Same as it ever was. La la la...

Of course those on the Left are not interested in taking everyone's guns. Just look at how sensible John McKendry's comment is!

Of course those on the right are not rabid and paranoid gun toting freaks scared that a black man is going to take all of their guns! Just look at how sensible Wayne Lapier's comments are!!!

Yep, all gun owners and gun rights defenders are racist...you have put your finger on it. We just want to wait until a white man is President before we agree to stronger gun control. Very sensible there of ya, Donna.

Yep, all gun owners and gun rights defenders are racist...

Nope. But YOU are, robtroll.

We just want to wait until a white man is President before we agree to stronger gun control.

Yep. You have put your finger on it.

And I am as "sensible" as you are, robtroll.

And I have put my finger on it:

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

There, robtroll. My finger is on it and is saying f*ck off robtroll.

You're welcome.

DONNA!!! What the H*** is that?! never mind. I know what that is.

I'm impressed with your artistic expression, but not so much with your discretion.

Have you considered sculpture?

locknpost,

I am blunt. I call it as I see it.

robdon is a troll and I have no tolerance for them.

And I have actually considered many artistic forms in which to express my contempt for trolls; I will now consider the option of sculpting as another form of troll blasting.

Yeah, I'm a little ticked off too.

President Obama knows he's dealing with repeat offender hostage takers, and what does he do during the last crisis? He negotiates to free the hostage, and then talks the hostage takers into giving up their guns by giving them a butcher knife. This would be fine, except the whole country is still in the rubber life boat Obama found for us, along with the hostage takers!

I was hoping we'd subdue the hostage takers once and for all by dropping them with tranquilizer darts.

locknpost, no need to subdue the hostage takers...just walk outside and fire two shots from your double barrel shotgun in the air (which of course is against the law, but who cares...and uses all your loaded ammunition which requires you to reload making you most vulnerable as the Left has pointed out but no matter). That will do it..that's what we "need to do,' says our Vice President.

Or we could make paranoid statements because that black man is trying to take away all our guns!

Or trolls can stop this bullsh*t about the sequester being "Obama's fault."

The GOP voted for it.

So: Is Obama smarter than the GOP? Did Bonehead say that he got 98% of what he wanted?

That's the thing with troll "truth." It always winds up being a lie.

RobDon, no need to reload with a 5-shot shotgun. Anyone a quarter mile from town with pets/livestock has probably spent a round scaring predators away.

A shotgun is not my choice. And my self-esteem is not dependent upon bragging about owning some gun. People need to take gun ownership seriously, by securing their weapons, training adequately, and respecting guns as dangerous tools instead of treating them as toys for intimidation. I would never aim at any life form unless I had already decided to take that life.

Talking with gun advocates I know, they seem to agree with sensible gun laws, but evade discussion on such while propelling into selfish or paranoid rhetoric. The prevailing contentious issue I have found with those I would otherwise consider mature, is that they wish to maintain "their right" to do whatever the hell they wish without any restrictions, like continuing to sell arms indiscriminately. This tells me they're more concerned with their freedom to personally profit from their secret little private gun trade than the well being of random consequential victims they probably don't know.

@locknpost

The question becomes the interpretation of what a "sensible gun law" entails... and there lies the problem.

What about the opinions of "gun advocates" that are our law enforcement individuals? Do you still consider that they are "propelling into selfish or paranoid rhetoric"?

How many of our law makers are firearms experts? in law enforcement?

I prefer to look to law enforcement and seriously consider the views presented by individuals that ARE experts.

Google the Saratoga Sheriffs Department PBA response to the recently enacted SAFE Act, the NYS Sheriffs Association's position on the SAFE Act, the Illinois Sheriff's Association's position on gun law reform.

SAFE was rushed through with full comprehension it would be reworked. They seized momentum rather than risk passing nothing later on.

LEOs are somewhat divided by rural/urban demographics, but far more likely (on my perception alone) by party affiliation within those demographics. All around me I hear what amounts to "it's an urban problem, not ours". Most seem to agree with the general concept of universal background checks, mag limits, and more negligence accountability with harsher sentencing... just, not for them.

Right... SAFE was rushed through... so glad that the NYS legislature knows what is best for their constituents... wouldn't want to take the chance that they might actually want to have a say...

Universal background checks seem to be the consensus.. also enforcing the laws in place and tightening sanctions pertaining to criminals. In terms of mag limits, assault weapon restrictions... not so much as this typically effects law abiding citizens more. I'm from a career law enforcement family with siblings that are firearms experts. I am hearing a resounding no to the question about support in the law enforcement community at large for an assault weapons ban and mag restrictions...and that party affiliation has nothing to do with it... it's based on field experience on what works and what is needed to address crisis and violence.

I work with LEOs. There is a clear division between them. No one wants to be out armed by an average citizen for no practical reason. But one specifically is against any firearm or sale restrictions as they seem worried it will hinder family member side business. They are regurgitating false info from the rad right for their argument.

I expect LEO input to be from a professional perspective, not from personal subjective opinion. Otherwise, my personal opinion based on experience has as much validity.

You have made an assumption that the LEO input that I have secured is based on a limited personal/ subjective opinion versus a broader professional perspective. That would be incorrect.

You also seem to be making the assumption that if one is against certain restrictions it cannot possibly be based on anything other than falsehoods or the desire to insure future personal gain.

To clarify, it is considered that, criminals will not be obeying the laws enacted, thus taxing law enforcement as they address new laws that effect primarily law abiding citizens.

Also, what is defined as an assault weapon versus not an assault weapon troubles many.

Also, it is considered that if an individual is hellbent on mass destruction, they will find the means. (remember Kansas City?)

Also, the previous assault weapons ban did not produce satisfactory results (FBI study).

trollie, 'er lisafp1's post translated:

I am a trolling gun nut.

You're welcome.

Ouch Donna,

That really hurts. Why so angry?

You must have mistaken me for someone who gives a d@mn about you and what you think.

A better question to ask is: why are trolls like you not angry about children being killed by guns here in America?

I call it as I see it, troll.

In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,^[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response^[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Wow, Donna. You got me. I am so inflammatory, extraneous, and off-topic. My bad.

Once again, the discussion at hand is what the interpretation of "sensible gun laws" should be, whether what is enacted will actually assist with a reduction in violence, and what law enforcement (as the experts) actually think.

I am sure that it works better to view anyone who looks at gun legislation with a more critical eye as being a person who must not care about dying children...after all, if you dehumanize me (i.e. troll me), then you don't have to consider additional information.

Actually, you are this:

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns".

Wow, troll 'er lisa, you really don't get me. You are not a blanks style troll, but a robdon type of troll. But a troll you are. And a troll is what you will remain.

And you care nothing about "sensible gun laws." I call bullsh*t on that. And there are many law enforcement officers who are in favor of gun control, so again, I call bullsh*t on your troll post.

I am sure that you think that you are all concerned and all, but in the end, you really don't care about children shot dead, but instead are more concerned about "sensible gun control."

And I'm not the one who dehumanized you. You dehumanize yourself with your "concern trolling" posts.

A troll is a troll is a troll.

Sorry, I had a cultural diversity event to hit. Nice turnout. I was impressed. Even a hunters organization. Very kewl.

Back to the topic: Lisa,

You have made an assumption that the LEO input that I have secured is based on a limited personal/ subjective opinion versus a broader professional perspective. That would be incorrect.

I did not offer any law enforcement organization position, nor would say their positions are identical. I was offering a perspective from discussions in my local area.

You also seem to be making the assumption that if one is against certain restrictions it cannot possibly be based on anything other than falsehoods or the desire to insure future personal gain.

It frustrates me to have to relay one of several representative cases where argument was based on false rhetoric. And yes, I suppose it now makes me somewhat suspicious that others' may be conflating a professional perspective with a personal opinion that may have personal bias.

To clarify, it is considered that, criminals will not be obeying the laws enacted, thus taxing law enforcement as they address new laws that effect primarily law abiding citizens.

That argument will never make sense to me. Take away speed limits, more people will speed. All civilized societies need laws, otherwise the irresponsible will practice reckless or dangerous behaviors at cost to all others. Face it, our species is egocentric by nature.

Also, what is defined as an assault weapon versus not an assault weapon troubles many.

THIS!!! I agree here. The weapons industry will continue to produce new innovative weapons that would make the current military roll over. We need weapons specialists' input for clear distinctive guides as to what is reasonable and practical for citizen ownership and what is intended for military or mass casualty operations.

There are always ranges. (And I find it imposing that some ranges try to make people join NRA as a condition to use facilities. NEVER!)

Also, it is considered that if an individual is hellbent on mass destruction, they will find the means. (remember Kansas City?)

There are many things to arm oneself with. But bombs, nuclear material, an index of chemicals and much more is restricted. What makes firearms designed for mass slaughter so special?

Also, the previous assault weapons ban did not produce satisfactory results (FBI study).

That's not fair. They had no freakin idea how to write that bill. It was lame, and ineffective, for one because models were redesigned to circumvent that law.

Welcome back locknpost,

I think that we can both agree that there are various gun laws out there that have been helpful to public safety. I further support NICS checks for private sales, waiting periods for purchases, background checks, and increased penalties for illegal use of weapons. I also support mandated firearms safety courses with a pistol permit system. Among other things, I do think though that we need to focus our attention on both mental health services and the issue of bullying in our schools.

With regards to the debate about gun laws, I comment as a counter to the notion that if one is opposed to an assault weapons ban, one must be a "gun nut" or somehow not care about children, pointing out that there are many individuals, including members of the law enforcement community, that have made a thoughtful decision about it.

I still go back to the inherent problem with defining an assault weapon. The decision cannot help but end up rather arbitrary. Either you define it and certain weapons are only one step removed from being on the bnned list, or you keep reaching to cover more and more and more. Then, since the issue of violent death in America has little to do with rifle usage, we essentially have remained in the same spot. As referenced in the Saratoga Shreiffs Association PBA letter with regards to the SAFE act, homicide by a firearm with at least one military style feature last year (in NYS) accounted for 5 in 769 deaths or .007% of homicides. An assault weapons ban sounds good, but scratch the surface and you find that it is not a well targeted intervention to address the multifaceted issues of violent death. We can do better.

Spin it, troll, spin it. But it won't work.

Good morning Donna

Good morning, troll.