...it'll be people like Blackwater that will take our guns away when the need arises. They will naturally be given access to registration databases to make the sweep easier.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess if you believe something hard enough it might come true. Now click your heels together Dorothy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, I'm a 66-year old Gay, life-long Democrat and concur with the great need to do "something" about inner-city guns and violence. I do not own a gun nor am I a hunter. What I object to here is the condescending "better than thou" "we won, you lost" rhetoric.

The fact that our Uber-Liberals cannot seem to understand how important guns and hunting are to many rural US residents and that it serves absolutely no useful purpose to incite and taunt the NRA and their members/followers with such language is sad. Indeed it only serves to drive us further apart from ever reaching some reasonable conclusion to this decades-old debate.

Just keep it up if you want the Republicans back in power in four years. Obama is bound to disappoint many of his more-fervent supporters who might just stay home in 2012. 52.8% is not an insurmountable number to overcome nor is it much of a mandate. Some of our folks are as out of touch with reality as the Uber-Conservatives and it could cost us ALL dearly in the very-near future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That explains the calls I've been getting all week from the NRA.

I hunt and own guns. But I don't support the NRA.

They, not unlike the other side of the fence, want to take things to the extreme.

To me, that's the problem with most special interests groups, they are not happy with "reasonable", it has to be "all the way".

Sorry NRA, I don't believe mainstream America is "extreme" anything, we prefer reasonable and common sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gun control, that is the deliberate attempt to destroy the Second Amendment, has cost the Democrats very dearly in the past and will cost them very dearly in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There really is a vitally important reason for the Second Amendment. There's probably no other issue in America where it's as important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What, you think Americans are going to suddenly join together with their guns and go out in the streets to "fight the power" and "stick it to the man" when things get bad?

Face it, this concept of ordinary Americans keeping firearms at home as some sort of militia against an abusive government is complete bullshit. First of all, people in general can't agree on the color of shit let alone an armed uprising. Secondly, the government has resources that would doom any such attempt. What, you think John Doe the accountant is going to suddenly walk out of his house with a hunting rifle and start fighting against professional soldiers because his taxes have been raised too much or the gas price is more than he can bare?

Keep dreaming Rambo...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Honky the Nihilist - you make me sad - I am sorry you have been lead down this path of fear.
Fear breeds fear breeds fear.
You should try some drugs - the world is REALLY not that bad!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I mostly agree. The Republicans have been so terrible in so many ways that the Second Amendment probably didn't significantly influence very many voters' decisions. I'm a Second Amendment extremist, really, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for a single Republican in the general election.

I'm considering buying a few things that were made illegal under the idiotic "Assault Weapons Ban" that expired a few years back, though I wish I could save my money with the knowledge that these weapons would be legal in a few more years.

We have all the "reasonable" gun control that we can have, and a lot more besides. I will never be convinced that any more restrictions are justifiable. I wish the government would go after real criminals instead of bothering peaceful gun owners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Or you didn't bother to read the article before spouting off?

What's the matter - can't wait 3 days? One handgun per month isn't enough? You are not making a very good argument for anything other than being a wingnut. Just what the planet really needs - another wingnut with assault weapons :.(

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

80 million gun owners? 2.3 million people in jail? There is little doubt that the US is different from the rest of the world. Different does not always mean better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The NRA died when it stopped simply mediating for the rights of gun owners and became an arm of the Republican Party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...and a C&C card. Guns need to be regulated, and people who want to own and use them should be educated. The ex-marine who taught our class for the Concealed Weapon permit repeatedly told us that a real-life shooting encounter is nothing like the movies, and that taking a life requires you to be aware of the moral and ethical consequences of your owning and using a gun. I'm sure the parent of that 8-year old boy who was killed in Massachusetts when he lost control of machine gun (WTF????) didn't give a moment's thought to any of that.

Go get 'em, Barack...get those ignorant hyper-macho (and hyper-fem-macho)fools in line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The very groups of people who swear by these weapons, have more incidents, harming, killing, and having these deadly weapons, stolen from them is just truly AMAZING!

Just last week, we had an 8 yr old kill his father and friend ... and his father TAUGHT him how to USE a gun! What about the incident, whereby the father took his son to a shooting range,ending up killing his young son, by giving him a gun that was to mighty for his young age and weight.

If I had young children, and believe in weapons, I would be especially CAREFUL in teaching my children how to use a gun, for FEAR, they would turn on me, for not letting them HAVE THEIR WAY; there's been many incidents of this nature too!

There are many more incidents we don't hear about, especially the incidients where homes are broken into, and these items taken.

The only REASONABLE thing one can do is be AWARE of their environment, since its become more desperate/dangerous in these dwindling financial times; GOOD PEOPLE have gone BAD, to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families.

Another dumb incident, whereby the NY Football player shot HIMSELF, now HOW DUMB WAS THAT? Most people shouldn't own a gun, let alone go out in the public with one.

If some nut decides to break in your home, you own one, you're awake & ALERT, then USE IT. Otherwise, keep those guns under lock and key, if you have children, otherwise, HAPPY HUNTING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Groups like the NRA can influence a very close election. Of the million reasons one could cite for Gore's loss, one is the loss of West Virginia, where NRA propaganda undoubtedly hurt him. Obama lost W VA too -- it just didnt matter.

My great concern on gun issues is that the Dem candidates may have become so shy about them that they decline to enact even the most common-sense and necessary regulations. I hope that is not the case. Bill Clinton's push for background checks and other sensible measures had broad support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To state the obvious, guns are designed to kill. They are not toys. They are not for 8-year-olds.

The problem is that a minority of gun owners are yahoos who don't treat their guns as deadly weapons. So people end up dead in "accidental" shootings. How many people have been shot, and the shooter says, "Gee, I didn't know it was loaded?"

Guns must be treated with great respect, and people must be carefully trained. When the NRA sponsors hunter and gun safety courses, that's a good thing.

When the NRA resists any attempt to regulate guns, even to make them safer, that's a very bad thing indeed.

The NRA needs to refocus its efforts on education and gun safety, rather than pushing right-wing agendas and alarmist rhetoric about guns being pried from "our cold, dead hands."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but the headline is not!! It may be defanged some but IT is not dead!! However, if the next Congress or two does do away with the high-power, many bullets a second rifles and pistols that will be fine with me! However, we also need to realize that our CONSTITUTION does give us the right "to keep(OWN) and bare(CARRY) guns"! Our forefathers wanted the right(s) to their pistols, rifles and shotguns and I firmly believe that WE as a people should never give that up or allow any president or congress to take IT away. Any thing beyond that would create a nation with no way to change its government (if the need arose) except by the ballot box and WE ALL now know (from 2000 & 2004) that the ballot box of the modern world can be controlled to achieve whatever the "government" thinks IT needs!!!! As a Viet Nam vet do not go too far out on this limb or get too happy over the defanging of the NRA.... if YOU do you may get a result that even the most liberal of you do not like!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many gun-owning liberals voted Democrat despite that party's anti-Constitutional gun-control stance because the alternative was ridiculous to the point of satire.

This does not signify that the NRA is "dead," any more than tax cuts instantly translate to economic crisis; or Republican governance inevitably breeds authoritarianism (as opposed to "liberals" who would deny citizens Bill of Rights liberties) as prior cartoonishly simplistic Alternet articles have posited.

The economy propelled Obama to the Presidency, not "liberal" gun-control ideas. Many specifically voted for him because he promised to end Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- something it now appears may not happen after all.

In fact, liberals who exercise 2d Amendment rights are counting on the NRA to advocate for us, in the face of what we hope won't turn out to be authoritarian-style attacks on OUR Constitutional rights.

New York City is already violating U.S. law and citizens' basic rights. We can only hope the NRA and other advocates for American Constitutional liberties will be pulling for citizens, because as the bailout and recent Cabinet picks suggest, there may not be anybody else on Capitol Hill left to do so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wish for just a day the anti gun crowd could know what it's like to be 45 minutes from the nearest police station, know what it's like to see a rabid fox on your front porch one morning, or remember the LA riots where a gun was your one and only protection from hoards of thousands of murderers. It's easy to live in the wealthy suburbs with a million dollar a day police force and say we don't need guns. I don't know a single gun owner who has ever shot anyone by accident or used it in a crime, and we all had guns when we were 8. Why do people ignore the fact that anyone in the US can buy an illegally imported Chinese gun for $75 on the street, and there is nothing the government can do to prevent that? These guns don't hold fingerprints, and can't be traced to anyone - that's why they are used in our inner cities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I still havent figured out why the Democratic party seems to froth at the mouth every time they get a majority over Gun Control, Because it really has nothing to do with the guns but it is all about control, A unarmed society is a society that is at the mercy of it's govt. Without the means to defend their rights and property from not only the Govt but also from others that prey on subjects. You might think that the founding fathers found some import in including the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Bill Of Rights and only behind the freedom of speach, Perhaps it was put in that order to gaurentee the first and the rest of the following ammendments. Think people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Plus the economy was in a total meltdown and America's disastrous foreign policies of "free" trade and war had been hitting home since 2005. If Obama sells out on the economic and even foreign policy fronts to the rightwing, the issue of "gun control" despite it being a red herring will be back. The author who wrote this article probably lives in la-la land and doesn't know that the pee brain mentality is still strong in rural America at large.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...our individual liberties; now analogues/contemporaries on the left think they deserve a turn.

Just bloody wonderful. The more things (well, just names really) change, the more they stay the same. Hooray for patriarchal governance and making unto criminals people who've harmed anyone. Hell, I think "gun reform" ought to be included with the next "patiot" act, exactly where it belongs.

I guess I should hide a copy of my Constitution so I can show my kids what it looked like before the Great Experiments of 2000-2016.

I would point out one thing while you're practicing your spiteful Gippetto jig over a perceived failure of the NRA to protect the 2nd amendment: protections afforded by the fourth have been steadily eroded--everything from warrantless wiretapping to the bull-dozing of citizens' houses for parking lots promoting "economic development". Our government continues to restrict our birthright as citizens living in a free and liberal society--and you gleefully mock those who oppose it. Good for you--we still have the right of freedom of (ignorant) expression, for now.

That's nothing special though; we have vast numbers of folks in this country who don't give a damn about anything except who gets to yell "nyah-nyah" over their pet wedge issue. These bloviating, petulant mules are amplified by the boggersfear and yell-radio. Important stuff, feeling like you beat somebody when it comes to the direction of our country, after all.

Just savior your chuckle before the check gets to the table.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have two problems really.

We have an NRA/gun industry that is worried that the slightest attempt to control the free flow of guns to whoever wants one is the nudge over the slippery-slope to take all guns away from everyone. We can argue that no one wants to take all guns away from everyone, but we have to face facts. There is a substantial minority of rabid gun-owners who believe that everyone else is plotting against them.

On the other side, there are people, mostly living in urban areas, who are quite reasonably concerned about carnage in the streets and see as a solution not allowing the thugs in the streets such easy access to assault weapons. Balancing this concern is another concern by urban dwellers that without a gun they have little protection from thugs who do have guns.

Some day, perhaps we can have a civil discussion about this issue and other issues where compromise is needed. Perhaps that day will come soon if Obama succeeds in becoming the great compromiser in chief as he seems to want to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

where he talks about how obama will go for legislation banning guns or something to the sort... because obama said he would... give me a break.. is that the obams that was aganst the war and now for containing iran, pakistan...etc. or the obama that was not under any circumstances going to give the giant tele a free ride on spying.. or giving bush what he wanted on fisa.. on and on.. yes you can count on obama doing the expedient thing versus the right thing.. after all he is the great compromiser.. which is what we needed to get elected and now what we need to move the center further to the right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will NEVER give up his "assault weapon"...AND I am not a member of the NRA. I generally dislike the NRA but I will not give up my "assult weapon" regardless. On the chance that the "ban" would come back I have already purchased a dozen high-capacity magazines for my current rifle and a few for my next addition, which I will now be forced to purchase sooner than I expected to try to beat any ban. In any case, you should look at the ban more closely: it didn't work before and it wont/can't work again - the difference between a pre-ban rifle, which I own, and a rifle sold DURING the ban, vs a rifle now sold POST-ban, is laughable and largely cosmetic...with good reason. You can no more fully define an "assault rifle" than you can define pornography.

On this issue alone I am glad that the GOP managed to prevent a 60-vote majority for the Dems - they can kill any overwhelming ban proposals. In actuality, I daresay that the GOP didn't need to prevent the Dems from getting to 60 anyway - the Blue Dog Democrats will never go for an overwhelming ban either. On many (often too many) bills the Blue Dogs vote exactly as if they are GOPers, which pisses me off no end, but not in THIS case.

I am not a hunter. I will simply not kill any non-human animal if I can avoid it. I do not have my rifle for hunting, I have it because I am ex-military and ENJOY shooting it at the range AND like the fact that I have it in the face of possible chaos or unrest due to the loss of American liberty (torture, death of Habeas Corpus, gutting of Posse Comitatus, warrantless spying on Americans, spy satellites used against Americans, the building of huge "detention centers" by KBR for so-called "immigration emergencies and other programs, etc, etc, etc).

The 2nd Amendment was never about protecting the "right to hunt" for Americans. The SCOTUS has also declared unequivocally that the 2nd Amendment provides for a personal right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is about keeping citizens equipped, if necessary, to deal with a tyrannical government. Thomas Jefferson himself stated that it is our right and responsibility to overthrow any government that becomes tyrannical. There is the Jefferson quote: "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of tyrants." He wasn't referring to Saddam Hussein's of the world, he was referring to domestic concerns.

My next purchase will be a Bushmaster ACR or, second choice, a Robarms XCR. I'm already collecting high-capacity mags towards that purpose.

This is one liberal veteran who will NOT disarm even though he rather despises the NRA. I like my weapon(s) but unlike NRA members, I don't have sex with it or worship it on an alter.

Keep your hands off my rifle(s).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not even slightly. Even the most hard-core NRA members voted Democrat.

They did so, for reasons that had nothing to do with gun control.

Most people felt the issue of gun bans, was decided before the election, and decided by the Supreme Court. Guns can not be banned.

So the gun enthusiasts moved on to other issues, ya know, minor things like the war, economy, that sorta thing?

Obama's mandate is about those, not gun control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Illegal use of guns is best viewed within the topic of criminal justice.

You get little support for illegal gun use, including by our own government agents.

So what is the point of this article?

Looks like just another distraction over a minor issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a strong supporter of Obama and a lifelong liberal going all the way back to Vietnam War years. But I thank the author for reminding me that this smug know-nothing attitude still exists in left wing circles.

I joined the NRA, holding my nose, when Clinton was President. Yes, they're a horrible cynical lobby, and yes, they are now little more than a branch of the evil Republican machine. But unlike the author, I do not believe that disarming the law-abiding public is the road to nirvana. And having lived in and travelled to a lot of different parts of the U.S., I understand how rural and small-town people feel about guns, and how people like this author cost us support in this area. So, holding my nose again, I'm going to send the NRA a check. I do like the magazine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First, what constitutes "excessive profanity," because there seems to be no limit?

Liberals are nothing if not consistent; consistently arrogant and ignorant.

The NRA didn't lose this election because it wasn't a player. The media and the candidates strategically extricated the issue of gun control from all discussion, along with border security. They just refused to talk about it.

We could talk for days about the stupidity and misinformation regarding so-called "assault weapons." The tracking measures advocated by the writer, including ballistics fingerprinting and microstamping have been proven ineffective even in a small sampling of weapons known to be used in crimes. Add to the database the OTHER 99% of guns in America and you'll have nothing more than a multi-billion dollar quagmire of useless information.

The NRA is by no means dead. Membership has increased significantly since the November election and will likely continue. The problem for the NRA is the complicit media that systematically strikes any stories that might alert America to the existence of the NRA.

Paranoid gun owners? I'm surprised the author used the term 'paranoid,' as his mindset suggests that the phrase is redundant. I'm a gun owner and I'm NOT a hunter. I own and carry a weapon for personal protection. I train other people to do so effectively, confidently and safely. Lawfully owned firearms comprise less than 1% of all guns used in gun crimes, and (in Texas) concealed carry license holders make up only 0.227% of all felony grade and weapon-related misdemeanor convictions. The idea that gun owners are nuts is just plain myth.

Your problem is the CRIMINALS. Deal with them without depriving Americans their right to protect themselves. Impose severe penalties for crimes committed with illegal weapons. Do away with the revolving door policy present in our prison system. Secure the border!

Educate yourself on the realities of gun ownership. Don't just blindly buy into the misinformation and skewed statistics thrown about the Brady Bunch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You view purchases of firearms before a stated intent to ban certain weapons as responding to fear. I view it as demand for a finite resource. Obama and Biden have publicly stated that they are FOR banning assault weapons. People are merely responding to that real threat. Threat of military action? No. Just the threat of possibly never being able to obtain such things legally ever again. Just look at the fight to legalize marijuana use if you need a history lesson in that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a criminal assault or homicide, an attempted or completed suicide, or unintentional shooting than to kill or injure in self-defense. (Kellermann, AL et al, 1998 journal of Trauma, 42:263-67)

In the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed, and more than 47 are injured, by a firearm every day. (CDC, NCHS, December 2006)

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann, et al, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993)

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns. (Kellermann et al, New England journal of Medicine, 1992)

A 1990 law banning the sale of "Saturday Night Special" handguns in Maryland was associated with reduced use of these guns by criminals, and a 9% lower rate of firearm homicides in the state between 1990-1998 than would have been expected had there been no law.

Policies that deny handgun purchases to individuals with prior misdemeanor or felony convictions are associated with a decreased risk of subsequent convictions. Misdemeanants who had allowed to purchase handguns prior to the passage of a California state law prohibiting such purchases had a rate of criminal offending 29% higher than that among misdemeanants who were denied handgun purchases after the law took effect.

Every day in the U.S., 8 children and teenagers are killed and more than 47 are injured by a firearm.

In 2005, 595 California children and youth under age 21 were killed with firearms and 1,554 California children and youth under 21 were hospitalized with nonfatal firerarms injuries.

One-third of U.S. children live in homes with firearms. Almost halfof homes with children and firearms keep a gun unlocked.

68% of the attackers in school shootings obtained the gun(s) from their own home or that of a relative. 61% of the attackers used handguns.

Many young children, including children as young as three years old, are strong enough to fire a handgun.

In 2004, guns murdered:

5 people in New Zealand
37 in Sweden
56 in Australia
73 in England and Wales
184 in Canada

and 11,344 in the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For reasons having to do with the religious and governmental persecution of weed, I can't own guns. So I have no ox to gore.
I'm glad this country has easy access to guns, and despite the great pleasure I take from Obama's victory, this country is unlikely to waste its time disarming the overwhelmingly law-abiding citizenry.
If we managed to take away assault rifles, for instance, we'd have to explain ourselves to the Korean store owners who would not have had any inventory or livelihood after the Los Angeles riots if they had not sat on top of their stores and sprayed assault rifle rounds to discourage the armed and dangerous looters.
Guns are what stands between the lawful and the lawless during times of civil unrest. If you want to carry a Saturday Night special in your backpack camping, why should they be illegal?
This position is not conservative, but the damage the so-called liberal anti-gun agenda could do to reforms in our industrial agriculture system, our ailing financial system, our broken health care system, and on and on, well, gun control should not be a priority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, here it is. Last week in Sullivan County, NY, a toddler was killed by a hunter while she was inside a trailer watching TV. Here is the newspaper coverage:

"State Police have arrested Edward J. Taibi, 45, of Howard Beach for the shooting that they say killed 16-month-old Charly Skala.

Around 4 p.m., Skala was standing in the kitchen of her grandparents mobile home at 1338 Horseshoe Lake Road, where the family had gathered to watch football.

The bullet ripped through a wall and struck her in the area of the right shoulder and neck.

She was taken by relatives in a car to Catskill Regional Medical Center in Harris, then flown to Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, where she died from her injuries.

Police say Taibi was in a tree stand and shot once at a deer, wounding it. He then fired a second time from about 400 feet away from the mobile home. He was hunting with a .300 Winchester Magnum high-powered rifle."

The hunter is lucky the bullet didn't rip thru several trailers and injure or kill more people. He was also baiting deer with sweet feed, which is illegal.

This should be on the national news -- it's an outrage. All the nearby counties have already banned high-power rifles for deerhunting (we're not talking elephants or even grizzlies, here) but Sullivan has not. Maybe that will change. We need a "Charly's Law" nationally to make sure this never happens again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While still able to keep our guns, we cannot use them. Ask someone who has fired and struck someone who is robbing them. When the police come, the gun you use will not be the only gun they take away as "evidence" any other guns they find will be gone too. Try to get them back. Even when you are in the right, believe that the political party the policeman belongs to will have nothing whatsoever to do with his zeal in removing a firearm from your home. We've lost just as we've lost the war on drugs, the war on terror and so on.
Peace, (what a concept)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How naive can you get?

(First off, the election was more about the wars and the economy.)

These so-called pro-gunners are for licensure, registration and restrictions, and are therefore turning a *RIGHT* into a privilege.

I have posted numerous comments here about this and anyone who has read them knows that Alice Lillie is absolutely, positively, totally, completely and 100% pro-gun.

It is a *RIGHT* and rights come from God (or nature if you prefer). If any human being or group of human beings can amend a right in any way, shape or form that means they are *better* than you.

*Who* is so much better than you that they can tell you what you can or cannot own?

Additionally, if they can ban guns they will have to ban or regulate all the parts that go into a gun. They will have to censor internet pages and hard copy pubs that describe how to make guns or their parts.

They would have to strictly regulate, license and register every part from the time it is mined from the ground all the way to the finished product, meaning all the products these parts could go into.

A piece of metal is mined from the ground and could go into a gun or a toaster or a musical instrument. Armies of police and bureaucrats would have to oversee the whole operation. And, of course, toaster parts could be re-fashioned into gun parts.

And, don't think for minute this would work. Does the war on drugs work??? LOL!!! They can't even keep drugs out of the prisons.

Do you seriously believe they can keep guns out of people's homes? Anyone with a measurable IQ knows they can't, so we can do two things:

1. We can have unnanounced visits from inspectors to homes and businesses (some of whom can be corrupted with bribes, etc.) to paw through your underwear drawer and tampon boxes, OR

2. We could just get *REAL* and acknowledge that individuals have the *RIGHT* to own whatever they want, and then hold individuals responsible for their actions.

Please see my blog at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was worried about this whole gun control thing being taken too far but not any more. It seems, from these posts, that while Dems agree that common sense laws need to be enacted to protect citizens at large very few want to eliminate guns entirely.

I personally think the NRA went too far supporting gun deregulation the same way our polititions supported deregulation of the financial industry. Both of them are a recipe for disaster but there can also be too much regulation, which is also another form of disaster.

So go ahead, enact common sense laws to keep firearms from the hands of criminals and ignorant hicks of any color or living environment. I will support them as long as it doesn't go too far and it seems most other people here will too.

As the good book says, everything in moderation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wished I didn't have to say this but our me-me-me arrogant consumerist shoot-first-ask-later DYSFUNCTIONAL culture calls for strict discipline. Given the rising tragedies of misusing firearms to "solve" everything rather than site down and work out the problems and I don't give a flying fuck who you're talking about, America needs STRICT GUN CONTROL and I'm not talking about outright bans. For one thing, that 34 year old Haitian who died as a result of the mobster stampeders storming Walmart should have been ARMED with an AK-47 on each arm so that he could have prevented the stampeders from killing him. Because America is filled with the shoot-first-ask-later pee-brain mentality, it makes sense to RESTRICT firearm usage until people can prove that they are actually D-I-S-C-I-P-L-I-N-E-D. Call me a "fascist" all you want but you gun toters are already the real fascists to begin with !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To bad it doesn't match the facts.

He claims that the NRA lost 80% of it's endorsed races against 'gun control candidates'. That number comes from a carefully phrased Brady claim that about 20 out of 25 races in where there was a Democratic turnover. That in no way shows a complete picture. This is re-enforced when he states that the Brady's won 90% of their endorsed races.

"Nobody can accuse Obama of campaigning dishonestly on the issue of gun control. "

Sure we can. Not only that, but he had his associates in the media campaign dishonestly for him as well.

http://tinyurl.com/5c38wr

Now the real nonsense:

"Obama consistently advocated for increasing law enforcement's ability to trace guns by reinstituting tracking legislation repealed by the Bush administration;"

Oh Really? He's claiming that police CAN'T access trace data? That's a flat out lie. Whatabout the fact that the BATFE and the FBI support the restrictions on it not being released to the public?

"closing the famous "gun show loophole" that allows gun buyers to avoid background checks;"

By mandating all sales go through FFL dealers that Obama also supports third party lawsuits against in order to shut them down. Hence no legal sales.

"mandating additional safety features on U.S.-manufactured guns;"

That don't exist.

"resurrecting the expired ban on assault weapons and making it permanent."

Expanded to include millions more firearms that aren't commonly used in crime.

Note that the author didn't mention Obama's desire to circumvent the laws of 48 states by banning CCW in lieu of his claims to allow locales to make their own laws.

Sorry. If Obama decides to burn off political capitol to push for gun control, he'll sign any bill that comes to his desk.


Ray Schoenke of the AHSA was a longtime supporter of the Brady Campaign along with his wife being a board member. He started his group along w. numerous other extremist gun control activists including Rosenthal. In order to stump for Obama, they scrubbed their entire website of any 'controversial' measures and modified several of their stances.

The AHSA has done NOTHING to either support hunters, shooters, or conservationists. As that unnamed "NRA blogger" was quoted, their entire existence is to divide the gun vote.

More here:

http://tinyurl.com/6llfj5

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Zaitchik ignores the decades of argument by by many Libeals that the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide for an individual right to gun ownership. In the aftermath of the Kennedy/King assassinations, many people began to argue that our founders only intended to provide the right of a militia to have guns, and their argument posed a threat to the millions of us who thought otherwise. He is right that the Heller decision helped clarify our individual rights, but he misses the point when he infers that many gun control advocate organization were not aiming to deny individual rights. In fact, gun control advocates would have made a lot more progress a lot faster had they agreed with the NRA and others on the issue.

God Speed,
David

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a well-known slogan sponsored by the NRA, possibly framed by that lobby. It goes, "When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns." This misses the point, though. It should more accurately read, "When guns are outlawed, only the GOVERNMENT will have guns." A far scarier concept.

It should be obvious to any sane person that there should be some limit on who can own what firearms and to what uses such arms can legally be put. It is, in fact, accepted by even the most fanatic gun advocates that it should be illegal to use a gun to shoot your neighbor or to rob a convenience store. The issue is not either/or, but how much and how far?

The idea that a total lack of legal limits on gun ownership is despotic is unrealistic; it is an offense against public safety. A man who has committed armed robbery, served his sentence and been released from prison should definitely not have the "right' to own a tool he has abused by using it against his neighbors. A maniac who has escaped from the local asylum should not have the "right" to purchase a weapon at the nearest gun shop. To argue otherwise is to espouse insanity as a privilege of citizenship.

On the other hand, the Constitution authorizes ownership of firearms by citizens. This is not to say that it must be construed that every citizen has an absolute right to own whatever weapon he pleases regardless of all other considerations. But limits on the ownership and use of guns is not the same as abolition. Only the fanatics on both sides of the issue could fail to understand the distinction.

How about a bit of common sense in the debate?

With love under will,

Bob, aka Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have extensive training in firearms and keep a number of weapons in my home. I also support our right to bear arms. Having said that, I also support our right to possess and drive motor vehicles. What do these two things have in commen?

In most states anyone can walk into a firearms dealer, purchase a pistol, and walk out the door. No training required, it's as simple as that.

To drive a motor vehicle, however, you need to demonstrate your ability to do so to a motor vehicle inspector, provide proof of registration, and insurance.

What's wrong with this picture? I can't image a more irresponsible person than someone who possesses a firearm with no training in its use and the legal requirements that go along with such possession.

That (untrained) person is a threat to his/her self as well as everyone around them. They are an accident waiting to happen. Would we allow a person behind the wheel of a motor vehicle who has never driven before? Of course not.

How about some basic commen sense. Background checks, sure, but let's not forget there is a responsibility to possession of a firearm and proper training and understanding of the law should be one aspect of this right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you look hard at it, you'll find that this is not strictly a left vs. right issue. It's more of a rural/urban divide.

Regardless of ideology, a lot of people who live packed into a densely-populated city aren't keen on having their neighbors packing, and maybe letting off a few rounds when something goes bump in the night.

Rural folks don't share those concerns to the same degree.

The problem, of course, is that a gun purchased in the boondocks can find their way into the bright lights of the big city pretty easily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here we go again. Gun control Democrats.
All ready the anti gun gurus are plastering the media with "we won, NRA lost" propaganda.

I think the Democrats learned in 1995 when they attacked the 2nd Amendment. They lost control of the Senate and House in 1996.

If the Democrats attack the 2nd Amendment again. They will lose control of both houses again.

I am a Democrat that will vote for republicans in the senate and house if they attack the 2nd Amendment and millions of other democrats will too.

We do not want government to remove our right to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights from CORRUPT, EVIL, NEO CONSERVATIVE FASCIST that Controlled the White house for the last 8 years.

If we did not have the right to bear arms, Bush and his Neo Fascist would have taken control of the USA and Democracy would be just a word in a dictionary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop pretending to know what the Constitution says by pointing only to a snippet torn out of the out-of-context Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment has two directly relevant "virtues":

[1] It includes the only posited "individual right" debated concerning that which became the Second Amendment; and,

[2] It includes the terms for both "plural" and "individual" as concerns "persons".

"The right of the people [PLURAL, as in "We the people," not "We the person"] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best defense of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in the MILITIA] in person."

Notice that at every point, from beginning to end, the focus is relentlessly and only military service, and that it was not "voluntary".

Repeating the anti-Constitutional propaganda generated by the private special-interest gun-industry-front NRA is both anti-Constitutional, anti-history, and brain-dead stupid.

The issue was not militia v. "the government"; it was militia v. standing army. Why? Because a "standing army" was seen to be unacceptable because it posed a threat to "the government".

The final clause, "but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall not be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in the MILITIA] in person".

Thus, the only posited "individual right" debated concerning that which became the Second Amendment; and, having been voted down, means the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with "individual" anything.

Knowing those facts, only liars continue to spew the gun-industry/NRA propaganda and anti-Americanism.

Moreover, please read the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8., C. 15 and 16, which:

[1] Defines the purposes of the militia, of which there are three, one of which is suppression of insurrections; and,

[2] Defines that the militia will always be (in the words of founder Samuel Adams) "in exact subordination to the Civil Power." The "Civil Power" is the government/rule of law, and the source of the law on the point is Congress, not the f****** NRA.

Again, the issue was not militia v. government; it was militia v. standing army. Militia was chosen precisely because it was seen not to be a threat to government.

The Founders/Framers--even in that "too-radical state of Massachusetts--regulated individual gun ownership, even down to January 1776, prior to composing the "Declaration of Independence," the Continental Congress wrote and published "The Tory Act". In that the Congress wrote the following:

"[I]t is the opinion of this congress that they [i.e., Tories] be disarmed."

That the Tories were disarmed is obvious; there was no counter-"revolution".

Obviously, the Founders/Framers were not opposed to gun control, down to and including confiscation--"gun-grabbing".

Sam Adams, as Massachusetts Bay Governor, would put it this way, "[t]he military power is always in exact subordination to the Civil Power."

In other words, the Founders/Framers were opposed to armed gangs--even if they dubbed themselves "patriots"--running around outside the law and shooting at their government. By all means, don't take my word for it, look up their responses to the pre-Constitutional Shays' rebellion, and the post-Constitution Whiskey rebellion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The whole point of this article was that there IS a "central" position on "Gun Control" and that many gun owners are in the middle. We WANT to own guns AND we want more control of guns.

Many of us recognize the the "anti" gun control laws are really about PROFITS for gun manufacturers. They know that more guns in the hands of irresponsible people mean more likelihood that those guns will be lost, stolen and eventually end up being melted down by some law enforcement agency. This keeps guns as a "consumable" item (since the owner will want to replace the lost/stolen guns) creating even more of a market for manufacture of NEW guns.

When guns are kept in the hands of RESPONSIBLE, law abiding citizens, there is less of a need to manufacture them since well maintained guns don't wear out like automobilies (less profits). I'm not going to be purchasing more guns than I need. I might upgrade a hunting rifle but I'm likely to sell the old one to someone else (who might otherwise buy a new gun). Manufacturers see this as a problem.. they need to keep them as a "consumable" item.

Gun Owners in the "middle" want things like... handguns, rifles and shotguns for protection and hunting.

We would like to see a special gun "license" - similar to a driver's license that shows that you have had a background check performed, taken a special safety and PERFORMANCE test, etc. A Driver's license does not identify how many automobiles you own - or even IF you own one - they show you are authorized to drive one. This removes a concern about "gun confiscation" by the government since there would be no way to know HOW many guns you owned.

We would like to see VOLUNTARY gun registration so you can get it back in case of loss or theft, or in able to aid law enforcement in tracing efforts. It could have an incentive, for instance, include a million dollar liability policy to protect you in the event of a lawsuit. It could also include a reward for return of the weapon.

We also believe that there should be stricter controls in order to keep more guns from the hands of criminals. Things like a ban on assault weapons (and converting them) UNLESS someone is specially licensed for them. There could be provisions for private citizens to apply for an asssult-license the same way you apply for a carry permit, and you would have to state a reasonable purpose for owning one. Assault weapons however SHOULD have required registration UNLESS the owner is specifically exempt.

We would like to see a National law similar to the 10-20-Life law in Florida. The law stipulates that a criminal can go to jail for 10 years if a gun was used in certain felonies, 20 years if the gun was fired and 25 years to life if anyone was seriously hurt or killed. This law has been enacted by several states and Law Enforcement has seen the impact of it in terms of less carrying of illegal handguns by criminals. An example given by a Police Chief was that they used to always find guns whenever they found illegal drugs. After the law however, they were finding many less, and often NO guns when they busted drug dealers. Reason? They were willing to risk a couple years in jail for the drugs, but not 10-20 for the guns. I personally would like to see it as a "5-10-20-Life" law where someone who is in possession of, or uses a gun in ANY way (other than at their own home, a licensed gun range, or in self-defense) would receive 5 years of community service if they are found to be lacking a gun license (like driving a car without a license).

The thing is... when you put stiffer penalities and restrictions on guns... you help to INSURE that guns stay in the hands of law-abiding citizens and OUT of the hands of criminals and irresponsible yahoos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People oppose guns because they are used to commit murders. But you do not need a gun to commit murder. Knives, poisons, and clubs work just as well. The single main reason why we have one of the lowest murder rates in the world is because our citizens are permitted to own guns. Countries whose citizens are prevented from owning guns or are defacto unarmed have murder rates that are sometimes off the charts. Rwanda, Germany, Russia, and Cambodia come to mind. A country whose citizens are REQUIRED to own a gun, Switzerland, have an even lower murder rate than we, in spite of two different religions and three different languages. We had better keep our guns (and our vote).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article was faulty, and does not represent the position of most Alternet posters.

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It looks like one, but is not. California lawmakers don't like ugly weapons.

The Glocks are not Saturday night specials. Most police forces carry them, and they are not inexpensive.

The 2nd Amendmendment is not about duck hunting. It is about freedom from tyranny. It may never happen here, but look at all the other countries where collection of hunting rifles and self-protection guns has led to increased crime, or a government takeover. The bad guys prolifate, and despots rule.

Florida's laws have been great examples. Remember a few years ago when tourists were being targeted in FL? That was because there were so many FL residents carrying pistols in their cars with Concealed Carry permits that it was unsafe for the bad guys to target anyone but tourists arriving at an airport.

In most states To get a CC permit one has to be vetted by the county sheriff, the state department of law enforcement, and the FBI. Those who pass these tests rarely lose their licenses, almost never for criminal action, and usually for a rare non-violent mistake such as carrying a weapon into a forbidden zone (city hall, school, bar, etc.)

If the NRA is too extreme for you, consider joining the Second Amendment Foundation. they are not rabid politically, and spend their money in courts protecting our rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's ban the manufacture and sale of breech-loading repeaters. Muzzle-loaders only, baby! If you need a 30-round magazine to hunt Bambi then you suck as a hunter. And if you want to start some crazy terrorist crap with that 1-shot musket, go ahead and see what happens 5 seconds after you fire you're only shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a combat vet, a gun owner, hunter and all of that. I have never felt that the NRA represented my interests. In fact, I view the NRA as a far-right fringe group that has effectively been working for criminal interests all along employing wacko paranoid psychology.
If I felt that government was maneuvering to "take my guns away" I would involve myself with a sane group to prevent that.
Pure and simple...every effort by government to limit guns in any way has always been to thwart criminal activity...not an attempt to remove an individual's right to self protection. While I might like having a fully automatic AK or M16 (RPG launcher, M60, Mortars etc.) just for fun, I don't "need" them. If I do, we are screwed as a society anyway.
I prefer to keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals and use the power of law to keep government and police forces from abusing my civil rights.
Meanwhile, I hope for government to foster serious education...help us all to be smarter...so that ignorant, wacko NRA types exit the gene pool.
ProudVet

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have a very sad, very true story for you. It's this one.

"ACCIDENTAL MACHINE GUN DEATH OF 8-YEAR-OLD AT WESTFIELD GUN SHOW NOW SUBJECT OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION"

This happened in late October. The boy's father, a physician, was there taking the child's picture when the child fired a micro Uzi, designed for use by the Israeli army, lost control of the weapon, and shot himself fatally in the head.

Indictments on involuntary manslaughter charges were handed down just a few hours ago to a local police chief who owns the company which sponsored the event, and the gun club which hosted the event, as well as the the men who brought the weapon to the show, who were assured by the police chief that it was legal to do so. The micro Uzi is an assault military weapon designed for a certain specific anti-personnel purpose. It is not a hunting weapon, and fires 1,700 rounds a minute.

The police chief and the club were also indicted on four counts each of furnishing a machine gun to a minor, for the four other young children who fired the guns that day.

Westfield Massachusetts is one town away--just a few miles--from my office in one direction, and my home in another. This needless death in the name of reckless fun took the breath out of the community at large. I don't think the club is going to survive it, and I don't really care.

From the article about the indictments:

"The machine gun shoot drew hundreds of people to the sporting club's 375-acre compound. An advertisement said it would include machine gun demonstrations and rentals and free handgun lessons.

"It's all legal & fun — No permits or licenses required!!!!" reads the ad, posted on the club's Web site.

"You will be accompanied to the firing line with a Certified Instructor to guide you. But You Are In Control — "FULL AUTO ROCK & ROLL," the ad said.

The ad also said children under 16 would be admitted free, and both adults and children were offered free .22-caliber pistol and rifle shooting.

Christopher's father, Charles Bizilj, has said his son had experience firing handguns and rifles but the gun show was his first time with an automatic weapon. A certified instructor was with the boy at the time."

Not so legal, as it turned out.

I don't understand why children that young need to fire weapons. It baffles me. There are no safe circumstances under which a small child can handle a weapon, with the built-in limits to coordination and a child's judgment. What good can possibly come out of it? Is it the parent's ego that's being exercized?

For God's sake, teach them about gun safety when they're at least tall enough to look you in the eye.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Try enforcing the laws already on the books before imposing new ones.

What a concept, huh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't be too smug about the demise of those of us who firmly believe in the SECOND AMENDMENT!
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. And I have already had several outlaws try to kill me out here!

I live in the countrty 35 miles away form ANY law enforcement in rural Texas. Had it done been for my shotgun and my pistol, I would have been dead at least four times! This is NO PLACE to call 911 and expect a friendly cop to save you. I would have been gone but this house was left to me and it is PAID FOR! And because there are potential rapists, burglars, human traffickers, drug cooks looking for a place to park their mobile speed lab and all of the other benefits that living in a place like this can bring "ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY --AND NOT BEING A CRIME VICTIM!"
Cause the boys in blue may be way at the other end of the county and way too late to save me when these people break in so I have to take care of myself!
I DO NOT HUNT ANIMALS! I DO NOT EVEN EAT THEM! MY WEAPONS ARE ONLY USED IN SELF-DEFENSE ON MY OWN PREMISES! I REFUSED TO DISSECT ANIMALS AND IT COST ME A NURSING DEGREE!
(I HAVE SHOT AND KILLED A TEN FOOT RATTLESNAKE THAT TRIED TO STRIKE ME!)
SO ALL OF THE PETTY LITTLE DICTATORS,WOULD-BE DESPOTS AND (EXPLETIVE DELETEDS) WHO WANT TO TAKE AWAY MY SELF-DEFENSE AND GET ME MURDERED. CAN FORGET ABOUT IT UNLESS THAY CAN GUARANTEE US POLICE FOR EVERY HOME!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are people so anti-gun? People need to protect themselves, and people in rural areas like to hunt. In fact, where I live, in western Pennsylvania, people NEED to hunt. We have such an overpopulation of deer that hunting is actually beneficial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My father was a ex-Naval officer whacko gun collector. I kept a couple of his historic rifles that I have never fired. I am not anti-gun at all. Many of my friends hunt. I have relatives in the Marines today. (I respect Marines.) I live in rural Texas ranchlands where guns are common and sensible for hunting and personal protection. I never shoot my guns and have never been in any kind of physical fight in my adult life (53 years old) but would not hesitate to kill any criminal intruder threatening my family and property. I live miles from the nearest reliable law enforcement and understand the laws of the jungle.
The idea that Americans can buy military assault weapons like the AR-15 is insanity. The belief that states like Texas believe that carrying concealed weapons in urban areas or your car is okay is right-wing lunacy and extremely dangerous. Just look how many people are killed with guns each year. (Strangers, spouses, urban blacks and indigent Mexicans)
I also fear that our police forces have become an uncontrolled domestic militarized threat to every citizen with the will to question authority. They are armed with Glocks, 45's, 38's, shotguns, assault rifles and high powered sniper rifles. Swat teams in armored cars now invade neighborhoods for domestic disturbances. We need to disarm the police more than the citizens in my book. They are to PROTECT and SERVE the people. NOT threaten, intimidate and kill us. How many people are murdered by cops in this country each year with no legal recourse?
I say strengthen gun laws. Ban assault rifles period. Keep guns out of the hands of children. And put the killer cops in prison like the gangs they extort drug money from.
Our justice system is sick and the cops, lawyers and judges are equally guilty. Power to the People!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When we lose the guns, we will lose all freedom. Guns no more kill people than my keyboard makes mistakes.

This is clearly a NWO agenda article. Keep on thinking guns are bad, step into the Box car headed for one of 800 Fema Camps (Nazis called them Consentration Camps), but think you're going to Disney Land.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A few weeks ago I took a Zogby Poll that could easily have been sponsored by the NRA. Having taken previous Zogby polls they had the info that I was a registered Dem and a gun owner, but not a member of the NRA. This poll was full of misleading questions re Obama and gun control. Almost every question began would you have voted for Obama if you'd known that. It was all about planting the fear that Obama was going to take away all my gun owning rights. The right wing lives in a world full of fear and paranoia and if you don't live there with them, they'll do their best to scare you into it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Although I am a farmer and not particularly squeemish about guns (I have two shotguns, a .410 and a 20 gauge) for the life of me I've never understood the rabid froth-at-the-mouth attitude of these gun nuts.

I mean-- for cryin' out loud! Who needs a gun that shoots 30 rounds per second anyway?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can they show where the NRA is proposing legalizing "AK-47's" and "machineguns"?

Can anyone who claims the NRA is in the pocket of Republicans explain why 30% of their endorsements were for A rated Democrats?

What would you say if I could provide evidence Obama supported attempts to ban bolt-action hunting rifles?

http://tinyurl.com/6qrx3p

http://tinyurl.com/6k7wmw

http://tinyurl.com/5a8zuq

Dispute it if you can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

an attempt to convince voters that Democrats were mortal enemies of the Second Amendment.

Democrats aren't. Just ignorant Democrats. Most gun laws I've see proposed by Dems are based on misinformation and scare mongering.

The sweeping victory for gun control

The biggest problem I have with government is when people assume that their victory on one or two issues (WAR! ECONOMY!) translates to a carte blanche mandate for everything else. Assuming so is a very good reason why Bush now has the lowest approval rating in history.

thousands of paranoid gun owners have purchased Glocks and AR-15 assault rifles

Neither of which is inherently more dangerous than shotguns, .38s or deer rifles. More fear mongering here.

"commonsense reform."

I'm holding out hope anti-gunners can be common sense.

his understanding of the Second Amendment included the need for restrictions aimed at reducing gun violence, especially in the cities.

It doesn't say that anywhere in the amendment. You could also reduce a lot of violence also if you interpreted the 1st amendment to ban newspapers from depicting Mohammad. That doesn't mean there can't be restrictions, of course.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think it would be prudent to be cautious about extolling the virtues of initiating steps towards sweeping gun control. On this website, over a month ago, there were articles expounding on the recent deployment of combat regiments within the united states. To this day, we are all still deeply critical of the domestic security apparatus. It would behoove us to point that vigilant eye towards this issue. We are seeing an unprecedented move towards totalitarianism here at home, and it is deeply unsettling to see this particular movement gaining momentum. I agree that inner-city gun violence is a serious threat, but we are on a slippery slope. I also agree with the writer earlier who suggested black-water would be involved here. Believe me, if it came to weapons sweeps, you would absolutely have a paramilitary presence on hand. We should also remember, as Noam Chomsky pointed out here last week, social and institutional change is NEVER handed down to us from on high. Historically, those achievements have always been hard fought victories. That being said, I think a lot of us are in line to be tremendously disappointed with Barack Obama.
It is my sincere belief that we stand on the precipice of something profoundly unsettling. We should all remain alert. "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

resurrecting the expired ban on assault weapons and making it permanent.

Which ranks up there with the dumbest and most ignorant legislation ever passed. Other than reducing ammo clip size, which could be considered reasonable, every aspect of the ban was absurd and unhelpful to combating violence.

it also deprived it of the legal ambiguity that allowed it to bludgeon gun owners with the idea that any gun-control law would inevitably lead to ATF SWAT teams -- or, in the case of NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, U.N. blue helmets -- taking away all of their guns.

And yet this website reports almost monthly on increasing loss of rights by citizens when dealing with law enforcement figures. Where's the disconnect?

Along with advocating "commonsense" gun law reform, Schoenke's group backs strong environmental-protection laws in defense of hunting and fishing lands

I bet they hate the assault weapons ban, though.

As the new gun laws go into effect, the group can be expected to increase the pitch of its warnings about impending fascism

Christ, were you asleep the last eight years? Bush's authoritarian and anti-constitutional principles, if they can be called that, drove more liberals to consider buying guns and fomenting revolution than ever before. Do you think the next whack GOP president (Palin anyone?) won't be more of the same? We need to look past the next 4-8 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Factcheck claimed that Obama never supported a ban on hunting ammunition and quoted Sen. Kennedy. What they didn't quote, however, was the Sen. stating this on the floor while stumping his bill, the same bill Obama co-sponsored:

Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers? armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating.

Can anyone tell me what the 30.30 is most often used for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CHICAGO (AP) — Almost one in five young American adults has a personality disorder that interferes with everyday life, and even more abuse alcohol or drugs, researchers reported Monday in the most extensive study of its kind.

The disorders include problems such as obsessive or compulsive tendencies and anti-social behavior that can sometimes lead to violence. The study also found that fewer than 25 percent of college-aged Americans with mental problems get treatment.

Buy a kid a gun for Xmas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Henry Kissinger said, "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you folks come to take my guns, you will need guns to do it. Unless you are lying hypocrites, you will not have them. 'Nuff said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

20 GREAT USES FOR THE GUN IN YOUR HOUSE:

1. Settle domestic disputes
2. Settle disputes with neighbors
3. Something constructive to do while drunk/stoned
4. Hours of fun for the kids
5. Hours of fun for the neighbors' kids
6. A big help during temper tantrums
7. Chance to be judge, jury, executioner...a big man
8. Almost like having a big penis
9. Big bonanza for gun thieves
10. Surefire way to blow your dough
11. Terrify the meter man
12. Help deal with feelings of guilt, inadequacy, rage, and other honky stuff
13. Fun to fondle...and so BIG
14. "I was totally sure it wasn't loaded, Your Honor."
15. Get yourself killed in a raid, rather than merely arrested
16. You can't always be reading great literature, right?
17. Rare chance to become a murderer, get reborn as a lab animal, etc.
18. If it's good enough for America's Nazi Party, white separatists, anti-Semites,
fascist skinheads, militiamen, and Klansmen, it's good enough for me.
19. Angry white men never screw up
20. Such a comfort when depressed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To not be a victim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNet's Ads for GUNS on their own pages....LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I may get a few words wrong, omitted here. but the second amendment goes like this in part.
" a WELL-REGULATED militia being nesesary to secure a free state- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon."
notice the all caps above, WELL-REGULATED? I've gotten into many a great argument with many a repug-nican gun-lover on this one. but essentially, CANADA has just that, a well-regulated militia! you still will have your blessed rghts to own your hunting shotguns and shoot your legal quota limits of deer, bear,[ and moose! Mrs. Sarah "Moose-Cherry" Palin ] during legal state hunting season!
you just will no longer have the rights to bear M-16's, AK-47's and other, much needed?? and important "hunting rifles" to do it with!
[a question for ted nugent would be, " does one really need an M-16 to go deer hunting?"]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

of course you will still be able to use that same 30-odd-6 shotgun to defend yourself. reading what that other poster in here said about 20 things that could happen, I had to think about how having basic gun rights seems to work quite well toward keeping places like meredith NY, a small town with about 1400 people; for the most part, safe enough to sleep in the house/trailer with the doors unlocked on the local farms!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

commoner can only own guns inside of a gun club. In the United States the rich will have their guns. We will take them away from the poor and the middle class. Do you suppose I am wrong?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush's surrogate penis:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3471/27477931oz9.jpg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a progressive and a gun owner I am dismayed when I see articles like this. There is simply no hard evidence that shows that gun control curbs crime. The Brady bill was window dressing at best and at worst it restricted a liberty protected by the constitution. If people want guns, they are going to get them. If you spend any time in Europe like I do, especially Eastern Europe, you know that handguns and most rifles are either illegal or severely restricted and yet it doesn't stop crime. You may not have gun crime, but in the UK it was replaced with knife crime and now they're trying to take away knives, they're putting up CCTV cameras everywhere, forming databases, watching peoples movements, tracking online activity, all in the name of safety. Progressives (and again I count myself as one) are vocal about the 1st amendment, the 4th amendment, the 8th amendment, the 5th amendment. Whenever anyone tries to curb our ability to speak freely, publish what we want, go where we want, we howl like mad, and yet when someone pushes a law that limits magazine sizes, or institutes a 7 day waiting period, or simply bans a certain style of weapon we don't even bat an eye.

The founding fathers were explicit in their intent with the 2nd amendment. It was designed to keep the government in permanent fear that if things got too out of hand, the citizens had the means to violently displace them, and it said the people had an inalienable right to protect themselves. I don't say God given right because I also count myself as an atheist.

I give you the following quotes from the founding fathers:

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Noah Webster, 1787:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

Samuel Adams:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

The fact that more progressives and liberals don't arm themselves is incomprehensible to me. What will you do when a new neoconservative government takes power in the united states? What will you do when they have stolen another election as in 2000? What will you do when they push their radical agenda down everyone's throats and impose their narrow minded and often bigoted views on this entire country? As the government slowly removes power for ordinary citizens, as they suspend posse comitatus and begin stationing federal troops around the country for security purposes, as people begin disappearing to the Guantanamo bays and secret holding facilities of the world and as the definition of an enemy combatant or a terrorist, or agitator becomes looser and looser what will you do? No amount of peace marches or letter campaigns or sit in demonstrations can bring back your rights. The only rights you hold are those that you forcibly hold and refuse to allow the government to take from you.

We are not the Idaho survivalists, we are not the columbine kids, we are average Americans that care deeply about our sport, our hobby, and our self defense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOTE: This was a response to an earlier sub-comment, but it covers a few things.
---------------------
Actually, the supposed "more likely to kill a loved one with your gun" thing is a fabrication by an anti-gun trauma surgeon named Arthur Kellermann who did a "study" in 1986 that was so hopelessly flawed that he refused to release any data for peer review for 4 years, and then he only released part of it without his questionnaires or control data.

But it was enough to determine that the study ignored confounding factors, risk factors of behavior, didn't correct for demonstrated underreporting of gun ownership in the control sample or even account for whether or not the gun used was the one kept in the home! But the gun-control lobby has never had a problem with lying and neither has Kellermann as their "academic" face. He did a slightly improved study in 1993 and his increased risk estimate dropped from 43 to 3 times the risk (there's a guy who knows what he's doing) and he still didn't control properly or measure anything meaningful. Here's the real story-- Kellermann Analysis

As for the American Hunter's and Shooters Association, it IS a front group for gun-control and the democratic party, Schoenke's entire family has contributed thousands to gun control groups, and the original president was on the board of Handgun Control Inc. and is now on another anti-gun board. The organization is nothing but a website, has no formal membership system or outreach programs, half the links don't work or just take you back to Schoenke's blog, and the organization is headquartered at (read- keeps its servers at) DCS Congressional, who's clients (click the link) are exclusively Democrats, and is in the same building as the Democratic Leadership Council in D.C.. Nothing fishy there, huh?

And just for the record, until anti-gun congressmen co-opted the term "Assault Weapon" to scare people into supporting bans, it was used exclusively by the military to describe LOW to MEDIUM powered light rifles or carbines which were capable of firing FULLY AUTOMATICALLY. The guns which Obama wants to keep "on foreign battlefields" are not on any battlefields as they DON'T FIRE FULLY AUTOMATICALLY, nor are they or were they commonly used in crimes, let alone to kill police. An average deer rifle is FAR more potent. The 2nd Amendment protects BOTH, and especially guns that are good for killing people, because if the government derives its just authority from the people, then it should NEVER have a monopoly on deadly force and neither should criminals who will always have the advantage of surprise and preparation, equalized best by an armed "victim".

The more you compare notes from each side and read the government's own studies and statistics, the more you realize that the gun-control lobby lies far more frequently and MATERIALLY than the pro-gun lobby (mainly because they HAVE TO), and that the scholarship (that was vetted and neutrally funded) consistently disproves the supposed value of gun-control and strongly supports the net benefits of gun-ownership among the generally law-abiding population. And the type of gun is completely irrelevant!

For those that aren't aware of just HOW anti-gun Obama's record is no matter what equivocations came out of his mouth during the campaign, read this (it's long, but that's his fault) and check the comments section for lots more information. Obama's Record

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Heller decision did not remove the chance that a _state_ could confiscate all handguns (the decision did not concern incorporation to the states), but it did make it less likely that a state would try to do it.

Obama won by only 3% of the popular vote after Iraq, Katrina, $4/gallon gasoline, and the financial meltdown. It sounds to me as though the gun issue robbed the Democrats of what should have been a huge landslide for them.

Either the Democrats will try again to significantly narrow gun rights, or they won't. Some gun owners are hopeful, and others (who are cleaning out the gun stores) are skeptical. If the Democrats let the NRA have its way, the NRA will cease to be a political influence, but they will have won battle. On the other hand, if the NRA's loud warnings prove prophetic, then their political influence will increase.

It's up to the Democrats to decide how they want to spend their limited political capital. As for me, I neither hunt nor target shoot; but I will oppose any attempt to constrain my right to shoot a mugger who threatens me with death or grave bodily harm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it true that there are some 200 million guns somewhere out there Obama wants to take away? Is it true that Posse Comitatus is being stripped and the National Guard will be obsolete in favor or regular military walking the streets of America? NRA or not I don't think a few thousand guns are going to stop some 200 million guns in the hands of people fighting for their freedom. Funny I didn't think change meant a bloodbath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all they have to do is post some anti-firearms propaganda piece and the comments go through the roof.
I think it's pretty interesting that there are so many pro firearms readers of Alternet.

Bottom line is; out of the 100's of millions murdered in pogroms, death camps, ghettos, killing fields, wars, etc. the bad guys weren't individual citizens, but nation states, and one of the first things most of those nation states did before they started murdereing people wholesale was to confiscate as many weapons as they could.

To my mind that's the best reason to own whatever the hell weapon you can get your hands on, including bazookas, RPG's, RedEye missiles or rocks and sticks.

Oh yeah; a sawed off 20Ga. pump full of birdshot is the best home protection weapon around. Not too hard to conceal if it comes to that either. And; a saturday night special, used with a little skill, can get you a tank in a pinch.

But of course, none of that could happen here... could it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FOR EIGHT YEAR OLDS. YEAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhh

HAHAHAAHAHHAAHYAHAHAHAHJAHQAHEHPRFkldsj;dn f;lknbsher4poktb njogjh dhgv wqenoi;femnj
io[ps

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is a very up and coming diverse neighborhood in NYC with an Art school very close by. Most often, people live in peace and harmony, however recently muggings and beatings have become more and more routine. Usually these are of the variety of a small student or local resident walking down the street (it is not race-specific however white artists seem to be targeted more often) and a group of 5-10 black teenagers simply kicking the living shit out of him or her and then robbing them, or not.

You see, the fact that they don't even rob some of these innocents (they are not provoking or looking for fights) prove that this is simply "fun" for these teenagers, and they know since it is nearly impossible for a law-abiding citizen to acquire a liscense to carry in NYC there is no risk of injury. Bystanders of the neighborhood often stand by and make comments like "kids will be kids" if they have the audacity to say anything at all. The fact that criminals know that there is no risk to them in beating or raping on the street provides an enviroment fertile for such crime.

In short myself, my friends, my girlfriend, and all the other people in my neighborhood basically have to just "hope" that no one tries to hurt them. Once confronted by any type of bad situation, someone in my neighborhood becomes instantly a victim due to the trampling of our constitutional rights by King Michael Bloomberg. There is no doubt in my mind that increasing the ease and loosening the laws to allow law-abiding citizens to carry would halt many of these attacks the first time a small, outnumbered, 19 year old artist execercises his Human Right and constitituional right to defend themselves, the attacks will fall in number and frequency.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crime control has been relegated to the junkheap, except for drug control. The only way that crimes against women ever have been controlled is if women sue police departments for non-enforcement, and lawyers are an expensive luxury item to the marginally employed, OR if women are armed better than their predators.

I'd rather sleep with an assault rifle than with an abuser, thank you. Leave our guns alone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have had the "assault weapon" discussion many times with people. Most were with people who are uninformed or just lack common firearms knowledge. Some have an agenda or just simply will not listen no matter what. Hopefully some will continue reading here and hopefully some will actually change their view. I have heard all kinds of adjectives to describe the type of rifles usually "and incorrectly" labeled as assault rifles. They are not assault rifles they are simply semi-automatic rifles. Semi-auto rifles shoot one bullet per trigger pull just like any normal semi-auto hunting rifle made. They shoot no faster, no further, no more powerful, no more deadly and no more accurately then any other firearm that you may only associate with hunting. First let me get this out of the way, THE AR-15 IS NOT EVEN LEGAL IN MY STATE TO HUNT DEER BECAUSE IT IS TOO SMALL!!. Yes that is right, the AR-15 in its most common caliber (.223) is too small to be legal to hunt big game in my state. The gun is however a fabulous firearm for target or small varmints and predators (coyotes) or even home defense. So anytime you hear someone talk about how MORE deadly these guns are IT IS A LIE! They are no more or less than any other rifle. The AR-15 is actually PUNY compared to normal hunting guns. People would like to paint the image that these are "machine guns", they are not. A machine gun is correctly classified as an assault rifle. The AR-15 does have a machine gun counter part. It is called the M-16. The M-16 IS NOT AVAILABLE TO CIVILIANS! Machine guns have been strictly regulated since 1934. As much as some would like you to believe that selling semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 equals more machine guns on the street IS A LIE! Any machine gun used in street violence IS ALREADY ILLEGAL! Has been since 1934! Also I am sure every one is familiar with the AK47. This gun in its semi-auto version (remember that is the only legal variant) shoots a round that is a little more powerful than the AR-15 but still much smaller than normal high power rifles. Its potency is equal to that of the old cowboy guns like John Wayne carried. Not even close to the mass destruction super weapon myth. So in short please become informed before you jump to conclusions about something based on appearance and Hollywood myth. And for disclosure I do not own any semi rifles like the AR or AK. I do have 1 old 22 rifle and a 45 ACP pistol. I would like to own an AR for target but they are way overpriced because of the supply/demand due to paranoia created by an uninformed public that thinks banning them will solve our urban ills.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey, I wish this were so but there's no way those gun crackers are going to go away or give up their guns... those people believe that gawd gave them those guns... I'm sure in some future edition of the bible you'll find that written if they get the chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

good luck, alexander, if you think obama's election will lead to more effective gun control.
i hope you're right, but i doubt it. the burden of this year's supreme court decision was that the second amendment means that the right to bear arms is a right for individuals to do so, and has nothing to do with militias or any other collective group; and that it is permissible for individuals to have guns for self-defense.
no, you still cannot legally keep a nuclear weapon in your garage, or possibly even a bazooka. but i'm not sure about the latter. one big test will come with the decision on chicago's gun laws, another with whether the assault weapons ban will be reinstituted by congress, and, if so, if the courts will hold such a ban constitutional.
the combination of the sept. 11 terrorist attacks and others overseas, especially the just-ended mumbai massacre, and this year's supreme court decision, must result in a loosening of gun control in this country. fewer citizens will insist on it, fewer members of congress and local legislators will vote for it and fewer lower courts will strengthen it--in view of the highest court's ruling, they cant.
i'm not sure that's a good thing. it will surely result in a lot more killing. but i think that's the way it will be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I understand that Bush has just allowed all guns in the National Parks. Its not over yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have many guns and have been hunting for over thirty years and I hate the NRA (although not the individual members). As far as I am concerned they have never spoken truthfully about their primary motive: promoting the gun and ammo industry. It's always the same lying bullshit about the United Nations and the black helicopters taking away their freedom. Most of these toothless jerks from Appalachia have never read anything in the Constitution except the Second Amendment; that's the extent of their civic education. They usually disagree with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

If you want to know what Sad Sacks these guys really are all you need do is look at the toxic clowns they select as leaders: Wayne La Pierre, Ted Nugent, Larry Craig, and don't forget Dr John Lott, the crooked intellectual who wrote More Guns Less Crime.

Obama had it exactly right when he spoke of the bitter folks who reached for Bibles and guns. They are easy prey for the Republican demagogues because they are too dumb to realize it is the Democrats who are saving their skinny asses from serfdom.

Hopefully, as they start to realize that Obama is making the world a better place for them and their kids they will drift away from hateful organizations like the NRA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

so there is an alternative for Alternetters who read this and want to own guns. I think the reports of death of NRA is greatly exagerrated. The Bush Depression was biggest issue and as was Bush Doctrine of premptive war. We can hope for some commonsense restrictions on some cheap handguns and multi bullet clips and perhaps a bullet tax for every bullet not fired at a gun range. However, there are much more serious problems facing this nation and I doubt Obama will spend any political capital on the Brady agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"a bullet tax".................didn't you know anyone can cast lead bullets and load their own??

And why should guns be reserved for the rich, since you want restrictions on inexpensive ( "cheap" ) guns the average working man can afford?

And what exactly makes a gun 'cheap', price or construction??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know who scares me more. Anti-gunners with an agenda or the people who know absolutely nothing about guns but yet have an opinion based completely on false information.

Growing up in rural America where guns are just a normal part of life (trucks with gun racks where even common in high school and visible in the school parking lot. How many brain hemorrhages would that cause some people in the cities to think about?). When I hear uninformed people speak about guns it is completely foreign to me. I can't imagine people not knowing at least the basics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Coming from a 15y/o in little old New Zealand from Down Under... I understand that as Americans you have a 'constitutional right to bear arms,' but what price are you prepared to pay for such a right?

I just read that the NRA [I do know what that is] is moving to allow students to carry concealed firearms on their person on school grounds!? What's the motivation?

As zorro so rightly said, 'forks help you eat, guns help you kill.' We've all heard of Columbine, even in NZ, but is this and the greater push for seemingly liberal gun legislation by the NRA being propelled by the desire to uphold your right to bear arms, or is it an attempt to preserve the pride of an organisation past its prime. And in any case, will this 'constitutional right' or preservation of pride result in a growing body count due to guns in the wrong hands? Surely your Constitution [I even capitalised it] or Bill of Rights entitles you to the right to life and liberty; the right to not be shot by some redneck or bullied teen with a trench coat and backpack full of Glocks and automatic weapons!?

This coming from a New Zealander, where fully-autos are illegal, to own a gun you must be licensed, and where police officers have not bullet-proof but 'stab-proof' vests, and are not allowed tasers pending the results of an 'independent commission.'

Your thoughts welcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...you just selected to use the two most common police weapons by type in use by American police departments as what weapons people should not have?

I mean--honestly--Glocks are in use by many, many police departments and Federal agencies as their primary issue sidearm. And the AR15 and it's close relatives the M16 and M4 are being issued by many urban police departments in order to try and keep up with criminals.

Additionally, you need to take a look at what AR15's can do. By changing the upper, you can essentially have a rifle that--depending on range--can probably be used to hunt anything in the US short of Bear and the like where you can use a semi-automatic. And--as a matter of fact--for varminting, the AR15 is one of the preferred weapons because of the accuracy you can build in to one.

Try again, eh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I was a young man every able bodied male had a military obligation. I chose the US Army. I learned very quickly the Army's mission is to break things and kill people. I was trained by experts in the use of small arms. I slept with them, ate with them and showered with them. I do not engage in blood sport but I do own firearms.
We live in rural USA. I have no intention of fending off the ATF or other law enforcement agencies. What I DO intend to do is protect my family from nut cases who elect a life of crime.
Read Truman Capoti's "In Cold Blood." Then you will understand. The Second Amendment, in my opinion, is for the purpose of law biding individuals to protect themselves and their family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]