Agreed.

Nothing will ever work perfect. These changes are a decent start.

Assuming you don't live in NY

Well put...I think you are correct.

You obviously don't understand firearms and/or laws. First off, a 223 round is a very small round which is why most people do not hunt deer with it so I'm not sure why you think it would obliterate the animal??? Next, it's illegal to hunt with a 30 round magazine. And 20, etc...10 rd+1 in the chamber is max.
ARs, etc...are among the most popular competition sporting rifles out there. The proposed bans will result in the results as the last AWB.

The 2nd Amendment wasnt created for the purpose of hunting or sport shooting. It was created for the purpose of homeland defense (militias), protection against against a tyrannical gov't , law enforcement, defense against insurrection and invasion, and self defense. It is unlawful for civilians to own assault rifles except without a very expensive permit. The term assault rifle refers to those weapons that have a selective fire feature...full auto, semi auto, and multi-round burst and use an intermediate sized cartridge...as opposed to the larger cartidges associated with battle rifles such as the 30-06,.303, 7.62x54mm, 7.62x51mm...etc. Common assault rifles would be the m-16 and it derivatives and the ak-47 and its derivatives. The type of weapons that civilians can legally own are the semi-automatic forms of these weapons...they fire one bullet with a pull of the trigger and are not fully automatic. IF!!...God forbid...there is ever an event that brings our society to its knees and the govt isnt in a position to help...you will be grateful for your neighbors that possess these "assault" weapons and are keeping your neighborhood and community safe.

To help clarify the massive ignorance that exists out there...here's a lengthy expalnation and definition of Assault Weapons and how it all came about. Also some statistics about Assault rifles. I will add based I what I know that somewhere in the NFA of either 1989 or 1994 was the control of 30 round magazines. But they were OK if purchased and considered "pre-ban." When you read the definition, if you are at all savvy enough to understand what they were banning...you will see that what was banned had nohing to do with affecting serious injury or even injury at all. Read the article and you will see.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Assault-Weapons.htm

How would know? Ever licensed to own one? Ever fire one? Ever seen one fired in person? Probably not. You couldn't name the different classifications for weapons or the laws that govern each one.

How would you know? Ever been licensed to own one? Use one? Taken training courses on one? Ever fired a weapon, period? Probably not .You couldn't name the weapons classifications or the laws that govern each. You couldn't even name animals that you can legally hunt in the U.S. Obliterate an animal? Say that looking at a black bear in the eye

You are correct Barbara, people like Nancy Lanza do not need the type of weapon that her son used to murder those innocent kids and teachers. If you are sport hunter, and need to take that many shots - then you shouldn't be hunting.

Study: using a gun in bear encounters does not make you safer
http://news.byu.edu/archive12-mar-bearsandguns.aspx

Nothing more than pandering, emotion and knee-jerk response. The NFA of 1994 was a farse put together by those who knew nothing. The laws that are on the books today and prior were sufficient if they were enforced. The biggest issue IMHO is that mentally ill people should not have access to firearms. Although as in the last two instances, the weapons were stolen. We need an executive order that states you can't steal weapons especially if you are mentally ill. Surely the Sandy Hook incident was tragic. Could it have been prevented? Maybe, with more forethought. Lanza could have hijacked a school bus or regular bus and drove it through the schools wall. There's always going to be those filled with hate and with uncontrollable thinking. Guns are banned in Chicago yet it had the highest death rate from shootings last year. I'm not a PHD in crime but criminals don't want big bulky weapons. They want something easy to carry and conceal. They use of assault weapons are exceptions. And the control of magazine size is a farce. Just as Bloomberg in NYC said no more 32 OZ drinks. Not much different. So you buy 2 16 OZ drinks or 4 8 OZ drinks. That's what the call a NY magazine...multiple guns. Remember the cowboy movies? Roy Rogers, the Lone Ranger had double holsters so they could have twelve rounds instead of just six. The only consolation to all this noise is it won't be enforced. We don't enforce anything in this country...especially in Washington. Ergo, I'm not concerned yet.

"The NFA of 1994 was a farse put together by those who knew nothing."

They probably knew how to spell farce.

After posting my above reply, this came into my Inbox. It is quite appropriate. Then I remembered I had already seen it and sent it to my friends last year. I searched for a better quality video and found it. What's more amazing is that it's FOUR YEARS OLD. You will see at the end that 22 people were killed with an assault rifle. You will also see in her testimony the worthless senator from NY Chuck Shumer who since has done absolutely nothing worthwhile as a U.S. senator. A perfect example of Washington's ineptitude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Agree with you 100%. But it's also a parental guidance issue with the youngsters.
Check out how many child deaths in the City have occurred because handguns weren't locked up...exactly your point. Look at the age of the shooters in North County or South City...young teenagers with no value for life...ergo, no parental guidance in their development years. Video games and violent TV and violent movies coming out of Hollywood.

What about the glorification of the violent urban thug culture...I think that contributes to more gun violence than games and movies.

If you want to fix black inner city violence, which is most prevalent in old industrial cities, start by building a time machine and preventing policies of housing segregation and eminent domain clearance of black neighborhoods. That kind of stuff routinely happened until the late '70s, in the process stopping the growth of the black middle class dead in its tracks, or at least very significantly slowed it. In the process it sucked a lot of money out of black neighborhoods, particularly in the '50s and 60s, such that for various reasons a lot of them became hard core ghettos by the '70s, with all the problems of entrenched intergenerational poverty - gangs, black market economy (drugs, etc), lack of emphasis on education, devaluing life, etc. You're talking about reversing the effects of like 80 years of this stuff. It's complicated, but imagine if your entire family line had to deal with that for as far back as you can remember. How would it shape or warp you?

AR stands for Automatic Rifle, pull the trigger once and hold to empty the clip.. Semi is a shortened form of Semiautomatic, must pull the trigger for each shot. Weapon will load itself. Automatic just means pull once and empty the clip.

Only because Hollywood is in bed with him.

Yes and NRA isn't in bed with Republicans who don't want to do literally anything in regards to gun control. Guess what, while maybe not the whole problem, guns are a big part of it.

John....it's called crony goverment & paying off your big $$$ donors to get you re-elected! Note how VIOLENT THE MOVIE & GAMES INDUSTRY IS....WHAT hypocrites! Many "hollywood elites" made that informercial for banning guns but one of the most VIOLENT movies that I've seen all year is the recently released Jamie Fox movie "DJango/Unchained"...not to mention the potential to start RACE RIOTS ALL OVER OUR GREAT NATION AGAIN! ....it was TRUELY CLASS WARFARE! .....If you are an uninformed BLACK PERSON sitting in this movie, you might be tempted to harm the first white person you saw....EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NEVER A SLAVE, NOR WAS ANY WHITE PERSON ALIVE TODAY A "SLAVE OWNER". Hollywood, and especially Jamie Fox, is furthering the agenda of this administration to divide Americans ......by color, race, creed & financial well being! Sadly, there are those out there who are only interested in movies, games and who won "Dancing with the Stars" or "Survivor"....they are totally unable to see what's happening to the culture of America....If you asked them about BENGAHZI, they want to know if they were running for an office! TOTALLY UNINFORMED about the WORLD and those things that affect their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren!

Marc, your argument of the odds of being struck by lightening being greater than being killed with an "assault weapon" didn't stand the argument test in the elementary school in Connecticut. I wonder how many of those parents would agree with you?

Marc, you prove the point that analogies are not always the best way to explain or justify an argument...especially when the analogy is not suited. Jim makes a good point and I have to agree with him but only to this degree. The following is not being critical of Jim. On the other hand, you also have to be careful in how you choose words because a common strategy of the left is to move focus from the issue to another issue that they can better address, meaningful or not. In this case the focus is taken away from England and Australia and it becomes about being struck by lightning. The same goes for the comment heard over and over to justify banning guns..."If just one life can be saved..." well you can also drop the national speed limit from 65 down to 50 mph and save more than just one life too. So why isn't there a campaign to do that? Because it isn't the primary cause just as "Assault Weapons" aren't the primary cause of the shooting deaths. The term "Assault Weapon" evokes additional emotion in an already emotional situation.
Lanza had four handguns with him as well as multiple magazines. I can't say why but I'll say this. AR-15's are know to jam frequently. That's why they have "Forward Assist." So what if the Bushy jammed. He still had four handguns with plenty of ammunition. Let's stop beating on the symptom and address the cause.

". NBC news has retracted the claim that the Conn. shooter used an Ar-15, in fact the media video shows the rifles being removed from the attackers vehicle after the shooting."

I don't know if you're merely misinformed or you are actively trying to deceive so I'll refrain from calling you a liar, but you are certainly wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559395/conn-school-shooter-had-4-weapons/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html...

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Police:

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

Marc get your facts straight and stop listening to guys like this fellow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

Hey Caffeinated, nice find on the weapons used clarification. Thanks for digging this out.

Just because you think that, does not make it factual Missourian. Might want to look up hard numbers. Might want to start with violent crime stats. Yeah, London is so safe.

Murders with firearms:
UK: 14 (ranked 29th)
US 9,369 (ranked #1, 668 times more than UK)

SOURCE: The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2002) (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

Here's a list of firearm death stats by country that I was able to find, with citations. Data looks more recent, and breaks out the rates by type:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Actually the crime rate went up for a short period of time and has been decreasing ever since. Unfortunately with the culture of death that is going around the world gun violence is on the rise. The cause? Culture of death. Weapons of choice? AR-15, aka M-16, AK-47(Soviet style Automatic Weapon), 1911 Colt, Semi and Auto available. Does this begin to sound like a military shopping list?

Why? What's your thesis?

hey BLT there was another school shooting today in Houston. There's a violent crime for you.

"Leaving citizens nothing to protect themselves with against, rape, robbery, assault, etc...has left them in the position they’re in. "

Just because you think that, does not make it factual BLT.

Back that up. Show your research making any connection between the gun ban and increased crime. I showed you cited studies that backs up Missourians assertion: "Our gun crime rate is like 20+ times higher than the UK."

You came back with the idea that violent crime would be ameliorated by gun proliferation and you cite nothing. That makes it opinion.

"but to say the UK is safe because only a small percentage of those crimes involved a firearm is asinine at best"

Nobody made that assertion, that I can see. Missourian explicity stated "gun crime."

We are not fixing our culture by continuing to let these types of things happen. To me, it looks like it is our culture to allows these shootings at schools to happen and not do anything about them. You mentioned intoxicated drives, guess what, stuff is done all the time to prevent intoxicated drivers. There's checkpoints, stricter penalties for drunk drivers, public awareness campaigns against drunk driving, penalties for bartenders for serving those who have had to much to drink. Look at all the security at sporting events. Don't you think that is done to prevent fights from breaking out that might lead to stabbings. Nothing is being done about guns because the NRA and some Republicans feel like stricter background checks on guns or limiting the amount of bullets one can have is infringing on ones rights. Our society is going backwards by continuing to let these horrific acts happen.

ReverePaul...I see how much is done about "drinking" but how do you explain the current back ground check, etc.that have precipitated the gun laws already on the books now?? There have always been gun laws.This is not a REPUBLICAN or a DEMOCRAT issue, although Obama has "FRAMED" it to be so that he can continue his class warfare & you've FALLEN for this tactic,hook,line & sinker! You are one of the 'sheeple" in our great nation! This is an AMERICAN ISSUE! I am an NRA membr , I do want stricter backgrnd checks right along with better "MENTAL HEALTH CARE". The mother of the boy who killed the 20 children in Conn. was trying to institutionalize her son but the process was not an easy one,why don't we address that.?maybe she would have been alive todayl! Today, there was another shooting in TX w/ 2 shooters,tell me how a magazine with only 7 rounds would have taken care of 2 or more shooters .so that debunks the "magazine" size and quantity issue as well. As we all felt the sorrow of the Aurora, CO movie theater episode, the theaters now have policemen on duty and I for one feel much safer. We need to give that safety to our children in the schools as well. We have armed guards that protect our govt officials, hollywood stars & others along with our money in armored cars but we wouldn't do this for our kids? We don't need executive orders or more legislation. How about enforcing the laws we ALREADY have on the books and make sure that those who break those laws are PROSECUTED!

Patriot, you said you wanted to enforce the laws that are already on the books, which I agree with. However, your precious NRA has made it very hard for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce those rules. First of all, there is no director of the ATF and there hasn't been one for 6 years. That's because the Senate has to confirm a director even though it's not a cabinet position because a Wisconsin senator, James Sensenbrenner, inserted that provision in the Patriot Act in 2006. Oddly enough, James won the NRA's Defender of Freedom Award. Also, to trace illegal guns all the ATF would have to do is trace the guns back to the bad dealers and bust them. All the ATF would have to do is create some sort of federal registry of these transactions to trace illegal guns. However, the ATF is prohibited from creating a federal registry to track guns. Also, the ATF is only allowed to check gun dealers for inventory discreprenaties only once a year and in reality, this only happens once every 17 years. The ATF can also not require gun deals to take their own inventory. Why can't they do this? Because Todd Tiahrt, a Republican senator, stuck an amendment into a federal spending bill that restricted the ATF's ability to enforce gun laws. The amendment allows dealers to ignore police reports for assistance, it ended the oversight of used gun sales, it allows the destruction of background check records within 24 hours. More coming up.

Continued, guess what, Tiahrt, assured colleagues that the NRA had reviewed the language for the bill. So basically, the NRA wrote the amendment that prohibits the ATF from doing exactly what you want, enforce the laws that are already in place. What do you say to that?

You'll need to address that with him. I was substantiating the claim that gun violence is miniscule in the UK when compared to the US.

Still makes the the original statement opinion, though, right?

No, he assumed we were talking about gun violence. Perfectly reasonable assumption in the context of the topic.

I suspect Marc Perez was referring to the CIVITAS study which showed that violent crime per capita was worse in the UK than the US. That particular study does demonstrate that violenct crime has blossomed the prior decade. It also frames the data with regard to sentencing and the only conclusions it points to are that stricter sentencing yields lower crime.

There is no correlation made between gun bans and crime rate in the CIVITAS study, and any statement made with regard to that study making such a claim is pure conjecture. Opinion.

In fact, if you want to look at the data look at gun ownership versus crime stats the past forty years or so you'll see a clear correlation. Just not the one you or Mr. Perez are expecting.

This thread is about guns. Thus "gun crime."

That said, I would be genuinely impressed if someone successfully robbed a bank using a hot dog as their weapon.

Patriot you said none of the of the executive orders would have prevented these shootings. Here's one of the president's executive orders.

Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/list-executive-actions-obama-plans-to-take-as-part-anti-gun-violence-plan/#ixzz2IlUHGwJR

I'm pretty sure these "resource officers" would have guns which does exactly what you want.

States rights' - ah yes - the refuge for the plantation lord. Perhaps keeping slaves was a partial reason for the 2d amendment.

Unfair connection there, Elizabeth? So is the pinning abortion on Obama (or Bush or Reagan).

This thread is not about forcing women who are either unprepared, unwilling, or unsuitable for parenting to have unwanted children. And neither is America, as the Supreme Court settled that issue forty years ago. Elizabeth O'Fallon, if you are a woman, you'd fit right in with your Taliban buddies, and Missouri has no place for backward thinking like that.

KCF- why is it so necessary to nuance what an assault rifle is or isn't? That seems like a lawyerly way of getting around the issue.
Assault rifles aren't machine guns - so what. There has to feasible ways to define a weapon that are only suitable for warfare and mass murders. If the NRA truly cared about gun ownership for self-defense and sporting endeavors, they would participate in helping define and eliminate these weapons. They are mostly interested in money.

1) Rate of fire.
2) Number of rounds on board.
3) Downtime required to reload.
4) Ease to modify items 1-3.

That is the conversation we should be having. The semantics of auto, semi, AR are completely worthless. The only thing that matters is with weapon X, does an unarmed bystander have a reasonable opportunity to interfere with the shooter. If not, ban the weapon. Simple as that.

That's hilarious. That should evoke a debate over what sort of crazy dumbarse would believe that stuff.

I agree with RdBet. That's almost as ridiculous as this article, except this one gets an actual point across.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/

The TPers never cease to amaze me with their nativist paranoia. That website is itself a prima facie argument *for* more restrictive gun control.

Just because you don't don't like the Supreme Court, doesn't mean you get to "cherry-pick" which laws, freedoms still apply and which ones don't.

The Jefferson quote you cite is apocryphal. It is not found in any of Jefferson's papers.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation

When lecturing about the Bill of Rights, it would help your credibility to actually have some knowledge about what your'e quoting.

I find most of the Tea Partiers espousing some knowledge of the Constitution and history have very little knowledge of it and can't seem to be bothered to look anything up. Here's a hint: stop cutting and pasting from right-wing wacko sites. You'll just keep reiterating the same made-up trash over and over again.

You've said a lot there. Seems like you want it all ways with regards to States' Rights, Constitution. Constitution was written by humans, slaveholders no less. It is inherently flawed. They did not have some crystal ball that foresaw 2d amendment as protecting the right of deranged individuals to have an arsenal of assault rifles.

Tell us please about the grand wisdom and foresight of the Constitution with regard to the 3d amendment.

And regarding putting Roe Wade to a vote of the people - I am not sure if the Blaze and your news sources have reported this
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx

Caffeinated
I agree with the jefferson quote and I see people use it all the time, but you do realize you’ve been using Wikipedia links and then questioning the credibility of others??? Kettle, meet Pot

Well Caffienated...I have to call you on this one and think you owe Liz an opology.
It is in Jefferson's papers in Spurious Quotations.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation

What are you talking about? Your link is the same one I provided.

It is certainly a spurious quotation, though.

My bad...I didn't read it correctly nor did I go down far enough where it explained it further stating it was not valid.

You know what? Thank you. Seriously, you looked it up. None of us are Jefferson scholars, but we have the veritable Library of Alexandria before us with the resources granted by the internet. We can choose to blindly repeat lies, or to actually educate ourselves.

In the past month (the past year, really), I've seen a flood of made-up quotes. The fake Jefferson quote has been bandied about by guns rights activists repeatedly. While it's human nature to ascribe our own ideals unto our heroes it gains no favor to manufacture quotations. Doubly so when lecturing others on history.

Caffeinated,
I agree with you on the quote and it's one that I see it quoted all the time. However to question and mock others sources while you toss out Wikipedia links. Arguably, some of the least credible source out there??? Kettle, meet pot

That's not a wikipedia link (it's a non-profit Jefferson scholarly society), and when I do provide a wikipedia link I also provide further citations.

As for mocking, I'll give someone all the respect I think they deserve.

Hooray - The US is better than some 3rd world nations!

ReverePaul
Yeah, because the lack of guns is the only variable there. Really? Last time I checked their population was a fraction of ours. Media, home life, education, mental illness, marketed violence and just general culture don’t play a part??? That’s absurd. You know, I watched in amazement at Japan when their tsunami hit with the nuclear power facilities and watched thousands and thousands single file lines waiting with respect and all I could think of was how embarrassed I was for our country while watching the people during Katrina

In addition, mass killings here since the early 80’s have primarily been done with handguns. Hell, you’ve had more done with revolvers and shotguns than “assault weapons”.

Our prison systems are a joke. Kids rule the parents and all hell is gonna break loose if that 10 year old doesn’t get a new cellphone. Again, it is our society. Not one specific thing. We live in a disgusting world.

So it's not ok to attribute the lack of guns to mass shootings in Britain but it is ok to attribute the lack of guns to more violence in Britain? Earlier in this thread, you posted this.

"The UK has had nothing but problems since the mid 90’s and peaking around 2001 if I recall correctly. Leaving citizens nothing to protect themselves with against, rape, robbery, assault, etc...has left them in the position they’re in."

How does your argument of less guns equals more crime work but my argument of less guns equals less mass murders not work?

Also, don't you think part of the British culture changed after they banned guns? The British decided to ban guns after two mass shootings in 1987 and 1996. Isn't that a culture change? I'm not saying we should ban all guns like the British, but we have had far more mass shootings and have not done anything to address the issue.

The one in which I said that it was my opinion??? I agree that something should be done about mass shootings but I think it stems solely on our society. Our media are monsters. What are the 20 states that haven’t had a mass shooting in the last 30 years doing? While obviously a horrible tragedy every time it happens, are we so blind to the constant other deaths that happen every moment (not excluding gun related ones). They are far more common than a mass shooting. You act like there are millions of mass shootings. There were more shotguns & revolvers (not semi-automatic handguns) involved in mass shootings than assault weapons. How is banning an assault weapons a logical step to resolving the issue? Again, I’m for taking steps to prevent tragedies. However, media fed knee jerk reactions lacking logic bother me.

This reminds me of a Simpsons episode

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, sweetie.

Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.

Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: I see.

Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?

Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

One failed shoe bombing and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport. Multiple mass shootings with assault rifes, and nothing.

I'm going to be honest. Ten years ago, I could not have cared less about this issue. But the more I hear second amendment obsessives talk about the the sanctity of their right to bear whatever arms they wish, the more these mass shootings occur, the more a-holes like Alex Jones that show they have zero grasp on reality, and the more poverty killings I see, the more I think we ought to outright ban all the guns. Then we don't have to waste time with the semantics of this gun versus that gun and when am I justified and not justified to use a weapon on a home invader. That said, it is astonishing to me that so much time and effort has been expended on fighting against reasonable gun legislation. I have to register and insure my car. It is not a weapon. But gun owners don't have to do me the same courtesy? That's just effed up.

Yhis is in response to Missourian's comment about registration. I have purchased handguns and long guns and know and understand the process. You cannot purchase any gun...air rifles excluded...without going through an FFL...Federal Firearms Licensee...and filling out a form that has your name, address, SS#, mode and s/n. The FFL calls the NICS...National Instant Criminal System...either directly or through their state agency. Just like a Credit Card check...they get an approval number. This needs to be expanded to include mental illness. How this gets done is a another issue. Any FFL I've dealt with is highly concerned about following the law.

Missourian. I'm sorry you don't agree with the constitution. It was put in place for a reason and is as relevant now as it was then. I assure you that people like you will not rape of of our rights.

KFC- That is not true. Private party sales are not required to go through an FFL. If you go to a gun show and there is an individual selling a handgun/rifle, you are not required to go through an FFL. As long as you're not knowingly selling to a felon, mentally ill, etc...you're good to go. It's about the only regulation I would support but again, it's not going to have an impact.

BLT, I stand corrected and know what you are talking about. In Missouri...I don't know about other states, you can transfer a LONG GUN INTRA-STATE without having to go through an FFL which precludes a background check. You are not supposed to transfer HANDGUNS in this manner. For this you must use an FFL.

BLT how would keeping guns out of the hands of felons or mentally ill people not be effective? Aside from getting a gun illegally, buying guns through gun shows would be the easiest way for criminals or the mentally ill.

ReverePaul- Which is why I said it would be the only regulation I would support but I suppose I should rephrase. I don't believe the impact would be much at all. Hell you can build a bomb pretty easy. Please don't feed me something like, "if it saves 1 life, it's worth it". That's bs and I'm not implying that the lives are not important. However, I feel we should focus our efforts in a manner that will have a greater impact. Spreading ourselves so thin with a bunch of items with little to no impact is not the solution. We need to get people thinking right. There will always be crazies but our society is unraveling at warp speed. MEDIA, education system, MEDIA, lack of parenting, MEDIA, entitlements, MEDIA, violence in games/tvs, MEDIA, Immigration…are just a handful of the real issues. Also, people aren’t afraid of our prison system. Why should they be? We slap them on their hand as they’re sent home after their 3+ DWIs to go plow into a family only to get another. We are a broken country.

BLT - The Constitution is a fallible document. I look at it just as critically as I look at everything else in the world. Nothing is exempt from criticism and skepticism.
What rights do you think you will be "raped" of? The right to not be held accountable for the liability of not keeping a firearm sufficiently under lock and key so that when a criminal decides he needs a weapon he robs yours and kills someone with it? The right to not be held liable when your psychologically damaged kid raids your doomsday arsenal and shoots up a school? The right to be a more likely victim of random crime? This idiotic, paranoid, BS nonsense about gubment tyranny is some of the stupidest - and I mean that from the bottom of my heart - some of the boneheadedly stupidest argument for justifying possession of these mini WMD's. I don't care if people have slow-loading, slow-shooting weapons geared for hunting - at least an unarmed person stands a fighting chance against a shooter's usually crap aim. Semantics of auto, semi auto, AR mean absolutely nothing. It's 1000% about speed.

This is the most ignorant post I’ve read in some time. That is 30 seconds of my life I will never get back and thank you for making the world dumber place. I’m glad that you approve of slow loading weapons vs. mini WMDs (that’s awesome. I’ll have to remember that) for the purpose of hunting because the constitution obviously spells out the right to bear arms is for deer season. It makes me sick to think of all the men and women that have given/still give their lives to protect our freedoms while you spew your nonsense. Fallible ? Really? Maybe you should head for Canada since you obviously have no respect for our country. Grab a history book to read on the way there.

Our Constitution was written to be a dynamic, progressive document. Its very purpose is to enable change that lifts us all, and that includes change of the document itself. Our people have died to preserve the ability of our laws to adjust for the conditions of the time and to ensure that our country retains its capacity for Constant Improvement.

I think you are threatened that I am willing to change the argument by totally ignoring the gubment tyranny angle, and by also burying the semantic distinctions between semi/auto/AR and focusing solely on the speed and effectiveness of the weapon. Because the argument about speed and effectiveness and the ability of an unarmed bystander to intervene is one that the gun lobby absolutely cannot win. The argument about registration and liability is one that they should not win. Just as our country has provided a great model for others to follow, other countries can provide a great model for us to follow. To not acknowledge as much is to be blind.

Why would I be threatened? I ignored those parts because I saw no use debating what I believe is mindless drivel. You don’t know me. You don’t know what I stand for and you don’t how much trust I put in our government. You can swallow everything you’re fed…That’s on you.

As far as the second part…It’s obvious that we’re pretty far off on this so it’s a waste of time. I think those thoughts are absurd at best.

"I’ll have to remember that) for the purpose of hunting because the constitution obviously spells out the right to bear arms is for deer season. It makes me sick to think of all the men and women that have given/still give their lives to protect our freedoms while you spew your nonsense. "

So...you think there is some rational and/or justifiable reason (the second amendment isn't a reason BTW, it's just a law) for people stockpiling high speed/high effectiveness weapons? Do you think there is going to be another revolution? Do you think there is a single foreign power that poses a credible threat to our security that would require our private civilians to take arms and go all Red Dawn? Those are both stupid scenarios. Unless you have large quantities of cluster bombs, guided missiles, jet fighters, nukes, bunker busting artillery, etc, your little fantasy revolt against a hypothetical tyrant/invader will fail. In the meantime, there will be a lot of collateral damage as these weapons continue to get into the wrong hands and they are used to inflict harm. Seriously. Also, where did you get that phrase "mindless drivel" from? Sounds like a direct quote from talk radio...

On what planet is it not reasonable to restrict access to guns based on their speed and effectiveness (and not based on stupid and useless categories like semi/auto/AR)?

Sorry, I don't have a cache of weapons, I don't have a bunker, I don't like ted nugent, I don't hunt, I don't think the sky is falling and I've never listened to talk radio. I apologize that your assumptions are off.

To restate my questions, since they continue to go unanswered (thus proving I am right):

Do you think there is some rational and/or justifiable reason (the second amendment isn't a reason BTW, it's just a law) for people stockpiling high speed/high effectiveness weapons?

Do you think a hypothetical citizen uprising stands a chance against cluster bombs, guided missiles, jet fighters, nukes, bunker busting artillery, etc? These being the weapons an occupying or invading military would use.

Is it not reasonable to restrict access to guns based on their speed and effectiveness (and not based on stupid and useless categories like semi/auto/AR)?

“thus proving I’m right”…Get off your ego trip.
People have different purposes so reasons will vary. However, why should I have to justify what I want a specific firearm for? Home defense, sporting, competition, hobby, etc…

What would you consider “a stockpile”??? I know people who shoot competitively. They go through 3k+ rounds of ammo a week so having a 6 month supply of ammo would put you at 78,000 rounds. Who’s to say that is excessive or not excessive? Government knows best? Media fed morons?

What speed/effectiveness would YOU consider OK for ME to protect MY family. It’s nice that Biden thinks we should all be using double barrel shotguns to protect ourselves. I hope 3 people don’t break into my house. A more logical choice would be a pump shotgun but they know what’s best for my family. But again, in your world of rainbows and unicorns, 3 people would never invade a home. That’s just paranoia. There would never be riots or looting in a national disaster.

Citizen uprising- I still don’t understand where you’re going with this. I’ve never mentioned whether I though you could shoot down a drone with a slingshot. I’m not sure why I should even reply. I think your thought process is stupid. I’m not some doomsday prepper and even though I don’t agree with all their concerns, it’s irrelevant! Who am I to tell them how they should live their lives. Is their validity to their paranoia? I don’t know and I don’t care. Not my business and they’re the people I worry about the least.

Do you know how easy it is to take a semi auto weapon and make it fully auto? People do it all the time. I do NOT think it’s reasonable to restrict weapons based on speed/effectiveness. Gun violence’s root problem is not speed. Again, there were more REVOLVERS/Shotguns involved in mass killings than Assault Weapons. Do we really need a revolver that has the ability to shoot 6 rounds in 10 seconds? Shouldn’t a muzzleloader be ample to protect your family?

So basically, do nothing. Great way to deal with the gun violence problem, which is partly fueled by cheap, accountability-free access to highly effective weapons.

This is the problem. You read what you want to read. You hear what you want to hear and then with your snakelike methods, imply that I’m saying to do nothing about it. At what point did I say do nothing? I’m more concerned with trying to curb violence and gun violence in general but I’m here with a realistic outlook, not some moron saying we need bullet control.

Here are a couple posts that you could have maybe read prior to putting words into my mouth.

“You’re correct and they will continue to happen. As will sports fans stabbings. As will mothers drowning their children. As will fathers molesting children. As will intoxicated drivers plowing over people of all ages. Our society is going backwards. Until we fix our culture, all the above (and more will continue to happen. Banning guns, knives, bath tubs, cars, alcohol, etc...is not the solution because they’re not the problem.”

“Which is why I said it would be the only regulation I would support but I suppose I should rephrase. I don't believe the impact would be much at all. Hell you can build a bomb pretty easy. Please don't feed me something like, "if it saves 1 life, it's worth it". That's bs and I'm not implying that the lives are not important. However, I feel we should focus our efforts in a manner that will have a greater impact. Spreading ourselves so thin with a bunch of items with little to no impact is not the solution. We need to get people thinking right. There will always be crazies but our society is unraveling at warp speed. MEDIA, education system, MEDIA, lack of parenting, MEDIA, entitlements, MEDIA, violence in games/tvs, MEDIA, Immigration…are just a handful of the real issues. Also, people aren’t afraid of our prison system. Why should they be? We slap them on their hand as they’re sent home after their 3+ DWIs to go plow into a family only to get another. We are a broken country.”

Look everyone, she found a Jefferson quote that includes the word "gun."

So, Elizabeth. How do you interpret that quote?

"the people have the right to determine issues"

...through the mechanisms of government.

Haha... you should do some research on who Cesare Beccaria was, Elizabeth. He was a liberal who condemned the use of torture and abhored the death penalty.

Boohoo, Elizabeth.

Oh, and another thing: I used to partake in trap shooting quite a bit. Don't have time these days but I do have a nice Remington waiting for me in the closet when I do.

There is no excuse for people to handle a firearm without following basic safety rules. Secure you firearm in an adaquate storage unit in your home, and the ammunition. Take a class (They cost less than the firearm) on firearm safety. Oh by the way who gives these classes? Instructors certified by the NRA. Whi certifies police instructors on firearms? The NRA. Accidents happen, 33,000+ highway traffic deaths in the U.S. 2011, nearly 800 highway deaths in Missouri 2012. They were not taught highway safety by the NRA! Number killed by firearms in the U.S. in 2011 ~3,300, including the bad guys. Number killed with the so called "Assault weapons" ~332 in the United States. You are more likely to get killed in a vehicle accident in the U.S. and in Missoutri then by an "assault rifle". Let's ban vehicles, they ar ekilling too many people. Liberal logic 101.

"They were not taught highway safety by the NRA!"

You are becoming a cartoon.

I am sure people are clamoring to click on links you provide after the slew of bogus information you've put forth already. Maybe your fellow gun cultists will indulge.

Marc how can you honestly think that the government is going to become some sort of evil empire and Obama is going to be a tyrant. People who favor Obama wouldn't support that. Also, if this unrealistic situation did happen, how can you think that keeping your precious guns would protect you from the most powerful army in the world?

Paul, are really that stupid. Ever hear of the Revolutionary War? The won America won against the British, the most powerful Army in the World? Evr hear of Vietnam, beat the most powerful army in the world.. U.S.A.? The fight against tyranny holds no bounds by a determined people.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but don't underestimate just how stupid reverepaul can be.

Lol -You just don't care for ReverePaul because he's the antithesis of your boy friend PaulRevere.

Marc, the British didn't have drones that can rain hellfire from the sky. It's really stupid to get into conversations with you. As for mike k, I wouldn't be talking, your the guy who posted this.

"now Obama comes after our guns, next will be our women"

specfically our white women, he can have the rest

Your children must be really proud of how you spend your time on the Patch with your angel sword picture.

Market contracts 4th quarter, consumer confidence plunges. Let's review Obama's record thus far:

destroy Health Care - check
destroy moral fiber of country through promotion of homosexuality - check
destroy armed services by allowing women to serve in combat - check
destroy dollar through trillion dollar deficits - check
destroy countries work ethic through promotion of being a country of takers - check
destroy small business job creation through exorbitant tax increases - check
destroy value of citizenship through allowing illegals same rights as citizens - check

Next on the agenda:
Stack Supreme Court with liberals, gut second amendment, confiscate private citizens weapons in preparation of ignoring twenty second amendment, setting himself up for third term and eventual dictatorship.
Heil Obama

Oh no! mikkke has uncovered the Illuminati's secret plan! He must be stopped!

I live in the Kerryton Place villas, far from being a shack thank you.

mike k quote

"specfically our white women, he can have the rest"

mike k,

Your are a racist puke. You give millionaires who live in faux gated communities and over-priced duplexes off Old State Rd. a bad name.

Do everyone in Ellisville a favor and move somewhere else.

"Do everyone in Ellisville a favor and move somewhere else."

+1

come and make me, cross onto my property line and I will blow you to kingdom come

mike k i bet you didn't think gay marriage would be allowed in one state 20 years ago but look where we are today. Also, do you think your tough hiding in your house with a horde of guns? I would gladly cross onto your property line and call your bluff.

come knocking on my door and find out if I'm bluffing but I won't see you because you liberals are all cowards, always looking for the big old government to fight your battles and take care of you from cradle to grave. Go pray to your God Obama and see what he will give you next.

Speaking of cowards little mikey, weren't you and your old pretend millionaire buddies from Kerryton Place "Villas" suppose to riot on Old State Rd. if Obama won the election?

Whatever happened with that? Didn't see anything in the news.

Too bad you didn't file to run for Ellisville City Council. It would have been a pleasure to watch you go down in flames at the polls.

Troy Pieper does an excellent job representing district 2. I hope he is re-elected.

Pieper will never see a second term.

I hear the Wednesday night TV line-up is good this season. Enjoy Troy.

homosexuals will never be allowed to marry in Missouri, not in this century or the next one for that matter. As much as you liberal hacks would like to have to your way we still have a constitution and until Obama gets his little dictatorship, you will have to abide by the will of the people and the laws of Missouri. In the meantime if you don't like it, move to the great bankrupt state of Illinois where anything goes.
Thank God for Missouri the great State where I reside and will live until the day I die.

Tough days for mike k. Gabby Giffords laying whoop ass on the extemist gun cowards. Unemployment claims way down. Stock market going up. (I personally don't care about these knee-jerk cyclical things, but I sense mike k does). Obama with the courage to address immigration reform, sensible gun control....

And lo and behold - the Boy Scouts may let gays officially join.
http://maplewood-brentwood.patch.com/articles/boy-scouts-may-end-ban-on-gay-leaders-scouts

And mike - those child molesters in the Boy Scouts over the years ...most of them married heterosexual men.