Let's hear it again for Harry Reid's masterful filibuster "reform" efforts as he bent over for McConnell to have his way.

Others have pointed out the Social Security number database as well, but what Hatch and others are inferring is that there would be a database of gun owners and the government would know who has guns that they can confiscate.

Since there are already background checks there is already a database - it's just not complete because of private sales and the gun show loophole. Somehow if the database is more accurate, it's a problem for him.

The odd thing to me is that he believes that the government, of which he is a part of, is or will become tyrannical. If it is the current government, the one that will have difficulty passing background check or assault weapon ban legislation, how on earth would this government approve the confiscation of guns? If a future government has tyrannical leanings to confiscate weapons, won't they also have no problem in first creating a complete database of gun owners?

The odd thing to me is that [Hatch] believes that the government, of which he is a part of, is or will become tyrannical.

That's just it, Patriot. I'm sure he doesn't actually think that. But the people who want to build relevance in right-wing ideas need to keep their followers engaged, and the best way to do that is through fear-mongering and scape-goating. In this case, they're saying that "the government is out to get you" and they'll do it using the gun database.

I know this is ironic, but one of the lessons that Ayn Rand teaches is that, if something just doesn't make sense, you must first examine your premises. (Another lesson is that truth isn't subject to majority vote, but I'll leave that for another time.) At any rate, it DOES seem odd that these lawmakers are proclaiming the need for the populace to defend against--them??

So again, examine your premises. Maybe they don't believe that at all. As I just said, it's all about keeping their base riled up. I once had a therapist tell me that when you get upset or angry, your IQ gets cut by a third. I think it's true.

Hey, Brewman Patriot, I take your point, but my point is, if Hatch et al.'s paranoia about the government were indeed correct, the government would hardly need to wait for a 'gun issue' to start targeting people. They've long had the means and various databases upon which to practice 'tyranny.'

Brewer,

when i think of "tyrannical gov't", i think of gov't forcing women to have babies after a rape.

We have a totally bought and paid for congress. We have a a bunch of ignorant, right wing, T-Party types who were put in the House of Representatives to destroy anything the president tried to pass to help the economy and the people of this country. We have these people gerrymandered into power till 2020. They fear only a primary from someone more to the right than they are. Apparently their constituents are extremists and T-Party types. National will means nothing to them. They hate Democrats and most especially President Obama. They hate government and want to starve it to death.

Tell me again how quickly we will get any kind of gun safety laws passed. Tell me how we will get anything meaningful passed. Can we talk about how soon these people in congress will vote for universal health care (A real deficit lowering plan, BTW) But of course, even if it helps the deficit, it is ............government run, like Medicare. Tell me how quickly that will find favour with the likes of a Michele Bachmann and her peers. Tell me how quickly the president's agenda is going to come to fruition with the right-wing minority running the show.

I'm listening.

Actually, India, I believe this is the biggest misconception about the ACA. It doesn't call for government management of anything except for the insurance exchanges in the states that choose not to do this themselves and expanded Medicaid for people who can't afford the required insurance. Mostly there are certain new rules (mandatory preventive care without co-pay, no refusal for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime cap on coverage and so forth), but you'll still be dealing with an insurance company and not the government for your coverage.

It's Business as Usual, except the unsuspecting customer isn't going to get shafted by her insurance company when she didn't reveal that she'd been treated for acne 40 years ago and they're using that to refuse to pay for her gall bladder operation.

And your car is actually more dangerous. Well, for a couple more years anyway.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

Exactly. You had to pass a test to drive your car, & it has to be inspected every year. If you took out a car loan, you went through background checks relating to your ability to make the payments.

I've always wondered why I should stop at red lights. Isn't that an infringement on my liberty?

Right, Trompeter. Laws, although they have threats of force behind them, are really dependent on people agreeing to follow them. If everyone decided to ignore red lights or traffic lanes or speed limits, we'd have chaos and lots of crashes. But we generally obey the law, and it's better for everyone.

These complaints about loss of liberty if guns are registered or background checks made don't sound very convincing. I really don't care that my state knows what vehicle I drive and where I live.

And why even bother with speed limits! We all speed any way!

Speed limits.... We've had those since 1901 yet they haven't taken away our right to drive!! And they say you can't drive around a car that has spears instead of bumpers. But I guess it does protect other drivers if I have bumpers so that seems reasonable. Both of these tyrannical restrictions, yet we still have cars.. go figure!!

So why is it that a ban on an assault rifle, or a limit on magazine size is the "path to taking away our guns!!"... Duh, just duh!!

People who have bumper stickers that say "Brakes are for pussies" are an excellent reason why regulation of driving is necessary.

Why is one more moral than the other? I assume you believe that it's just to have background checks in order to buy a gun. That it's not just to drug test food stamp recipients. Would it be just to do a background check on someone seeking an abortion? What if we forced everyone to get a mental evaluation before they can practice their right to go to church?

Let's try a little consistency in our logic, people. It is insulting to force people to get drug tested before they can get food stamps. It would be even more insulting to require a background check before you can practice one of your inalienable rights, like the right to have an abortion, or the right to freely practice your religion, or your right to self-determination and self-defense.

Re: #5.1

It's way easier to kill someone with a gun than with food stamps.

The "worst" thing that happens if some on drugs gets their hands on food stamps is ... they get to eat.

And getting food stamps isn't an inalienable right.

Ok Alva, let's explore this idea of weapons as an "inalienable right".

(Btw, another of your "inalienable" rights, the right to have an abortion, is under assault by many states all across the country, but I digress.)

Should there be any restriction on private ownership of weapons in the United States?

Secretly, I agree that the right to an abortion is an inalienable right. Denying such rights is a violation of our 4th amendment rights of privacy, and our 14th amendment right of Due Process and self-determination. At least, that's what the Supreme Court found in the Roe decision, and I agree.

And yes, there should be restrictions onf the private ownership of weapons. Any weapon that would be wholly ineffective or inefficient for an individual to use for self-defense purposes against other individuals would be inappropriate for someone to legally own.

So I am all in favor of outlawing the use of the private ownership of nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket launchers, grenades, chemical and biological weapons, and the like.

I wouldn't include a semi-auto rifle in such a list, regardless of what it looks like.

5.5 It's not what the weapons look like; it's about the destruction they can do in split seconds without thought.

Judy, then you're in favor of banning semi-auto hunting rifles then, right?

http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/gundumb.jpg

Didn't mean to leave you hanging there Alva.

Ok, so you agree there can be some restriction on the right of a citizen to bear arms. I'm glad you can be reasonable about this. At that point becomes a question of where do you draw the line. The "inalienable" (absolute) right you mentioned just became, well, "alienable".

So where do we draw that line in terms of weaponry? Flame thrower? Mace (chemical vs. medieval head basher)? Crossbows? Tasers? Stun guns? Sonic incapacitators? Neural dampeners?

Can this right be restricted by individual rather than weapon? A confirmed paranoid schizophrenic? Convicted violent criminals? Clowns?

How about location? Can an individual carry an AK47 into a post office? How about an axe? Chainsaw? How about a hospital?

No, it's not alienable. No one could argue rationally and reasonably that someone would need a tank to provide for the self defense of an individual against other individuals.

Generally speaking, any weapon that would harm or kill large numbers of people indiscriminately I think we ought to take a look at banning. So, for instance, it's not appropriate to allow the civilian use of grenades. You can't really aim a grenade at one particular dangerous person. The same would apply to a flame thrower. It wouldn't to a mace, or to pepper spray. It wouldn't to a crossbow, taser, or stun gun. It would to sonic incapacitators. It would to a microwave cannon. It would to a rocket launcher. You see my reasoning?

We do restrict the rights of certain individuals, but I don't think that's right. It's just seems wrong to give different people different numbers of rights. For instance, I think it's also wrong that we don't allow minors, prisoners, or resident aliens to vote. Representation should be genuine, regardless of your status. If someone is a violent convicted criminal, then you should be behind bars, where I presume they don't have gun stores.

Rights to carry a weapon is different than keeping a weapon in your home. You have a choice where you go. But your own private home should be your own private home.

I think it's perfectly legitimate not to allows weapons in a court room, or a plane, or some other government building like a school. I think it's perfectly legitimate to bar such weapons from hospitals and bars. Private businesses also should have the right to bar people entering from having weapons, if that's what they so choose.

As a practical matter, a gun will not be an effective tool for self-defense in any location with a lot of people, because the chances are high that innocent bystanders will be injured. So it's proper to bar guns from sports stadiums, shopping malls, from public transportation like buses or trains.

Ok, I was being cute in the use of the world "alienable". The right to bear arms cannot be sold or transferred, but I think there is a discrepancy in how we are understanding the word "inalienable". It seems to me you have been using the word to mean "unassailable" or "absolute", but by your own admission you agree the ownership and/or location of weapons can be restricted. What do you mean when you say it is an "inalienable right"?

As to the class of weapons, I think I see your reasoning. Single target weapons are ok and they can be barred from crowded places where collateral damage would be likely.

All right, indulge me for a minute.

How about spread fire weapons like a shotgun? Presumably not, since flame throwers would be banned.

Automatic weapons? No? Rate of fire too fast?

Burst fire weapons? Is that too fast?

Semi-automatic? No? That's ok?

How do we determine the acceptable rate of fire of a weapon under a document written when the maximum rate of fire was something like 4 per minute?

Perhaps that is the standard we should use. Anything non-single target weapon with a rate of fire faster than 4/min would be banned.

I'm using the word "inalienable" the same way it's being used in the Declaration of Independence. Meaning, it cannot be (justly) taken away. And my argument is not that we have an inalienable right to weapons, but an inalienable right to life, and therefore the right of self-defense to protect your life.

I would say a shotgun would be included in the things not to be banned, considering that they are particularly useful in home defense. A shotgun is probably the single most popular choice of weapon for home defense. So it has great utility as a self-defense weapon. Now, if you were talking about a semi-auto shotgun like an AA-12, while I would have a freaking blast shooting one at a range, I would be ok with it being barred from use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-esAq-pbd4

Having shot a fully auto AR-15, I can tell you the ability to control where the weapon is aimed at is not very precise. And quite frankly, I think full auto is a waste of ammo. For this reason, I think full auto weapons have poor utility as a self-defense weapon, and therefore can legitimately be banned. Three round burst weapons can be too, but I might grumble about it.

For those not knowledgeable about guns, let's be clear what semi-auto really means. Just about every modern pistol is semi-auto. You pull a trigger once, one bullet comes out. You pull the trigger again, another bullet comes out. If the police are going to use semi-auto pistols to protect and defend themselves, then obviously they have a defensive use and utility. And it makes no sense to me to ban a semi-auto rifle but not ban a semi-auto handgun.

"Perhaps that is the standard we should use. Anything non-single target weapon with a rate of fire faster than 4/min would be banned."

Absolutely not. There are obvious self-defensive uses of a gun capable of firing faster than that. Keep in mind, revolvers and semi-auto handguns and rifles all shoot at nearly the same speed. That speed is determined by how fast you can pull your trigger finger. The only real difference is that with a semi-auto pistol, follow up shots are in single-action, while a revolver is in double action. Even a civilian AR-15 or an AK-47 won't shoot any faster than your standard pistol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhfOcGLIyoE

"As I've thought more about this, I'm now of the opinion that there shouldn't be any background checks at all." (in #13 below)

The anarcho-syndicalist's gun fetish just gets worse.

I think you mean, "right wing primary voters".

Are you saying that the Second Amendment ought to apply to IEDs? Now there's an interesting thought.

Great. Next thing you know they'll want to do background checks before we can buy plastic explosives. :-P

Yes, a slippery slope indeed.

#8.3 Indeed, a slippery slope.

There goes sparklers on the the of July. The black helicopters will be watching us on Independence Day if Obama gets his gun safety laws passed.

Next: water guns.

And yet people like Hatch are far from stupid. Unscrupulous, yes. But they exploit the stupidity of others in order to further their own advantage and that of the people who fund them.

It is not tyranny from Republicans; they are merely proving that insanity is contagious as well as hereditary.

sunmusing,

I am tired of it, too. Sadly, we are stuck with these chuckleheads till 2020. How do you think Obama' second term is going to go? Between them and no filibuster reform, it's is essentially 4 more years of gridlock, lies, distortions, obstructions, and hate for the president.

Our government is broken. That's a fact. Since the rise of the T-Party, we have been going downhill fast. Now they are entrenched in congress.

Great point. For the right wing, threats and enemies are essential to continuing the flow of $$$ to keep the fear mongers and demagogues funded.

It is sickening, they are deliberately keeping the stupid even more stupid. May the demise happen soon to be replaced by at least a beginning of a return to sanity. It is just unbelievable.

Alva: Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say "Right of Self Defense?"

Remember, the Constitution is "dead, dead, dead" and means exactly what it says, and nothing more.

Alva: You lie!!! You have consistently railed against any kind of reasonable gun control, including background checks on these boards. You must have no respect for your fellow bloggers to post such drivel.

Tiger, the Constitution DOES NOT GRANT US RIGHTS. Rather, the Constitution prohibits certain kinds of actions the government is allowed to take. For instance, the 1st amendment doesn't say you have a right of free speech. Rather it says, "Congress shall make no law..."

Similarly, the 2nd amendment does not state you have a right to own a gun. It says "shall not be infringed".

It is simply assumed you have those rights.

Alexander Hamilton was afraid that people would make the same mistake you just did. That the Bill of Rights are the list of rights we have, and no more. That is why he said in Federalist #84:

"It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince...It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people...Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations"

Hamilton's fears led directly the 9th Amendment, which states in full:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So yes, we are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among them, but not limited to, are the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And if I am to have a right to my own life, then I have a right to protect and defend my life.

Lebowsky,

I'm not lying. And there is nothing reasonable about stripping me, or anyone else of our inalienable rights. Be it the right to have an abortion, the right to peacefully assemble, the right to privacy, the right to be secure in your persons, papers, and effects, or your right of self-defense.

If it was unjust for Bush to spy on Americans, violating our 4th amendment rights under the guise of keeping us safe from terrorists, then it is equally unjust to violate our 2nd amendment rights under the guise of keeping us safe from gun violence.

Alva: You are sadly mistaken about alot, apparently. Nothing polls over 90% like this does, so no matter what completely ignorant things you post here, you find yourself in a tiny minority of people who value guns over the safety of others. This position you have could possibly be the most extreme position ever taken in politics, this notion that over 90% of Americans is so wrong...

Alva "A well regulated militia...." You seemed to forget that part. Congress can pass laws regulating the militia. Background checks fall within that regulation.

To join the Army you are required to go through background checks.

Lebowsky, Mark Twain once said, "whenever you find yourself in the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

Tiger, read the Heller decision. The supreme court has found that the "militia" clause does not infer any caveats upon the "shall not be infringed" clause.

I've read Heller. And it is intellectual claptrap. Particularly the "not withstanding laws to keep weapons our of the hands of felons, mentally ill, etc."

The 2nd doesn't say that, or "self defense" So the Court is inferring some limits. The NRA infers some limits.

Bottom line, Should John Hinkley Jr., should he ever be adjudicated sane, be allowed to by a firearm?

Alva, you are not the arbiter of what is constitutional or not. So, your statements are simply opinions that have no real weight behind them in terms of precedence or logic. As I'm sure you understand, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

I have been to quite a few gun shows, and you are correct in that the open racism is appalling. The last one I went to had more Nazi and KKK paraphernalia in one place than I'd ever seen. There was also a booth that had slavery and Jim Crow era items, such as a sign for "whites only" water fountains and the like. Unfortunately, this was one of the busier booths at the show. Going to a gun show in the south (this is where I have had my experience), is like taking a step back in time. And it is these types of people that are propelling the anti-gun laws propaganda, their fears being stoked by the armament manufacturers and other hard core right wing entities who's only aim is profit. And you seem to have bought right into their fear and cowardice.

The bottom line is we Americans who are NOT deluded by paranoid fantasies about our Government suddenly becoming Nazis or Communists are controlling this debate, and we will enact the changes necessary to make our society safer. And we are the majority.

We Americans are for common sense gun laws that were already on the books and being enforced before the Gun Armament lobby took over the NRA and other Gun groups then proceeded to pervert the meaning of the 2nd amendment. And we are the majority.

Alva, the 2nd Amendment does NOT imply a personal freedom to carry lethal weapons, not at all. It very explicitly says that States may continue operating their Militias... which means Virginia and the Carolinas could maintain their Slave Patrols, and thereby the underpinnings of the Southern Ecomomy.

In other words, the 2nd Amendment wasn't about protecting individual rights, it was about denying individual rights to slaves. It's really that simple.

Own your history.

Tiger, I agree that Heller is largely intellectual claptrap, but it is the law of the land. First, I don't think Hinckley should ever be set free. But if we had background checks before he shot Reagan and James Brady, they would not have prevented Hinckley from obtaining a gun. So, what's the point of the background checks in the first place? Should convicted felons who have served their time and repaid their debt to society be allowed to vote? Yes or no? Why shouldn't they have every other right? Where is the logical and moral consistency here?

Citizen, my experience at gun shows, even in northern Virginia, has been nearly identical to yours.

That being said, I came to this position independently. I don't fear the gov't going communist. I think if anything drastic happens (unlikely), it will most likely be a kind of soft fascism (the literal definition of that term).

But when it comes to buying into fear and cowardice, I think progressives need to look in the mirror. The fear we have of guns is utterly absurd. Especially when guns are several times more likely to save lives and prevent crime than cause crime and take lives.

Again, there is nothing common sense about taking away our rights. Just as it is not common sense to spy on Americans to prevent terrorist attacks under the guise of public safety.

Lastly, I'd like to note that I have studied psychology fairly extensively. And I certainly noticed that the shooter in Aurora and at Sandy Hook had both been given treatment for their mental illnesses. The most common mental illness among young people is depression. The most commonly prescribed medications for treating depression are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. SSRI's have been known to have a dissociative effect, numbing emotions until the patient can't feel anything anymore, including guilt.

Do you know what you call someone who is incapable of feeling guilt? A psychopath. Serial killers are psychopaths. And SSRI's have already been linked to teen suicide.

So instead of blaming the 38 million dollar gun industry, maybe we ought to blame the 289 BILLION dollar pharmaceutical industry.

Do you think the Obama administration will have a Presidential commission to find out if big pharma has been making our nation's children go crazy when that very same industry donated 1.8 million to Obama's re-election campaign?

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04

Well, we already knew that the soi-disant "anarcho-syndicalist" has a gun fetish, and he shows it again. And again, I will observe that he is nothing but a thug with intellectual pretensions.

Entropy, name calling? Really? I'm a thug? I'm a thug who spent the better half of a decade volunteering my time at homeless shelters. I'm a thug who spent 13 years as a vegetarian, 2 of which as a vegan, in order to prevent my own contribution to the cruelty of animals. I'm a thug who has taken in a half dozen homeless people and put a roof over their heads, paying for it with my own pocketbook. I'm a thug who when protesting the Iraq War saw an elderly woman get knocked down by an out of control police force, and carried her to safety. I'm a thug who has volunteered my time to help an organization that cares for abused children. I am the complete opposite of a thug.

I have never been anything but civil to everyone here, and I have never named called. You can agree with me or disagree with me, but at the very least I deserve the same modicum of respect and civility that I give everyone else.

Sez you. Don't break your rotator cuff patting yourself on the back. Why don't you write a punk rock song about it. How "respectful" were you, when you sneered "What has the left accomplished in twenty years" in an earlier thread? Lebowsky Dude had you dead to rights: "You have consistently railed against any kind of reasonable gun control, including background checks on these boards. You must have no respect for your fellow bloggers to post such drivel." Your obvious gun fetish is totally at odds with the image of yourself that you tried to present above. I have no respect for you and refuse to pretend that I do.

Entropy, wait a second. Weren't you the one who accused me of being a racist for saying that Malcolm X and the Black Panthers should get more credit for what was accomplished with the Civil Rights movement?

The one surprise I noticed when I came to the conclusion I did on gun rights, was just how different it was to be on the winning side of an issue.

I think progressives need to take a really good look in the mirror and examine what we have really accomplished in the last 20 years. Did we prevent NAFTA and free trade from destroying our economy? No. The GOP has gone full tilt against union rights. What have the Democrats done to expand union rights? Nothing. Did we stop the Iraq War? No. Did we impeach Bush? No, that was off the table before we could even talk about it. Did anyone get prosecuted for torturing people? No. Did Wall Street get prosecuted for the biggest white collar crime spree in world history? No. Did the executives at Black Water get put in prison for giving our soldiers contaminated water and shower stalls that executed them? No. Did we close Gitmo? No. Did we end the Patriot Act? No. Did we establish a living wage? No. Did we end the use of nuclear power? No. Did we end the drug war? No.

Have we ended the non-stop polluting of the planet, which in turns creates global warming which threatens all life on this planet in the very near future? No, we just let oil executives to continue making a buck.

Even on Obama's most notable achievement of health care reform, did we get single payer health care? No, we didn't even get a public option. Did we end the Bush tax cuts? No, we only ended them for a tiny fraction of the ultra wealthy. Have we raised taxes on the rich back to where they were pre-Reagan? No.

The list of failures of the progressive movement is massive. Don't pretend that ending bad Republican policies are victories when we shouldn't have allowed them to happen in the first place.

All of us on the left have come to accept this without giving this much thought. We're used to losing. And we lose a lot. We supposed to be placated by the occasional election victory, and then our favorite Democrats enact Republican policies.

And it's been quite a wake up call for me, who have found myself more or less agreeing with the Republican party on the one issue of gun rights, that it's amazing because for once I'm on the winning side of an issue. Do you have any idea of how good that feels? I know the answer to that. You don't.

Alva, your statement "Again, there is nothing common sense about taking away our rights.", is exactly what I meant when I said you are not the arbiter of what is a right and what isn't. You state your opinion as fact and act as if we are all simply too obtuse to understand. I assure you, this is not the case.

I'd suggest you research the history of gun laws and regulations in this country before you make absolutist statements about 2nd amendment rights.

Citizen, I understand your point, but I am basing my opinion on the facts as I understand them. It just seems logical to me that if you place caveats on a right, we're no longer treating it as a right, but as a privilege. I see unnecessary regulations on the right to have an abortion (like having a medically unnecessary ultrasound) to be a violation of those rights. The Supreme Court may not have decided that is the case, but that is my opinion, and I believe it is an opinion based on sound reasoning.

In presenting this argument I have referenced the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. The fact that there is a history of laws abridging our rights, do not make those laws just.

All I ask is that if my reasoning is faulty, that you present a logical argument to explain why I am wrong.

Citizen...,

And don't forget that he uses our unwillingness to allow the right to accumulate guns at will in their campaign to overthrow the government as evidence that we are "afraid of guns". The "anarcho-syndicalist" really needs to get over himself. He is another one with a severe case of "My ass is golden" syndrome. He will be terribly shocked when his private arsenal fails to keep the right from wiping him out...or he is actually one of them.

"The fact that there is a history of laws abridging our rights, do not make those laws just. All I ask is that if my reasoning is faulty, that you present a logical argument to explain why I am".

You just did it for me Alva. The founding fathers were wise enough to know that the constitution must be a living breathing document, something that is malleable to the era in which it is being interpreted.

Your absolutist argument about the 2nd amendment in particular, and failure to understand the context of the documents you cite are example enough of your faulty reasoning.

Citizen, you can tell me I have failed to understand the context of the documents I cite, but you haven't proved it. I could tell you that I'm the Jolly Green Giant, but unless I can produce evidence of this, then you should rightfully discard the claim.

If I have failed to understand the context of said documents, please, I beg of you, to prove it. Not with your opinion, but with written historical documentation.

Just a reminder, I referenced the 8th paragraph of Federalist 84, the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. I also referenced the majority opinion in the Roe decision.

Let me remind you that it's 2013 not 1776. Times do change. You do realise this I hope.

Citizen, you're not winning the argument here. Give me some reason why the 236 years that's passed since we declared independence from England would make the 2nd Amendment null and void. 236 years later is the 1st amendment null and void? How about the 4th? The 5th?

Citizen...,

The anarcho-syndicalist's gun fetish certainly seems to have overpowered his cognitive abilities, and so we get his self-absorbed pseudo-intellectual Gun Cult propaganda, and a typical troll claim that he is winning the argument.

It may not simply be the gun manufacturers who are funding the display of indignation and keeping the burner on high. It could also be the folks who have hijacked the Republican Party, with the goal of keeping their followers firmly under their wing.

Oh the media is here, there, everywhere. I think the part you're talking about is investigative journalism. That is on Al Jazeera and or otherwise extinct.

Edward R. Murrow has probably been spinning in his grave for quite some time now.

Facts are never a deterent to the reich wingers. Australia has always had gun control laws. Their 'current' laws were enacted in 1996; not what you would believe from the inferences of the reich wing propagandists. Assault weapons have 'always' been banned from civilian ownership. Their current laws make it very difficult to possess a gun of any type unless you are a competition marksman or certified hunter.

In Australia in 1996, there were a total of 516 firearm related deaths, including suicides. In 2010, there were 236; which has been very consistent since 2004.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

In 2009, in Indiana (with a population about 20% of Australia) there were 735 firearm related deaths (and 715 from motor vehicle accidents).

I wish that our 'gun control' was as big a 'failure' as that of Australia!

Gun violence is a far more complicated subject than the presence of guns or laws forbidding their use. Mental health, poverty, income inequality, social cohesion, are all important factors. One can find societies with strict gun laws that have lots of gun violence and little gun violence. And one can find societies that have lax gun laws that have lots of gun violence and little gun violence.

Interesting. What is an example of a society with strict guns laws and lots of gun violence?

Alva, Why dont you cite some backup for your assumptions? Many things factor into violence, including the things you mention. But Gun violence is because of the presence of guns. Without a gun, there is no gun violence. Simplistic, I know

what's it going to take?...Maybe having their own families meet and talk with the people of Newtown who spoke during the legislative panel for six hours the other night would help. I can't imagine their family members even speaking to them UNLESS these Senate/House, Fathers/Mothers/Husbands/Wives changed their views. The testimony those Sandy Hook parents and caregivers gave is some of the most thoughtful, powerful, and heart-rending, I've ever heard. Kudos to Lawrence for showing the ER Doctor's and Dave Wheeler's testimony Wed/Thurs.

"...what's it going to take for these clowns to see the light?"

I'd say it is pretty clear that they are basically incapable of doing that.

We have all the resources necessary to share information on the social network but are told it's not a good idea to share information concerning those that threaten us everywhere we go in society.? Our communities are fair game for every nut or criminal that can carry a gun because its "legal" and their right to commit domestic terrorism?