U S Gun Lobby Issues Point-Blank 'no' To Gun Control

[Baloo22]

The gun lobby has a vested interest in selling guns and allowing unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible. It is THE GUN LOBBY! Of course they would not support a ban on the ownership any guns

If by "gun lobby" you are referring to is the National Rifle Association (NRA), you are totally wrong to say they support "unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible". The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens.

By the way, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is not a lobby group for gun manufacturers. It is a citizen advocacy group with over four million dues paying members!

[DocN]

Loss of life and especialy young lives can tear into the heart of everyone, however, what escapes my understanding is the knee jerk reaction that comes from such incidents involving firearms.

If a school bus goes over a cliff we don't see a call to ban busses, should an airplane crash we do not see a call to ban flying, How many die daily in auto crashes, however, I have yet to see a lobby to ban cars.

Based on the principle that guns dont kill people, people kill people I think that in countries such as the USA that a ban on guns as a generality is simply not going to happen. They do have significant legislation in place and the more they legislate the more the blackmarket potential grows. Some tollerance with regard to the man in the street being allowed to own a weapon is within the 2nd ammendment rights of a US citizen.

Legislation should in my opinion strictly ban the public procurement of any automatic assault weapons and also automatic hand guns as there is no conceivable justification for such armament in everyday society.

The penalties for possesion of an unregistered or illegal weapon should be increased to be severe enough to act as a significant deterent.

There is no doubt that as a result of the various shooting incidents in the USA and in Europe that the cause was unbalanced mental health of the individual concerned. The availability of weaponry is secondary. Were there no guns they would restort to bombs.

I know that such acts of wanton violence are beyond every day comprehension are are despicable to all, however banning guns in the US is neither the feasable nor the correct answer to this problem.

Okay...once again and very slow: of course we don't see a ban of planes, cars and buses. Cars, planes and buses are vehicles, designed for transportation and -if everything runs normally- that is what they do.

Guns on the other hand are designed to shoot at something (or someone) from a distance and to harm (wound or kill) the object of the shooting.

So: if a car crashes it IS an accident...if a gun kills, it does what it is meant to do!

Secondly: how many plane crashes, car crashes or bus crashes are forced by mentally ill people, who kidnap a bus full of school- children? How many school- children/passengers on a plane/ car- passengers get killed every once in a while, because someone snaps, hikes a plane and crashes it?

How many children die every year, because a gun just does, what a gun is designed to do?

When will you start to see the difference between a vehicle or a tool, that is involved in an accident and a tool, designed to harm, that is not controlled, not stored safely and poses a potential thread?

[whybother]

Loss of life and especialy young lives can tear into the heart of everyone, however, what escapes my understanding is the knee jerk reaction that comes from such incidents involving firearms.

If a school bus goes over a cliff we don't see a call to ban busses, should an airplane crash we do not see a call to ban flying, How many die daily in auto crashes, however, I have yet to see a lobby to ban cars.

Based on the principle that guns dont kill people, people kill people I think that in countries such as the USA that a ban on guns as a generality is simply not going to happen. They do have significant legislation in place and the more they legislate the more the blackmarket potential grows. Some tollerance with regard to the man in the street being allowed to own a weapon is within the 2nd ammendment rights of a US citizen.

Legislation should in my opinion strictly ban the public procurement of any automatic assault weapons and also automatic hand guns as there is no conceivable justification for such armament in everyday society.

The penalties for possesion of an unregistered or illegal weapon should be increased to be severe enough to act as a significant deterent.

There is no doubt that as a result of the various shooting incidents in the USA and in Europe that the cause was unbalanced mental health of the individual concerned. The availability of weaponry is secondary. Were there no guns they would restort to bombs.

I know that such acts of wanton violence are beyond every day comprehension are are despicable to all, however banning guns in the US is neither the feasable nor the correct answer to this problem.

Knee jerk reaction?? This has been discussed for decades.

[Scott]

Off-topic/baiting post and replies removed. Please stay on the topic.

[Arkady]

Armed guards and teachers packing heat is obviously the answer. Can't think why I didn't think of that before.

Kent State University did a great job by calling in armed guardsmen.

[Suradit69]

The gun lobby has a vested interest in selling guns and allowing unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible. It is THE GUN LOBBY!

Of course they would not support a ban on the ownership any guns

Yes and it's the gun manufacturers' lobby who control the executive of the NRA. So, what might be regarded as a grass roots organization (of mentally challenged gun freaks) is used as a tool for the manufacturers and is controlled by them.

It's sort of like the Republican Party, which serves the interests of a very small cabal of very wealthy people and another hardcore minority of certifiable ideologues while manipulating its broader membership of limited intelligence drones through Fox Noise propaganda.

[gl555]

The gun lobby has a vested interest in selling guns and allowing unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible. It is THE GUN LOBBY!

Of course they would not support a ban on the ownership any guns

Yes and it's the gun manufacturers' lobby who control the executive of the NRA. So, what might be regarded as a grass roots organization (of mentally challenged gun freaks) is used as a tool for the manufacturers and is controlled by them.

It's sort of like the Republican Party, which serves the interests of a very small cabal of very wealthy people and another hardcore minority of certifiable ideologues while manipulating its broader membership of limited intelligence drones through Fox Noise propaganda.

LOL! Okay thanks for your left wingnut input!

[Scott]

Please stay on the topic and stop using inflammatory and baiting language.

I know extremely right wing Republicans who have no problem with regulations on who can have a gun and the type of arms available; I also know very liberal Democrats who own guns, hunt and are very skeptical about gun control.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Scott

[vijer]

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is defending the rights of U.S. citizens, specifically the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights. I will not surrender my rights because of the actions of a mentally deranged criminal. For decades now the liberals have proceeded with their efforts to "mainstream" mentally ill persons and, in some cases, prevent the mandatory medication such persons when medical professionals have prescribed such medication as necessary. This, and multiple other liberal policies, have much more to do with these tragic incidents than gun ownership.

What?! Liberals have nothing against requiring mentally ill people being required to take medication, but the f_ing right thinks the USA should not have any government regulations and the government should not pay for anything except war. The word "idiot" keeps entering my head.

[Credo]

There is a difference between repealing the 2nd amendment, outlawing guns and gun control. I don't have a gun, never did own a gun (grew up with guns in the house, though), and didn't permit hunting on my land. Everyone around me owns gun, so the rare occasions when I needed something killed (like a rabid skunk), I'd call them and they would gladly oblige.

I am for restrictions on gun ownership and the type of weapons permitted. I am not for outlawing guns. Whether it can be done, depends a lot on how reasonable the legislation is.

[BookMan]

The gun lobby has a vested interest in selling guns and allowing unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible. It is THE GUN LOBBY! Of course they would not support a ban on the ownership any guns

If by "gun lobby" you are referring to is the National Rifle Association (NRA), you are totally wrong to say they support "unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible". The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens.

By the way, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is not a lobby group for gun manufacturers. It is a citizen advocacy group with over four million dues paying members!

The NRA is a vested interest group and forms part of the gun lobby.

You make it sound like the NRA is special for wanting to prevent criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons. Surely that is just common sense and a universal want in any civilised country?

[Halion]

Loss of life and especialy young lives can tear into the heart of everyone, however, what escapes my understanding is the knee jerk reaction that comes from such incidents involving firearms.

If a school bus goes over a cliff we don't see a call to ban busses, should an airplane crash we do not see a call to ban flying, How many die daily in auto crashes, however, I have yet to see a lobby to ban cars.

Based on the principle that guns dont kill people, people kill people I think that in countries such as the USA that a ban on guns as a generality is simply not going to happen. They do have significant legislation in place and the more they legislate the more the blackmarket potential grows. Some tollerance with regard to the man in the street being allowed to own a weapon is within the 2nd ammendment rights of a US citizen.

Legislation should in my opinion strictly ban the public procurement of any automatic assault weapons and also automatic hand guns as there is no conceivable justification for such armament in everyday society.

The penalties for possesion of an unregistered or illegal weapon should be increased to be severe enough to act as a significant deterent.

There is no doubt that as a result of the various shooting incidents in the USA and in Europe that the cause was unbalanced mental health of the individual concerned. The availability of weaponry is secondary. Were there no guns they would restort to bombs.

I know that such acts of wanton violence are beyond every day comprehension are are despicable to all, however banning guns in the US is neither the feasable nor the correct answer to this problem.

Okay...once again and very slow: of course we don't see a ban of planes, cars and buses. Cars, planes and buses are vehicles, designed for transportation and -if everything runs normally- that is what they do.

Guns on the other hand are designed to shoot at something (or someone) from a distance and to harm (wound or kill) the object of the shooting.

So: if a car crashes it IS an accident...if a gun kills, it does what it is meant to do!

Secondly: how many plane crashes, car crashes or bus crashes are forced by mentally ill people, who kidnap a bus full of school- children? How many school- children/passengers on a plane/ car- passengers get killed every once in a while, because someone snaps, hikes a plane and crashes it?

How many children die every year, because a gun just does, what a gun is designed to do?

When will you start to see the difference between a vehicle or a tool, that is involved in an accident and a tool, designed to harm, that is not controlled, not stored safely and poses a potential thread?

I take your point,however you are interpreting my comments too literarlly. If I follow you I could contest that not all car or bus accidents nor aircraft for that mater are pure accidents. Many are caused by gross neglegence and in the case of loss of life then this becomes criminal neglegence.

The point I was trying to make is that there appears to be a hugh consensus of people who in my opinion, over react to such incidents where firearms are used. They are never going to be able to ban firearms in the US as it is a constitutional right to be able to own a registered firearm and although I am not from the US I believe that that right should stay in place.

There are thousands of gun owners in the US who live within full compliance of the various firearm legislations and are honest and law abiding citizens.

Several of these that are personaly known to me have firearm's disipline that at least is equal to proffesionals I do agree that there needs to be much tighter restriction on the types of weapons that are in legal circulation and also much improvement is needed in background checks on applicants and their immediate family. You are correct to say that the function of a firearm is to create damage to what ever is on the receiving end of the dischared round. That is an indisputable fact., however, it is the person behind the weapon that determines it's use.

The weapon is not culpable however, the shooter is. For these deranged nut cases they would use knives or bombs or even a bus or a car. In the wrong hands there are a myriad of tools that can be used for destruction. There are many ills in this argument, however, I think that it is a cop out to simple blame it on the "gun" and or in the belief that a totalitarian legal ban could be achievable and or solve this problem.

[BookMan]

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is defending the rights of U.S. citizens, specifically the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights. I will not surrender my rights because of the actions of a mentally deranged criminal. For decades now the liberals have proceeded with their efforts to "mainstream" mentally ill persons and, in some cases, prevent the mandatory medication such persons when medical professionals have prescribed such medication as necessary. This, and multiple other liberal policies, have much more to do with these tragic incidents than gun ownership.

You can still have the right to bear arms Baloo22, but why does it need to be the right to bear such powerful and unneccessary weapons?

There's those terms "such powerful and unnecessary weapons". The problem is the people that end up deciding what is too powerful or is "unnecessary" for the law-abiding non-criminal citizen to possess. All too often you end up with the Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C situations where the criminals have the guns and the law-abiding non-criminal citizens are stripped of their right to own "powerful and unnecessary weapons". And the law-abiding non-criminal citizens are then deemed to be criminal for simply asserting their Second Amendment rights.

The truly "powerful and unnecessary weapons", such as fully-automatic weapons, etc, are already either totally banned or severely restricted with very restrictive licensing requirements. The problem is NOT guns in the hands of law-abiding, non-criminal citizens.

But clearly in this latest shooting of innocent young children the problem WAS that the gun was in the hands of a law abiding non criminal citizen?

At the point of intent of the shooting he became the non law abiding criminal who just happened to have access to the weapons his mother owned.

[brianP]

For a developed nation that has 25 MILLION un-registered citizens,aka illegal aliens. How could it enforce gun control. Control them like the war on drugs? Or the many gangs and thugs who will be the only gun owners. USA is dangerous from all the protection it gives the rich.

[Potosi]

The Gun Lobby blames the deaths on "people, not guns", but they won't allow law changes to stop "people" getting guns.

Strange reasoning indeed, because only applied to guns. Every other business that makes a product that harms people can be taken to court, but not gunmakers.

[tracklayer]

The NRA has promised a total gun control. They have said that that it needs control of the mentally ill. Judging from the responses from NRA 100% have ruled themselves out of being suitable to own a gun ;-)

[RickBradford]

The word "idiot" keeps entering my head.

Well, they do say that self-analysis is good for the soul.

The UK had a similar school shooting in 1996, and strengthened its already restrictive gun laws.

Result? Gun crimes in the UK have doubled in the intervening period. So whatever is driving these tragic events, gun availability isn't the whole story.

[Baloo22]

The gun lobby has a vested interest in selling guns and allowing unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible. It is THE GUN LOBBY! Of course they would not support a ban on the ownership any guns

If by "gun lobby" you are referring to is the National Rifle Association (NRA), you are totally wrong to say they support "unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible". The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens.

By the way, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is not a lobby group for gun manufacturers. It is a citizen advocacy group with over four million dues paying members!

The NRA is a vested interest group and forms part of the gun lobby. You make it sound like the NRA is special for wanting to prevent criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons. Surely that is just common sense and a universal want in any civilised country?

You need to read my post again. Especially note "The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens." That is an important distinction!

[Dap]

What a surprise!

I am sick and tired of 1 week of discussing this matter with some hard- headed gun- lovers!

Do me a favor: next time there will be a massacre of the Sandy Hooks - kind, next time there will be a mall- shooting, next time a toddler dies, because a gun went of accidentally...spare me your crocodile tears! Spare me your "R.I.P. little angel", spare me your heartfelt condolences!

You had the chance to FINALLY make a difference and you failed miserably!

History will judge you...I guess, in 2 months or so!

Ok! Fair enough but I do kinda' doubt that it was my chance to "FINALLY" make a difference.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Dap

[BookMan]

The gun lobby has a vested interest in selling guns and allowing unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible. It is THE GUN LOBBY! Of course they would not support a ban on the ownership any guns

If by "gun lobby" you are referring to is the National Rifle Association (NRA), you are totally wrong to say they support "unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible". The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens.

By the way, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is not a lobby group for gun manufacturers. It is a citizen advocacy group with over four million dues paying members!

The NRA is a vested interest group and forms part of the gun lobby. You make it sound like the NRA is special for wanting to prevent criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons. Surely that is just common sense and a universal want in any civilised country?

You need to read my post again. Especially note "The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens." That is an important distinction!

Baloo22, I might be misunderstanding your post...but it sounds even worse when you underline that point.

[F430murci]

I got a bridge to sell you!

Wow, so guidable if you believe this nonsense.

The problem with polls is that 9 out of 10 believe the question related to a complete ban on all weapons so NRA and people like you use this misinformation. The majority when asked if they think assault weapons should be banned was 62 per CBS news poll on 12-18-2012. 62 percent also said high capacity clips should be banned on same date. 78 percent required registration of all guns.

I'm reading the Pew poll which says CONTROL not ban.

Really, I see a BAN in these sentences and not a control.

             

 

"A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47"

 

12/17-18/12

62 37 1    

 

8/7-8/12

57 42 1    

             

 

"A ban on the sale and possession of equipment known as high-capacity or extended ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded"

 

12/17-18/12

62 37 1    

 

8/7-8/12

60 40 1    

             

[Baloo22]

The Gun Lobby blames the deaths on "people, not guns", but they won't allow law changes to stop "people" getting guns.

Strange reasoning indeed, because only applied to guns. Every other business that makes a product that harms people can be taken to court, but not gunmakers.

You may be referring to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005. This was a needed response to a series of frivolous and reckless lawsuits that were intended to drive gun manufacturers and dealers out of business by holding those manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who were totally beyond their control. Those lawsuits were a clear misuse of our legal system. Those frivolous lawsuits were the equivalent of suing General Motors or Ford because an individual committed a criminal act using an automobile produced by those companies.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products by third parties beyond their control. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

[Baloo22]

If by "gun lobby" you are referring to is the National Rifle Association (NRA), you are totally wrong to say they support "unfettered access and ownership of guns wherever possible". The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens.

By the way, the National Rifle Association (NRA) is not a lobby group for gun manufacturers. It is a citizen advocacy group with over four million dues paying members!

The NRA is a vested interest group and forms part of the gun lobby. You make it sound like the NRA is special for wanting to prevent criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons. Surely that is just common sense and a universal want in any civilised country?

You need to read my post again. Especially note "The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens." That is an important distinction!

Baloo22, I might be misunderstanding your post...but it sounds even worse when you underline that point.

Quite the opposite! It makes my statement even more clearly in accords with the intent of the drafters of our Bill of Rights!

[F430murci]

Doesn't the second amendment state something like "while it may be necesary to raise a millitia then a citizen of the USA has to right to keep and bear arms". Would it be fair to say that in modern day America the millitia would be the National Guard in which case only members of that organization would be able to "keep and bear arms" under the constitution and Joe Public would have no rights to keep guns at all.

The Supreme Court of the U.S. has fairly recently ruled that the 2nd. Amendment means that individual Americans have the right to own and bear arms - guns... case closed... the militia argument has been tossed by SCOTUS

There have also been several detailed and scholarly researched reports that included the drafts, notes, and correspondence of the writers of our Bill of Rights as they were being constructed. Also examined were other writings and statements of the writers of our Bill of Rights. It is well settled that they intended those rights, including those in the First and Second Amendment to be individual rights.

Also, back when our Bill of Rights was constructed, the term "militia" did not mean "National Guard" type organizations that could be "federalized" by the stroke of a pen. The common usage was the entire body of adult male citizens. And, yes, those rights have now been extended to adult female citizens and also non-white citizens. The extension of rights to those citizens was the correct action.

This is primarily in reference to the above post about US Supreme Court ruling in 2008 Heller decision. People perhaps should read and understand polls and especially court decision before distorting same to advance their goals.

Heller was a pretty fact specific case and Scalia writing for 5 person majority provided a whole lot of room for banning a lot of different weapons ala 1939 Miller language. Contemplates perhaps only guns protected were those available at time of drafting and not these crazy ultra dangerous weapons available today. I am cool with letting these NRA guys gave black powder or cap and ball guns. Can hunt with them, but I guess these poor guys just cannot derive compensation factor or macho feel from a musket as they can from a Bushmaster.

[F430murci]

The Gun Lobby blames the deaths on "people, not guns", but they won't allow law changes to stop "people" getting guns.

Strange reasoning indeed, because only applied to guns. Every other business that makes a product that harms people can be taken to court, but not gunmakers.

You may be referring to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005. This was a needed response to a series of frivolous and reckless lawsuits that were intended to drive gun manufacturers and dealers out of business by holding those manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who were totally beyond their control. Those lawsuits were a clear misuse of our legal system. Those frivolous lawsuits were the equivalent of suing General Motors or Ford because an individual committed a criminal act using an automobile produced by those companies.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products by third parties beyond their control. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

Yeah, we are and will be paying for Bush lunacy for next 50 to 100 years. Not sure how one man could cause so much trouble and economic problems in such a short period of time. Happens when everyone becomes near sighted and starts missing the forest for the trees.

Sadly, I argued an Amicus Curiae position for Gun companies on one if the sensitive issues and won back during this timeframe.

Still ways to get around and it is amazing how the manufacturer of such dangerous products that serve one purpose and one purpose only thinks it should be absolved from liability. There will be a tort drive against gun companies when time, setting, political atmosphere and court is right. Us mass tort guys are just focusing on banks right now.

[F430murci]

The NRA is a vested interest group and forms part of the gun lobby. You make it sound like the NRA is special for wanting to prevent criminals and mentally ill people owning weapons. Surely that is just common sense and a universal want in any civilised country?

You need to read my post again. Especially note "The NRA wants to prevent the possession and use of firearms by criminals and mentally unfit persons. But the NRA insists that it be done without infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of mentally fit, law-abiding citizens." That is an important distinction!

Baloo22, I might be misunderstanding your post...but it sounds even worse when you underline that point.

Quite the opposite! It makes my statement even more clearly in accords with the intent of the drafters of our Bill of Rights!

Let's define mentally ill or term mentally fit. I think a good argument that a majority of those Knob Creek NRA machine gun totung guys are mentally ill and that any who really believes they need assault weapons and machine guns in US are mentally ill, unless paranoid and delusional thinking is no longer within ambit of mental illness.

Most card carrying NRA survivalists types with walk-in gun safes and small arsenals are not poster children for defining the term mentally fit or mentally stable.

This will be a tough term for Courts to define and I am all for it provided NRA polices it's member and forces it's unstable members to cancel membership and turn their weapons in. Otherwise, just more empty rhetoric from money hungry small penile compensating NRA folks.

On that note, Merry Christmas everyone, happy holidays, and give an extra big hug to those close and your children if applicable. Let's strive to make the world a better place for our children and be grateful for what we have and who we have in our lives.

Edited December 24, 2012 by F430murci

[Cardiff1963]

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is defending the rights of U.S. citizens, specifically the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights. I will not surrender my rights because of the actions of a mentally deranged criminal. For decades now the liberals have proceeded with their efforts to "mainstream" mentally ill persons and, in some cases, prevent the mandatory medication such persons when medical professionals have prescribed such medication as necessary. This, and multiple other liberal policies, have much more to do with these tragic incidents than gun ownership.

Your countries gun laws are 3rd world at best, the only policy that allows these tragedies are your backward laws on gun control. UK is a country where you are more likely to be violently assaulted yet over 3000 times less likely to get shot. Switzerland, a very low crime county with no gun controls, and guess what, 100 times more likely to get shot than the UK. Look at the countries with US style gun laws and you will see there is a direct correlation between controls and shootings.

I hope next time, and there will be a next time, that the massacre is at an NRA rally, at least then, support for your ridiculous amendment will diminish.

p.s since the tragedy well over 100 americans have been shot and murdered

[F430murci]

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is defending the rights of U.S. citizens, specifically the rights enumerated in the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights. I will not surrender my rights because of the actions of a mentally deranged criminal. For decades now the liberals have proceeded with their efforts to "mainstream" mentally ill persons and, in some cases, prevent the mandatory medication such persons when medical professionals have prescribed such medication as necessary. This, and multiple other liberal policies, have much more to do with these tragic incidents than gun ownership.

Your countries gun laws are 3rd world at best, the only policy that allows these tragedies are your backward laws on gun control. UK is a country where you are more likely to be violently assaulted yet over 3000 times less likely to get shot. Switzerland, a very low crime county with no gun controls, and guess what, 100 times more likely to get shot than the UK. Look at the countries with US style gun laws and you will see there is a direct correlation between controls and shootings.

I hope next time, and there will be a next time, that the massacre is at an NRA rally, at least then, support for your ridiculous amendment will diminish.

p.s since the tragedy well over 100 americans have been shot and murdered

This is in response to balo post above. I don't have inclination to wade back through to find original post to quote.

Wow, balo sounds like we are talking about taking away his woman. Truth is mentally ill probably don't know they are mentally so self regulation is not the best idea here. Have you taken an NMPI or had a full psych evaluation before getting your guns you are so determined no one will ever take from you? David Koresh was determined that no one would take his guns also.

. . . and the medication, liberals and mentally ill comments . . . Speechless on that one.

Edited December 24, 2012 by F430murci

[Baloo22]

The Gun Lobby blames the deaths on "people, not guns", but they won't allow law changes to stop "people" getting guns.

Strange reasoning indeed, because only applied to guns. Every other business that makes a product that harms people can be taken to court, but not gunmakers.

You may be referring to the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005. This was a needed response to a series of frivolous and reckless lawsuits that were intended to drive gun manufacturers and dealers out of business by holding those manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who were totally beyond their control. Those lawsuits were a clear misuse of our legal system. Those frivolous lawsuits were the equivalent of suing General Motors or Ford because an individual committed a criminal act using an automobile produced by those companies.

The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products by third parties beyond their control. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible.

Yeah, we are and will be paying for Bush lunacy for next 50 to 100 years. Not sure how one man could cause so much trouble and economic problems in such a short period of time. Happens when everyone becomes near sighted and starts missing the forest for the trees. Sadly, I argued an Amicus Curiae position for Gun companies on one if the sensitive issues and won back during this timeframe.

Still ways to get around and it is amazing how the manufacturer of such dangerous products that serve one purpose and one purpose only thinks it should be absolved from liability. There will be a tort drive against gun companies when time, setting, political atmosphere and court is right. Us mass tort guys are just focusing on banks right now.

It is far more accurate and truthful to state that we will be paying for the lunacy of liberal politicians their liberal allies for next 50 to 100 years. It is sad how much sustained and severe damage that liberals have done to the United States.

Also, you are being truly deceitful saying that the firearms industry "only thinks it should be absolved from liability." The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" of 2005 allows suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales, or on negligent acts such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person or breach of contract. The act also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm (as opposed to cases of intentional misuse).

[teatree]

A lot the anti gun people seem to think that banning guns would be some kind of panacea to gun crime.

Are you really so naive?

Guns will always be available on the black market no matter how many restrictions you place on them.