We need to protest that our leaders make it Congressional Law that Congress cannot accept political contributions from gun manufacturers or military equipment corporations who attempt to influence our gun laws and wars.

The spending bill may be temporary, but these changes happen to be permanent.

Don't you just looooove the way you can always trust a Senator to do the right thing? Particularly the Democrats? (/snark)

If the senate bill passes the house and goes to the president will he veto it?

I can't remember the comedian that said it, but you'd see a lot fewer drive-bys and mass killings if bullets cost $100.00 a pop. Of course, then more people would become proficient snipers, but I can live with that possibility.

Chris Rock - and it was $5000 per bullet.

That was a funny bit, but that would just result in more people making their own bullets. With ammo prices the way they are, that's already a growing trend.

let's hope these folks making homemade bullets know what they're doing..

Yeah, but if they don't .... they'll probably just blow themSELVES up, unless they give or sell them to someone else ....

Yeh, it really can be dangerous. Many people do this to create high pressure rounds (i.e. more gun powder than usual), and some gun makers are making guns to take high pressure rounds, but it's really dumb. If someone does it wrong or you use the wrong gun, the gun can blow up in your hands.

what a bunch of whiners...it was also chris rock that said that president obama was like everyones daddy...right...i wonder if he said the same thing about bush...now thats funny...

think of the term drive by...hmmm lets see if there was no bullets it would be called a drive over...the bad people will always do bad things, they will just trade one weapon for another...people use your head or i will make a gun from a poptart and shoot you with jelly

I often thought of that Chris Rock line as well. However, then all the rich people would have bullets and could fund their own armies. Not sure that would help.

It would be great if the rich fund the armies,after all the army protect lot more of their stuff then mine

Growing up I was a proficient trap and skeet shooter sometimes shooting 500 rounds (2 cases) a week. Needless to say I reloaded my own shells with a professional press. I did it to save money and to make sure I had the shells I needed for practice and competition. Stores don't tend to carry trap and skeet rounds of that quantity. And I have to disagree with the statement about "high pressure rounds" as competition places restrictions on shells. The Grand American national trap championship required purchase of new target rounds. Target shooting and hunting was something I did with my dad. I still love watching international trap and skeet at the Olympics today even though I no longer shoot myself. Trophies are just dust collectors.

I was in the military and on military police and had to learn how to shoot semi-automatic and automatic weapons and definitely agree that there need to be limits. Background checks and magazine size would have likely been easy without the NRA lobby. Just like trap and skeet most states have rules for hunting. I definitely think training is a must. We make people take driving tests to get a license. Gun quantity gets tougher. I had 8 shotguns to cover all the different target events and types of hunting I did. I was definitely not paranoid about the government coming after my guns. I actually like the idea of registering firearms. If someone stole one of my target guns I'd just as soon walk into the police dept. and say someone stole my winchester 1200 trap shotgun and pick it from a list I provided. Like somebody stole my car, license XYZ and they look up the VIN. Hell I can't remember my phone number half the time but I can tell you the type of phone I have.

But again quantity gets tougher. Those shooters with high capacity magazines could have pulled a Matrix Neo and easily packed 6 loaded semi-automatic 15-shot pistols in their belt. I know I'm rambling but gun laws are tough. It made me mad when Bush on behalf of the gun lobby didn't renew existing gun legislation. And now with the NRA responsible gun legislation is next to impossible. I think I'd rather write the ACA.

They are the manufacturers...

Zero votes from Republicans on Feinstein's assault weapons ban. Zero. The Republicans have no moral compass, no compassion, and no damn sense. All they have is a hatred for the president and a desire to obstruct anything he puts forth.

How does the NRA continue to control our GOP? How does Wayne LaPierre merit more respect from our Republicans than 20 dead, bullet ridden children? I can't get my mind around that.

The House GOP members have been wasting congressional hours in the past few days in a way that would be funny if it weren't so indicative of their insanity. They voted on bills to end Obama's gutting of welfare (That never existed), and to end his giving away free cell phones (That never existed either).

It is mind boggling. They are not going to let the president govern. Period. They will run out the time before they allow any meaningful legislation. They just do not like the black guy in the white house. The American people are going to be the victims of that hate. Nothing will be passed to help the country as they pass legislation on non-existent problems. Amazing.

Note to Sen Cruz

Just as an august member of the Supreme Court opined that one can't yell fire in a crowded theater, one shouldn't be able to let loose a stream of fire in the theater either.

And how about requiring casualty insurance?

India, people own guns for self-protection, not to cause mayhem and bloodshed. Why should we place limits on our rights?

Robert, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, but then again, we don't gag movie goers. Having a gun does not mean you will commit an act of mass murder. 79 million Americans own guns and have never murdered anyone.

Any particular gun has a 0.0034% chance of being used to kill someone. And we should have to get insurance for that? Should we have to get insurance for the knives we own?

Alva: You constantly lie on these boards about guns, and ask false questions loaded with strawman arguments and canards. The quality of your lies has degraded at the same time you are ramping up the quantity. Not a good combo...

Lebowsky, for once will you please respond to the points I raised instead of insulting me?

Alva: I will answer your questions. While yes you can talk in a movie theater you can not yell fire. however you can't whisper a gun you either fire it or not so please get over that argument. We have insurance for cars so why not guns, it's a free market thing so I'm surprised the GOP aren't all over it. And yes some people need a gun for protection. however what is wrong with those people proving that they are legally allowed to own said gun, mentally stable enough to own said gun, and can actually know how to shoot, maintain and store said gun.

If every gun owner was responsible for any deaths or injuries caused by their gun, you'd soon see gun owners screaming for better laws.

Finally I don't want to take any bodies guns. My husband owns guns, however they are securely locked in a box. He goes to the range to shoot, and finally has gun owner insurance against theft or accidental damage. He is not a member of the NRA as he says and I quote "Why would I join an association that is run by the gun manufacturers instead of the gun owners. Gun owners have different needs and the NRA does not provide them."

Alva: Your "points" are absurd, and consistent. They either involve yourself with absolutely no acknowledgement of the human toll, or they are fabrications and canards. You want all of us to know what a great gun guy you are, but that rings hollow when children are shot to bits by military weapons that there is no valid civillian use for. Nobody wants to take away your guns, but you still pretend they do...

Lebowsky, I have Alva on ignore as it's too much like Groundhog Day (the movie) listening to him/her. (I don't know which.) She/He must be paranoid to feel the necessity to have all these weapons at her disposal. You cannot reason with that sort of person.

A country that has 33 gun deaths a day and cannot remove assault rifles and large clips and drums from the average citizen is not a country that is EVER, EVER, EVER going to be safe to live in for an awful lot of people and Alva is one of them.

He/she just hasn't gotten that through his/her head yet. The more guns one has in his home, the more likely an accident.

It also hasn't occurred to Alva that had the Sandy Hook shooter had a knife rather than a gun, a lot of those children would be alive today. It took less than 5 minutes for the massacre that ripped apart little children.

Military weapons belong in the military.

So why is OK (and by OK, I mean why does it pass constitutional muster according to SCOTUS) to regulate SOME speech, and to regulate SOME assembly, but somehow it's NOT OK to regulate SOME guns? There is nothing equivocal in the 1st or 4th amendments about the prohibition against violating those rights, and yet SCOTUS has ruled that in SOME cases, regulation is justified. So what is different about the 2nd amendment that suddenly makes it not OK to regulate some firearms? Someone (ALVA?) please explain this to me. (PS - good luck)

Alva believes in Anarchy, only he knows in his heart that if his heart's desire was achieved, he'd need his arsenal to keep his fellow anarchists from breaking in to the cookie jar.

Mousesj, you're not following the analogy. It has nothing to do with gun whispering. You can't shout fire in a movie theater, but we don't gag movie goers. In other words, we trust people enough not to shout fire because they know doing so is a crime. We don't prevent them from speaking. The same applies with gun ownership. We shouldn't block people from having guns, on the assumption that they will commit a criminal act with them, particularly since guns are used for self-defense and it is a constitutionally protected right.

Lebowsky, few points between your insults.

They either involve yourself with absolutely no acknowledgement of the human toll

Not true. I have talked plenty in the past about how many are killed by firearms. You have failed to acknowledge at all those who are saved by guns. A Justice Dept. study found that some 89,500 people used guns to protect themselves from criminal attacks. And what's more, those who were attacked and had no weapon, or a weapon other than a gun, risked a 1 in 2 chance of suffering serious injury or death. For those armed with a gun, those risked dropped to 1 in 5.

http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

that rings hollow when children are shot to bits by military weapons that there is no valid civillian use for.

They're not military weapons. How's this for a valid use?

http://www.inquisitr.com/477139/gun-control-15-year-old-defends-sister-from-burglars-with-ar-15-rifle/

Nobody wants to take away your guns, but you still pretend they do...

Then explain this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

India, I'm sad you put me on ignore. I thought we had some interesting conversations in the This Week In God posts.

It also hasn't occurred to Alva that had the Sandy Hook shooter had a knife rather than a gun, a lot of those children would be alive today.

Not necessarily. If it wasn't a gun, it could have been an IED. IED's were found at Holmes apartment if I remember the news reports correctly. And a lot of damage can be done with a knife.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/suspect-in-vancouver-mass-stabbing-faces-12-assault-charges-1.1140258

I have no doubt that guns allow these lunatics to kill more easily, but again, so many here fail to acknowledge that guns have self-defensive use. A gun in the right place in the right hands can even stop a mass shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPYu4Mu2dto

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

Screw your rights when it comes to owning military weapons, Alva. That's my feeling about it. It's not personal. Someone I loved was killed with a gun.

Any questions?

India, I'm sorry for your loss.

The "anarcho-syndicalist" can spout perfunctory sympathies...no surprise. He doesn't realize that as soon as they get the control they want, the rest of the GunCult will squash him like a bug as soon as they see fit to do so.

RE: 3.11

Dejected Progressive,

So why is OK (and by OK, I mean why does it pass constitutional muster according to SCOTUS) to regulate SOME speech, and to regulate SOME assembly, but somehow it's NOT OK to regulate SOME guns?

I'm no lawyer, but I'm completely opposed to regulating assembly. Having to get a permit to hold a protest I see as a direct violation of our 1st amendment rights.

Speech is regulated when said speech causes direct harm to others. So, for instance, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater directly causes harm to others who run the risk of being trampled to death. Libel and defamation isn't covered by free speech. Burning a cross on someone's lawn isn't covered by free speech as it causes terror in the minds of others. Threatening to harm or kill someone isn't covered by free speech either.

Owning a standard handgun doesn't cause direct harm to anyone. If that gun is used to kill someone, that's something different. If you try to justify gun control by saying that a gun could be used to kill someone, then you might as well say we can gag people because they could use their speech to defame someone.

However, we do regulate firearms. The laws governing the use of firearms is extensive. Take a look.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44

We don't allow people to own military weapons, like fully automatic weapons. It's incredibly difficult (and expensive) to own a silencer. There are laws that govern how you can use a firearm. Where you can use it. Under what circumstances you're allowed to use it. And I have no problem with this. The problem I have is when we write gun laws which prevents people from determining the best way by which to protect themselves. That may require a shotgun, an AR-15, a 9mm pistol, or a knife, depending on the endless number of situations one might find themselves in.

Alva....I don't believe that anybody, including the President, is saying that all guns should be banned. All that is being said now is to include on the list of currently banned weaponry (yes, there are thousands of weapons currently banned for private ownership) several more. The law trying to be enacted now wouldn't even remove those banned weapons from current owners. I really, truly have a problem with gun nuts (and yes, they are nuts) taking issue with refusing to add military grade assault weapons to that list of already banned weaponry. I suppose in your idiotic world, no weapon should be banned. I guess that would mean that I should own my own grenade launcher, or, because I would never use it against anybody, my own atomic bomb? What is wrong with you and the rest of your ilk that thinks something like that is ok??

Steve, wrong on so many counts. Pay closer attention to what your side is actually proposing. No one is saying that all guns should be banned? Then explain this:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/21/1172661/-How-to-Ban-Guns-A-step-by-step-long-term-process

This is the typical red herring argument. It goes something like this: "Nukes are banned, so military assault weapons should be banned too".

Here's the problem with that argument. Military assault weapons are already banned. A military grade M-16 does not function the same way as a civilian AR-15. A civilian AR-15 will not shoot any faster than your standard pistol or revolver.

It seems to me that we should have a simple test for what weapons should and should not be banned. We ask the question: "Can this weapon be effectively used by an individual to protect him or herself from other individual(s)?"

Obviously, a grenade launcher cannot be used to protect yourself, as it would kill or harm untold innocent bystanders. The same would be true with bombs or explosives of any kind. The same would be true of atom bombs (as if anyone is proposing that we legalize such a thing!!!)

But that does not include a civilian AR-15. An AR-15 can and is used for self-defense purposes all the time.

http://www.inquisitr.com/477139/gun-control-15-year-old-defends-sister-from-burglars-with-ar-15-rifle/

Alva....nice try, but I'm afraid you have been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. You are using the same stupid, pointless argument that anti-gay people use....that if we let gays get married, then whats next, marrying sheep? Nope....that ridiculous argument won't work. Let's take things a little at a time. Any weapon could be used for self defense (depending on what is attacking you), so take it easy. Of course an AR15 can be used for self defense, but I'm sure that 15 year old could have just have easily defended his sister with a handgun. An AR15 would be useful if say, you were being attacked by 100-200 people, but the odds of that are incredibly remote. You gun nuts are just so absolutely sure that your government is coming after you, and you want those military grade weapons...just in case....of course not knowing how ineffective they would be against the very military that you RWNJ's are trying so desperately to keep funded! So....don't try to tell me that I am wrong....I'm not. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is absolutely no reason a civilian has a need for a gun that shoots 200 bullets in 60 seconds. You will NEVER convince me of that.

Showing that responsible gun legislation worked.

it's about liability and enforcement...the gun industry wants neither.

They recognize that they might well loose this fight and that gun control laws might be put into place so they are going to try and make them unenforceable so that they are not worth the paper they are printed on.

The problem is that they are playing on racial tension, paranoia, and insanity to get away with it...and they just might

It isn't as easy as the ATF just Taking the License away as has been mentioned: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/badger-guns-owners-brother-ready-to-reopen-store-a762f78-161849845.html

If you get rid of guns then the biggest, meanest, most ruthless will rule the roost. A gun allows the weak to protect themselves from the strong. Do you really want to permit that?

I bought my first gun after 2 of the houses on my cul-de-sac got broken into more times than I can count. I remember one night getting a knock at the door and the police asking me if I recognized a white fan parked in front of my house. I didn't. They told me to shut the door and lock it. They arrested a guy who was trying to break into my neighbor's house. Then someone tried to break into my car while it was parked in my driveway.

I own a gun to protect myself and to protect my family. I could use a baseball bat or a knife, but a gun allows me to keep a safe distance. Or would you rather me risk getting stabbed?

You never know what could happen. If you comply with criminals, this could happen to you.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Robber-Who-Shot-Woman-in-Face-Arrested-Miami-Police-188365501.html

Here is something that happened just a few miles from my house. Tell me this man would have lived if he didn't have a gun.

http://woodbridge-va.patch.com/articles/police-dale-city-pawn-city-employee-stabbed-twice-in-the-neck

Ever think of moving out of the 'hood?

Woodbridge, VA isn't the hood by a long shot. If I could afford to live someplace safer I would. I'd probably give up my guns too.

People do get killed by their own guns. "Weak" people often cannot fire their gun under duress or fire it anything, thereby shooting an innocent. The more guns there are in society, the greater the chance for accidents or misdeeds; this is simple probability. For your argument to be valid, everyone that purchases a firearm should be required to be proficient at using it. Right now, that is not the case.

Alva, you talk a lot about owning A gun, that is fine, no one is saying you can't own A gun. What would be nice is to make sure that the guns we own are capable of self defense and not mass murder. You also talk about responsible gun owners. It is not responsible as a gun owner to stand in the way of sensible measures to make sure you are currently and stay responsible. Far too many people who think they are responsible, aren't. That is just reality. It must be so nice to live in world where you think a couple of sentences and platitudes will excuse your mind set.

For the rest of us who live in the reality of seeing and living with the devastation of what guns and bullets do once they make it from a "LAW ABIDING CITIZEN'S" hands to the hands of their child or the hands of some one who thinks murder is an acceptable remedy to a drunken argument or having your car broken into or your stereo stolen. Protect your body, that is fine, as Feinstein essentially said yesterday, you have over a thousand different types of guns and weapons to cause great bodily damage to another, but until you can accept the need for some regulation of just how much damage those weapons can do.....you are not in any way....a responsible gun owner.

And as for dangerous neighborhoods....I grew up in them.....common sense and a healthy swagger instead of a victim mentality will save your life over a gun any day. The person looking out their curtain with a gun in their hand waiting for some guy to come bust out their car windows.....is just a victim waiting to happen. Get a dog. They are so much better as an alarm system, theft deterrent and self defense weapon.

RE: 7.4

Tim, perfectly valid points, and I'm all in favor of more gun training. Learning how to handle a gun under duress is not simple task, and requires a lot of training. However, the merits of your argument is weakened by the fact that guns are successfully used to protect and save lives 7 times more often than are used to kill people, including gun accidents. Sometimes a gun can save you even if you've never fired a gun in your life, as this woman found out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Ps1ZC1-Qw

RE: 7.5

Persephone,

Yes, people are saying I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. I refer you to the dailykos link I posted above.

I am all in favor of banning weapons that have little to no utility for self-defensive purposes. However, that would not include an AR-15. It would include something like an Armalite AR-50 that shoots a 50 BMG round. This round is big enough to knock down small buildings. I'm all in favor of banning that weapon for civilian use.

It is not responsible as a gun owner to stand in the way of sensible measures to make sure you are currently and stay responsible.

This assumes the current proposals are indeed sensible. For instance the proposal to limit magazines to 10 rounds is not sensible at all. Read this news story.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

Her attacker follower her into her attic, and didn't retreat until he was shot 5 times in the face. The only reason he was shot 5 times was because the woman was most likely using a 5-shot .38 revolver (most revolvers hold 6 rounds, but smaller ones designed for conceal carry will hold 5). Even still, the attacker was able to get away and drive off in his car.

Now suppose this attacker had an accomplice.

hands of some one who thinks murder is an acceptable remedy to a drunken argument or having your car broken into or your stereo stolen.

Under Virginia state law, it is illegal for me to use a gun solely to defend my property. Suppose someone breaks into my car while it's in my driveway and I'm watching this from a window in my house. I am prohibited by law to use deadly force to stop this.

until you can accept the need for some regulation of just how much damage those weapons can do.....you are not in any way....a responsible gun owner.

This assumes there aren't already a whole lot of gun regulations. Here are the gun regulations in the federal code alone.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-44

Take a look at section § 922. Be patient. You're going to be reading for a while.

Now that's just federal laws alone. There are state laws as well.

And as for dangerous neighborhoods....I grew up in them.....common sense and a healthy swagger instead of a victim mentality will save your life over a gun any day.

Being smart in a dangerous neighborhood is a good idea. Learning how to spot danger before it happens is an essential part of conceal carry. A healthy swagger is all fine and good, but would you want to bet your life on it?

Get a dog. They are so much better as an alarm system, theft deterrent and self defense weapon.

Having many, many dogs didn't help protect this woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags

Having a gun did protect this woman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExC7fE1LaY

Definitely have to agree with Timothy. I mentioned in an earlier post that I was in military police and trained to use firearms. And that training needs to be maintained. I haven't had a gun for 20+ years and know it would be a serious challenge for me to handle a firearm in a life/death situation today.

Interesting reads and late to the conversation but one thing always troubles me about the "home defense" argument and perhaps someone can clarify the image. I know many responsible gun owners. Handguns and rifles are under lock and key. One such case has a wall vault in the basement...while he sleeps two floors up. I do not live in a high-crime area but one would think that an intruder might do a little research and either enter your home when you are not there or at night when you are asleep. The former likely results in your protection being stolen and the latter would seem difficult to defend against unless you unlocked and slept with the gun next to your pillow. Other than this, I can not envision an individual waking, immediately assessing the situation and quickly acquiring the weapon thus thwarting an intruder. There are most certainly examples where this is exactly the case but how common is this incident compared to others where this particular form of defense was futile? In my hometown, we have had more gun related issues with irresponsible ownership and idiocy than incidents where responsible owners successfully protected themselves against an attack.

Never mind...did a little research today and answered my own questions. Seems I am statistically more likely to have my gun stolen then thwart an intruder. I was a bit surprised that the NRA website does not have statistics, data or highlights any incident validating the sales pitch that gun ownership makes us safer...only the well worn line that perhaps this would not have happened if you had a gun. But that's just business...take basic human fear, cultivate it by highlighting incidents where it's justifiable and then offer up a solution that seems plausible. And this case wrap it up in the constitution, slap a patriotic label on it and cry foul at any attempt which might negatively impact "my rights" but let's face it, it's more about the bottom line.

It would be funny if not so dangerous that the same folks (mostly R's in legislative bodies) adamently defending my 2nd amendment had not managed to limit as well as immune the gun industry from exercising my 7th amendment.

Reason being people are getting shot and killed... schoolchildren in fact...

Alva: Go find a short pier to take a very long walk on, a pier high enough for you to think about what an ogre you are on the way down...

So what is the view inside your colon really like, Alex?

Lebowsky, more insults? That one school teacher who hid her children in a closet and told Lanza they were in the gym, now she protected them. Sadly, it cost her her life.

The harsh reality is that those who look after children are responsible for their safety. If any harm comes to them, than those assigned to take care of them have failed to keep them safe.

After 9/11 we all took it upon ourselves to keep each other safe while on a plane. There's been many incidents where passengers have had to tackle a passenger and restrain them. That's unfortunate, but it beats hundreds of people dying in a plane crash. Why shouldn't we do the same on the ground? All of us, as citizens, should take it upon ourselves to keep each other safe. It's clear that the police aren't able to prevent these kind of attacks. So we have to.

Not quite sure what my colon has to do with this....

Isn't it "reasonable" for someone to decide at 3 1/2 months pregnant if they want to give birth or not?

Isn't it "reasonable" to only drink 16 ounces of soda

Isn't it "reasonable" to have your phone listened in on and your emails screened because you MIGHT be a terrorist?

Isn't it "reasonable" to be stopped and frisked on the street well just because

Isn't it "reasonable" to be arrested and tried for trespassing well at the discretion of officers

Isn't it "reasonable" to order a drone to kill an American citizen as long as they may be engaging in not ok stuff not on american soil apparently its "unreasonable" to kill them on us soil

Your right its "reasonable" for a colon inspector to come probe me once a year whether I like it or not

Lebowsky Dude,

The "anarcho-syndicalist" is basically a thug with intellectual pretensions.

Frank, no one is suggesting something as ridiculous as civilians owning tanks. All they're saying is that people should be able to defend themselves. James Madison said very clearly in Federalist #46 that average every day citizens should have access to the same kind of arms that your average infantry man has. Today that would be a Beretta M9 9mm pistol and a M-16.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

Where are these assault-weapons made, China or Russia? Where's Mc Cain who campaigned against political-pork in 'not' making it Congressional Law and Ethics that Congress cannot accpet political contributions from weapons and military equipment manufacturers who influence our gun laws and wars?

These size of corporations give contributions to both parties to protect their interest, no matter how the elections turn out.

Frank, depends on the weapon. AK-47s are made primarily in Russia, but others are made in Romania and all over the world. AR-15s are primarily made in the USA. The military version of them, M-16s are made primarily by Colt. A lot of different companies made the civilian versions, but I believe all of them are American made.

Alva: For a gun nut you sure are light on facts. Sig Sauer makes AR15's, and they are not American...

I didn't say "all". I said "primarily". The most popular civilian AR-15s (to my knowledge) are Bushmasters, and they're made in North Carolina. Colts are made in Connecticut, as are Mossbergs. Smith & Wesson are made in Massachusetts. Olympic Arms are in Washington. Daniel Defense is in Georgia. Armalite is in Illinois.

Give it a rest, Alva.

India...,

The "anarcho-syndicalist" has a major fetish and will never "give it a rest" of his own accord.

Entropy rules,

Obsessions are nasty things, aren't they. Must be terrible. He needs to get a cat or something. Keep him occupied!

India, c'mon. You're better than that. I've never been so uncivil with you. By the way, I have two darling little mews. :)

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

My internet stalker, Entropy, apparently have never read any Noam Chomksy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_x0Y3FqkEI

Isn't that pweshus! The "anarcho-syndicalist" is just like normal people...NOT!

I am never uncivil except when it comes to guns.

Well, Noam Chomsky is one of my favourite people. I have read him and listen to all his videos on the internet. Do not tell me, Alva, that we actually have something in common.

Please....don't. :)

Don't let the "mews" get close to the guns. Better yet, get rid of the guns. Cats are much nicer.

India, we probably have a lot of things in common. I just happen to enjoy civil debates, so that means I end up talking about guns a lot, at least around here. When I talk to Libertarians, I talk about the need to abolish capitalism. When I talk to Republicans, I talk about how they're wrong about everything, except for guns. :D

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

OK, Alva, you got me with the kittens. There's a photo of my Manx cat on my FB page. Can you get to my FB page to see it? He's the smartest cat I have even known or heard about. (He's the one who writes my comments! ) LOL

Well, only when I sound uncivil. That's "Jack", not me.

There's also a bunch of stuff about the new Pope which I know you'll enjoy! :)

I just know you are as excited about him as I am. He is an advocate for the poor and not fond of rampant Capitalism. I agree with him on both of those things.

BTW, Alva, The next time you start in on the gun fetish, and start in about your rights, I am simply going to remind you of another right:

The right to remain silent!

India, if you're cool with it, I sent you a friend request to your FB.

My hammer hits on the American Public from both major parties protesting, Congress, to first, ban all political contributions from weaponry and military equipment manufacturers, who financially influence our gun laws and wars. (Now, ‘that’ would be some gun-power for the American Public to own.)

Gun manufactures are already probably seeking investment with a war with Iran.

A .38-caliber Rohm's Industry revolver is the gun SAID to have been found at the scene of the killing of Kimani Gray, who was shot 7 times (4 times in the front of his body, 3 times in his back) by two plainclothes officers.

That gun is a piece of junk, and probably wouldn't have fired even if the boy had pulled the trigger. Assuming the gun wasn't planted at the scene by the cops to give them the alibi they needed.

Kak, gun stores are federal firearm licensed dealers. If you don't think they're inclined to follow the law down to the letter, then you've never been in a gun store before. All the ATF has to do is revoke their FFL license and they're out of business. I guarantee you that gun stores do inventories. The only question is whether the federal gov't should be able to stick their noses in it. When the feds require Wal-Mart to report their inventories to them, then I'm sure gun stores won't complain about it either.

are YOU serious? The FBI reported that last year ALONE 85% of all illegal handguns taken off the street in Chicago alone came from one of three Gun Shops in South Carolina. When the FBI did a sting on them it was clear that the Owners DID NOT CARE who bought the guns or what they did with them once they were sold.

Gun stores owners are almost ALL very good people, but they also help block laws that would get rid of the bad gun store owners who will sell to anyone.

and YES the Feds should be able to "Stick their nose in it" because it is their job to insure that the guns are not walking off the shelf....

Richard, yes there are some bad apples. But the fact that you can track the guns used in crimes back to the same 1 or 2 gun shops tells you that the overwhelming majority follow the law to the letter. A simple sting and investigation should be enough to revoke their FFL license. This would solve the problem more effectively while not harassing those who are following the law to the letter.

Alva, If you haven't read my Link's posted, #5, #5.2, It's not as easy as WE might like it to be.

Sarge, I'm all in favor of fixing this. FFL licenses should be as easy to revoke as a liquor license, and people who violate the law should be prohibited from reopening stores.

sheba, not entirely. The NRA does speak for gun makers, but most of what they actively do is teach people gun safety. Most states require you to pass a NRA safety class in order to get a conceal carry permit. The NRA also operates a lot of gun ranges, and they don't let anyone use them unless they've passed pretty extensive safety tests.

sorry but the main focus of the NRA today is to increase sales of Guns. That is why they are blocking any and all reasonable laws that would only allow people who SHOULD be allowed to own weapons to buy them. The NRA wants to create an atmosphere of fear on the part of the Public so that the Public will buy MORE and MORE guns.

Not long ago Wayne Lepierre was in front of Congress saying that 100% of all Gun Purchases should have a background check and the Gun Show loophole should be closed, then he did a complete 180 on that stance.

The NRA should lose its tax exempt status for the work it does for the FOR PROFIT gun makers.

Alva, I do not consider an 8-10hr Class extensive training as compared to the Weapon's Training that I recieved in the Marines, Or what law enforcement recieves.When you take a person that has NO experience at all, I mean nothing, Do you really think a 8-10 hr CCW qualifies them as extensivley Trained? Alva, one of my Billets in the Marines was that of a Sgt. of the Guard at a Naval Wpn's site. We where authorized the use of Deadly Force, Due to the nature of what WE Guarded. Before I was even allowed to take over the Section, I had to test for each Post, I had to test for our Rules of Engagement that Authorized the use of Deadly Force, And it took a couple of Month's. Just to give an Idea, our ROE, pretty much covered all possible Scenarios that WE would or could encounter, Now the same logic should apply to CCW, Because in our definition of Deadly Force, Available lesser Mean's of Force also applied IF they couldn't be reasonably employed or have failed. This doesn't happen in 8-10 hr's of instruction.

Do you really think a 8-10 hr CCW qualifies them as extensivley Trained?

Absolutely, not! Don't get me wrong, the NRA has a lot of different classes. Basic gun safety is just one of them. But I think that it should be harder to get a concealed carry permit. My home state of Virginia allows you to take a class online to get a permit. That's bull.

The training should be far more extensive, and you should have to review safety once a year, and retake all your training when you renew your CCW.

As a gun owner who sometimes carries concealed, I took it upon myself to get all the training I need and then some. It's not just being able to field strip and reassemble my guns blind folded in under 30 seconds. It's knowing the law backwards and forwards. It's training with people who really know this subject (like Massad Ayoob). It's range time. It's studying how crimes happen, how criminals behave, to know what they are most likely to do. It's knowing that the flight or fight response will give you tunnel vision and loss of hearing and trembling limbs and a loss of your fine motor skills, so you learn to control your breathing to slow down your heart rate to prevent this biological response in your body.

A lot of training goes into this, and I'm all in favor of that training being required by law in order to carry concealed.

Alva, ONLINE to get CCW? Wow, Question, Do they have to do any type's of Hand's on or Range Training?

Sarge,

I'm pretty sure most states do require it, but some "shall issue" states like Virginia require no range time at all. I got my conceal carry license before I ever fired a gun. Of course, I knew this was utterly ridiculous, and I didn't carry on my person until I was sure I could handle the responsibility.

I think it is utterly absurd that any state allows anyone to have a conceal carry license without spending a considerable amount of time at the range.

I suspect that the majority of conceal carry holders use the NRA training course, which does require range time, but there are a considerable number of people who just opt for the online course.

Biker: It must suck for you to see poll after poll that show 90% of Americans support background checks, because it destroys your pathetic assertation about the "left" and criminals getting guns...

background checks, forcing inventories, not letting people keep licenses that do not have stores, a registry... all these things WOULD KEEP GUNS OUT OF CRIMINAL HANDS. if you stop the sale to the guy who sells them to the criminals... you stop the criminals.

I'll bet you're one of the bikers who wanted the "freedom" to not wear a helmet, while being assured that you'd get full ER coverage when you came with a massive head trauma, right?

So what does it really look like up in your colon where you keep your head?

Instead of blaming homeland security for the lack of bullets, maybe you should blame all the paranoid idiots that have increased gun and ammo sales by 800% in the last 2 years. It isn't your government it is your fears that caused them to disappear.

Thanks for reminding us how many goat-roping dumbasses live in Texico.

I long for the day we expell the RoT (a more appropriate term for a place never existed) from the Union and build a "dang fence" to keep you people away.

What kind of a "mommie's basement" does a Texico Rich Guy like you troll from?

Always nice to be reminded how ignorant ignorance has to be, to be one of you tenthwits. Computers are really user-friendly nowadays, since Homo Saps like you who lack frontal lobes and opposable thumbs can use one just like a real Homo Sapiens.

Thomas, If you look at the link's I posted earlier, The Law's hinder, ATF or other Law Enforcement. Some of these Law's need to come Off the Book's, They have nothing to do with Denying someone from Purchasing, But they enable the Dealer without any real Punishment. Read up on the TIAHRT Amendment. Check out the Mayor's Against Illegal Gun's site along with the Link's mentioned and you'll see just how messed up the "system" is. Just look at who lobbied for these Amendment's.

As I said in an earlier comment, a dog is a far better deterrent than an gun will ever be. Especially a good big dog with a healthy bark and desire to protect his pet human.

My Black Lab Might bark, Just say Hey to her and she is your Buddy!! She'll help carry stuff out of the house. Still a good Dog.

Sarge. I thought the same thing about my Wolf/Rott mix. He was such a sweet friendly dog to pretty much everybody in the world and safe (and well trained) enough to walk off leash), until two incidents; The first was when I was walking down on the river path and had my dog off leash so I guess the guy just saw a lone women walking on an out of the way path and decided to start following me. That guy couldn't get within 100 yards of me before Papa took off after him and became essentially a very scary threatening 80lb tooth gnashing, growling menace until the guy took off running in the opposite direction..papa didn't even chase him down...once he perceived the threat was over, he was back into his normal behavior. That guy was arrested the next day for attempted rape a block away.

The second occasion was when a guy I had seen around the neighborhood came to my door, I don't even know what he wanted because papa went ballistic growling and barking and not letting the guy anywhere near me. The guy was later arrested on domestic violence charges after beating his pregnant wife.

One thing to remember is that dog owners like gun owners have to follow some basic safety measures. Train your dog....really really well. License and make sure to get a background check (aka behavior check from pound or breeder..is this dog good with cats, kids other dogs?). Make sure you are a responsible pet owner. Animals like guns, or anything in the wrong hands, can be dangerous.

But my dog is far less likely to accidentally blow my kids brains out if picked up the wrong way.

And the guy boosting a stereo will go to jail instead of the morgue.