, with no background check) I am more concerned with some of the people in this country who own guns, then with the government taking mine away. The constitution (bill of rights) says the government cannot take away or guns, but it does not say the government cannot track them, or to what “arms” are disallowed. I think some weapons are just not reasonable for individuals to own. By definition “arms” mean any weapon up to and including nuclear arms (extreme example, but by definition it is true). There has to be a line somewhere as to what is allowed, and what is not allowed. Finding that line is difficult, but it seems reasonable to me to allow guns that will allow for reasonable defense of family, self, home and property; and hunting. If you look at the assault rifle ban, it does not disallow AR-15’s, it disallows items such as bayonet lugs, high capacity magazines, and extremely sort barrels. If you do a proper threat assessment, none of these items are needed for home defense. Let’s start with a 30 round magazine. How often do you hear of home invasion committed by 10 to 20 people? I’ve only seen it in mafia movies. Most home invasions are committed by groups of 3 or less. If someone cannot stop 3 or even 5 people with 10 rounds, then they really should not have a gun anyway. I would be afraid to be that person’s neighbor, who is spraying 20 rounds in the general direction an invader. I would hope I would not have to argue the bayonet lug, as cool as a bayonet looks, if you get to that point in home defense, you should really learn to shoot. As for short barrels (I think the ban is under 16”), these are only useful for concealment. If you need to conceal a weapon, buy a pistol. How long have people been saying that the government is going to take away all of their guns? It may happen one day, but if the government really wanted to take our guns, do you really think we could stop them?
    Another note, I have read “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.” over and over, and frankly, it is hard to understand due to differences in verbiage and society from then to now. I believe that in the context of other rights, it does specifically address an individual citizen’s right to own guns. I do not believe it gives individuals the right to whatever they want, just for the sake of freedom.

    January 18, 2013 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      There is nothing wrong with registration and background checks, However they should use the funds from those...to work on the mental illness side of things....People generally aren't born crazy....something snaps in them..due to divorce or financial issues...and if the person is being seen by a physician for any conditions like that...the physician could then notify the proper authorities that said person was suffering from mental illness and should not be allowed to carry certain types of firearms...such as the assault rifle...or handguns...or whatever we deem threatening...I think everyone should be able to have at least a shotgun...

      January 18, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Woody

      So what your saying is that we should let the government take away our modern weapons and only able to oun Muskets while the Socialist Regime of Obama has Modern Weapons. We would stand zero chance when the goverment trys the hostal takeover Obama Deams about.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Stephen

        Paranoia is a mentaly illness, maybe you should not own a firearm. I never said we should only own muskets, where in my post did you gleen that? Obama is our majority elected President, so if you want to overthrough him, first off it looks like you are outnumbered for the fight. Secondly most people who did not vote for him do not share your view thta he is a dictator, or anything other then our MAJARITY elected president. Evey time I look at a forum and read a post by someone who is obviously paronoid, it makes me hope for better background checks.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
        • Woody

          It’s not paranoia, Take the Red Pill and Open you fogged eyes and see what is really going on. Obama was elected MAJORITY due to densely populated urban areas. Where everybody has the same thought process of everybody else from what the Liberal Media and Hollywood tells them how to think, dress, act, talk, ect. And to be like everyone else or you are cast out. It also had a lot to do with Obama giving more and more Money and Benefits to the ones who do not want to work or go to school and just want to live off the government and our tax dollars and to the scum who are Lazy and Ignorant and expect the government to give them everything and more. And Obama Promised them More.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:31 pm | Report abuse |
        • Stephen

          Obama is no diffrent then any other politician. All poloticians make promises to the people they think will get them elected. He won the election by popular vote, and if you disagree, then vote again next time. The whole point of the US being set up with elected officials is so that the will of the people will be reflected in the decisions that become law. In almost all cases just shy of 50% of our polpulation disagree with what is going on, then in a few years those people's canidents win, and the laws are repealed, changed, and added to; in reflect of the winning parties beliefs. That is the way it has been for 200+ years. checks and balance, everyone is happy at some point in time, and everyone is mad at others.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • teacher

      Registering guns fits right in with NRA philosophy. But you also have to let government publish the list of registrants in every newspaper, billboard, public service announcements, and the crawls at the bottom of every television in the land so that the NRA's statement to get rid of "gun free zones" can be done. Then all wouldbe murderers would know exactly where there are guns and they can avoid attacking someone there so they themselves would not be shot at. Now, isn't gun registration a great thing?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Josh

        That is a pretty slanted point of view, Last I checked most criminals weren't that smart...or they wouldn't be criminals in the first place...and if they are willing to put in the time and effort to do that research....then they were motivated enough anyway......

        January 18, 2013 at 12:17 pm | Report abuse |
        • tonoffun80

          HEy in canada the data base for firearms was hacked and many rare and expensive firearms whent missing

          January 18, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Txcoon

      During WWII my grandfather was fighting in France as a USA soldier. My grandmothers father was Italian and had broken his back so he lived with my grandparents. The USA govt came and took my grandfathers radios and guns while he was in France fighting because his Italian father-in-law with a broken back lived in their home. Supposedly after the war the government would return them. Nope ... he never got any of it back. Yes the govt will take guns and not give them back.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • Stephen

        Our government has done alot of rotten things in the past 230+ years. Especially during wars. I am sure they will continue to do rotten things until it ends.

        One day our government might do all of the things that the paronoid anti-government folks have been concerned about. Prehaps it will become a dictatorship, or corperations will takover, or we'll be sold out to {insert your least favorite country here}. Or maybe our government will collapse, and we'll become waring city-states. Or the world will end. None of us have any way of knowing if, or when any of this will happen. I am most concerned with keeping my children safe from threats that are most probable. Govenment and world ending are at the bottom of my list, until I have reasonable information to move them up. People have been claiming the govenment is going to tighten it's fist in one way or another for over 150 years (at least – that's as far back as I can find hard proof of the behavior). I pay no mind to hear-say. Take the person claiming Canada's database was hacked, and guns were stolen as a result, try googling it, and see what you come up with – I found nothing, and I am pretty good at finding things. It's just people trying to spread fear to get people to agree with them.

        While looking into the whole gun control debate, there is good evidence to support both sides, but what it boils down to is, what is most likely to happen – the govenment baning all guns, or more and more mentaly unstable individuals getting their hands on guns?

        I think the term "assult rifle ban" is missleding though, as it does not ban any rifles, but specific components of the rifles.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nowhere

      "Arms" in the time and sense to which you are attempting to refer, meant carried weapons. There are many inaccuracies in your post.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • Stephen

        That is one of the big issues with interprating something writen over 200 years ago. I can argue against your statement that arms meant handheld, as cannons were considered arms. by that logic, what I said is accurate. What other inaccuracys are there? Most of it is opinion (no matter how foolish an opinion is, it's never inaccurate), other than what was listed under the "assult rifle ban" (to clarify I am refrenceing the ban of the 1990's, assuming the currenttly purposed one will look to it, as nothing is writen in stone for the purposed ban yet – it may be completely diffrnet than I expect)

        January 18, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • TC

      Your argument is flawed. First, you are presenting a straw man argument by presenting the debate around the notion of home defense. The 2A is about taking up arms to fight oppression, and debating based on something else is not addressing the fundamental issue. Before you can get to what makes sense for home defense, you have to present a sensible argument against the fundamental purpose of the 2A.

      Secondly, the SP has made it clear in Heller v DC (2008) that the 2A allows private ownership of the type of guns that would be commonly used in the establishment of a militia. A fair proxy for those type of weapons are what a police officer may carry. That would exlude something like RPGs but not ARs with 30 round clips.. Go consult the text of the Heller ruling to reconcile your confusion over the contextual meaning of militia vs private ownership.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • Stephen

        I just read Heller v DC (2008), and that is not what it says. It says that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own weapons for self defence (which is what I said) it also stated that the govenment can limit the types of weapons an individual owns.

        Okay an arguement about "fighting oppression" The second ammendment does not say "mob", "posse", "freelance soldier", or "vigalante". It says "a well regulated militia" Regulate means: "Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations." Some research into what militias were at the time it the amendment was writen shows that they were ment as a rapidly avalible force to defend (not attack) their local land, and laws. another thing to ponder is Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution which grants control of the army and the power to direct the militia of the states was concurrently delegated to the federal Congress
        A well regulated militia does not mean a bunch of guys who declare themselves to be liberators, who grab their guns and start pointing them anytime they disagree with Washington. (Keep in mind that every dicission in Washington has someone (usually a little under 50% of the voting population) who disagrees with it.)

        January 18, 2013 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
        • TC

          Here is the decision summary:

          (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
        • TC

          So I’ve already addressed you position about what types of weapons are allowed under this decision, and you’ve simply ignored that and put forth a false position.

          From the summary I posted:

          “United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.”

          And to your point about what defines a milita, I have not put forth any definition contrary to what you stated. You’ve create a straw man on that one.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
        • Stephen

          That is what I read, and nowhere in there does it say "allows private ownership of the type of guns that would be commonly used in the establishment of a militia. A fair proxy for those type of weapons are what a police officer may carry." (correct me if Iam wrong – by pointing it out)

          It does however say : "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" – meaning an individual can own a firearm for home defence – this is what I said.
          It also says :"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" – this tells me that some things can be banned or limited by law.
          My two arguments are should an individual register their guns, and where do we draw the line on what an individual can own? Alot of people point out fighting against the US govenment as the reason for not baning assult weapons. I have two major problems with that point of view. First I do not feel violence is the answer to our country's issues. We have a wonder plan in place already for "overthrowing tyranny ". It's called free election. (it may be flawed, but it works) The current, and all past leader were placed by popular vote. If amyone goes and overthrows them, them I say that THAT ACT is tyranny, as it works against the will of the majarity.
          My second issue with the agument is that assult rifle are no match for our nations armed forces. to level the playing field, should we also allow citizens to own AT4s? Claymores? M60s? Tanks? How about a nuclear deterant, should the average citezen have access to that also? I know these things are absurd (I hope you find them absurd, it would be scary if you did not), but I say them to show the point that there has to be a limit on how much firepower the individual should have access to (even the case you pointed out above agrees to that), and short of these weapons, defeating the govenment in armed revolt is less realistic then thinking the US govenment will ban all guns to my thinking.

          Also the case you refrenced was specificaly to handguns, althogh I do agree it has signifigance otherwise.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
        • TC

          To your first comments in your latest post, my most recent post prior to this one addresses your request about what would be commonly used in a militia:

          “United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.”

          I did not mean to imply the SC made the police officer statement. Rather I was saying that in my judgment, what a typical police officer carries represents “those in common use for lawful purposes”.

          And fighting against the US government is not necessarily what is envisioned. Instead, the government will be less likely to commit acts of oppression if they may be faced with sporadic episodes of having their people shot at or the very politically unpopular scenario where ATF is occasionally killing normal people who are standing up for their rights. If on the other hand things led to a military conflict, we would most assuredly witness a broad insurrection from within the military as a large majority of those people are sympathetic to my position and would not face their own countrymen.

          And to you argument about where we draw the line on what civilians can have, again, I think Heller satisfactorily addresses this with the statement I quoted above. ARs with 30 round clips are in common use for lawful purposes for example, but RPGs are not…

          January 18, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim

      Before you say you're for registration look at the UK and Australia. It is historically proven to be the first step to confiscation. I'm not saying the government's comming for our guns (well not all of them...assault weapons BAN) but registration is without doubt the first step. Do some research, the very same people ie Sen Feinstein, that are pushing for an AWB have said publicly in the past that they would ban and confiscate all guns if they could. NY, already had an AWB and now they're droping mag limits to 7. SEVEN rounds people, they're revolvers with more ammo than that. They couldn't even get the bill right, they passed it so quick trying to avoid public comment that they inadvertanly banned police from even having em and now they're scrambling to fix it. When it's people like that pushing for registration and bans on certain types of firearms how can you NOT believe the slippery slope argument?

      January 18, 2013 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Stephen

        That is always a possibility, so is a law passing tommorrow calling for the confiscation. There are two major diffrences between the US and the UK or Australia.
        First we have the checks and balances in place which make confiscation (or a complete ban) less likely. Look at Heller v DC (2008) (like I just did). It is a case where a ban was deemed unconstitutional. Improper laws can be overturned in our country. If there is one thing I am very confident in about our politicians, it is that the two sides will never agree, and that power will constantly flip flop between the two.
        The second reaon is becuase it is written in our constitution that it is a right to own guns. (Yes I disagree with some peoples belief as to the extent of this belief, but Ibelieve in the individual's basic right to bear arms) Once again unconstitutional laws can be challanged and overturned.

        One note, while they are very restrictive, gun ownership is leagle in both the UK and Australia.

        I am not for taking away guns, but I do believe in tracking them. I do not believe the US govenment will ban/confiscate all guns. (I may be wrong, only time will tell; but I will not sit around in a bunker waiting just in case)

        January 18, 2013 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
        • TC

          Sitting in a bunker won't be necessary if we don't initiate the slippery slope. I find it rather stunning that you are willing to roll the dice on the slippery slope when you position seems to state that you sort of doubt confiscation will happen. Do you not see the flaw in that position?

          And thank you for acknowleding that a constitution ammenment would be needed to change the 2A as it stands now- not establishing laws that don't square with the constition.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • Stephen

          It's not that I sort of doubt it, I seriously doubt it. I just acknowledge the fact that I am subject to be incorrect. I believe in doing a threat assesment when concerned with the possibility of something happening vs the consiqueces of acting vs not acting. For your "rolling the dice" statement, that all we can really do either way. I just stand to what, by the information I have (which is just as lacking as everyone elses, just diffrent information missing, or present), would return the greatest pro to con ratio.

          It is not that I support banning guns, it is that I do not believe there is a signifigant chance of our government being able to pass legislation to ban guns (I doubt (seriously) if even AR-15s will be baned completlely, and believe most (if not all)current guns will be grandfathered), I place this as a very small con, vs where most people see it as a large con. (I see it like being in an airplane crash, it could happen, but I seriously doubt it will)

          I do not expect you to agree with me, but I hope my position is clear.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • concernedin2103

      Stephen,

      I agree with your comments except when it comes to Short Barrel Rifles (SBR). It is not about what YOU feel is practical for another individual to own. Personally I have several registered SBR's and suppressors. I own the SBR because putting a suppressor on anything else creates a unusually long rifle to shoot. Some start asking why I want to own either. Because I am free to do so and I am doing so legally. You suggesting bands on SBRs is just as bad as trying to ban specific types of firearms. All should be legal as long as you go through the proper process.

      Not any one specific type or configuration of weapon should be targeted. If a guy wants a bayonet lug, fine, he should have one. It doesn't matter why. it is the same as religious freedom. You should be free to do what you want as long as you are no hurting anyone else.

      January 18, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • Stephen

        Actually, I don't care about short barrels one way or the other, since it is easy for someone to saw them off if they wanted to conceal them for a crime anyway. I was just going down the list of items I thought were on the ban list, and as it ends out short barrels were not even banned.

        Actually the assult weapon ban of 1994 was ALOT less strict then I thought it was.

        January 18, 2013 at 3:08 pm | Report abuse |
  70. Hot Carl

    Handgun Control Inc aka Brady Campaign Mission Statement From Wiki:

    "We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.[14]
    "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
    Sara Brady
    Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
    The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

    Obama says he doesn't want them banned, but this sure sounds like it. Registration is the first step to confiscation.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:55 am | Report abuse |
    • Hot Carl

      "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."

      Am I the only one who sees the traitorous content here?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:58 am | Report abuse |
      • Woody

        Sounds alot like the demecratic agenda

        January 18, 2013 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
        • Hot Carl

          But try and tell a democrat they can't have an abortion or marry someone of the same s3x, and watch their head explode! And they have the nerve to say Bachman, Palin, Romney, Gingrich, etc. are crazy!

          January 18, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • dvendt

        It's a bogus quote that people use without thinking twice because it supports their agenda.

        http://saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusAntiGunQuotes.htm

        January 18, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rick

        You are definately not the only one. The Brady traitors will never get that far. There will be armed insurrection before then. I will NEVER register or give up my guns.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • LVSam

      This is like me finding a far-right wing-nut who believes that the government is coming for his guns, quoting him, then saying all NRA members think the same thing. See how that doesn't work?

      January 18, 2013 at 12:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • bignevermo

      your quote is totally false! There is no such quote...it is something that keeps being brought up and it cannot be verified...show the actual article...there is no such quote from Sarah Brady!

      January 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • bignevermo

        According to gun rights activist Chris Knox (Neal Knox's son):
        "The quote originally appeared in Machine Gun News, June 1991, Volume 5, Number 1, page 6. in the column "RAFFICA" by Dan Shea, Column 2, Paragraph 2. (Also see Dan Shea's comments, which drives a proverbial stake through the heart of this apocryphal quote).
        "Neal Knox checked into this extensively - before it appeared in the National Educator - and concluded that this quote just never happened."

        "It simply sounds bogus on its face, sounding more like dialogue from a bad 1930s propaganda movie than anything a real person would say. It's often easier to believe something we'd really like to see."

        (The National Educator is described by the Anti-Defamation League as an anti-Semitic periodical "whose pages have honored the leaders of the far-right terrorist gang called The Order and the neo-Nazi paramilitary group, Aryan Nations." Source: ARMED & DANGEROUS: MILITIAS TAKE AIM AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: AN ADL FACT FINDING REPORT, Anti-Defamation League, 1994. In other words the National Educator is something other than a professional magazine for school teachers).

        January 18, 2013 at 12:22 pm | Report abuse |
  71. Dominican mama 4 Obama

    I love my homie Obama because he allows me to sit on my ass and do nothing, while I get free healthcare, cellphone and I can even use my EBT card to buy lotto/booze! Hes the best welfare prez EVA! Obama is the shizzile!

    January 18, 2013 at 11:53 am | Report abuse |
    • Tyrone Jaquizz J'Rule

      Imma use my free time since I dont need a job to write a rap song about Obama. Im makin dat cheeze and dont have to work... Obama makes it easy for me and my 12 kids to live fo free! He has dat swagger. HOLLA!

      January 18, 2013 at 11:57 am | Report abuse |
  72. Mike

    Our government has been unable to stop illegal drug traffic, child pornography, and income tax evasion, so how can we expect to stop gun violence by imposing new laws on otherwise law abding citizens. Why not increase the penalty for crimes committed with a firearm? If we add another 5 to 10 years to a criminal's sentence, at least the bad guys will be off the street longer. By their nature, criminals don't care about laws knowing they will be back on the street in short time.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:50 am | Report abuse |
  73. bdgfn

    You don't throw tantrums when you have to register your motor vehicle. You don't scream and cry foul when you have to get a drivers license (a form of registration). No one has come around trying to take your oversized pickup truck away from you. Why are you so paranoid the government is going to take your legally-owned guns away? That's not going to happen.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:36 am | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      Background Checks and Registration SHOULD be done!
      The government SHOULD NOT ban assault rifles or high capacity mags.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Clif Watts

      I wonder if the Jewish folks in Germany said the same thing when their government mandated gun registration? Our morals have not progressed over time, they have only gotten better at staying hidden.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
    • asche

      Hitler didn't come to take the pickup trucks before he did what he did . . . end of discussion.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Woody

      Registering our Firearm would be giving The Obama Socialist Regime a map of where to stike first.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:54 am | Report abuse |
      • LL Cool Jim

        Let me ask you something. When Bush/Bush Sr/Ragen was President were you that terrified of the government? If Obama is dictator then why did we just have a Presidential election? If Obama is a dictator then would he deal w/ all the filibuster and disruption from the GOP? The government is not out to get you for goodness sakes.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:03 pm | Report abuse |
        • LJ

          Except that's exactly what the Germans thought in 1939...even the jews supported Hitler until he was carting them away. Millions of Russians supported Stalin, even as they were sent to the gulag or their deaths...they assumed he didn't know what was going on. If you don't think a government can turn on its people, you are either naive or not very familiar with history.

          January 18, 2013 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
        • Woody

          Yea, we had an election, just like Venezuela and Iran had an election. Obama is in process of creating Government involvement and regulation in everything. They are Demonizing the GOP with help of main stream media and influence from Movie stars, Athletes, and Musicians, with intent to rid the government of the GOP and create a One Party Government with total control of the Nation and The Citizens.

          January 18, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      It isn't about screaming for the other things you mentioned...as they are not constitutional rights. The 2nd amendment is the monkey wrench in all of this. It is a right that the founding fathers decided we should have because of the way this country became a country. If you allow the government to then alter or manipulate the constitution....what is the point in having it....and more importantly....where will they stop?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:59 am | Report abuse |
      • LL Cool Jim

        The 2nd Amendment is still intact. You can see have a firearm for personal protection and for hunting. Ex President Ragen in 1991 said he support the Brady Bill, a ban on assault weapons and subsequently, Clinton signed it into law. The Constitution can change, it's call an Amendment. Stop the fear mongering that he government is out to get you. This isn't the case. Obama is not a dictator and there were already social programs before Obama became President. Hello Social Security, Medicare, and etc. If Obama is a dictator he would of imposed his will onto Congress and don't have to negotiate a thing w/ Congress.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:08 pm | Report abuse |
        • Josh

          How exactly am I fear mongering?? The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about for hunting...and that I can't have a semi auto...or what have you. I'm not fear mongering, I'm saying if we as a people allow rights to be altered....at what point do you think it will stop....I can guarantee you more people die from obesity than guns....should the government then attempt to regulate your caloric intake to make sure you are ok?

          January 18, 2013 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jacob

      I would have no problem with gun registration if the government created some type of HIPAA-like law to protect the identity of gun owners from the public (not from law enforcement). Just last month a New York area newspaper printed the names and addresses of every gun owner within the paper's coverage. In a sense, the newspaper put these people in danger (never mind that they made them feel uncomfortable). 1) Guns are valuable and people steal guns, especially when they are not at home (but their children under the care of a babysitter are). 2) Growing up, one of my parents' best friends was a jeweler who would sometimes take his work home. He always carried a registered gun on his person. My parents' also attended the funeral of a man, also a jeweler, who didn't. The thieves made the man, his wife and children lie on the floor and after cleaning out the house, shot the man in the back. A list of gun owners and a LinkedIn account, and a potential thief would know which houses to case.
      Again, I have no problems with gun registration. But it needs to be kept private like my medical records. Only law enforcement should know I own a gun. It should not be in the public record.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • dnrdan0113

      None of those things are guaranteed by the constitution.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lexl1019

      Vehicle registration is a use tax plain and simple, and doesn't keep anybody from using automobiles in dangerous or illegal ways. Registration of weapons is pointless and would only be done by folks that already follow the law... not criminals.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • pbtad

      bdgfn - In Washington State people did have a tantrum registering our motor vehicles. The registration used to be a 3% of the blue book value. You paid that each year. So if you had a car that retained its resale value (or a collectable one that increased) you could be met with a pretty heft tax bill.

      The voters revolted and through an initiative got that process repealed.

      Now if you think there was a national gun registration process (which couldn't be repealed so easily) that they wouldn't take the same approach? Each year you have to pay big $$$ to keep your registered guns or else.

      And this isn't a paranoid they want to take my guns away fear. This is a 'here is a new source of income' fear. If the government sees the registry as a money maker, they will exploit it.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Report abuse |
  74. Bubba

    Let's argue about the details over how much $ is too much for a license, or for a background check. Then we can argue about whether clips should be limited to 15 or 15 million rounds, then argue about some other stupid thing. All the while, more children pay for our hubris WITH THEIR LIVES.
    Time for Chrisitans to stand up, and decide if the Gospel is King, or the Constitution, but you can't have it both ways. You cannot live for guns and God. Something has to give.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:33 am | Report abuse |
    • bdgfn

      It's the Constitution, the document which thankfully guarantees a separation of church and state. Practice whatever religion you want, but don't try to make me follow the same one or force it down the throats of the rest of us.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
    • bfpiercelk

      Christians need to get over themselves. You're not the only show in town, our constitution guarantees it.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      I'm so sick of christians this and christians that....More people have died in the name of GOD than I care to count...and I'd love for someone to do the legwork and find out how many mass murders where done by people with a christian belief?.....I mean come on....this is not the time to bring faith into a discussion....where was your faith when the kids or anyone else was slaughtered....You can't prevent evil from happening...PERIOD. How about 9/11 how many AR's where used for that?? Or maybe the oklahoma city bombing....or dare I bring up the crusades....Guns don't kill people....people kill people....

      January 18, 2013 at 12:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Krosskelt

      Really?

      Romans 13:4 – For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

      Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
      Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

      Lev 26:7 And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.

      Luke 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

      January 18, 2013 at 12:44 pm | Report abuse |
  75. YouSirAreDumb

    ATTENTION: "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."

    "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" not WELL REGULATED FIREARMS, not WELL REGULATED ARMS, not WELL REGULATED. its WELL REGULATED MILITIA. quit chopping up the damn constitution and picking and choosing the words you like. the well regulated has nothign to do with regulation of arms. it means you can and a bunch of civilians can organize yourself as a militia and the government cannot persecute you so long as you aren't acting outside of the law. MORONS.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Woody

      Very well said.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
    • DingGate

      I thought the phrase "shall not be infringed" covered that...isn't "infringe" another word for "limit"

      January 18, 2013 at 11:53 am | Report abuse |
    • ChrisIA

      Yes, the "well regulated" referrs to "well acquitted" or "well equipped". In fact in United States v Miller, the lawyers for the federal government argued that the 2nd amendment only referred to the right to own milirary weapons (They were prosecuting two men for transporting an NFA sawed off shotgun across state lines and stated, as did the supreme court, that because a sawed off shotgun is not a military issued weapon it is not covered my the second amendment.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • JT Gunowner

      Do "Arms" include all armaments, i.e. machine guns, tanks, grenades, RPG's, etc. or only muskets like our Founding Fathers owned? This whole amendment is open to many interpretations by equally intelligent people with different agendas.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
  76. Michael, Chapel Hill

    Regitering gun ownership is not a sound idea. First of all, anyone know if a person owns a gun or not. So if he/she wants to do harm, it is easy.
    Again, once a gun is registered with the govt, govt can demand submitting them to the nearest police station.
    Obmama always have Ayer's ideology hiding in all his policies.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
    • bdgfn

      I bet you see government agents hiding behind every tree, don't you? Is that what the voices in your head tell you?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
      • bfpiercelk

        I'm not really sure why anybody on the left would mock paranoia on the right, since the left is trying to pass laws based on similar paranoia and fear. Added to that the fact that the left spent the 8 years prior to Obama complaining about fear mongering on the right.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:45 am | Report abuse |
        • ChrisIA

          If this comment system incorporated facebook style "likes", I would give you one.

          January 18, 2013 at 12:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • ChrisIA

      Not to mention that criminals and current felons in posession of firearms (gang bangers, drug dealers, etc.) are not going to register a thing. The only people that will are the non threatening citizens who won't commit crimes even without registration. If a registered gun gets stolen (like the ones in New York who's owner was on the Journal News map that were stolen permits and all when the thieves took his whole safe after tearing his house apart looking for them) then the cops only find it at the scene of a gang shooting after someone (usually the guy that had the gun, the winner doesn't disarm himself before leaving) is already dead.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:49 am | Report abuse |
  77. j

    2-Sense, Actually the 5th leading cause of deaths in America is accidents (from the CDC) so let's also tax stupidity and clumsiness. How high would your tax be?

    January 18, 2013 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
  78. Joe

    It's happening sooner that I expected – the gun control issue has dropped from top coverage to just a couple of stories on CNN, usurped by the debt ceiling, the hostage crisis, and Lance Armstrong. A month from now it'll be forgotten completely.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:19 am | Report abuse |
    • Dan

      We can only hope...

      January 18, 2013 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Darh Jedi

      Give it until summer, latest. It won't even be a topic anymore. Our populace has the attention span of a 5 year old.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:33 am | Report abuse |
    • Clif Watts

      Let it be...

      January 18, 2013 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
  79. Bernie

    What is the real purpose of any registration. Money – fees and taxes to some government agency.

    "We are going to tax that soda you have because we do not want you getting fat."

    As far as background checks for all as a gun owner and concel carry license holder that is not an issue with me as long as there is access to a reliable database of those mentally ill similar to the felon database used now.

    But, I am sure the ALCU will once again like they did decades ago jump in and say violation of the First Amendment.

    The executive orders are near worthless and there are not enough votes in the Senate nor the House to pass any anti-gun legislation.

    Most underrstand laws cannot perform only people can. Chicago, Washington DC, NY City all have many many gun laws but as we know they do not work.

    You want a fix – legally get rid of the Second Amendment with a Constitutional amendment. Next, confiscate all guns. If someone is found with a gun large fine and jail time. Oh, and yes build a whole bunch more jails and prisons. Good luck on that one.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
    • ok

      You want a fix, it involves taking away the sources of violence (ensure equal access to economic opportunity, education, respect for people, etc) not the implements used.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
  80. Craig T

    Here is how gun control works in Canada.
    FIREARMS LICENCE
    In order for you to legally own a firearm, you must be 18+ years of age and have one of the following firearms licenses:

    A Possession and Acquisition License (P.A.L.)
    A Possession Only License (P.O.L.)
    The P.A.L. allows you to own, borrow, buy, receive as a gift or inherit firearms and to buy ammunition.

    The P.O.L. allows you to own or borrow firearms and to buy ammunition, but not acquire firearms.

    Currently, the only firearms licenses one can apply for are the non-restricted or restricted Possession and Acquisition Licenses.

    To qualify for the non-restricted (hunting type firearms) Possession and Acquisition License, you must show proof of having successfully completed the Manitoba Hunter Education Course prior to April 1, 1994 or the International Practical Shooting Confederation Course in Manitoba prior to April 1, 1994 or the non-restricted Canadian Firearms Safety Course or the non-restricted Canadian Firearms Safety Course test challenge.

    Restricted (handgun, pistol) Possession and Acquisition Licenses require that the applicant qualify by successfully having completed the Canadian Firearms Safety Course prior to February 1999 or the restricted portion of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course or the restricted Canadian Firearms Safety Course test challenge.

    Possession and Acquisition Licenses are good for 5 years with a cost of $60 for a non-restricted license and $80 for a non-restricted/restricted license

    January 18, 2013 at 11:06 am | Report abuse |
    • 2nd Amendment

      Good info, but this isn't Canada. They have a very different history than we do. There is a reason we are the most powerful country in the world. There is a reason the forefathers saw to it to make sure we were as equally armed as those who police us. Those who can not ever even allow that there might be a government or police force that get out of line are simply fools.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        The biggest problem with people from other countries trying to input their ideas is they aren't anywhere close to America. The constitution gave us the right to bear arms. there is no right to own guns in other countries so their regulations, albeit can have some decent concepts, are mostly null and void. So long as you arent a criminal and can pass a background check you can own a gun in America. We dont pay fees because that would be an infringement.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
        • Jeremy

          History really does not matter: the kid in CT was nuts. He would be nuts here or in Canada. Do not go blaming his rampage on history, that is a cop out,

          Canada makes a decent analog as they have nearly the same culture, the same video games, books, movies, etc. and not the same levels of gun violence. Laws aside, we are close in those aspects.

          I will say this debate is sad because both sides are drowning out other options by their 'only one way to fix this' language. There are in fact a bunch of ways, and we should examine what laws are or are not working in their various jurisdictions. That is not a crime to ask for that, and if we as a society decide to make changes, tin foil hat folks, those who are scared of guns, those who are scared of losing their guns will need no buck up .

          January 18, 2013 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
    • David

      Sorry buddy, this is not Canada, and for that matter neither is Mexico, even know it seems like half the country is already here.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:33 am | Report abuse |
  81. Jim

    I have a right to own a firearm (or multiple firearms). This is defined in the Bill of Rights. This was created DUE to a government that was a tyrant. No where does it state the government has a right to know if I have firearms. I am a law abiding citizen and you may state that I shouldn't have a problem with telling the government. Look at what has happened in other countries after registration of firearms is required. Currently some state governments is trying to force firearm owners to have liability insurance. If a crime occurs the individual should be charged accordingly. Driving a car is a privilege and insurance is mandated (along with registration). The right to own a firearm is a right acknowledged by the founding fathers of this country. I know many may not agree with me and that is your right as it is for me to own firearms.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Lauradet

      But why the need for assault weapons?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:11 am | Report abuse |
      • Mr60

        I keep hearing the question of, why do you need it. Need really doesnt' have anything to do with it and how I may define my needs and wants may be different than someone elses. We have other constitutional rights but do we temper them by deciding how much of that right do you relaly need.

        There are plenty of lawful uses for these types of guns. Based on the writings around the 2nd amendment, i think intent is that a citizen should be able to own and "bare" what a normal infantry man would carry. I know that's not spelled out explicitly but it's my thought. That seperates from the jump to "well should you be able to have a rocket launcher?". A combat quality handgun and combat quality rifle should be allowed.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
        • C. Flynn

          Considering that we have a standing military (something not laid out in the Constitution btw) one could argue that the average modern citizen's needs do not include defending the nation from OTHER invading tyrannical governments. Furthermore, the gap between what is normally used for military purposes and for sport and protection has been growing ever since that amendment was written. I am not in favor of citizens having anything with full-auto or burst fire capacity; there is no need in our society for these types of weapons outside of the military.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
        • concernedin2103

          I agree "CFlynn" goes on to say it again "need". Stop using it in your arguments. It is about a right. If a guy wants to buy a truck mounted .50 machine gun, and I know guys who have them legally today, well then it is his right given he goes through the process. It is up to him if he wants to waste money on the ammo. Just like when the neighbor kid buys a motorcycle that goes 150MPH. It is entirely up to him.

          A free country. That is what this is.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
        • jroth420

          Actually, yes we do temper other rights. Although we have free speech, we aren't allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There are also regulations about what can and can not be said on the radio and television. This is not a violation of our rights; this is something that, so far, we have deemed necessary as a society. The 2nd amendment should be no different. If firearms are a problem in our society, then we need to dial it back some until it fits our current society. The founding fathers didn't live in the same crowded cities that modern people live in. They weren't on a handful of pharmaceuticals for lord knows what reasons. There are a lot of factors that have changed and the entire point of the constitution was that it could be changed if the people deemed it necessary for the preservation of the country. That's where we are now.

          As for your needs and "wants". I don't really care what you want and nobody needs an arsenal in their home, period. A handgun or shotgun for protection sure. A rifle or two for hunting, no problem. An AK-47? Nope. And while we're at it, I understand gun supporters are sick of the term "assault weapon" being misused. While I understand the true definition of an assault weapon (fully auto or burst), let's be honest. An AR15 can be fired as fast as you can pull the trigger and is essentially an assault weapon. I've fired them at the range and you can fire so rapidly that others around you stop shooting to see what exactly you're shooting because it sounds automatic (or close enough). I understand it isn't "technically" an assault rifle but for all practical purposes it is.

          January 18, 2013 at 8:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dan

        1. They are simpler for a woman to shoot.
        2 They have a higher capacity in case a burglar has the same thing.
        3. It's a sporting gun, not an assault weapon
        4. It's the patterned weapon of the 21st century, like the musket was of the 1700's
        5, They are accurate for sporting events, target shoots.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
      • Hot Carl

        Stop using the term "assault weapons"! A semi-automatic sporting rifle that LOOKS bad IS NOT and assault weapon! You're falling for the tactics of the liberal media to that serves no purpose but to install misguided fear among uneducated non-gun owners.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
      • 2nd Amendment

        You mean the rifles that work exactly like the other rifles that nobody is attacking, only with a fancy trim package that makes them look scary to those who know nothing about guns? We need them because we are supposed to be equally armed to those who police us. Funny how the CT investigation has now revealed the "assault weapon" never even made it into the school – now they state there were just four pistols. The "assault weapon" stayed in the car. But the media sure had their field day and demonized the gun that had nothing to do with it, and the damage is done. Fortunately there are enough smart people left in the US to know NOT to surrender that right – it's the only thing that GUARANTEES our continued freedom by keeping those who could or would oppress us in check. That's why.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
      • Natch

        Why do people need cars that can go 150mph, when the maximum speed limit, in most places, is 65 or 70?? I demand that everyone immediately turn in their cars for Yugos, which would have a hard time exceeding 70mph, downhill, with a tail wind!!

        Now do you see how silly arguments about limitations sound?? You either have the right, or you don't.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • No one in particular

        "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.",,,,US v Miller 1939. Amendment 2 guarentees the right to own such things.

        Miller never showed up to argue his case. So in absence of the argument the court went with the argument they had from the US by default.

        January 18, 2013 at 1:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • GC

      Why is it that so many people forget the words "well regulated" in the second amendment. Requiring background checks, firearm registration, etc. is just a regulation, not an infringement. The government has a responsibility to regulate weapons. That responsibility is even stated in the second amendment.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:11 am | Report abuse |
      • ok

        Regulation is one thing. Charging someone to exercise their right is a problem. Another problem is releasing information on who owns guns, that is a violation of privacy.

        Common sense approach is needed, not extremism.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
        • Dan

          What's "common"sense about a hijacked government that aspires to take full dictatorial control?

          January 18, 2013 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
        • C. Flynn

          Dan, the government has not been "hijacked" (I'm assuming) You were on the losing side of a DEMOCRATIC election, that is all. Get over it, and try again in 4 years.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        "well regulated" is "well regulated militia" which means allowing one to legally make an organized group based on military and warfare. Quit chopping up words. The well regulated portion has ZERO to do with the guns. the 2nd amendment is split in 2 parts. the first is giving the citizens the legal right to form their own militia without persecution from the government for being "terrorists." The 2nd part is stating everyone is allowed to keep and bear arms with the specific phrase "shall not be infringed." banning assault rifles is infringement. how about you read next time instead of just picking and choosing words you like. Here's a hint, to pass high school you have to be able to read an ENTIRE SENTENCE to understand what is said, not just the first few words.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
        • C. Flynn

          1) the second amendment is grammatically not split, it is a single coherent clause – meaning that the tie between the right to bear arms and the "well-regulated" militia is in fact a direct relation. This means that the REASON for the right to bear arms is so that our government can maintain a fighting force in case of invasion from another gov't.

          2) The amendment does not clearly state why a militia would be formed, except to state that one is necessary to maintain a "free" state. Given that the entire purpose of the document is to create a "free" nation, the most likely legal definition would say that the "free" state is us, and that the militia would be used against OTHER tyrannical governments attempting to invade.

          3) Technically, the government does now have the right to detain terrorism suspects for indefinite periods, and yes President Obama signed that law (note LAW, not executive order). I disagree with him on this. But also remember that that LAW was initiated and passed in congress with primarily Republican support.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:52 am | Report abuse |
        • No one in particular

          It is most certainly split. Basically "Because of this reason, therfore this" The "right" is not given, it exists as a state of the human condition. The "militia" clause merely states a fringe benifit of that right. "Because we may need to fight, leave them their arms" so to speak. But even if we say they are not split, it doesn't change the fact that it is the law of the land; the supreme law of the land. This has been confirmed several times already. The fact that the State(s) have not called up or regulated the militia does not mean it is no longer extant. If you want it changed, amend the BOR.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • Robert

        "A well regulated militia" was made up of individuals well trained and equipped with personally owned firearms.

        Even today, the term "regulated" has multiple meanings. Read the Federalist papers or the writings of any of the people who were involved in writing the Constitution or Bill of Rights. They all demanded the average citizen have access to what ever small arms soldiers would carry into combat. Today that would be an M4 carbine and a Beretta M9 pistol.

        Regulate:
        1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
        2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement.
        3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
        4. To put or maintain in order.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
      • Joe

        Probably because that is defining militia. The reason for the second amendment is that if our government starts to ignore the will of the people and heads towards a theocracy, a dictatorship or any other form that neglects the will of the people or becomes corrupt we can have the power to change through revolution. It was a check and balance put in by the founding fathers after they had to fight for their freedom. They wanted to ensure we would be able to protect ourselves from a hostile government. If you think this is impossible look at Facist Italy Nazi Germany Saddams Iraq Stalins USSR. In each of these places people came to power and manipulated their country into a dictatorship. When the aforementioned places fell into a dictatorship the people had no means to rise up against the government and that is what the founding fathers wanted to ensure did not happen here. If you think a partisan rebel army can not fight against a military as powerful as our own look at Vietnam or the soviets or us in Afghanistan or even Iraq. Our gun culture provides us defense not only form criminals but is also a reason our government is not as susceptible to becoming a dictatorship. All methods of government are susceptible to the evils of tyranny and corruption. It is our responsibility That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it by force if unnecessary.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:57 am | Report abuse |
      • JT

        Because it's not relevant to the discussion. If you read the entire ammendment – 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 – it's clear that "regulated" is an adjective used to describe "militia". That means the militia should be regulated, which in essence means that they should be well practiced and prepared. I admit it has a somewhat awkward and confusing syntax.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • ChrisIA

        "Well regulated" in the language of the time that the amendment was written means "Well equipped" not bogged down with "regulations". Definitely not federal ones since the founding fathers were 100% for states rights and a small federal government for administrative purposes. That is the reason we have states. Because each of the original 13 colonies was still recognized as a sovereign power with its own government after the revolution. This set the precedent for the other 37 that came later. Contrary to intent, the federal government kept growing and growing and sinking its claws in deeper over time.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • RJ

        The full term is "Well regulated militia". Not the shortened version some people seem to be focusing on.
        Context is EVERYTHING. And in the 2nd Amendment, it is clear that "well regulated" is referring to a militia, not weapons.
        The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Infringed = restricted

        January 18, 2013 at 12:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Corwin

      No it wasn't. It was due to a foreign government attempting to restrict access to guns and ammunition to quell a rebellion in an occupied territory.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
    • brjadams

      Actually Jim, you could easily argue that this is satisfy the "well regulated militia" language in the amendment.
      To be fair, there is nothing well-regulated about any of this.

      They should require training (hello training industry boom!). There's no reason you shouldn't have some sort of basic proficiency test with a weapon before being allowed to own, carry, or conceal carry.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:14 am | Report abuse |
    • C. Flynn

      "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" – 2nd Amendment

      Note the "well regulated Militia" part of the amendment. While the crux for the amendment is yes, to protect the rights of citizens to own and use arms, the reason for this is also spelled out, that being to keep this nation free from OTHER tyrannical governments. In order to do this, a "well regulated Militia" must be maintained. The use of the term "well-regulated" would imply that the government asking for you to register your firearms is not only constitutional, but necessary. After all, in the event of another tyrannical gov't attempting to take over, our own gov't would be better off if they know how our militia was supplied.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
      • RJ

        Nice try, but no.
        Registration is not required to form and regulate a militia.
        Militias are voluntary.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • coder20601

      Its my right to go to the movies or shopping malls or send my kids to school without the fear of being killed. This second amendment thing is getting a little long in the tooth, a lot has changed since our founding fathers. This fantasy of government tyranny and arming civilians to the teeth is just stupid, if the goverment wanted to take over they can, they have a lot more firepower than we do. Think about hearing an A-10 warthog fly over your house and turning around for the kill, how long you think you will last, clearly Goverment has the advanage.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
      • JT

        Long in the tooth? How about this "I have a right ... [not to live in fear]" crap?

        The people arguing the tyrannical gov't line are off base. It says very clearly security of the free state – not free individuals. A tyrannical gov't would take the necessary steps to repeal the 2nd Ammendment anyway, making any hypothetical discussion even more pointless.

        I don't want you to live in fear, but that requires you to think rationally. There is virtually zero chance you're going to be involved in a mass shooting in your lifetime. Most fear is irrational, but this one takes the cake.

        I suppose you think that a right to not live in fear means that you're the type that has no problem with people needlessly killing snakes, spiders, etc? I mean what about people who are afraid of intruders or armed gangs in a post-apocolyptic future? IMO, those are up there with the fear of dying in a mass shooting in terms of being highly irrational.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
  82. Chris

    Why can't members of the "media" at elast do a little research on their subject matter. There are no high capacity clip rifles, the very few rifles that use clips have a low capacity. Rounds for sporting rifles are held and fed into the firearm through a magazine. Also, SHOT show is not the world's largest gun show, it is the trade show for the firearms industry. John Q Public or Bubba from the hills can't just pay admission and walk in there like a gun show, you have to be a part of (and have documentation to prove it) the firearms industry as something other than a gun buyer.
    But those are just facts that can be easily found on the interent and we wouldn't want the media to actually have proof of anything they report or verify what they publish is the truth.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:01 am | Report abuse |
  83. Steve

    This is the 1% trying to take power away from the 99%. Take the guns and the 99% become even more vulnerable. The rich are winning this war and Obama is backing them all the way.

    January 18, 2013 at 11:00 am | Report abuse |
    • RocketJL

      Take a close look at what happened, and is happening in England. 'Trust me' no longer works.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:04 am | Report abuse |
    • sandalista

      Who wants to take your guns away? Paranoid anyone?
      As other posters have pointed out, the words "WELL REGULATED" aren't written in the second amendment for the fun of it. Our founding fathers knew very well how to word the constitution. Just you gun nuts want the armed militia part without the "well regulated" part. You can't just adhere to parts of the constitution and ignore the rest.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
      • Mr60

        I agree, some regulation is clearly defined. Where that line is can be difficult. I'd say any regulation that prevents a law abiding citizen from excrcising his/her right to keep AND bare is across the line. That included regulation that drives the cost of guns or ammunition up so that only those with pleanty of resources get the right.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
      • Natch

        And the ONLY argument the anti-gun nuts can come up with is to quibble about the meaning of the term "well-regulated militia", all the while missing the most important part of that amendment, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Just another weak liberal argument!

        January 18, 2013 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • teacher

      Totally untrue as well as stupid statement.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:04 pm | Report abuse |
  84. Chris

    Folks need to read a history book. In the early colonial days,(IE, when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were still alive) states DID keep a register of who owned a gun AND failure to report for muster in the event the militia/reserves were called up, would carry a jail term and a public whipping for desertion!

    My guns are here for my own recreation, To defend my home, And if need be to defend this country (That includes our democratically elected President) from all threats foreign and domestic (This means you Teabaggers)

    January 18, 2013 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
    • S

      It's crazy that there is no national or at least state gun registries. It seems many gun owners also suffer from paranoid delusions about the govt knowing how many firearms they own. These are the people who should not own weapons.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
      • Jeff

        Actually, it has a lot more to do with certain politicians who constantly push more and more gun control, who say confiscation and forced buybacks are not off the table in terms of what they want to do.

        Secondly, Canada just scrapped a big chunk of their national firearms registry, as a way overbudget, ineffective, time consuming mess.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
      • nick

        One can assume that the data is already available for gun registration since they run a background check before allowing me to take the weapon home. You're allowed to purchase the weapon before the check is initiated. My local police department and the State knows that I'm buying a weapon, so it's just a matter of properly collecting the data. Gun owners are paranoid for good reason. History backs their paranoia on more than one occasion. Whether it be our government or a foreign government. You're not a fortune teller and one can assume that a foriegn power might try to invade ,or a government against its people, or a small terrorist attack (like India) is inevitable. The fight is a generational fight to insure our grandchildren, greatchildren, or great great grandchildren have the tools to defend themselves. Regardless of what you think about the 2nd amendment 300 million guns exist in the US alone. If you were to have full confiscation tomorrow, a black market would rise and there would be more violence against good people with little knowledge as to who owned weapons. In some states our government has legislated us out of carrying which makes us play the role of victim outside of our house. We should be educating, not vilifying gun ownership. I recomend you practice your 2nd amendment right while demanding an educated/trained public. I have no problem with mandated training for proficiency.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Report abuse |
  85. cribbooky

    It is interesting that the president wants to ban assault rifles in response to the Newtown shootings since an assault rifle was not used in those murders. Isn't this a bit like pulling bacon off the shelves to protect us from Mad Cow Disease?

    January 18, 2013 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Patrick

      This isn't just in response to Newtown, short term memory problems? If you recall some guy used an assault rifle to kill 12 people and wound 58 others in Colorado and any number of other shootings. Newtown was the final straw, there have been plenty of other mass shootings in the US involving assault rifles. Not to mention Drug Lords buying their weapons here and murdering thousands of people in Mexico.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:33 am | Report abuse |
      • Jeff

        Guy in England went on a shooting spree in 2011 killing 12 with a double barrel shotgun and a 5 shot, bolt action 22.

        January 18, 2013 at 12:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Orihulcan

        It's interesting that you mention Mexico as wasn't it the Federal Government that knowingly sold those guns to the killers and drug lords in the first place? Not to mention the fact they have still refused to release all the records from this debacle. Also, lets not get confused. The weapons in question aren't "Assault Rifles", but "Sporting Rifles".

        January 18, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
  86. Agnostic on the issue

    The article headline and content are misleading. It leads the reader to believe that these two gun shop owners are representative of the overall population of gun owners, which may or may not be true. What the article doesn't also state is that gun shop owners stand to gain financially from the background checks, as any private sales have to have background checks done by a gun shop. Do people think they will do this for free? I would just argue that these gun shop owners are biased and the writer of this article did a poor job of being independent of any biases by not being more diligent in his investigation. Sad.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Joe C.

      I've never been charged for a background check, so.........

      January 18, 2013 at 12:13 pm | Report abuse |
  87. Tracy

    Steve
    Instead of the government spending more money on gun control, they should make money. Charge an annual tax for guns. If you have a multi clip rifle, it could cost you hundreds a year to own it. If you have children, it would double. if your gun was used in a crime, you go to jail if it wasn't locked up. I don't mind it if people have a gun for protection, but there seems to be too many nuts just taking a gun out of a drawer. Too easy. Lock them up when you're not home. If you want to strap on a six shooter when you get home from work and play Rambo, go for it.

    Absurd!

    January 18, 2013 at 10:56 am | Report abuse |
    • DMG2FUN

      What other right do we tax?

      January 18, 2013 at 10:58 am | Report abuse |
      • Corwin

        How about home ownership and assembly?

        January 18, 2013 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
        • JohnH

          UH..No...the federal government does neither of those.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Nathan

      Tracy,

      Let's tax your vote – it will cost you $500 for primaries and $1000 for general elections. It will cost you $5.00 per day to speak your mind on this website. While we're at it, lets start taxing women additional for demanding equal pay and rights. Sound good to you? After all, sooner or later, we will get to a right you actually care about.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:04 am | Report abuse |
      • Tracy

        Nathan,

        Im a one issue voter....gun rights. I think you missed my point!

        January 18, 2013 at 11:06 am | Report abuse |
      • Corwin

        Tell you what Nathan...when someone steals my "vote" and slaughters 20 6 and 7 year olds with it then I'll agree to discuss your tax hike on it ok?

        January 18, 2013 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
        • Jeff

          They have. Its called abortion and kills far more innocents than guns have last year...

          January 18, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Corwin

        Nathan...just keep blabbing along...sooner or later you might make a point germain to the discussion at hand...

        January 18, 2013 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Nathan

      Tracy,

      I'm sorry – I did not realize until just now that you didn't say that.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:06 am | Report abuse |
      • Tracy

        yep....I could have quoted better...lol!

        January 18, 2013 at 11:07 am | Report abuse |
    • RobB

      What a novel idea. Let's over tax everything the government doesn't deem to be good for our lives. What's next? Sugar, salt, fatty foods? Ridiculous!!!

      January 18, 2013 at 11:16 am | Report abuse |
  88. Know Your Subject

    It is not surprising that gun dealers would not object to background checks for private transactions ... since such checks would be done through dealers and for a fee.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:55 am | Report abuse |
    • Nathan

      Dealers do not charge a fee for the background check. Please inform yourself before you comment.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:05 am | Report abuse |
      • RobB

        They would if it was for a weapon that was not purchased through them. It's simply a government requirement for the sale. That's the ONLY reason there is not a fee now. So he was informed plenty.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
      • Mako

        I do not know of any dealer that will do a transfer of a gun that they did not sell without a fee. I purchase guns online. If you buy a gun online it has to be shipped to a licensed dealer. The dealer that transfers the gun to me runs the background check and handles the transfer paperwork. This typically costs $20-$40 per gun depending on which dealer is doing the transaction. It is NOT free.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
  89. Steve

    Instead of the government spending more money on gun control, they should make money. Charge an annual tax for guns. If you have a multi clip rifle, it could cost you hundreds a year to own it. If you have children, it would double. if your gun was used in a crime, you go to jail if it wasn't locked up. I don't mind it if people have a gun for protection, but there seems to be too many nuts just taking a gun out of a drawer. Too easy. Lock them up when you're not home. If you want to strap on a six shooter when you get home from work and play Rambo, go for it.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      How stupid are you? Should you go to jail if someone steals your car and runs over a kid with it?

      January 18, 2013 at 10:55 am | Report abuse |
      • Tracy

        Or charge you tax to use your 1st amendment rights!

        January 18, 2013 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          We should charge Steve $10 for every moronic comment he makes.

          January 18, 2013 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
        • Corwin

          Duh! We DO change fees for exercising your first amendment rights. Its called an assembly permit.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:23 am | Report abuse |
        • JohnH

          Show me where the federal government charges an "assembly permit"

          January 18, 2013 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
      • Patrick

        Depends on the circumstance. I know some states, MN for example, charges you a fine if your car gets stolen because you left it running (winters are cold here and we like to warm up our vehicles).

        If your gun is stolen due to your negligence and someone dies or is injured as a result, I certainly believe you should be charged with a crime and have your firearm permit revoked (permanently or for a number of years). Not necessarily charging them as an accessory to murder with jail time or anything, but something involving a fine unless you were REALLY REALLY stupid with your firearm.

        You have a right in this nation to own firearms. You do not have a right to be irresponsible with them in a fashion that could cause harm to others.

        January 18, 2013 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |
  90. Turner1925

    How ironic Obama comes out so strongly about the children that were killed at the elementary school yet he signs bills to kill babies through abortion....don't be fooled by this article...if Obama has his way hw will take our guns from us.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
    • Corwin

      President Obama hasn't signed any bills to "kill babies through abortion" idiot.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
    • teacher

      turner1925 – watch something besides Fox. If you are going to make statements about President Obama like you just did, first you should listen to what he actually says and not what Hannity says he said. You will see that everything Fox "entertainers" say is just Fox vomit.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
  91. TimW

    Hitler actually loosened gun regulations: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

    January 18, 2013 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
    • Craig

      TimW, he did loosen gun laws for most Germans, just not for one certain group.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:00 am | Report abuse |
  92. Jess

    With all the gun legislation issues dominating news, I'm surprised noone has made recommendations for classes. Cars are dangerous machines, so before people get licenses they are monitored with practice hours behind the wheel and they have to pass safety and skill tests. Why not make a gun safety course prerequisite to buying your first gun or getting license to own. Course Topics: safe handling, secure storage, and the legal consequences of allowing a weapon to fall in wrong hands.

    Gun industry should support because it could increase training jobs, society should support because it would create more safety nets. Is my idea totally out of line? The more I think about it, the more sense it seems to make.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:48 am | Report abuse |
    • dirkk

      That' s not a bad idea. I have been taught gun safety my whole life. I went to a class with a friend who had never really handled guns, and I couldn't bleieve his lack of intiution about gun safety on the range. I yelled at him once on the firing line for his foolishness and lack of awareness in how he was handling a dangrous tool.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
    • Old Idea

      The NRA has taught gun safety for years, longer then they have been lobbying for gun rights. However our government(s) do not take it seriously.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
    • Corwin

      Thats what the NRA used to be before they became a shill group lobbying for the weapons manufacturers and whack jobs that think they can overthrow the government with small arms.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
  93. YouSirAreDumb

    There is no reason to not be doing background checks, Period! But the government should also not be able to tell me what type of gun I may own. If i pass my background checks, and i have with every purchase i have made, then that should be the end of it. The Dems have the stats so twisted its ridiculous. They say a good majority want stricter laws, thats because the good majority agree that background checks NEED TO BE DONE. the part they have totally scrwed up is opposition to "assault rifles." the majority of people who want background checks also want to have the option to own them. If the government would just push better background checks and stop trying to limit what people could own this crap would be resolved already. Instead they're trying to take away what people can own and that's causing the big uproar.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
    • Dan in Chitown

      Sounds like we should sign you up for one of those nice fancy rocket propelled granade launchers.... See my point. Everyone knows that there has to be a limit on what type of weaponry we allow the general public to consume. The discussion should focus around what that limit is. Some people think automatic weapons should be the limit, some people think handguns. You apparantly think there should be no limit. Everyone has their opinion, now let's settle on what that limit is without accusing our government of trying to take all your weapons or take over the world.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • JT

        Dan, if we can assume good faith for this debate, we can assume that anyone who passes the required background checks has been deemed "okay" to possess weapons. It's definitely another assumption, but let's propose that these same people who are trying to buy weapons, and have been deemed "okay" to buy them, actually know what they are doing with them. That's another assumption in good faith, but I think it's okay considering the costs and planning that buying a nice firearm requires.

        So, with that behind us, let's look at the guy looking to buy an RPG. Assuming good faith, he's actually got some place far away from people's homes to go shoot it. Granted that probably doesn't apply to anyone living in an apt in NYC but for someone living in Montana it's definitely not as absurd as it might seem.

        It really all hinges on the background check. FTR, I am not a proponent of allowing people to own RPGs but just playing devil's advocate. Maybe, if we are going to "regulate" (not "ban") the sale of firearms that are potentially more dangerous in an urban setting, we should require degrees of background checks. Simply not having a criminal record is not enough to allow someone to buy a tank, RPG, etc. But if they were willing to put themselves through greater scrutiny for the abiltiy to use those things (knowing that there really aren't a lot of oppurtunities to actually use them) then that's fine by me.

        If I want to, I can go down the street and buy fire works. Cheap ones that will blow of my finger (and just *my* finger) aren't really regulated. I would buy them as a kid. They also sell really big fireworks (the kind stadiums shoot off) but who can afford them at $200 a piece? That's a kind of de facto regulation simply through economics. If you want to shoot off the kind you'd see at a huge display, you need a commercial license to do so. That's the kind of gradation we need with firearm background checks and licensing and the kind we have now attempts to approach this model. If you want a normal weapon, get checked and buy it. If you want a more dangerous weapon, like an AR-15, you end up paying a lot more to get it ($1000+). Likewise, if you want a really dangerous weapon you need a special license to own it.

        It's not perfect – but I really don't see how people are happy with legislation that would outlaw a Ruger 10/22 because it's somehow viewed as a weapon of mass destruction (which it clearly isn't – unless you're a squirrel). And yes, there are plenty of people calling for a weapon just like that to be banned (semi-auto, holds 10 rounds in a mag).

        January 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
        • Dan in Chitown

          Very good points JT, I appreciate that logic. I guess I would tend to believe then if we have to start dissecting by where you live or start getting so granular, we need to ask ourselves what good does it serve to have these types of weapons in anyone's hands. Ultimately, we all know that if something is legal it can and will wind up in the hands of people that it shouldn't be. However, illegal weapons are harder to get your hands on. Not impossible, but if the penalty is stiff enough you start thinking of other options. For me, I see that these weapons are only intended for killing things and people. I don't agree with the "Sportsmen" theory, I have plenty of friends that hunt and shoot for fun and there is no reason to have a semi-automatic or assault rifle to kill a deer or shoot for fun anymore than a shotgun or handgun. So I think you make good points, but I always lean towards protecting society as a whole, and there is ample evidence from other countries that society is better off with stricter laws.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
  94. sjpmedia

    I wrote about how I feel as a gun owner and the new laws.... http://sjpmedia.com/?p=346

    I'm not against the new laws Obama has signed. I'm all for productive discussion..

    January 18, 2013 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
  95. Don

    Don
    Canada tried a registry. It didn't work and has been abandoned. The cost was enormous and the gun owner population there is a fraction of the U.S. It is another black hole to create a non-functional government agency in which to dump money and won't have an effect. Big mistake to go down this road!

    January 18, 2013 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      Hey Don, at the same time, let's just stop requiring drivers license for driving a car as well. I'm sure there is a lot of administration overhead, and you know, if people want to drive a car without it, they can – so why not shut that down too?

      January 18, 2013 at 10:45 am | Report abuse |
      • Nathan

        You do not have a right to drive – it's a privelage. You have the right to privacy and the right to own as many firearms as you want. See the difference?

        January 18, 2013 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
        • brjadams

          And the government has the right to make it 'well regulated'. Don't forget that.
          They had firearm registries that carried severe penalties if you were not registered in colonial days (which was the spirit of the law). It was used to know who had arms and training, and who could be called upon for defense. Nothing should stop us from doing the same, now.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Dan in Chitown

      Perfect the way some people want to look to Canada to show everyone how a registry failed. But then when you tell them to look at the amount of gun homicides happen in Canada compared to the US because of their strict laws you say "We are not Canada!!!". Pick your logic and stick with it gun nuts.

      January 18, 2013 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
  96. Craig

    Background checks would be good for private to private sales if the background check could be free of charge and no seral numbers are given in said background check. I am sure most gun owners don't want firearms falling into the hands of criminals so make it easy to do a background check, as long as the government does not know what gun is being bought or sold. The government has no business knowing what I or any other citizen owns.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:35 am | Report abuse |
    • breaker

      The government has the serial numbers on your cars. You don't mind them knowing what car you drive but do mind them knowing what gun you own? What's the difference?

      January 18, 2013 at 10:45 am | Report abuse |
      • Craig

        The difference is with a car you use public infrastructure to use vehicles.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:56 am | Report abuse |
        • brjadams

          And with a gun you can transport, or carry it in .... wait for it ..... public places, on public roads etc.

          Gun's were registered in Colonial days in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Get over it. It's the way it was meant to be.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
  97. Josh

    Russ Bacon and Billy Conn are quislings.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:35 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      In your delusional mind, I'm sure they are.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:46 am | Report abuse |
  98. Tracy

    I'm good with a background check. I do it now. But, registration is not an option! neither is giving up any guns I own!

    January 18, 2013 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
  99. Auggy

    No.... most gun owners do not agree to let the government track their private purchases.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
    • 2_Sense

      Everyday people allow their private purchases to be recorded by companies that give them discount cards. The discounts are the way these companies pay these individuals for helping with their marketing. For most people privacy on purchases is not a big concern, and makes me wonder what these gun owners have to hide. Gun owners want to own any gun they choose, but they don't want to be responsible for these guns if one should be used in the commission of a crime.

      January 18, 2013 at 11:14 am | Report abuse |
  100. brad

    First comes registration and then confiscation. Happened before and it will happen again. Those that say it wont need to open a history book. Hitler was well loved by Germany doing things for the good of the people when he first got started too.

    January 18, 2013 at 10:27 am | Report abuse |
    • opinion4

      I bet too then that you keep unregistered cars just in case 'the man' wants to come for them.

      January 18, 2013 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
      • sean

        @ opinion4, I am pretty sure he does. I'm guessing he doesn't have a driver's license either. Can't let big brother track your every move. Cold war is over Brad. you can come out of your mom's basement now.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:45 am | Report abuse |
        • HenryMiller

          Back before cars became common a century or so ago, no one ever had to register their horses with the Department of Equine Vehicles. It mystifies me why people tolerate a lot of the intrusive nuisances governments impose on us today.

          January 18, 2013 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
        • j

          The difference between cars and guns are many. You can't conceal a car very well, camo paint notwithstanding, so I doubt Brad is hiding one from the government. There are not 50+ different liberal groups trying to take your car away from you, excluding the Sierra Club. Every liberal with rose colored glasses singing "What a Beautiful World" wants to eliminate all guns. Nice thought but completely unrealistic not to mention a huge violation of gun owners' rights. Witnesses need to be able to identify vehicles involved in accidents, robberies, etc. so it makes sense to require registration and affix a unique identifying object (the license plate). Otherwise every blue Ford Focus would have to be stopped to find the one police may be looking for. Wouldn't that violate the 4th Ammendment too? And if Brad is hiding in his basement without a driver's license it is because he fears liberals have taken over the entire government and it is only a matter of time before they come for his guns. That is your goal, isn't it? To eliminate all guns? So Brad is not paranoid, he is just refusing to give up his rights.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
        • Corwin

          Dear J.
          As a self avowed bleeding heart liberal I want to assure you I have not the slightest interest in "taking your guns away" as I realize that some individuals, yourself included apparently, can't feel sucure with the equipment god gave them without augmenting it with a pseudo equivalent. I wouldn't want you to have to face the big scary world out there with out the knowledge that if you had the guts you could one day go on a shooting spree yourself. I would also like to say that while I'm not responsible I do feel sorry for you for whatever happened to you to make you feel so completely helpless that you need a closet full of assault rifles to give you the illusion of being a man.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
      • JD

        opinion4/sean: It's an apples and oranges thing...get a clue. The main purpose of vehicle registration is to generate revenue, not monitor a vehicle purchase. The Gov't has no right to track the purchase of anything I decide buy – to include firearms.

        January 18, 2013 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
        • 2_Sense

          Excellent! The government needs a new source of revenue, so let it be gun registrations, background checks, and high taxes on ammunition. If smokers can pay high taxes on cigarettes, then gun owns can contribute as well. Both guns, and cigarettes kill people.

          January 18, 2013 at 11:19 am | Report abuse |
        • LJ

          The largest killer of children up to age 13 in this country is vehicle accidents. Gun deaths are nowhere near. So why aren't we worried about making the roads and cars safer for children? Because guns are a hot button and divisive issue and that's exactly what the Obama regime is about. Divide and conquer.

          January 18, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
        • cw

          LJ, I was not aware a car was made with the specific design to hurt others. Apples and oranges comparisons, please try again.

          January 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • brjadams

      The registered firearms in the colonial days when the 2nd amendment ink was still fresh, and in the spirit of the law. 200+ years later you think they are taking the guns or that you can reverse course while using the 2nd amendment as a defense?

      January 18, 2013 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
    • VEW2012

      Here is another one who is in fear of a future Hitler doing bad deeds, and not looking at the current bad deeds being done by bad people....ooooh keep that tinfoil hat on your head!

      January 18, 2013 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • SillyRabbit

      First comes gun purchase, then comes murder.

      See how easy it is to twist logic into meaninglessness? Living in a free society comes with responsibility. A responsible gun owner has no reason to fear confiscation – after all, the constitution re-affirmed the fundamental (and pre-existing) right to remain armed. To be so afraid of such an "unlikely" event, it must be difficult for you to get out of bed every day – given that we are far more likely to have more pressing and dangerous things occur (hint: do a quick search on chem trails).

      Registration would decrease the abuse that plagues the gun industry, and would hurt some organizations, but NOT the gun owners. The (responsible) gun owners would benefit greatly from such a move, as it means they would be less likely to become a victim of gun violence themselves. The current statistic is that gun owners are around 46 times more likely to get hurt or to hurt a family member than to prevent an armed intruder of hurting them. That number would go down significantly with mandatory registration, as illegal guns would be slowly chipped away leaving the responsible gun owner with less of a statistical disadvantage.

      Unfortunately, the NRA favors profits over the benefits of gun owners, so of course they feed the gun owners enough lies to make them feel loyal enough to remain hapless whipping dogs for the NRA propaganda machine. The NRA is one of the most anti-American, anti-US establishments out there, and they SOMEHOW manage to convince enough people to associate that institution with some deranged form of patriotism – a form of patriotism that paints the government as an evil and dark entity that is out to get you rather than to protect you and your family from violence. A form of patriotism that puts you and your family in more danger by their very existence, yet it's the *government* that you should be afraid of... They do this by getting you to swallow their lies about how much they value your 2nd amendment rights and how evil the people are that are trying to use safety as a means to "steal your rights."

      January 18, 2013 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • CPG1962

        46 times more likely ? A bunch of bull and no SPECIFIC references to back it up (Can you say FEAR MONGERING). 99.9% of LEGAL gun owners are respectful, law abiding citizens whom enjoy the freedoms and basic content provided in our constitution. I am an owner of multiple guns, learned to use and respect them from a very early age. I do believe in background checks but certainly not limiting magazine capacity – most people posting against gun ownership have never touched a gun – it only takes 1/2 of a 1 second to slap a new 7 round magazine into the holder – limiting round per clip does not work. Personality tests and background checks would work and regardless of what the NRA has to say about it, most gun owners would be all for it. Registering my ownership with the Feds? No way – I dont trust any government. What is more scary than guns? Executive orders (invoked at an alarming rate) overriding the very principles our country was founded upon.

        January 18, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
        • Lawless4U

          Well, our country was also founded on the principles that black men couldn't vote and were 3/5ths of a citizen, women couldn't vote, slavery was legal, poll taxes were the norm, etc, etc.

          January 18, 2013 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
        • Tim

          @ Lawless4U - "Well, our country was also founded on the principles that black men couldn't vote and were 3/5ths of a citizen..."

          -

          Wrong. SLAVES were 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation in Congress. Free blacks were NEVER 3/5 of a person. Also, there was no Constitutional ban on blacks voting before the 14th Amendment; but some states suppressed it and banned it and there was no Constitutional protection to stop it.

          January 18, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
        • craig

          If you're going to discuss the principles behind the 2nd, you need to remember that it exists for only one reason: The slave states wanted to ensure they could still have a "militia" that would perform the regular inspections of slave quarters to prevent the slaves from having arms and creating a rebellion. THAT is the only reason it exists, and notice the careful use of the word "State" in the amendment. I'm not sure about the 46 number, but it's no worse than your 99.9%, which is just another PFA number. In short, you've done exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing.

          So...by all means keep your guns, and make sure that your slaves remain properly subservient. After all, that's what the Constitution was written to do in the 2nd.

          January 18, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • JustinFromNJ

        @SillyRabbit:

        You talk about gun owners being paranoid, but you believe in chemtrails?

        January 18, 2013 at 4:27 pm | Report abuse |
1 2