the "old" republicans saw the "new" republicans - they suicided.

In the immortal words of SNL's Dana Carvey's impersonation of George H.W.Bush "Not Gonna Do IT!"

Ok Dragoon, lets ad a few to your list:

John Bedell: Pentagon shooter and registered Democrat.

James Von Brunn: Holocaust Museum shooter: Anti- Christian and 9/11 truther and Bush hater.

Carol Ann Burger: Huffington Post writer who stabbed her roommate 222 times beforew killing herself.

Bill Ayers: " I don't regret setting bombs. We didn't do enough"

The Animal Liberation Front

The Earth Liberation Front

So if some Tea Party member shoots up a McDonalds then all conservitives are to blame, but we are not supposed to draw any conclusions about modern liberalism from left-wing terrorists and terrorist orginizations?

Knuckle: How sad that you feel you have to point out nebulus political connections, it must suck to feel so personally connected to your ideaology that you need to try to "even things out", even though the proportions and facts don't add up. Your distortions only work with folks who pull wool over their heads.

Thanks knucklebumper (while you're dragging them) for publishing a list that has nothing to do with what's under discussion. But then you worthless scum don't have any arguments other than "look over there!"

However, thank you for our daily demonstration from you Homo Saps about what ten generations of southern incest creates. Go back to fornicating sheep like your transported felon ancestors did (all southern colonies began as prison colonies) - it's what you're good at, white boy.

.....so what is your point knuckle(head)bump????

Thanks, knuckledragger, for bringing a completely useless and spiteful note to the conversation. Take it elsewhere.

Name calling. Good comebacks.

How right you are, Dragoon. It is the elephant in the room. I bet everyone of us knows someone with several guns that:

a: drinks too much

b: does pain medication or several meds because he is older

c: is white, and angry most of the time about the way the world has changed

d: is stockpiling guns to protect himself for the coming battle

e: is a proud American who hates the government

They are our relatives, our friends and they have been bamboozled by the right wing noise machine to live in fear of the government. They are lost souls, with unhappy lives who listen to Fox and find an enemy they can blame for their unsatisfying life...the government.

And we can blame that ugliness on none other than Rupert Murdoch, rich man from Australia who came here to show us that Joseph Goebbels was a novice in the art of propaganda. No political or religious leader right now holds the power Murdoch does to change this conversation.

It's getting pretty late in life for him, so you'd think right about now he would be assessing how his conversation with the Almighty might go.

To the best of my knowledge ALF/ELF have never killed anyone

Distraction. Poor comeback.

Sigh,

Why are the trolls we get so damn STUPID?

This idiot comes here, makes a ridiculous post and name calls, can't figure out WHY anyone might object to it, and then blames others for namecalling!

Sure would be nice to see a troll with an IQ over 50 here once in a while.....but I guess those right wing nuts don't allow anyone who has the capacity to think anywhere near them. They'd see them for what the are.....

The point is, my angry liberal friends, that conservitives are not the only ones who commit sensless violence. If you are gonna make a list of A- holes, make it all inclusive. By the way, I'm not some conservitive troll. I'm just trying to play devils advocate. You have no idea what my ideology is.

TCinLA: go get some help. You have some real anger issues. You don't own any guns do you?

I make no stipulation that liberals don't commit acts of violence (you forgot Ted Kacyznski) but I will however point out that throughout the entire history of this nation most of the genuinely grievous acts of violence have been committed by separatists, segregationists, Militant Christians, and self proclaimed "Militia" members.

My point is that NONE of these people need to have ready access to weapons or be heavily armed!

That is true Dragoon. Unfourtunatly we don't hear of these people until after they commit their atrosity. So how do you know that someone is in the KKK or ALF when they buy a gun. Is that on the application form?

The point is, my angry liberal friends, that conservitives are not the only ones who commit sensless violence

Dragoon NEVER made the argument that conservatives are the only people who commit acts of violence. You pulled that out of thin air. Dragoon stated that the people who commit these crimes are anti-government wackos who live on the fringes of society and that a great many of them are currently found in the Tea Party. Only you interpreted "a great many" as saying "all." That is your absolutism and hyper-sensitivity, not Dragoon's actual accusation. You completely misrepresented his argument and his point and instead focused on an argument that only existed in your own damn mind.

The irony of course is that Dragoon's point was that most of these people are separatists, segregationists, and anti-government.

John Bedell was a registered Democrat, but he was anti-government and self-identified as libertarian which is something you conveniently forgot to mention. He would fit Dragoon's profile. So your very first example attempting to debunk Dragoon only ended up proving Dragoon's point to be true- good job.

James Von Brunn wasn't a left winger nor was he anti-Christian. You completely made up those 2 accusations. He was anti-semantic (that means anti-Jewish) and a holocaust denier. He was also a Neo-Nazi and a conspiracy theorist who was against the federal reserve, identified as a member of the Tea Party, and was an Obama birther believer. Dragoon's description fits Von Brunn to a T. Again you just debunked yourself by using this guy as an example and proved Dragoon's point to be true.

The Jessica and Carol case- while tragic- wasn't an incident of mass murder. I don't even know why you cited this in your list. It had nothing to do with Dragoon's point even by your own misunderstanding of Dragoon's point. Secondly guns were not involved in this incident.

Ayers and the 2 liberation groups you talked about are certainly examples of domestic terrorism. Which certainly does need to be addressed: any radical or reactionary anti-governmentism can lend itself to actions that will cause people lives or cause severe damage to property (as with the case in Ayers). However none of these groups, as far as I know, have been involved in mass shootings in the US. They are examples of terrorism, but since Dragoon was specifically talking about this under the spectrum of gun control I have no idea why you thought it was relevant to bring these groups up.

Unfourtunatly we don't hear of these people until after they commit their atrosity. So how do you know that someone is in the KKK or ALF when they buy a gun. Is that on the application form?

The point Dragoon made was that he is in favor of some better gun regulation and he stated that he believes US Congressional members- especially those who oppose gun regulation in the name of the NRA- should be reminded of what people have done in the face of lax gun regulations. Dragoon then added the additional stipulation that most of these individuals are from the extreme right element which happens to be amongst the elements favoring lesser regulations for guns. His point being that US Congressional members need to be reminded of the consequences of their actions. The point you're getting at- that since we can't tell who is and who isn't an extremist- is irrelevant to the comment Dragoon was making.

If you want to argue that you think tighter gun regulations won't work then that's OK. You are welcome to take that position. Just please try to address the points people are actually making and to present your own logical arguments in return.

Did you read the last paragraph of his post Cartoon? Just asking.

Did you?

Considering that those same elements make up a large part of the Tea Party I would love to see the GOP renounce they crazy and actually try to protect the nation they pretend to represent

He did not say that the extremists who commit acts of violence with guns are entirely comprised of the Tea Party or vise versa now did he? No. I already stated this in my first post. He then stated that he wants the GOP congressional representatives who are pushing for less gun regulation to have to defend their policies knowing that a large chunk of the extremist activity from which gun violence erupts comes about because of that de-regulation. Again I already addressed this in my previous post.

I guess my point was missed. And that's my fault. I was trying to demonstrate that making rush judgements based on raw emotion will not solve this issue or stop future atrosoties. I guess my own stupid sense of humor got in my own way. My bad. But the fact remains that nutjobs exsist on both sides of the fence (see TCinLA) and that shouting "Gun Control" or "Gun Rights" from the roof tops will not bring these kids back.

I own dozens of guns and I would gladly give them all up if it would bring back just one of those kids/teachers. But it won't.

I stand by my post (and thank you CTN for the long form analysis nicely done)

As for how we determine "who" the extremists are that could be done through cross-referencing ATF,DEA FBI State and local agencies criminal databases and matching them against applicants for licenses. It could easily be done withing the programing of the database so that no personal information is released just the flag raised. After that if the person feels that they were flagged erroneously then they can appeal the flag. It might cause some delays in purchases but consider that we are already debating waiting periods that is a bit of a moot point.

If you are serious about keeping the guns out of the hands of the criminals and the nuts then you have to commit to doing things that actually DO that and not just pay the tragedies lip service and say "If only everyone were armed this wouldn't happen" If you are a law abiding and responsible person then be Law abiding and Responsible!

That seems like a good idea Dragoon. I would throw into that mixture that we need a national mental health registry. The registry would work that if you are a person who is receiving mental health services from a psychologist or psychiatrist either of your doctors (or both) can put a hold on your name that would bar you from certain types of employment and from being able to purchase or legally possess a gun as long as the hold is in place. We should make the registry specifically state that it's at the doctor's discretion of when to implement the hold and when to remove it.

I like this solution because the registry would work 2 ways. We right now have a situation where we're encouraging people with mental illness to not get treatment because they will face backlash throughout society. You can be denied housing, governmental assistance, and employment if you are diagnosed with a mental illness and/or treated for health problems related to a mental illness (like varying degrees of depression or anxiety). Not to mention the social stigma mentally ill people have to face regardless. This creates a system where we are encouraging people who might otherwise have gotten help to NOT get help because they do not want to be punished for having the audacity to get treatment. The registry would state that the doctor could then change the status of a patient receiving health services clearing them for employment opportunities, federal and/or state benefits, and other opportunities the person might have been denied. That means we'd be rewarding mentally ill people for getting treatment instead of the system we currently have which punishes and shames them for doing so.

Gun ownership would just be a side issue to that larger problem of helping the mentally ill get where they need to be instead of punishing them for having the audacity to admit they have a problem.

OK, OK all very good points. Now I have to get back to teaching my highschool psychology class. Indivisble with liberty and justice for ALL.

Considering the amounts of personal information we already provide to the world at large voluntarily (ie:Facebook, Twitter, Google et.al.) I don't think it's really that much of an intrusion or an imposition on anyone's rights to give information for something as potentially dangerous as owning a gun.

I want to make clear I am not now nor have I ever suggested "Banning" guns and I am more than willing to work out details on the subject with reasonable people, but being reasonable means being willing to do what is necessary to deal with the problem.

I honestly feel that there is a problem with Domestic terrorism involved in this issue and it's past high time we dealt with it and the issues behind it before it gets worse. We ask "what about the next Sandy Hook" when we should also wonder about the next Oklahoma City which I remind people also killed 19 people under the age of 6.

Self-respecting non-conservatives have excellent reasons to be very angry, especially when right-wing weasels start spouting flim-flam. Oh, yes, and "liberty and justice for all" my rosy red tuchis! The US still does not have "liberty and justice for all", and those on the right are clearly doing their worst to see that it never does have "liberty and justice for all".

Cartoon ---

it's "anti-Semetic"

but, anti-semantic is one i'll keep in my bag of tricks!

(puts on Spelling Police hat)

Actually, it's "anti-semitic" and the people are Semites.

(puts on Spelling Police hat)

Does that come with handcuffs and a whip?

Cartoon ---

it's "anti-Semetic"

but, anti-semantic is one i'll keep in my bag of tricks!

Well you're just playing semantics with your Semetic semitics!

Dragoon21b,

Don't forget the chains!

Cartoon --

very nice ...

one suggestion (of course)

Well you're just playing semantics with your Semetic semiOtics!

Actually nobody 'wins' because all of this is inherently flawed. The real problem is not gun violence, but us as Americans. Because we've defined ourselves by our conflicts. And we as a country would rather fight than sit down and figure something out that actually works. Our sense of compromise and handling any given situation, is forcing the other side to think like we do.

Stricter Gun Laws or Greater Gun Freedom is not going to work, in either case. Not until we as a Country grow up and learn that. Instead of looking for a conflict, fight and resorting to some form of violence as our first option.

thank you, Calvin Lundy. it's going to hurt a lot of folks on the left but the problem really is that "people kill people." and it's going to hurt both sides that apparently the only solution is to strictly control people, or at least their behavior, to have any hope of eliminating these tragedies.

the right wants to arm everybody to protect themselves from the mentally ill. the left wants to disarm everybody to protect themselves from the mentally ill. both sides have to agree that the problem is the mentally ill. neither side wants to do the hard things that would provide real protection.

the greatest impediment to a mental health approach seems to be the inability to put hard definitions and limits on what is a mental illness. couple this with the shortage of trained, unbiased, certifiably sane persons to create, conduct and evaluate the tests and the unwillingness of most people to take the test and you have a real problem.

a national registry of the mentally ill (even if the above problems could be overcome) has additional problems regarding secure access and insuring that nobody is on the list out of spite or for other's gain.

wow, tough nut to crack. do we infringe on personal privacy? do we limp along with inadequate definitions? do we arm everybody? do we disarm everybody?

i don't know the solution but i do know that if we don't find one we are doomed to see another tragedy like Newtown, or worse. maybe the time has come to forget sides and have an honest conversation about solutions, even imperfect ones.

Interestingly, Jack Kingston, one of the top three far right ashhats in the House, was on the Ed Show last night and said he was in favor of banning/restricting the receiver mechanism - which is the vital part of an assault weapon, get that and it doesn't matter what cosmetic changes they make to make "new" unregulated weapon as in the old assault weapons ban. When a guy like this says something like that on national TV on a "lefty" show, something's going to change.

Sadly, it took the deaths of 20 upper-class white kindergarteners who look just like the relatives of these congresscritters, for them to "get it," but Goodlatte, Blunt, and that lying POS Wayne LaPierre are about to find out it's happened and they didn't see it.

TC-

I had a very different take on the Jack Kingston interview. He was very careful with his words, and kept going back to the definition of assault weapons, which he said means more than one bullet per trigger pull. Seeing that automatic weapons are already not sold to the public, his response was "I'll be glad to have a conversation, but I won't change anything".

"..."is an important right, and it is in the Constitution."

Congress is also written into the Constitution and I don't see that they're working out so well either - can we turn up the fire under them?!?

TC - I'm with Very and I don't think anything is going to make them change their minds. As for being "careful with their words" - they know when to be "careful" (sometimes)....

I heard the same as Very Very Sad when I listened to the Kingston interview. Reducing magazine sizes can help, but while that might reduce body counts, it doesn't really address the problem. All of the young men who pulled off these mass murder suicides had obvious mental health issues that should have been picked up and treated but mostly weren't. We seem to have a rule in this country, no mental health treatment until after the mentally ill person hurts somebody.

"Nasty liberal nazis. You're going to make us defend our policies."

Ok, the Liberal Nazi comment was over the top. Sorry. But it bothers me when people use a tragedy to furthet their agenda. On both sides of the issue.

Ah, knuclebumper, it's soooo much fun to click the exclamation point on your post and notify it as "no value" and "inflammatory." Before the end of the day, you will be back in WhackoWorld with your sheep, doing what comes unnaturally, and we will be rid of you.

By the way, could you speak English? We don't understand "Southern Traitorish" here. Maybe if you stopped talking with your mouth full of fried squirrel that would help.

Just for the sake of clarification "Liberal Nazi" is an Oxymoron and a logical impossibility

Yea, but you'd have to have an IQ over 50 to understand that......he doesn't.

C'mon guys he/she admitted that the "liberal nazi" comment was over the top. He's right though, we as liberals should not use Newton politically. It can be a galvanizing force for a larger conversation but to say "a vote for republicans is tantamount to killing children" is way over the top. I know it sickened me to see the flagrant politicizing of Bengazi and 9/11 during the 2004/2008 campaign. I don't want to be guilty of it as well.

Yeah the Bengazi thing is BS. Just like this issue, I guess both sides need someone or something to blame. It makes us feel better.

Did you call me a HE/SHE? ;)

wasn't sure if you were male or female so I left it open so as to not insult you by assuming you were male or female.

I know. Just trying a little levity. But I got your point.

for some reason I completely missed the winking sign.

Another troll full of phoney "apologies" and "both sides" hogwash. Good luck trying to make any criticism of those on the right on the right-wing sites!

Actually Knucklebump, there are 10 states that have more gun deaths than auto deaths. Why is that? Because we continued throughout the years to do everything to make driving safer.

I don't care about gun rights, I care about potential victims' rights when it comes to guns. I want strong laws, not half baked laws.

Enough.

True enough. But do criminals and insane people follow the laws? We have hundreds of gun laws nationwide. Doesn't stop anything. Just like drunk driving laws don't stop drunks from getting behind the wheel.

Actually, knucklebumper, you moron, the facts are not on your side (surprise surprise). Only 2,000 more people died in auto accidents last year than died in gun-related incidents.

The truth, as they say, has a "liberal bias."

By the way, is your pee-pee that little and your life that much of a failure, that you have to be the ignorant white male loser with a gun out hating the world, that is the heart of the problem in this country?

Knucklebump, it's not just criminals.

Adults these days seem to be irresponsible. And we have to protect our citizens from that. "Accidents" mean accident. But people die because of accidents. And irresponsibility.

Kids find their parents' guns, all the time. And they play with these guns. And deadly accidents happen because of it.

Since we're going to bring up deaths caused by cars as a denial for common sense gun regulation, let's go there briefly: because laws will not totally stop car deaths, should we eliminate all laws regulating car ownership and operation? Why have laws against drunk driving, or wearing a seat belt, or using a car seat for kids, or even any kind of traffic control measures? What about having to register and insure our cars? People do violate all those things regardless of the laws, so why have them at all?

That is exactly what those who say no to any kind of reasonable gun regulations is advocating.

And please don't tell me it's all covered by the 2nd Amendment, which gives us the right to 'bear' arms, while the constition doesn't cover car ownership. The Supreme Court has delivered several decisions on what comprises the 2nd Amendment rights.

The latest was in the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, clearly states the 2nd Amendment does not give us unlimited rights. Restrictions of gun ownership in certain cases does not violate the 2nd Amendment. Restrictions on where guns can be carried, or licenses and certain laws governing guns are perfectly acceptable and do not violate our 2nd Amendment rights.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Pay particular attention to the beginning of Section III. The decision is long, but well worth the time spent reading it.

Also, a vehicle serves more than one purpose none of which are "intended" to murder. A gun serves one purpose whether it be for hunting home defense or overthrowing a government and that is to convert something that is currently breathing into something that no longer breathes. To equate guns with really anything else that is regulated is specious at best. Further, vehicles are highly regulated and are constantly being redesigned to be safer. Please Mr. Knuckle provide me a list of new safety features being installed standard on guns and I'll provide you a list of new safety features that are standard on cars.

True. Parents need to do a better job of securing their guns AND teaching their children about gun saftey. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't own them. Agreed.

So what is it? One purpose or three? Guns are highly regulated too. But that wil not stop a madman (or madwoman) from doing what they want to do. Kill. They will find a way to do it.

So what do we do? Stop sales of assualt rifles? Ok what about the millions that are already out there?

Stop sales of high capacity magazines? Ok the shooter just carry's more mags or reloads more often.

I wish I had answers for this. I don't think teachers or administrators should be armed cuz the kids might find the gun. And accidents do happen.

So what is it? Armed guards at all schools?

The answer is not "nothing" is the point people are making. What about strict laws on who can buy guns coupled with mechanisms mandated on all guns that restrict who is capable of firing the gun. There is technology out there that restricts who is capable of firing a gun once purchased and assigned to that individual. If you couple that with regulations that restrict who can buy the gun and then that person who cannot buy the gun also cannot fire the gun, that could go a long way. Will it stop every shooting or even every mass killing, absolutely not, does that mean we shouldn't try, absolutely not.

And my "one purpose" is killing regardless of what it's killing it's to kill and nothing else, that is why the gun exists. A vehicle exists for transportation, it is not designed solely to kill people and that is why they are not equivalent.

When was the last time 20 6 year olds died in a car accident? The key word here is accident. These shootings are not accidental.

No one stated that you will ever be able to bring the death toll to 0 of the daily deaths that occur from gun accidents nor did anyone say that you would be able to bring the number of mass shootings to 0. You are pushing the conversation to it's most extreme element in order to postulate a false dichotomy. By stating "well since we can't get it to 0 we therefore shouldn't do anything" you make it impossible to have a conversation about the issue at hand and you set unrealistic and impractical expectations as a way of avoiding the conversation. This ends up becoming nothing more than a sneaky form of a red herring argument. Absolution is not a necessity when attempting to address issues politically so to postulate it as such immediately takes any credibility you may have had in this conversation and destroys it.

We're talking about how we reduce the number of incidents involving guns. Cars are irrelevant (red herring), smoking is irrelevant (red herring), everything besides guns is irrelevant to this conversation. Telling us that we can't achieve 100% is irrelevant and is assuming a position that no one actually argued. Lastly playing the "blame the minority" game of stating that "well it's just criminals or it's just the mentally ill who commit these crimes" is also an insufficient answer. First and foremost you don't have a statistical representative model of how many mentally ill persons versus non-mentally ill persons commit crimes. Likewise you have no matrix to show how many people commit mass murder using guns who had no criminal record or prior mental illness history versus those that do. Until and unless you can present that information you cannot present this as a valid counter argument.

Cartoon, that was my exact point, thank you for stating it so eloquently. that argument is a favorite of people right now. My automatic response is, well you know rape's illegal but rape still happens better legalize it cause it's useless.

of course it's not a perfect argument from our side. For instance, the end goal is to prevent murder. Well murder is already illegal. Like with vehicles the goal is to prevent drunk driving so we make it illegal to drive drunk, we don't take away the vehicle. Thus, with guns we are asking to go one step further, instead of just making mass shootings illegal we want to do something to try and prevent the ability to engage in mass shootings. That is where the conversation gets hairy.

Responsible gun owners rightly can argue that they should not be punished because of a few misguided nut jobs which is absolutely valid. That is also why the conversation needs to involve both sides so that we can come to some agreements for responsible regulations or changes to the gun laws in this country that do not remove rights from responsible law abiding gun owners but at the same time make it more difficult for irresponsible individuals to use guns for evil. What we don't need are gun owners who try and shout as loudly as possible about something else to distract from any meaningful discussion about gun regulation (i.e. arm teachers, it's really mental health, we can't get rid of all guns so why try).

Your last paragraph sums it up nicely, Tiger.

I don't want to see people who are otherwise law abiding citizens and who take care of their property be punished for the actions of negligent others. But we are never, ever going to get to a discussion actually dealing with the issue at hand if we allow talking points and logical fallacies to dominate the conversation. That is what has held us back and keeps holding us back when we approach this issue of gun control. "Well it's just the mentally ill," "well we can't get the death toll to 0 so why bother," "well we can't get every gun confiscated out of the hands of criminals so why bother," etc., etc. These lines sound great, they are easily memorized, and they are easily spread. But they do nothing to produce a conversation that can actually help the problems we're trying to address.

I refuse to believe that there is no happy middle here. I absolutely refuse to believe that there isn't an answer here where gun owners can have most if not all of their rights protected and we as a society don't have to have as many deaths per year or as many mass shootings per year as a consequence. It's insane, at least to me, to propose that it's an either/or.

"But we are never, ever going to get to a discussion actually dealing with the issue at hand if we allow talking points and logical fallacies to dominate the conversation."

The Gun Cult ardently wants "talking points and logical fallacies to dominate the conversation" because they clearly don't want to actually deal "with the issue at hand".

If I could jump in to the conversation, tiger and cartoon, I think you both are making great points. The answer can not be "do nothing", and that's what needs to be repeated endlessly. We need to convince others that ignoring the problem or making it worse by adding yet more guns to the mix is not an option. This is where I think smart trigger technology might be a good compromise that people on both sides could agree on, where the gun will only fire by "registered" users. This way, law abiding folks get to keep their weapons while making them useless to those whose biometrics don't match the gun.

I wondered why we couldn't use something that at the very least allows us to track a gun by the places that it's registered. I know that they have barcodes they can encode on guns that are not easily corroded or gotten rid of. The current barcodes on most guns are imprinted and can be shaved off so I had been thinking maybe, at the least, we should switch to the encoded ones the military and police use. If you can have a barcode on a gun that recognizes say, like, finger prints that would've stopped something like the Newton massacre full throttle.

I also think we need to finally outlaw the backdoor loophole of where guns are sold. Only persons with valid dealer's licenses should be allowed to sell guns OR 2 private citizens can as long as the sale is notarized by a licensed dealer (like we already do with cars, ships, and airplanes). No more of this guy walks into a gun shop, buys the maximum amount of guns, and then walks out and sells them to anyone who he wants to in the parking lot (Fast and Furious). And if you combined this with the national mental health registry you'd have a situation where if someone was being treated for an illness or had been hospitalized for one and then refused treatment and they were deemed a threat by the doctor they would not be cleared to purchase a gun.

I also think we should limit the amount of ammunition a person can buy in one sitting. A person who goes to a gun range to shoot off rounds should be able to purchase larger quantities as long as he stays at the gun range, but if he intends to take the rounds home there should be a limited amount. There isn't a reason I can think of for why someone would need to be taking home hundreds or even thousands of rounds of ammunition in one sitting unless they were going to use those rounds for practice. So allow them to purchase rounds to use at a competition or for practice and then restrict them if they want to use higher quantities at home. Limiting the number of rounds a person could buy would have severely limited the ability of Loughner to carry out his shooting in Arizona.

Hey kevo those two like to see people have fun with their with weapons and banana clips. Like target practicing in malls, theaters and schools. Over the top? Maybe,but I ca'nt get the pictures of those little kids out of my head.

OK, had to look that up to figure out what "equipment" you were talking about. (Hint: there's a you tube clip if you google the quoted part.) (NSFW!!)

Yep. Pathetic, really.

Actually, their problem is their "gun" is so small, they can't find it, so they stroke each other's gun barrels.

poor little moron - it was not only used by the Marines and the Army, we used to say it in the Navy.

I hear mommy wants the computer back, little boy. And the sheep are calling, too.

and if you were a Marine (which you most likely weren't), you were probably dropped before you became "Gomer Pyle" you little wingnut psycho.

I love it TC. Are you sweating yet? I know, I know those mean nasty conservitives are so hateful. They post all kinds of name calling and false accusations.

3rd Battalion/5th Marines

Squid

It's NOT from "Full Metal Jacket"... FMJ came out in 87, based on a book from 79... It was a popular chant during MY time in service, US Army, 72-78, Airborne Medic...

Then again, we we told if we wanted to play with guns, join the Artillery...

I see from Mr Knuckles bio, he is a recent registration, and so far this is the only post he's commented on.... So, we either have a newbie, or a re-reg... If he's new, I might recommend reading the COH again... If he's a re-reg, well, that tells you all you need to know...

We are a nation that lives in constant fear... Fear of the "Other"... The problem is we are a nation of "OTHERS"... The is no one physical trait that defines us as Americans... Until that day comes when we are able to break the bonds of fear, we are never going to be a truly free and peaceful society...

....knuckle what post were you trying to respond to here? I think you accidentally posted here when you meant to somewhere else. I have no idea what it is you're responding to.

I was being sarcastic. High Valor, that's funny. That's what our FO used to say.

Yes I got that you were being humorous...I just don't understand. Who said "high valor?" Where did that come from?

Your first clue should have been "our M-14". That is what we carried in 1963. Fired the NATO 7.62 round.

Nice. I hope you never had to use it.

Knucklehead is the sort of Marine who prompted sayings like "You can always tell a Marine, but you can't tell him much." I first heard it in the days when Women Marines were rare. Speaking of WMs, on another forum I related that I had heard male Marines speaking of WMs as BAMs, or "Big-Ass Marines". Some "Semper fi" guy got all overheated and vehemently denied that any Marine had ever said any such thing. Pig-headed denial of unpleasant reality is by no means confined to the Marine Corps, though.

yes knucle(head)bump......our pneumonia is a horrrible education system...people are fed bad information (mostly) from right wing media....

statistics don't lie.....more guns = more gun violence....

Yes right Knucklehead let us just continue to use our first grade classrooms for shooting galleries

Of course 2nd Amendment rights trump their right to grow up

Thanks for the many demonstrations today, knucklebumper, that there are indeed two separate species of hairless biped on the planet: Homo Sapiens (us) and Homo Sap (you.)

Now give mommy back the computer and go play with your sheep, little boy, they miss you.

You have been fun, however, clicking the exclamation point on your posts and giving your b.s. the proper classifications: "no value" and "inflammatory."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/gun-buyback-programs-are-thriving-never-after-newtown/60157/

TC in LA and stphil, Only a few fools have ever questioned my liberal credentials, and I don't agree with Knuckle on much of anything he is saying here, but the personal assaults on him are a affront to everybody who wants to have a reasoned discussion. Please stop the personal attacks. They add nothing to this or any other conversation.

wow

Over the years, I have encountered far too many "liberals" who are way too hung up on their precious Personal Virtue to be of any real use in the struggle for social justice. The Usesnet newsgroup soc.motss was full of people like that.

Yea, lets all talk about the "root causes" and argue them forever while children die. We KNOW one way to save lives, why not do that instead of "passing the buck"?

Some sort of trigger lock that prevents anyone other than the authorized owner of the gun from firing the gun would have prevented NewTown. There is technology out there that can accomplish this the question is can we make it affordable to the every day gun owner.

Oh you could put a chip in the gun and a sensor to pickup a finger print or something like that It would be expensive for quite awhile and would never get into the 270 million guns already out there.

The user only trigger devises are available. I have actually seen some. They are expensive and the technology just isn't there right now. The technology lends itself well to the new style plastic framed large capacity handguns, but not very well to hunting rifles, shotguns or old style revolvers. Of course the large capacity new style handguns and rifles are the ones we are mostly concerned about so the suggestion might be step in the right direction.

The real problem, however, is with the 270 million existing firearms. Guns last a long, long time. I doubt many people will voluntarily turn theirs in. Australia is often said to be a model of severe gun control, but I have heard that many Australians still own guns--illegally in some cases--but they won't let them go.