Gun Vote " Shameful Day," Obama Says

[Joe Mamma]

Can't we all go back to slingshots. Just regulate the rubber ammo used!

[Joe Mamma]

When will they ban gun use on television and in movies so people don't grow up as aggressive violent weapons themselves.

[NeverSure]

As a Brit who has always taken an interest in guns, fired them as a teenaged army cadet and later joined a rifle club, I confess to feeling that our present UK laws are over-restrictive regarding what club members can do at the range. Having said all that I struggle to understand our US cousins. I was recently in a discussion with some 'concealed carry' advocates who had some funny ideas. For them an assault rifle must by definition be fully automatic (sometimes they water this down to 'selective fire'), even though most military M-16s only have single shot/short burst capability. This means in their view that the semi-automatic Bushmaster AR-15 used in the Newtown shootings is only a .22 sporting rifle (I can't be bothered to go into .22/.223 actual bullet diameters, whether you will damage your gun if you fire a 5.56mm round etcetera as they do). They resist the idea that a weapon that can fire 5.56mm NATO ammunition may not be quite the same as a .22LR rabbit gun. They argue that Brits who say they should consider tougher background checks or a ban on large capacity magazines clearly know nothing at all about guns, as most Brits have never seen one.

My understanding is that the NRA was not always against all gun control, and I'd hypothesize that background checks that wouldn't change anything much for genuine enthusiasts would be good PR and make gun ownership more viable in the long run. But then some seem less interested in the sport than in being able to spray around automatic fire when the New World Order government takes over.

I respect your opinions but they differ from mine. Our guns are not "for shooting at the range" nor are they primarily for hunting although of course we do use them for that.

The underlying reason most Americas own guns is to defend themselves against what may become an oppressive government. They also own them to insure no land invasion of the US would be successful. They also own them to defend themselves, another innocent person, and their homes.

Now, if those are your goals, you want an effective weapon and not some single shot .22lr. You'd want a rifle of a pistol that would repel or eliminate threats caused by people.

It is simply a mindset that is difficult for some other nations to grasp. In the minds of Americans, those who have up their guns are parroting what the Jews did for Hitler, and are sitting ducks if something goes haywire with the Euro or the Pound, or any other national emergency cause them to be overly controlled by their government including perhaps having their land confiscated.

It isn't true that most military guns fire only 3 shot bursts. It is true that the military is experimenting with them in the field, and there are increasing numbers of them. This is for two purposes, It conserves ammo for the soldier who has a limited amount with him. It is also known that after 3 shots, the muzzle rise from the firing cause inaccuracy. Maybe it is better to fire a 3 shot burst, re-aim and fire another burst rather than spraying and praying with a full magazine of 20 or 30 rounds which will be used up in one 5 seconds burst.

But the military still has a majority of fully automatic rifles, and certainly it has belt fed machine guns.

This is important. Because the civilians own guns to defend themselves against the potential of an oppressive government and to defend themselves, then they want a powerful weapon which will match whatever is needed, and they buy them for that purpose. Thus the Glock handgun's available 30 round mags, and the high capacity mags for the AR-15, AKM-47's (which in civilian hands are almost all only semi-automatic.)

Unfortunately this proposed new law would have changed nothing. There are already many gun laws on the books which criminals violate. They would violate a new one too.

It is said that laws bind only the law abiding, and in my experience this is all too true.

Peace.

[NeverSure]

You are incorrect about M-16s ... M-16's / M-4s are select fire (semi-automatic and fully automatic) that is - single shot per each trigger pull or fully automatic with one trigger pull - which will empty even a 30 round magazine in seconds (not just a few shots) M-16s and M4s are Military rifles not legally sold to the public. Also - the AR-15 type rifle is a Semi-Automatic weapon. From the factory this commercial model of rifle will not fire fully automatic with just one trigger pull - it will not fire Fully Automatic at all. The trigger must be pulled for each shot. Fully automatic weapons cannot be owned in the U.S. legally without a special license, extensive background check and big fee. As a result very few people (except for hardened criminals) own fully automatic weapons legally or illegally in the USA. A person altering a weapon like the AR-15 to make it fully automatic will risk a severe prison term.

Anti-Gun people have been damning the AR-15 because it looks near identical to the Military M-16 / M-4 with pistol grips, etc. and in most other respects... even though it cannot spray a room full of people with bullets using one trigger pull - even though it is not fully automatic. It is boogieman scare tactics - associate a legal weapon with one that is not legal erasing the difference in the minds of the people. AR-15's and other weapons that have a military 'look' fire no differently than dozens of other rifles of the same caliber and of other calibers - it is just these 'others' do not have pistol grips and other military looking features (but they are not called 'assault rifles'). The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar type rifles are more correctly called 'Semi-Automatic Rifles.

By in large - this time around as before - the anti-gun people mounted a campaign of misinformation and disinformation to inflame the public and attempted to stir hatred for an object to act as a symbol to subdue the right to bear arms. Metal detectors and armed guards and even concealed carry for select school employees are more appropriate and effective ways of dealing with potential armed assaults in classrooms ... the same methods we use in courtrooms, federal buildings, and airports. How many mass shootings have there been in courtrooms, federal buildings and airports in the last ten years? Gun grabbers also want to ignore that of the typical mass shooters of recent times ALL had documented long term serious mental illness. But people can't be singled out and confined because they are long term documented nut cases - it might hurt their feeling. Gun grabbers don't want to solve the problem - they just want to grab guns - they want to CONTROL.

Thank you for illustrating the position I was arguing against.

I was fully aware that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle (i.e. one trigger pull one shot). You question my statement that most military M-16s currently in use do not have a fully automatic option and I stick with that.

The original M-16 and M-16A1 of the 1960s did have the full auto option (safe/semi/auto) but were withdrawn. Admittedly many were remade for airforce use as the GAU-5/A carbine and other variants that generally retained theauto option, but then ceased to be assault rifles.

The M-16A2 rifle introduced in the 1980s had only semi or 3 round burst (safe/semi/burst), and has been the main infantry rifle up until the present time.

The M163A reinstated the auto option (safe/semi/auto) but is used mainly by the Navy and Coast Guard.

The latest M16A4 issued to front-line troops in recent conflicts again has a safe/semi/burst selector.

There is a plan to move to the latest version of the M4 carbine - The M4A1 (a shorter version of the M16) in 2014, and this will have an auto option again. The original M4 carbine was in common army use and was essentially a shortened version of the M16A2 (no auto).

You can check this information in many places including Wiki (see table near bottom).

http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/m16-m16a1-m16a2-m16a3-e.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

What this means is that despite the assertion that assault rifle = auto, most recent rifles used by infantry have only had semi and the 3 shot burst options.

The AR-15 was the design that Armalite developed into the M16, and as we know continues to be marketed as a civilian semi-automatic weapon. Some people converted early civilian AR-15s with older receivers to automatic. Indeed conversion was quite common in the movie industry, where film makers converted AR-15s or M16A2s to auto because they thought the viewers would expect this. For a time it was possible to convert early AR-15s to auto without major machining with a 'drop-in auto-sear' or a 'lightening link'. Nowadays the receivers are manufactured to make conversion difficult, and only a fool would risk the stiff penalties that apply by getting his receiver machined to accept extra parts. It is still the case, however, that an old conversion pre-dating relevant legislation is legal - apparently these weapons sell for very high prices.

The above is what I learned from my discussion with the 'concealed carry' people.

I am agnostic about whether the term assault rifle means anything much, but the fact is that an AR-15 isn't very different from an M16A2 (the 3 shot burst is missing). I don't suppose the patent holder on both - Armalite - would say anything different.

Armalite long ago sold the patent to Colt and it has long since expired. The first AR-malites appeared in the late 50's, and gained widespread use in the 60's in Vietnam, and with Nato countries. After the military adopted the ARmalite 15, and Colt bought the patent, it also became the standard NATO rifle.

It is still very easy to convert an AR-15 to fully automatic. You need a new selector, an auto sear, a new trigger group, and a stronger firing pin. You also need an 07 SOT FFL federal manufacturer's license. You have to register each converted weapon with the Feds. Then you must either keep the gun forever along with your active license, sell it to another licensed manufacturer, or sell it to law enforcement. Lacking those, you must physically destroy it to where it can never work again and send it an proper paperwork to BATF so they can remove it from the list of fully auto weapons in civilian hands. The gun cannot be converted back to semi auto for civilian use. It is forever registered as and auto.

On an AR. only the lower is considered the "gun." The upper is not. The lower contains the serial number and the parts which make it semi or fully automatic.If you sell a complete upper including the barrel, chamber, sights, etc., it is not a gun and you can sell it as if it was a bicycle.

The lower which is the gun is only the stripped lower with the serial number. The trigger group, bolt, firing pin and all other parts are not a gun. They are parts just as a rifle scope is only a part.

[Jingthing]

The topic was about background checks.

ANY gun topic and the gun "hobbyists" get all gun nerdy on you. Doesn't matter that the actual topic had nothing to do with that stuff.

It was about background checks.

[asupeartea]

Background checks NOT needed in many places in the USA.

Gun laws are generally state laws which means there are 50+ sets of rules governing guns in the USA. That is why the federal (USA) government laws are needed -- one law covers all of the country that way, unfortunately, often the better state laws are then nullified by the federal regulations and everything goes to the least common denominator. The places with real gun control have their efforts almost nullified.

[Scott]

As a general rule, posting a definition will result in the post and replies being deleted.

In this case, the quote was also oversized and caused the formatting on the pages to be distorted making them difficult to read.

[chuckd]

The topic was about background checks.

ANY gun topic and the gun "hobbyists" get all gun nerdy on you. Doesn't matter that the actual topic had nothing to do with that stuff.

It was about background checks.

There was also a vote on Tuesday on the issue of banning "Assault" weapons and large capacity magazines.

This was defeated by a vote of 60-40. That would indicate more than 10 Democrats voted AGAINST that piece of legislation.

PS: Actually, JT, FIVE Democrats voted against the background checks, not four as you stated earlier. Four Republicans voted FOR the expanded checks.

Edit to add link: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/senate-gun-control-roll-call-vote-senators-who-bucked-their-party-90226.html#ixzz2QoQ2VMF0

Edit in: Actually 15 Democrats voted against the Assault weapons ban. http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-defeated-4443319.php

Edited April 19, 2013 by chuckd

[Morden]

It's unbelievable that lawmakers can fail to see the need for change after so many massacres and with gun crime in general being at such a high level.

There are reports of another attack on an educational establishment today. Little is yet know publicly but a policeman on campus has been shot and a building is cordoned off. So much for the theory that armed officers at such places can prevent shootings.

It must be unpleasant to live in a country where people feel the need to be armed because licence laws are inadequate and poorly enforced. I know that controls won't stop all gun crime and it would take years for them to have the full effect but something must be done to get some improvement. The guns-for-all lobby has its head in the sand.

I'm not anti-gun ownership but, for goodness sake, there must be better limits than the ones in place in the US just now.

[yourauntbob]

The NRA has a membership of about 4 million people. That's a tiny percentage of all Americans. They basically act as shills for the gun INDUSTRY. Period. I'm not saying they don't have a right to lobby. They clearly do. But something is rotten in the power they have to overrule the clear will of the majority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/does-the-nra-really-have-more-than-45-million-members/2013/02/07/06047c10-7164-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_blog.html

I was reading "The naked economist" last night and he was talking directly about this. There have been studies done that show that the smaller a group the more it can sway politicians. Most of the influential groups in Washington are small. His example when like this, if all the right handed people started demanding a $100 tax break for being right handed then that would mean all lefties would need to pay and extra $900 to support that. In this case the lefties would cry much louder to stop this legislation than the righties would due to the small benefit for right handers would get compared to the large payment made by the left handers. But if all the farmers in America want a subsidy of $100 and they make up only 1% of the population, it will only cost the average person a nominal amount which is not worth fighting for.

The point to all of the above is that its not just the NRA that is continually bending the laws in favor of small groups. There are countless left leaning groups doing the same thing on a regular basis. A classic example is unions, they are continually pushing laws that help themselves at the expense of the general public. I have no idea about how to fix this problem, but until then you will have small groups such as the NRA carrying over-weighted influence on both sides.

[yourauntbob]

It's unbelievable that lawmakers can fail to see the need for change after so many massacres and with gun crime in general being at such a high level.

There are reports of another attack on an educational establishment today. Little is yet know publicly but a policeman on campus has been shot and a building is cordoned off. So much for the theory that armed officers at such places can prevent shootings.

It must be unpleasant to live in a country where people feel the need to be armed because licence laws are inadequate and poorly enforced. I know that controls won't stop all gun crime and it would take years for them to have the full effect but something must be done to get some improvement. The guns-for-all lobby has its head in the sand.

I'm not anti-gun ownership but, for goodness sake, there must be better limits than the ones in place in the US just now.

There needs to be change, but that does not mean there need to be new legislation. How about better enforcement of the laws on the books?

If we are going to use legislation, why does it always target law abiding citizens? How many of these crimes were committed by a licensed gun owner? How many of these attacks could have been prevented if the laws that are already on the books had been followed in the first place?

I dont understand how people argue for more laws when people are not following the laws that are already there. That is like adding new traffic laws in Thailand, until someone steps up and enforces them you can make all the laws you want but its not going to change anything. Isnt the point of all this to change/prevent future occurrences? If that's the case then its time for some new ideas.

[Morden]

It's unbelievable that lawmakers can fail to see the need for change after so many massacres and with gun crime in general being at such a high level.

There are reports of another attack on an educational establishment today. Little is yet know publicly but a policeman on campus has been shot and a building is cordoned off. So much for the theory that armed officers at such places can prevent shootings.

It must be unpleasant to live in a country where people feel the need to be armed because licence laws are inadequate and poorly enforced. I know that controls won't stop all gun crime and it would take years for them to have the full effect but something must be done to get some improvement. The guns-for-all lobby has its head in the sand.

I'm not anti-gun ownership but, for goodness sake, there must be better limits than the ones in place in the US just now.

There needs to be change, but that does not mean there need to be new legislation. How about better enforcement of the laws on the books?

If we are going to use legislation, why does it always target law abiding citizens? How many of these crimes were committed by a licensed gun owner? How many of these attacks could have been prevented if the laws that are already on the books had been followed in the first place?

I dont understand how people argue for more laws when people are not following the laws that are already there. That is like adding new traffic laws in Thailand, until someone steps up and enforces them you can make all the laws you want but its not going to change anything. Isnt the point of all this to change/prevent future occurrences? If that's the case then its time for some new ideas.

I agree that better enforcement of the existing laws seems to be necessary but the ability to buy guns privately presumably needs attention. So does the law or laws concerning permitted types of gun and the magazine capacity.

As I understand it, legally owned guns are used in crimes, though not necessarily always in the hands of the legal owner. The more legal guns are out there the more illegally held guns will exist.

Unfortunately, when some people break or abuse the law, innocent people are often affected by new legislation.

[citizen33]

Armalite long ago sold the patent to Colt and it has long since expired. The first AR-malites appeared in the late 50's, and gained widespread use in the 60's in Vietnam, and with Nato countries. After the military adopted the ARmalite 15, and Colt bought the patent, it also became the standard NATO rifle.

It is still very easy to convert an AR-15 to fully automatic. You need a new selector, an auto sear, a new trigger group, and a stronger firing pin. You also need an 07 SOT FFL federal manufacturer's license. You have to register each converted weapon with the Feds. Then you must either keep the gun forever along with your active license, sell it to another licensed manufacturer, or sell it to law enforcement. Lacking those, you must physically destroy it to where it can never work again and send it an proper paperwork to BATF so they can remove it from the list of fully auto weapons in civilian hands. The gun cannot be converted back to semi auto for civilian use. It is forever registered as and auto.

On an AR. only the lower is considered the "gun." The upper is not. The lower contains the serial number and the parts which make it semi or fully automatic.If you sell a complete upper including the barrel, chamber, sights, etc., it is not a gun and you can sell it as if it was a bicycle.

The lower which is the gun is only the stripped lower with the serial number. The trigger group, bolt, firing pin and all other parts are not a gun. They are parts just as a rifle scope is only a part.

Yes, you are right about Colt - something I had been told but had forgotten and did not check. It is correct that some early military rifles were stamped Colt Armalite AR-15, which rather muddies the distinction between military and civilian rifles that some like to erect. I was aware that the lower receiver is the firearm, and that possession of a modified receiver is enough to get one into big trouble. Interestingly the US enthusiasts with whom I had my discussion were stressing how hard it is on some commercial AR-15s to modify the receiver (i.e. needed machine tools etc), but I think the answer is that this differs according to the manufacturer and the receiver. However, to my mind the interchangeability of parts (apart from the lower receiver), supports my main argument that the Mi6-A2 is not so different from the AR-15. Most of the latter are chambered for NATO 5.56mm and all will take M-16 magazines.

Of course the military possesses automatic weapons but if you are talking about the US army I am not sure where you get the majority of rifles being auto from. An American ex-service man in the discussion that I mentioned said that he would not be counting on an M-16/M4 if he wanted automatic fire. Nor am I quite sure what you mean when you say the M-16 is/was the standard NATO rifle. My country has never used it - and instead issues the SA-80 - which also accepts the 5.56 round.

If we keep sight of the issue this means that the argument that the AR-15 is a quite different beast from the military M-16 is very dubious.

Edited April 19, 2013 by citizen33

[Exsexyman]

The U.S. government has become dysfunctional mostly due to republican/right wing obstructionism. The elected officials are supposed to reflect the will of the people. The VAST MAJORITY of Americans were for this reform but it lost almost entirely due to the power of a radical right wing fringe group -- the notorious NRA. Obama needs to bring this fight to the PEOPLE. The legislature is USELESS. The only silver lining is that this sets up a major pro Obama shakeup in the next midterm elections.

How do you know?

I would imagine that the senators are well aware of public opinion, especially considering that next year is a mid-term election for some, so would be very mindful of reflecting public opinion if they wished to retain their seats.

What really annoys you is that the Senate did not vote the way you wanted it to, that's democracy for you, and having read some of your other posts on other topics, I don't think that you are representative of the majority of the American population.

"That's democracy for you". Laughable. Lets face it, these senators are bought and paid for. Bribery and corruption is the order of the day. When it comes down to it there is little difference between the way it works in US politics, and the way it works in corrupt third world dictatorships. Democracy my arse!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators

[wellred]

Well at least he tried. But hey let's all continue to cross our fingers that we never see a nut job go on a gun rampage again. Oh wait... I shouldn't say this but I hope the next time something like this does happen it happens to families of those who vote pro guns. Maybe then they will see the error of their ways. It's people like that who allow these situations to continue to occur. Maybe there will be a really big one where a whole town is shot up and then people will take notice. I'm not trying to sound sick or anything but as an outsider looking in this has to be one of those moments where you face palm and say really? Are they that stupid?

People perform the acts of violence. In mass shootings of recent vintage it has shown to be mentally ill people of long standing and solid documentation who were not taken off the streets. Get these people confined and the mass shootings will be few and far between.

Of the 2 that's probably the hardest and on what grounds do you pull someone off the streets? Oh sorry kid your a bit of a loner we better pull you in just incase you kill someone. Here's an idea. How about take the guns away instead.

[chuckd]

Well at least he tried. But hey let's all continue to cross our fingers that we never see a nut job go on a gun rampage again. Oh wait... I shouldn't say this but I hope the next time something like this does happen it happens to families of those who vote pro guns. Maybe then they will see the error of their ways. It's people like that who allow these situations to continue to occur. Maybe there will be a really big one where a whole town is shot up and then people will take notice. I'm not trying to sound sick or anything but as an outsider looking in this has to be one of those moments where you face palm and say really? Are they that stupid?

People perform the acts of violence. In mass shootings of recent vintage it has shown to be mentally ill people of long standing and solid documentation who were not taken off the streets. Get these people confined and the mass shootings will be few and far between.

Of the 2 that's probably the hardest and on what grounds do you pull someone off the streets? Oh sorry kid your a bit of a loner we better pull you in just incase you kill someone. Here's an idea. How about take the guns away instead.

...and after that you can take away Game Boys, movie theaters and cable television.

Mental health definitely needs to be addressed but precious little is coming from the administration on that subject.

[wellred]

Well at least he tried. But hey let's all continue to cross our fingers that we never see a nut job go on a gun rampage again. Oh wait... I shouldn't say this but I hope the next time something like this does happen it happens to families of those who vote pro guns. Maybe then they will see the error of their ways. It's people like that who allow these situations to continue to occur. Maybe there will be a really big one where a whole town is shot up and then people will take notice. I'm not trying to sound sick or anything but as an outsider looking in this has to be one of those moments where you face palm and say really? Are they that stupid?

People perform the acts of violence. In mass shootings of recent vintage it has shown to be mentally ill people of long standing and solid documentation who were not taken off the streets. Get these people confined and the mass shootings will be few and far between.

Of the 2 that's probably the hardest and on what grounds do you pull someone off the streets? Oh sorry kid your a bit of a loner we better pull you in just incase you kill someone. Here's an idea. How about take the guns away instead.

...and after that you can take away Game Boys, movie theaters and cable television.

Mental health definitely needs to be addressed but precious little is coming from the administration on that subject.

That's because of the 2 it's a bigger issue to get your arms around and even bigger to try address in practical terms. Where as we know if we took guns off the streets at least there would be no gun rampages in schools ect. Stop burying your head in the sand and trying to deflect the issue.

[yourauntbob]

It's unbelievable that lawmakers can fail to see the need for change after so many massacres and with gun crime in general being at such a high level.

There are reports of another attack on an educational establishment today. Little is yet know publicly but a policeman on campus has been shot and a building is cordoned off. So much for the theory that armed officers at such places can prevent shootings.

It must be unpleasant to live in a country where people feel the need to be armed because licence laws are inadequate and poorly enforced. I know that controls won't stop all gun crime and it would take years for them to have the full effect but something must be done to get some improvement. The guns-for-all lobby has its head in the sand.

I'm not anti-gun ownership but, for goodness sake, there must be better limits than the ones in place in the US just now.

There needs to be change, but that does not mean there need to be new legislation. How about better enforcement of the laws on the books?

If we are going to use legislation, why does it always target law abiding citizens? How many of these crimes were committed by a licensed gun owner? How many of these attacks could have been prevented if the laws that are already on the books had been followed in the first place?

I dont understand how people argue for more laws when people are not following the laws that are already there. That is like adding new traffic laws in Thailand, until someone steps up and enforces them you can make all the laws you want but its not going to change anything. Isnt the point of all this to change/prevent future occurrences? If that's the case then its time for some new ideas.

I agree that better enforcement of the existing laws seems to be necessary but the ability to buy guns privately presumably needs attention. So does the law or laws concerning permitted types of gun and the magazine capacity.

As I understand it, legally owned guns are used in crimes, though not necessarily always in the hands of the legal owner. The more legal guns are out there the more illegally held guns will exist.

Unfortunately, when some people break or abuse the law, innocent people are often affected by new legislation.

The real problem as i see it is that there are good solid compromises that can be made, unfortunately once politics (and politicians) get involved everything turns to protecting special interest on both sides of the coin. If only it still was a government of the people for the people and by the people. Those days seem long gone.

[DocN]

Ooooooookay...

according to a dictionary, a "Liberal" is a person in favor of progress and reform, accepting the freedom of an individual, stands for personal rights (especially the ones guaranteed by the law) and is in favor of freedom of speech and belief.

...and some here think, that can count as an insult?!

I am proud to be called a liberal!

Edited April 19, 2013 by DocN

[JDGRUEN]

The topic was about background checks.

ANY gun topic and the gun "hobbyists" get all gun nerdy on you. Doesn't matter that the actual topic had nothing to do with that stuff.

It was about background checks.

The Topic begins with "Gun Vote" ... the Gun Vote included the discussion and failure of an amendment concerning banning 'Assault Rifles' - what one is and what one isn't...

[JDGRUEN]

Well at least he tried. But hey let's all continue to cross our fingers that we never see a nut job go on a gun rampage again. Oh wait... I shouldn't say this but I hope the next time something like this does happen it happens to families of those who vote pro guns. Maybe then they will see the error of their ways. It's people like that who allow these situations to continue to occur. Maybe there will be a really big one where a whole town is shot up and then people will take notice. I'm not trying to sound sick or anything but as an outsider looking in this has to be one of those moments where you face palm and say really? Are they that stupid?

People perform the acts of violence. In mass shootings of recent vintage it has shown to be mentally ill people of long standing and solid documentation who were not taken off the streets. Get these people confined and the mass shootings will be few and far between.

Of the 2 that's probably the hardest and on what grounds do you pull someone off the streets? Oh sorry kid your a bit of a loner we better pull you in just incase you kill someone. Here's an idea. How about take the guns away instead.

...and after that you can take away Game Boys, movie theaters and cable television.

Mental health definitely needs to be addressed but precious little is coming from the administration on that subject.

Being flippant about the subject is not helpful or productive ... In the USA we have nearly insurmountable barriers for even family members to be allowed to commit a person to confinement even if that person is exhibiting violent behavior, making threats, is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, manic depressive, and other sorts of unpredictable violent sociopath type behaviors even when well documented and diagnosed by a psychiatrist.. This is exactly the case of the recent most infamous shooters in America... If these nut cases had been forcefully confined based upon their case histories the shootings would not have taken place...

[chuckd]

oooooookay...

according to a dictionary, a "Liberal" is a person in favor of progress and reform, accepting the freedom of an individual, stands for personal rights (especially the ones guaranteed by the law) and is in favor of freedom of speech and belief.

...and some here think, that can count as an insult?!

I am proud to be called a liberal!

You claim you are proud to be called a liberal because you stand in support of personal rights (especially the ones guaranteed by the law)....correct?

The right to bear arms is more than a law. It is a Constitutional right in the US, just as is freedom of speech and religion.

You support personal rights but draw the line at something that seems to make you extremely uncomfortable, the right to bear arms.

What will be next? My freedom of speech or religion?

Where I come from you would be called a hypocritical liberal.

[chuckd]

Well at least he tried. But hey let's all continue to cross our fingers that we never see a nut job go on a gun rampage again. Oh wait... I shouldn't say this but I hope the next time something like this does happen it happens to families of those who vote pro guns. Maybe then they will see the error of their ways. It's people like that who allow these situations to continue to occur. Maybe there will be a really big one where a whole town is shot up and then people will take notice. I'm not trying to sound sick or anything but as an outsider looking in this has to be one of those moments where you face palm and say really? Are they that stupid?

People perform the acts of violence. In mass shootings of recent vintage it has shown to be mentally ill people of long standing and solid documentation who were not taken off the streets. Get these people confined and the mass shootings will be few and far between.

Of the 2 that's probably the hardest and on what grounds do you pull someone off the streets? Oh sorry kid your a bit of a loner we better pull you in just incase you kill someone. Here's an idea. How about take the guns away instead.

...and after that you can take away Game Boys, movie theaters and cable television.

Mental health definitely needs to be addressed but precious little is coming from the administration on that subject.

Being flippant about the subject is not helpful or productive ... In the USA we have nearly insurmountable barriers for even family members to be allowed to commit a person to confinement even if that person is exhibiting violent behavior, making threats, is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, manic depressive, and other sorts of unpredictable violent sociopath type behaviors even when well documented and diagnosed by a psychiatrist.. This is exactly the case of the recent most infamous shooters in America... If these nut cases had been forcefully confined based upon their case histories the shootings would not have taken place...

My so called "flippant remark" was addressed to the "take the guns away" remark. A gun is an inanimate object and can only be discharged when action is taken by an animated object to fire it.

Those animated objects that are mentally unbalanced are the problems and that has hardly been addressed by anybody in their frenzy to ban guns.

[Jingthing]

Is it your constitutional right for a deranged felon to buy a machine gun out of a vending machine at 3 in the morning?

LAWS regulating gun ownership are perfectly constitutional and that has been definitely established.

[JDGRUEN]

NRA "obama bit off more than he could chew"...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nra-chief-obama-bit-off-more-than-he-could-chew/article/2527573

[JDGRUEN]

TO: chuckd ... relative to your post here on this thread # 83...

Yes - Sorry for the confusion and my misapplied post ... I look back at the posts and it seems this system as recently modified makes is difficult at time to determine who said what. This posting system worked more accurately to keep the posts and replies separate before the last updates. I am glad to see that you and I agree. I did not mean to make my previous remarks to you for reasons stated.

[Jingthing]

NRA "obama bit off more than he could chew"...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nra-chief-obama-bit-off-more-than-he-could-chew/article/2527573

Mock him now. The NRA has given him a political gift for the midterms. In the long run, the NRA is going to regret this.

[JDGRUEN]

NRA "obama bit off more than he could chew"...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/nra-chief-obama-bit-off-more-than-he-could-chew/article/2527573

Mock him now. The NRA has given him a political gift for the midterms. In the long run, the NRA is going to regret this.

We shall see ... From what I read the reason some Democrats voted against obama's wishes on this issue was because of their fear of retaining office after the 2014 Mid Term elections. Seems that obama has already entered the Lame Duck era of his second term.

[chuckd]

TO: chuckd ... relative to your post here on this thread # 83...

Yes - Sorry for the confusion and my misapplied post ... I look back at the posts and it seems this system as recently modified makes is difficult at time to determine who said what. This posting system worked more accurately to keep the posts and replies separate before the last updates. I am glad to see that you and I agree. I did not mean to make my previous remarks to you for reasons stated.

Not to worry. We agree on nearly all things here.

[chuckd]

Is it your constitutional right for a deranged felon to buy a machine gun out of a vending machine at 3 in the morning?

LAWS regulating gun ownership are perfectly constitutional and that has been definitely established.

The only post sillier than yours might be my response.