Buy your sanctuary in the great Smokey Mountains. Lots available now!

I do so worry about this but...the time to have acted was in the sixties and seventies when those tree hugging radicals were protesting and yelling. So in a way you can visit the past to see the republican spin.

Glad I do not have any kids.

The teapub spin is it's the dems fault.

We need to generate more Greenhouse gasses, that way it will trickle down and cool the earth.

Teabaggers will say it's God's punishment for Obama's support of same sex marriage.

I need to get a GPS position for Miami. Then I can claim I found the lost city of Atlantis!!! I'll be famous, but then again "You didin build that".

More like people are scared. They want to be able to defend themselves.

There is a large and powerful marketing agency geared towards getting people to buying more of their product. They are relentless.

Really I missed those ads as I watched the news this morning? Were they in the local paper? Sorry I don't buy that for a second. You have to look for handgun, or rifle marketing material. At least around here.

The surge of gun buying when this kind of thing happen is not because there are more people who want to defend themselves, more because gun owners and all the NRA members are scared that all the sudden there will be stricter gun control that will prevent them from buying more guns tomorrow.

They don't need to make an ad and blast it all over the media to do that. They have already done the the most effective message they can throw out there: the imprinted BS of "Obama is going to take away your gun" message.

The NRA doesn't have to create fear of stricter gun control laws, the left wing media machine blasting the call for stricter gun control does that just fine. Why is it that law abiding citizens can't genuinely feel a need to defend themselves? Why attach an ulterior motivation to it?

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a handgun today...since they might restrict me from getting them tomorrow!

"Why attach an ulterior motivation to it?"

Um, aren't you attaching an ulterior motive to it by saying they want to defend themselves and that is why they are buying guns? It's ok for you to have a theory as to why they are buying guns, but not anyone else?

"The NRA doesn't have to create fear of stricter gun control laws, the left wing media machine blasting the call for stricter gun control does that just fine."

In response to that, let me quote a troll..."Really I missed those ads as I watched the news this morning? Were they in the local paper? Sorry I don't buy that for a second."

While I certainly don't agree with no training for CWP holders, I also believe a well trained person could and would have made a difference that night. As to the "assault" rifle for home defense.. well that's his right.

Well yes a well trained person armed to the teeth did make a difference that night.

considering the old man in FL... yeah it would have. One man with a gun and any training at all could have stopped him cold.

You REALLY think even a well-trained person (even a crack military marksman) could have taken out a guy heavily armored, in a panic situation with tear gas present and people running everywhere, without killing or injuring additional people?

As for the assault weapon, I don't see any justification for anyone other than a highly trained soldier to possess a weapon like that.

Sure, because EVERY gun range has you shoot at a non-stationary slightly-armored target. In the dark. With a crowd racing in front of you. With smoke, a visual and auditory display to help override your senses. Oh, and smoke bombs. And racing downhill. With your loved ones screaming in your ear to get down and not be Rambo.

Sure, I buy this argument!

Not to mention, really, how many folks with a handgun actually practice with it regularly? You'd be better off throwing the armrests at the shooter.

WEll yeah I REALLY think that. Considering I know quite a few people with the skills to do just that. They have more than the average on training, but that's the point. Training counts, even someone with some would have made a difference. As for the armor, you might want to read up, the latest accounts are that he just had a plate carrier or tactical vest not armor.

Well, as to the assault rifle.... The answer is one liberals hate. It's a right. It's a right to defend against a tyrannical goverment. Home safety certainly factors in as well.

You might be surprised if you actually went to a gun range and checked it out. Training is out there. When I started carring again I took a couple of tactical handgun classes and I participate in a handgun shooting competition at my local range. And I'm far from the only one.

I'll take your AR-15 and raise you a Bradley. Or M-1. Or Apache. Or drone. Face it, we needed the French navy to beat the British army. Squirrel rifles weren't enough even then. The odds haven't improved since. Stupidest argument in the whole debate.

I didn't say anything about the odds. As for the rest why is there such aversion to people defending themselves?

Anyone who "needs" an assault rifle to protect their family probably has pretty bad aim. How often is a home broken into by a dozen people or more. Tell ya what, if someone "needs" an assault rifle for home protection, I "need" to have your name and address publicly listed so I don't move to the neighborhood or shop in stores nearby.

I live next door to hunters, and have lived uneasily for years. While the parents are very dedicated about safety and training, one of the sons still has moments when he has to let loose on a squirrel and I have bullet holes in the side of my garage because of it. I've even been out on my patio on days he decides to do target practice on the squirrels. So personally, that's why I have an aversion to people defending themselves with firearms in a neighborhood setting.

I understand that people want guns in their home for protection or to hunt. If you're one of those people, make sure that you also understand that "you know you never know" what will happen with that gun. More things could go wrong (harming family, pets, neighbors, friends) than using it for the original intent of deterring a thief.

As for "tyrannical government", we have elections every year at some local, state of national level. Do your research then GO VOTE each and every time and get them out if you don't like them.

First is gun safety and following the 4 cardinal rules of firearms safety. Second is training if you are going to have a gun, know how and when to use it. As to your neighbors well, I wouldn't have been as timid or nice as you seem to be with them. Bullet holes in the house are a no no.

Why does it have to be a dozen? Two assailants would be a major threat. Why the public list? Just so you know who you don't want to live near? Nah, that's not only an invasion of privacy its an invitation for a home invasion.....

@David J - And bullet holes in my house isn't an invasion of privacy? Gun owners need to be publicly listed for public protection same as register sex offenders. I don't want my child going in a house that has registered firearms. Kids will be kids, even if the firearms are locked down and unloaded. And if your home is invaded, well you have a gun to protect you......and if you're not home, if the gun is registered, it will turn up - probably where you don't want it to. That's your choice.

knitterelf- WOW....I'm absolutely stunned by that response. First comparing a law abiding gun owner to a sex offender is beyond repulsive and if that is how you categorize them in your mind then you have a serious issue.

Secondly, bullet holes in your house are a little more than an invasion of privacy. Frankly it shows what disregard your neighbors have for general and gun safety and that should be addressed.

Additionally, you're assuming all gun owners just leave their weapons laying around for curious prying hands to access them. The vast majority are very contientious and responsible and properly secure them. Aside from that, one of the issues I have is the lack of gun education for the young. They aren't toys and should never ever be treated as such. As I mentioned earlier there are 4 cardinal rules of gun safety, they should be taught well and often! Actually (and I know this curls most liberals hair) my gun is most often with me as I carry everyday.

David, I don't think there's any argument about anyone defending themselves here. We all want to defend ourselves, and while I don't want to be near any guns or anyone who has one, I shamelessly admit that if I'm in a life-and-death situation and there's a gun nearby, training or not, I will pick it up and shoot it.

But the situation here appeared to be different, and unless you were there and you actually had a gun with you, NONE OF US will ever know what could have or couldn't have been. NONE OF US. I think it's ridiculous when people suppose that "someone with a gun" could've done something because it could have gone either way--it could've saved lives or made the situation worst. And as much as I really, really hate to admit it, by that same reasonable thinking, it isn't really within the grasp of anyone to assume that another shooter among the victims would've made the situation more dangerous for everyone.

All that's been inarguable is this: it was dark. It was smoky. It was chaotic. And it was an ambush. Nothing short of a gun carrying Navy Seal would've ensured the safety of everyone. Inasmuch as it might have made all the difference in the world to have a trained armed civilian there defending the innocent, it could have just as much meant more people dead and hurt.

AnnaBe- You're assuming a lot here as well. For one the conditions while less than optimal for anything aren't insurmountable. The fact is though I can only look at this from my own perspective using my own experience and training as the basis for any decision I'd make. I'd certainly like to think I'd at least go down swinging. While that might make sense to you its just the way I feel.

As a husband and father my first instinct is to step into the path of danger to protect my family and others. This also pertains to the reason that I carry a gun and took the time and expense to train and practice with it. I've had military experience, (no I wasn't a Navy SeAL, but I've known more than a few and have trained with them on more than one occasion) I've practiced against moving targets as well in a low light enviroment and you're right even with my experience, training, and practice I might not have done anymore than soaked up a few extra rounds from the nut ball.

But the point is someone should have been able to. This isn't the first time a gunman has been able to have a free reign of terror. But there are also instances where a gunman was stopped by someone carrying concealed. This goes to the root of the gun control debate for me. The theater this happened in has a no weapons policy the same as several in my home town. It takes away our ability to defend ourselves if something like that happened. Obviously it didn't stop the young nutball from doing what he wanted to though.

Gun control won't stop the violence. Stiffer penalties and a proactive public will though.

David public registries of gun owners is all about a higher level of accountability that should go along with something/someone that/who has the ability to do personal/public harm regardless of the situation or reason. I think you'd agree guns can do harm in the hands of those who don't follow necessary safety precaution, who don't keep their skills current with regular training/practice, who have difficulty understanding personal boundaries and it's relation to firearms (ie a neighbor's immature son), simple errors in judgement about the equipment, and yes those whose sole intent it is to do harm - assault - someone with a gun (legal/registered or not makes no difference). That is no different than the danger of people who don't understand personal boundaries when it comes to sexually assaulting other people. Guns by their very nature are assault/offensive (as in "aggressive action", not as in "insulting") weapons. To think otherwise is naive.

I've reviewed the argument in favor of registry privacy and I keep coming back to this - if you own/use a gun for protection and there is a break-in (because someone found your name on a registry) while you're home, aren't you willing to protect yourself with your gun? Why'd you get the gun again? And how stupid does someone who checks a gun registry before breaking into a house have to be (Yes, I know there are some really stupid criminals out there). It would seem they deserve the injuries or worse if you're home to catch them. And get an alarm/security service if you're fearful of your belongings being taken while you're not home. Frankly there's not much that can't be replaced, including your gun. Applying the gun lobby logic about registration privacy to medical doctors (who also fall in the category of could cause personal/public harm, likely not intentionally, given the job), being the good and honest people that they are (and which is how you would like us to think of gun owners), they should not have their medical registration showing they have the required education/training/continuing ed so they can fix your broken arm/heart valve defect/deliver a pre-mature baby openly published by the state. How safe is that?

I don't equate "legal gun owner" or a "registered gun owner" with a responsibly trained gun owner. Passing a criminal background check may allow a person to legally buy a gun and registering a gun with the local police may be following the local laws (which in our locale is done for solely for police protection), but neither tells me, John Q Public, which of my neighbors/village residents is a gun owner and that they understand how to use it. And if you have a conceal/carry permit that was obtained after required training and practice - again how am I to know - those are applications are private. I want to be able to find out if someone who owns a gun/carries a gun knows what they should do safely with a gun at home, or with children around, and in public before I would let my child anywhere near them-not sure I want to be near them either. Do you really want to be the parent whose child is injured by a errant gunshot in a friend's home you thought was safe because you didn't know otherwise? You, David, may be a very responsible gun owner/user living in one of the few states that has a higher standard of training required before you got your C/C permit. However, because there is no public registry within my urban/suburban setting, I wouldn't know you or your abilities or how current your permit is (or even if you really had one) from the 1000s of other legal gun owners who may not have your dedication to continuing training and safety (as has been demonstrated by the irresponsible ones in intended or unintended incidents involving guns locally, statewide and nationally). And as for the 'vast majority' who 'properly secure' them, there are far too many daily/weekly articles in our newspapers about children who find their parents guns and the harm that it causes to even think that a "vast majority" pay attention to their gun's security - although I might allow for "a goodly number". One senseless death of a child through gun negligence is one too many.

Unfortunately I am not willing to assume that 'the vast majority' can responsibly handle their firearms without the certitude of rigorous public gun ownership registration records that include a training/regular safety check component and me being able to follow-up with cause (ie a pending child visit). And you shouldn't either. You know what that say about when you ass-u-me....Do you personally know if every person (or even 90% which would be the vast majority) who purchases a gun gets the proper and necessary safety instruction and training and is following it? Some state's C/C laws only require recommendation from friends? Some require nothing more than a name and address. That's suppose to tell me this person is a good shot in a highly charged situation? That they disarm and lock their gun when it's not on them (or locked when it's on them)? Is there a registry you checked to see if 90% or more are properly trained? Some people buy guns, but never get a C/C permit. What's to stop them from openly carrying if everyone else is? Are they trained? Maybe, maybe not. You cannot possibly know without a public registration.

My neighbor has been training his kids to hunt/gun safety since they were seven and the rifles had been kept unloaded in a combination/locked safe at home with the ammo locked out of state - if there's any left at the end of the season - all actions I think you would consider responsible, but you wouldn't know about because the gun lobby insists it remain private - (And I have not been lax about this situation - be careful about casting aspersions - the mom and I are 'witches' about this). They continue to hunt out of state every year. The guns are legally owned and registered locally and in other states where they hunt. The kids are in their twenties now and have their own legally owned and registered guns so you would think after all this training and brow-beating by two shrews on this topic, they'd know better about shooting at squirrels in our neighborhood (where we are at least 100 feet apart) when the parents aren't home. As for consequences - next time you need a policeman to charge a fireman with illegal discharge of a weapon w/o injuries, let me know how it goes. As I said - you know you never know about the other 'responsible' gun owners in a privatized/protected system.

Just as I have had to teach my children to be alert for "stranger danger", and personally check out houses in neighborhoods were offenders live (yes, it has come to that in my area. I don't view them or the area as evil or off-limits, I just make sure everyone's on the same page) I would like to be able to alert them to a different level of 'dangers' in a new friend's house and double check that parents who I probably don't know yet are home. Even if the firearms are out of sight/locked/unloaded, I want my kids to know that's it's not alright to go look for them (if they are confronted with cuz "mom/dad are not here but it's ok"), touch them, or use them without on-site adult supervised education.

I agree that training is all-important, but not necessarily at a young age. I've watched enough kids grow to know they all don't understand about personal limits/boundaries/responsibilities (or their eye sight) at the same rate. Barring other issues, they mostly get there by their late teens/early twenties. If firearms training starts at an early age, then it takes real discipline on the part of of family, friends, neighbors to keep the focus where it should be on safety/protection/and for some the goal of food to eat.

And as for needing an assault rifle to handle two assailants - I think my argument about aim still holds. If, after hours of training and regular practice, a responsibly trained gun owner can't deter/injury two targets with a reasonable handgun, they need more practice, a guard/attack dog and a private security system for when they're not home, or even when they are home. And if the two neighborhood assailants have high-power rifles (legal or illegal is besides the point), homeowners really need to move to a safer neighborhood - or change occupations???.

We could add another spin to that...like Romney wants us to become a UK colony again!

That story deserved more of a notice than it got, even here -- and I hope Steve does a full piece on it. The 'money quote' so far is:

In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.

But there is a lot more in the article that is as offensive and as dishonest as you'd expect from Team Romney. The writer quotes the VFW speech about 'if you don't want America to be the strongest nation...' but the truly devastating quotes come from Romney advisors. (I should preface these with the statement that The Telegraph is strongly right-wing, doesn't like America much, and doesn't have the highest credibility, so if "Mr. Money" -- anagram of 'M. Romney' -- denies these and gives an explanation, he might not be as dishonest as usual.)

Members of the former Massachusetts governor's foreign policy advisory team claimed that as president, he would reverse Mr Obama’s priority of repairing strained overseas relationships while not spending so much time maintaining traditional alliances such as Britain and Israel.

“In contrast to President Obama, whose first instinct is to reach out to America’s adversaries, the Governor’s first impulse is to consult and co-ordinate and to move closer to our friends and allies overseas so they can rely on American constancy and strength,” one told the Telegraph.

“Obama is a Left-winger," said another. "He doesn’t value the Nato alliance as much, he’s very comfortable with American decline and the traditional alliances don’t mean as much to him. He wouldn’t like singing ‘Land of Hope and Glory'.”

Of course, they speak with the detailed precision that Romney is known for:

Mr Romney has not made any commitments on the Falklands, but several in his foreign policy team favour backing Britain and publicly rejecting claims of sovereignty by Christina Kirchner, the Argentine president. Under Mr Obama the US remains neutral.

The advisers could not give detailed examples of how policy towards Britain would differ under Mr Romney. One conceded that on the European crisis: “I’m not sure what our policy response is.”

Then, in glorious full-Romneyism we get this climax:

The advisers spoke on the condition of anonymity because Mr Romney’s campaign requested that they not criticise the President to foreign media. After another adviser criticised Mr Obama in a German magazine last month, the President sharply instructed them that “America's political differences end at the water's edge”.

This one gets a full-scale ad, I hope. (Only, please, Mr. President, don't sing "Land of Hope..." We like your voice, but this ain't American Idol.)

The problem as I see it is that it won't stop where you propose it. Additionally if you have a cwp, when would you be allowed to use it. Because we know thats a whole different debate.

The counter argument would be: why is the NRA demanding all Americans have the right to own a nuclear weapon? I mean, sure, they aren't SAYING it, but you KNOW it is a slippery slope to full nuclear annihilation.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

No they aren't saying it. And you know, or should know that people can even purchase fully auto weapons 1. if they can afford them ( and in this economy that's a big if ) 2. they fill out the proper NFA paperwork and get a "tax stamp" from the BATF. Considering the liberal view of rifles and handguns in general personally I'm glad there is someone on the side of the law abidign gun owning American citizen.

Why is it that you are more concerned about law abiding citizens purchasing guns (with a background check and paperwork) but not the thugs, crooks, criminals and such? Yeah they are scared, and yeah scared of the goverment. They don't want to be heroes they just want to make sure that their families are safe.