Here we go..... Democrats trying to rewrite the Constitution. And take away guns from law abiding, licensed citizenry. Obama wants this done before gets out of office and has 124 of his democratic reps acting as his sheeple. Wake the eff up people!

HR 4269

google it

Filed at year end when many are off, not paying attention. 124 reps of one party doing the dirty work. Intent is clear. And they will try to justify rewriting the Constitution to get their way.

Ross
Its only the beginning , where it stops no one knows . If more carried guns knuckleheads would think twice before shooting up a crowd . And less would suffer and or die .

There is no way to stop a determined person from doing what hey want to do . They may get delayed but eventually they do it .
Case in point the World Trade Centers ! A determined enemy of the people of the United States . isis is also determined we have no idea what they will do next .

OK im gong back into my cave
Have a NICE New Years !

Wow they want to ban a ton of firearms in this bill. While i don't see the need for owning a so called "assault rifle" they sure are fun to shoot and i don't see the need to ban them. Bills like this will make AR's and AK's fly off the shelf. Close the so called gun show loophole. Don't see a problem with background checks but that's as far as i am willing to go.

Can the right please stop being afraid of everything.. I have been hearing this same song for 30 years and it still hasn't happen yet .. Have has many guns as you want but i feel they should be registered and if you want Military rifles you should have a addition permit .. But if the gun lobby keeps it stance on Guns like they do on Global warming just denying the problem . then others are just going to try to change things without them..

But yet The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted for the 56th time to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act.

Point is they Congress try all the time and both parties waste time on Votes only to pander to their bases.. and the regular American gets ignored

No warrant gun confiscation begins in Kalifornia tomorrow... Slippery Slope

Via The Washington Times:

Gun-safety legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there’s potential for violence.

Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that allowing that person to possess a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.”

“The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.”

“It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” he continued, adding: “It’s an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.”

Entire article here:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/30/heads-california-starts-notice-gun-confiscation-january-1/

Why is that a bad thing?

If a judge decides I am a risk for being violent with my guns, I would hope someone took them away from me.

I would really like to see less mass shootings...

The way I see this happening is a family member or friend might call the athoraties and inform them that this person is unstable and should not own guns.

Is it perfect ? Probably not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is a process gun owners must follow in order to possess their guns, including a background check, and, at least in Massachusetts, authorization from local police chief, or local agency.
The back end of the license process, similar to drivers license, is not well defined. Slippery slope? Maybe. But has some merits.
If I am at a gun range, I am always super aware of who is around me and their actions. No way I want an unstable individual there, especially with a firearm in their possession. There have been some who would have been judged stable, but by their behavior and handling of a weapon have made me nervous. So while not having read this particular law in whole, it has some merits in protecting the public.
But..... It is not trying to override an amendment of the Constitution. It is not banning possession of certain weapons. It does include a rough draft of a due process that would need to be developed. (Not a lot of Mass. judges that I would want deciding my rights in this situation.) I don't care if it is a resident, a neighbor, family member, fellow military unit member, or just another guy at the range; if they are not mentally fit, they should not be in possession. As redlite once said on this board; owning and carrying a gun is likely the most awesome responsibility one can have.

Get a concealed carry permit or a LTC...whatever they call it in your state. It's one of the way to protect your rights...I think. BTW, I have a concealed carry permit.

Um,yeah. The guy who threw rocks at Rick for being in his fishing spot is level headed.

To me the most awesome responsibility is raising children. It will be difficult fixing the gun thing as the gun nuts will always cling to the constitution regardless of the flaws that have become evident to anyone with common sense. I am not opposed to guns,just opposed to stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why is that a bad thing?

If a judge decides I am a risk for being violent with my guns, I would hope someone took them away from me.

I would really like to see less mass shootings...

The way I see this happening is a family member or friend might call the athoraties and inform them that this person is unstable and should not own guns.

Is it perfect ? Probably not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a case of guilty until proven innocent where the burden of proof falls upon the innocent who lost their rights as the result of an allegation...

Um,yeah. The guy who threw rocks at Rick for being in his fishing spot is level headed.

To me the most awesome responsibility is raising children. It will be difficult fixing the gun thing as the gun nuts will always cling to the constitution regardless of the flaws that have become evident to anyone with common sense. I am not opposed to guns,just opposed to stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Gun nuts " , childish names like this pretty much makes everything else you said irrelevant. it's very tough to have an honest conversation about guns when any point you bring up includes name calling .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not a firearm owner but respect gun owners rights and privileges... to a point. But what really troubles me is the gun lobby's stubborn refusal to compromise on just about anything. The argument that "once we give up something the door is open" is really getting old. Refusing to compromise has now set up a predicted presidential Executive Order coming out soon. This is what happens when they don't come to the table.

It will be difficult fixing the gun thing as the gun nuts will always cling to the constitution regardless of the flaws that have become evident to anyone with common sense. I am not opposed to guns,just opposed to stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Common sense"? "Cling to the Constitution"? So, are we supposed to amend the Constitution using "common sense"? How about science? You seem to value science as a final verdict of sorts. Should science depend on common sense? Are you a common sense nut? Are you clinging to common sense? And your "opposed to stupidity"?

You like to accuse others of being like the Taliban. But you don't mind throwing out Taliban-like dictums which would require the rest of the world to accept your version of what is right, or your version of common sense?

Common sense varies according to what a majority at any given time has as a common belief. It doesn't protect minority beliefs or rights. And what is common not only changes, but it is often stupid.

Sorry, Ross, there's no reason to start the same political thread in the main forum, when there's a live thread in the correct forum, which is this one. I'm going to merge the two threads---there is a re-direct in the main.

I'm not a firearm owner but respect gun owners rights and privileges... to a point. But what really troubles me is the gun lobby's stubborn refusal to compromise on just about anything. The argument that "once we give up something the door is open" is really getting old. Refusing to compromise has now set up a predicted presidential Executive Order coming out soon. This is what happens when they don't come to the table.
What's with all the common sense?

Just don't take my Riffe.
From my cold wet hands.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not a firearm owner but respect gun owners rights and privileges... to a point. But what really troubles me is the gun lobby's stubborn refusal to compromise on just about anything. The argument that "once we give up something the door is open" is really getting old. Refusing to compromise has now set up a predicted presidential Executive Order coming out soon. This is what happens when they don't come to the table.

Compromise is a really comfortable word. It has a great common sense ring to it. And the great majority of people probably believe that compromise is a good answer for many disputes.

But there is a harsher, far less comfortable word. Principle. It is a source word. A basis from which things function. It is not subject to common sense. Common sense which is devoid of a valid principle is more often stupid sense.

When principles are compromised, chaos and conflict follow. Rule of law is corrupted. "Coming to the table" becomes surrender to majority opinion, tyranny of the majority, destruction of minority rights.

Compromise in the universe of little things, personal disputes over non-essential things which are not rooted in fundamental principles . . . compromise in such things is usually good.

Compromising the principle of a thing is the destruction of that thing.

Can the right please stop being afraid of everything.. I have been hearing this same song for 30 years and it still hasn't happen yet .. Have has many guns as you want but i feel they should be registered and if you want Military rifles you should have a addition permit .. But if the gun lobby keeps it stance on Guns like they do on Global warming just denying the problem . then others are just going to try to change things without them..

But yet The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted for the 56th time to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act.

Point is they Congress try all the time and both parties waste time on Votes only to pander to their bases.. and the regular American gets ignored
No. Permits and legal firearms ownership is not the issue. I will not submit to any additional restrictions. Why people think more laws and regulations will help anything is beyond me.

It's great to play with word meanings but this is a real issue.

I'm not a firearm owner but respect gun owners rights and privileges... to a point. But what really troubles me is the gun lobby's stubborn refusal to compromise on just about anything. The argument that "once we give up something the door is open" is really getting old. Refusing to compromise has now set up a predicted presidential Executive Order coming out soon. This is what happens when they don't come to the table.

That is exactly how I feel.

There are a lot of gun laws on the books , so gunowners can't be accused of not compromising . Feel free to post up statistics showing that the gun laws that are on the books are either enforced or are working .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are a lot of gun laws on the books , so gunowners can't be accused of not compromising . Feel free to post up statistics showing that the gun laws that are on the books are either enforced or are working .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Considering that gun lobby pandering Republicans have largely prevented the Government from seriously studying the issue where do you think these "statistics" are going to come from?

Considering that gun lobby pandering Republicans have largely prevented the Government from seriously studying the issue where do you think these "statistics" are going to come from?

Don't you hate when the Republicans abide by the Constitution . The nerve of them .

There are plenty a private gun studies that are done , of course the validity of them can be suspect because the source of the money pretty much dictates the results of the study . Such is the case of any government studies .

Enjoy your New Year's Spence !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't you hate when the Republicans abide by the Constitution . The nerve of them .
Ah yes, the Constitution doesn't explicitly call for the study of health issues so they're abiding by it.

What about all those other Government health studies the Constitution doesn't call for but that we benefit from? I assume you're going to exempt yourself and your family from most treatments for infectious disease etc...

Would that make you a hypocrite or just one of Dangle's gun nuts?

Ah yes, the Constitution doesn't explicitly call for the study of health issues so they're abiding by it.

What about all those other Government health studies the Constitution doesn't call for but that we benefit from? I assume you're going to exempt yourself and your family from most treatments for infectious disease etc...

Would that make you a hypocrite or just one of Dangle's gun nuts?

Why didn't we do the "studies " in the first few years of Obama's tenure? You know when the Democrats controlled everything .
Blame the Republicans.... Yawn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why didn't we do the "studies " in the first few years of Obama's tenure? You know when the Democrats controlled everything .
Blame the Republicans.... Yawn
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sure, a year of research should certainly prove conclusive...

Can you imagine if this country actually went back to the original way that the constitution intended ? True freedom and oppression of government ? That would be sweet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry if that term offended anybody with thin skin but the expression has a lot of validity. The fact I have to explain myself to a human being that thinks that there is no need for new restrictions because the old don't work anyhow.....
Wow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry if that term offended anybody with thin skin but the expression has a lot of validity. The fact I have to explain myself to a human being that thinks that there is no need for new restrictions because the old don't work anyhow.....
Wow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I believe what I said was your explanations were irrelevant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Check out ghost guns on the National geographic channel. They could outlaw hand guns like Australia and only the drug dealers and criminals will have them.
Drugs Inc. on natgeo channel shows the ice dealers having handguns in Australia.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Today at Angle Tree Stone,,, I'm the nut with the baronet mounted LOL 2nd bench.... 🔫
62090

Actually I believe what I said was your explanations were irrelevant
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I believe I said human being🔨🔨
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If only criminals would follow laws. Now there's an idea.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be great
But then they wouldn't be criminals
Try reality
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the sad part of it all. just about every mass shooting has happened where guns aren't allowed. You don't see them at gun shows,sporting shops,open carry places,veteran meeting halls,outdoor recreation area or places where someone is protecting carrying a firearm. as long as there are inocent victims available those looking for victims will have a target.Unless there's someone there carrying a firearm.Then the story changes.

Reality is to make more laws? I'll stick to my version .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's great to play with word meanings but this is a real issue.

Which is exactly why we shouldn't "play" with word meanings. "Real" issues require real words, not play words. Falling back on mushy bromides such as "let's compromise" when foundational principles are at stake is not just about fixing a problem. It is, in regard to the Constitution in this case, about reversing the constitutional relation between citizen and government.

It is no big secret what progressive tinkering with constitutional rights over the past hundred years has been about. It is no secret that what progressives have been trying to achieve with incremental "compromises" is the elimination of the Constitution and its structural guarantee of individual rights. And replacing that with an all-powerful administrative central government which decides and dictates what rights the citizen has.

It is no secret that among the "vast residuum" of constitutional rights that progressive government has already vanquished, a few obstinate ones remain to be destroyed. The Second Amendment being at the top of the list.

It is no secret that a cherished goal of progressives is to abolish the Second Amendment. And it is no secret, that the ultimate goal of never-ending gun control "compromises" is to eliminate private gun ownership.

Of course, the ruse is that it is about fixing the problem of gun violence. In actuality, it is about fixing the central government's problem of its inability to convince the voters that they must not have guns.

And the propaganda which progressives have convinced even themselves of as being the "truth," is that they are trying to make our lives free "from" the eternal slings and arrows which life casts our way, such as fear, or want (poverty), or violence. But the real truth is that government cannot give us the "right" not to be plagued by nature's evils so long as we, as individuals, have inherent rights "to" or "of" some basic freedoms. Those pesky basic freedoms get in the way of government giving us the "right" to be free "from" bad stuff. Free people get in each other's way. They do unacceptable, offensive, stuff to each other.

The only way the government can give us the "right" to "freedom" from bad stuff, including violence to each other (or lack of health care, or catastrophic global climate change, etc.), is to have full control of us. It must have the power to give us that "right," and not to be limited by various individual "unalienable" rights.

Ultimately, it is not only the control of our natural impulses that progressive government must have in order to provide us the panacea for a trouble free life, but it requires the control of nature itself. The burden such a government imposes on itself is so great that it cannot truly "compromise" with irritating factions and splinter groups, with "extremists" or "kooks." With "clingers" to old things or silly notions. Not yet having the total power it wants, it must still play at little compromises which will eventually lead to its promised land.

So when the government raises a "real issue," beware of how it plays with words, and the meaning of those words. It's probably true that generations have gradually been conditioned to accept the pre-eminent role of the Federal Government in every aspect of our lives. So it's only natural to most that Presidents can willy-nilly make executive orders about whatever the President wants. Or that Federal Regulatory Agencies can do just about the same. And the rationale, or excuse, is that if the Congress fails to do what the President wants, then he can just go ahead and do it himself.

But note what such logic, such playing with the meaning of words, leads to. If we accept such governance, what is the meaning of the words in the Constitution? What is the meaning of the words of any law or statute? What is the meaning or necessity of Congress? Of what use are various competing localities such as States? They, and much more, including the "rights" you think you own, are all subject to the whim and pen of one person.

And that is what you wind up with when "compromise" overrules principle.

Here's the sad part of it all. just about every mass shooting has happened where guns aren't allowed. You don't see them at gun shows,sporting shops,open carry places,veteran meeting halls,outdoor recreation area or places where someone is protecting carrying a firearm. as long as there are inocent victims available those looking for victims will have a target.Unless there's someone there carrying a firearm.Then the story changes.
In most mass shooting events over the past several decades there has been a personal connection or grievance that determined the location of the murders. I've never seen any evidence that killers look to gun free zones as easy targets...it's a myth.

In most mass shooting events over the past several decades there has been a personal connection or grievance that determined the location of the murders. I've never seen any evidence that killers look to gun free zones as easy targets...it's a myth.

Oh Bull S hit... you and your myth dismissals are getting old. Do you need direct evidence? Or can you show even one mass event where perp was at least matched with even number of armed people? They might be sick, but their primal instinct to survive will drive them to act out where there will be no armed resistance.

They might be sick, but their primal instinct to survive will drive them to act out where there will be no armed resistance.
Well, I believe the majority of mass shootings are murder suicides.

/\ /\ /\

de·flect

/dəˈflekt/

verb

cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.
"the bullet was deflected harmlessly into the ceiling"


synonyms: turn aside/away, divert, avert, sidetrack;

Ghost guns (Underground Inc.) will be on the National Geographic channel today at 5pm. for those who may want to watch it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In most mass shooting events over the past several decades there has been a personal connection or grievance that determined the location of the murders. I've never seen any evidence that killers look to gun free zones as easy targets...it's a myth.

Did you just muddle yourself or was it just the deflect Nightfighter referred to?

Why did the "personal connection or grievance" DETERMINE the location" rather than the nature of the location determine its choice? Was there a "personal connection or grievance" with a theater that caused mass shootings there? Do "personal connections and grievances" have a strange predilection for predominantly expressing themselves in well-populated gun free zones? Do those with whom mass killers have a "personal connection or grievance" with never go to places where there might be guns? Couldn't the mass shooters not determine those places in which to kill as well?

/\ /\ /\

de·flect

/dəˈflekt/
That's not a deflection, I was offering a counterpoint to your argument.

Did you just muddle yourself or was it just the deflect Nightfighter referred to?
Like a muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle bottle paddle battle?

How many mass shootings can we come up with were there is evidence the killer chose the location because it was a gun free zone?

Like a muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle bottle paddle battle?

How many mass shootings can we come up with were there is evidence the killer chose the location because it was a gun free zone?

Why don't you fund an unbiased study ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why don't you fund an unbiased study ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Buck, if gun free zones are killer magnets this shouldn't be difficult.

Buck, if gun free zones are killer magnets this shouldn't be difficult.

You're coming around ;) eliminate gun free zones
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're coming around ;) eliminate gun free zones
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

/\ /\ /\

de·flect

/dəˈflekt/

verb

cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.
"the bullet was deflected harmlessly into the ceiling"


synonyms: turn aside/away, divert, avert, sidetrack;

No, Spence. You interposed by bringing in the term "killer magnets" when referring to gun free zones...... Always dragging the ship off course....

Back to original point..... Obama want to rewrite the Constitution.... This bill claims the second amendment rights are not without limits! Double negative, democratic double speak. Just wants to limit my rights.... Send his azz back to Chicago and preserve the Constitution/

Well, I believe the majority of mass shootings are murder suicides.

You mean like San Bernadino, Ft Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, Aurora Colorado, Planned Parenthood, Chatanooga Tennessee, Charleston SC Church, and Arizona (Gabby Giffords)......those the ones you're talking about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"shall not be infringed". end of story.

No. Permits and legal firearms ownership is not the issue. I will not submit to any additional restrictions. Why people think more laws and regulations will help anything is beyond me.

a permit is not an additional restriction its an additional responsibility for a weapon thats in a different class. think of it like the difference between a ford 150 and a tractor trailer both have similarities but they are not the same ..

Why people think more laws and regulations will help anything is beyond me
because the current ones dont work

You mean like San Bernadino, Ft Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, Aurora Colorado, Planned Parenthood, Chatanooga Tennessee, Charleston SC Church, and Arizona (Gabby Giffords)......those the ones you're talking about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If that the extent of your analysis?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

a permit is not an additional restriction its an additional responsibility for a weapon thats in a different class. think of it like the difference between a ford 150 and a tractor trailer both have similarities but they are not the same ..

Why people think more laws and regulations will help anything is beyond me
because the current ones dont work
So you're suggesting a different permit for different firearms? No thanks. I must have skipped over that part in the second amendment.

The funny part about all of this is the people who are afraid of inanimate objects are all for forcing their will on firearms enthusiasts by imposing more ridiculous laws. Take a look around at what's really wrong in this country focus on those instead.

I sincerely hope the weak are put in situations where they are forced to suffer the consequences of their cowardice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like a muddle puddle tweetle poodle beetle noodle bottle paddle battle?

How many mass shootings can we come up with were there is evidence the killer chose the location because it was a gun free zone?

Evidence? What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones? What evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns on a location, such as where he worked, even if it wasn't designated a gun free zone? If the majority of FBI defined mass killings were domestic in nature, occurring in private homes, which were obviously not designated as gun free zones, what evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns or where they were in those homes, especially if the available gun was in their hands?

A couple of the articles or "studies" that I've seen, which claimed to destroy the so-called "myth" of gun free zones, try to emphasize the personal motivation of the killer over the choice of location, and then insinuate that, therefore, the reason for the shooting was not the gun free zone. That is a straw man argument, since it is mostly not claimed that gun free zones are motivations to kill, but that they make it easier.

And then those "studies" bring up statistics such as 67% of mass shootings happened in private homes and only 15% in public gun free zones, and 30% in work places. Well, that 15% (another anti-gun "study" claimed that there were "no more" than 25%) occurring in gun free zones is "evidence" that, for some (15 to 25 percent), they are attractive locations.

So, even though private homes are not classified as gun free zones, as I said above, the shooter's knowledge and familiarity with who has guns and where they are, and the advantage of having the gun, perhaps the only one in the home, in his hand while his victims are unprepared for what is about to happen, gives the shooter a "gun free" advantage when he faces those unarmed victims he is about to shoot. A similar knowledge and comfort level exists in a workplace mass shooting.

So, granted that the motivation for the domestic or workplace shootings, as well even in the gun free zone ones, is not the location, the shooter is well acquainted enough with those locations to know he can either kill all of those he is really "motivated" to kill, or a good number before he is stopped. If he is stopped. And this is true, using the above statistics, in the vast majority of mass shootings.

On the other hand, if the killer actually knew that each person in the location of his choice was well armed and trained, would he be as likely to choose that location? Do we have "evidence" that no mass shooter would choose a place with less resistance?

I did a quick check on the subject and these are the first four I saw:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370014/cruelty-gun-free-zones-john-r-lott-jr

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/080800.htm

I found a few which disputed the gun free zone "myth," but they had the typical straw man arguments. I suppose, if your inclination or preference is to believe them, then for you there is no "evidence" for the gun free zone "myth." I got a kick out of one anti-myth study which said:

"To put the improbability of mass deaths occurring at school in context, consider that the total number of handgun deaths in the United States (1980-2006) was about 32,000 per year. By comparison, since 1980, 297 people have been killed in school shootings. This amounts to roughly 9 deaths per year at school. Essentially, John Lott and other gun-advocates want teachers, professors, and security officers carrying guns in order to deter extremely unlikely events, a policy that has no substantiating evidence."

So all this urgent fuss about needing more gun control laws to make our schools safer from mass shootings is about deterring "extremely unlikely events."

If that the extent of your analysis?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it was his counterpoint to your argument....:laugha: And, I thought, a very good one. Yours, not so much. You have offered zero analysis yet ask everyone else for theirs.:faga:

Actually TDF simply asked if those were the incidents around which you had based your "belief", which I am sure you had not included in your study...

If that the extent of your analysis?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that the extent of your answer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thousands of overdoses every day, the lefts answer "Give everyone narcan, make it available over the counter", a few criminals commit murder , most instances any civilian with a firearm could have lessened the end result and the lefts answer " get rid of guns"..
Trying to use rationale when talking with these people is useless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're suggesting a different permit for different firearms? No thanks. I must have skipped over that part in the second amendment.

The funny part about all of this is the people who are afraid of inanimate objects are all for forcing their will on firearms enthusiasts by imposing more ridiculous laws. Take a look around at what's really wrong in this country focus on those instead.

I sincerely hope the weak are put in situations where they are forced to suffer the consequences of their cowardice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So.... This is a gun nut

Again,I am not opposed to guns. Just stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There could be a better process to buying a gun.

How about a mandatory gun safety class, a psych evaluation and then you get a annotation on your drivers liscence that you have a gun permit, much like getting a motorcycle liscence ? How harmful is that to the gun owner ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The gun manufacturers are protected from product liability lawsuits.
The NRA heavily lobbied congress to pass a bill that gives them immunity from lawsuits being filed by victims killed or harmed by their products. I say that they should be held to the same standard every other business is held to which is if you make a product that kills thousands of innocent people you are going to pay for the damage it has created. Even the huge auto manufacturers cant buy that kind of protection.

Maybe I am not fully informed, but for the thousands of senseless killings that i read and hear about every day, there are very, very few stories of vigilanties to the rescue.

I am a gun owner myself but I see an obvious double standard here.

The gun manufacturers are protected from product liability lawsuits.

Even the huge auto manufacturers cant buy that kind of protection.

I am a gun owner myself but I see an obvious double standard here.

I'm pretty sure if you run someone over with your car today the victim's family cannot sue the manufacturer of your car for damages...or maybe they could try but that would be ridiculous, would it not??

"shall not be infringed". end of story.

the framers were pretty smart and understood that statists would tend to use government to deny individual rights and grow governmental power which is why your rights are enumerated and guaranteed and why they provided remedies along with the enumeration of individual rights and limits on government throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights...the Second Amendment enumerates your rights, limits government and provides a remedy :)

I'm pretty sure if you run someone over with your car today the victim's family cannot sue the manufacturer of your car for damages...or maybe they could try but that would be ridiculous, would it not??

They can sue the operator of the vehicle for negligence or the manufacturer if the car has an inherently dangerous defect like the ford truck gas tanks that killed people. Car companies get sued all the time. So why not gun companies....the answer I believe is that congress can be bought for the right price and was bribed.

They can sue the operator of the vehicle for negligence or the manufacturer if the car has an inherently dangerous defect like the ford truck gas tanks that killed people. Car companies get sued all the time. So why not gun companies....the answer I believe is that congress can be bought for the right price and was bribed.

we're not talking about mechanical defects

No...not defects...even worse.... a product specifically designed to maim or kill.

No...not defects...just a product specifically designed to maim or kill.

oh...so now instead of lumping them in together you want them treated differently....soooo...if you get mad and shoot up a mall with a gun the gun manufacturer should be sued but if you get mad and drive your car through a mall....the car manufacturer should be sued or not.... since a car is not a "product specifically designed to maim or kill".....I'm confused

please explain the difference...

and Google "knife infatada" and “Save a Life–Surrender Your Knife” and tell me if knife manufacturers should be sued when their products are misused


for the record, i don't own a gun, I'm not an NRA member and I've never watched Fox News

Every case is different so I don't lump everything together.
I would like to see all companies held to the same standard and they are not. Civil cases are for juries to decide.

Every case is different so I don't lump everything together.

I would like to see all companies held to the same standard and they are not.

respectfully...you are not making any sense

Every case is different so I don't lump everything together.
I would like to see all companies held to the same standard and they are not. Civil cases are for juries to decide.

How about electric companies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well the one thing I learned with working in a prison for 30 yrs is that those who break laws that are there to protect us all really don't give a tinkers damn about laws . they just want to get what they want and use weapons of all and any type to acheive their personal goal. Power,control,greed or whatever selfish act drives them is all thats important to them. The fearful in our society forget that a gun in the house keeps the creeps out. Someone wanting to hurt people does it to create fear so they can control a society is crazy and enables terrorism-. Taking a persons right to protect themselves from those who wish ultimate control-totalitariunism,terrorism and dictatorships is acheived by taking weapons and the right to use them away from a society. stop letting criminals have it easy and empowering the abusers to take your right to protect yourself from you in the guise of controling gun violence.
30,000 gun deaths last year supposedly-50 percent from people killing themselves and the rest from criminals and crimes. fix those problems don't create an larger defense-less country.

respectfully...you are not making any sense

I think your missing the point.
Gun manufacturers are immune from civil law suits with almost no exceptions. I think they should be held to the same standard as every other manufacturing business in the country. Why the exception? Very powerful gun lobby maybe.
So I guess if you can't make sense of that, my comments are moot.

I think your missing the point.
Gun manufacturers are immune from civil law suits with almost no exceptions. I think they should be held to the same standard as every other manufacturing business in the country. Why the exception? Very powerful gun lobby maybe.
So I guess if you can't make sense of that, my comments are moot.

not sure you have all your facts straight...sticking with your car analogy, I suspect if Ford or GM (Google GM shielded lawsuit) found themselves the target of 40 American cities and counties filing purely political law suits they'd seek the same protection ....I'm sure every creep lawyer in the country was drooling at the precedent and that may be why Congress acted so quickly, ..... no, I can't make sense of holding a car, gun, knife, lollipop manufacturer responsible for what an individual does with their legally manufactured and sold and non-defective product...

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. Im done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There could be a better process to buying a gun.

How about a mandatory gun safety class, a psych evaluation and then you get a annotation on your drivers liscence that you have a gun permit, much like getting a motorcycle liscence ? How harmful is that to the gun owner ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes because a safety course is going to be high priority for those that are going to use a gun to kill others or themselves.
How about this , we teach gun safety in our schools, much like the NRA Eddy Eagle program. That would have an actual positive affect in preventing accidental deaths and respect of firearms .
Asking somebody to be subject to a psychiatric test , with a conclusion based on an opinion of a possibly biased doctor is not a good idea .

I could be persuaded to make drug testing part of the equation though .

Thoughts ??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sex Ed. Drivers Ed. Gun Ed.
Maybe they can rope it all together and watch Smokey and the Bandit ? ::rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. Im done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your goal is to put gun companies out of business , make a bunch of lawyers rich and make people less responsible for their own actions , then work to repeal the law .
Or maybe you want to make it so that the wealthy are the only ones that can afford firearms , as repealing this law will certainly a sure a huge spike in firearm cost . An interesting strategy , especially if your conclusion is poor people commit most of the gun crimes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What facts do you think im wrong about? Congress did in fact pass a law in 2005 that prevents gun companies from being sued. No other companies have that protection. I'm done repeating myself .....
the facts are out there on this one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


you've got it exactly backwards.....you are complaining as though the firearm manufactures enjoy some special privilege.. read the facts from the 2005 law it's not nearly as simple as you state...the reason for the "exemption" as you call it was because gun manufacturers were being treated "differently" by these cities and counties...these cities would never sue a car manufacturer because drivers misused their cars....the gun manufacturers sought protection....what would you have them do?

let me sum it up


You would like to see all companies held to the same standard as every other manufacturing business in the country. they were before the law suits

Why the exception?. because they weren't, they were being held to a different standard

Evidence? What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones? What evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns on a location, such as where he worked, even if it wasn't designated a gun free zone? If the majority of FBI defined mass killings were domestic in nature, occurring in private homes, which were obviously not designated as gun free zones, what evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns or where they were in those homes, especially if the available gun was in their hands?

A couple of the articles or "studies" that I've seen, which claimed to destroy the so-called "myth" of gun free zones, try to emphasize the personal motivation of the killer over the choice of location, and then insinuate that, therefore, the reason for the shooting was not the gun free zone. That is a straw man argument, since it is mostly not claimed that gun free zones are motivations to kill, but that they make it easier.

And then those "studies" bring up statistics such as 67% of mass shootings happened in private homes and only 15% in public gun free zones, and 30% in work places. Well, that 15% (another anti-gun "study" claimed that there were "no more" than 25%) occurring in gun free zones is "evidence" that, for some (15 to 25 percent), they are attractive locations.

So, even though private homes are not classified as gun free zones, as I said above, the shooter's knowledge and familiarity with who has guns and where they are, and the advantage of having the gun, perhaps the only one in the home, in his hand while his victims are unprepared for what is about to happen, gives the shooter a "gun free" advantage when he faces those unarmed victims he is about to shoot. A similar knowledge and comfort level exists in a workplace mass shooting.

So, granted that the motivation for the domestic or workplace shootings, as well even in the gun free zone ones, is not the location, the shooter is well acquainted enough with those locations to know he can either kill all of those he is really "motivated" to kill, or a good number before he is stopped. If he is stopped. And this is true, using the above statistics, in the vast majority of mass shootings.

On the other hand, if the killer actually knew that each person in the location of his choice was well armed and trained, would he be as likely to choose that location? Do we have "evidence" that no mass shooter would choose a place with less resistance?

I did a quick check on the subject and these are the first four I saw:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/11/report-92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370014/cruelty-gun-free-zones-john-r-lott-jr

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/

http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/080800.htm

I found a few which disputed the gun free zone "myth," but they had the typical straw man arguments. I suppose, if your inclination or preference is to believe them, then for you there is no "evidence" for the gun free zone "myth." I got a kick out of one anti-myth study which said:

"To put the improbability of mass deaths occurring at school in context, consider that the total number of handgun deaths in the United States (1980-2006) was about 32,000 per year. By comparison, since 1980, 297 people have been killed in school shootings. This amounts to roughly 9 deaths per year at school. Essentially, John Lott and other gun-advocates want teachers, professors, and security officers carrying guns in order to deter extremely unlikely events, a policy that has no substantiating evidence."

So all this urgent fuss about needing more gun control laws to make our schools safer from mass shootings is about deterring "extremely unlikely events."
I kept reading and waiting for some good evidence, even one great anecdote and came up empty.

And your reasoning that because some mass shootings do happen in gun free zones as proof of it as a factor really doesn't pass the smell test.

What facts do you think im wrong about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/16/hillary-clinton/clinton-gun-industry-wholly-protected-all-lawsuits/

Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits.

Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.

We rate Clinton’s claim False.

You mean like San Bernadino, Ft Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, Aurora Colorado, Planned Parenthood, Chatanooga Tennessee, Charleston SC Church, and Arizona (Gabby Giffords)......those the ones you're talking about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I didn't say all, I said the majority of...you're just cherry picking.

And in several of these you mention the killer clearly didn't have a plan to stay alive. Creating a situation where you're likely going to die is basically the same thing.

read the facts from the 2005 law it's not nearly as simple as you state...the reason for the "exemption" as you call it was because gun manufacturers were being treated "differently" by these cities and counties...these cities would never sue a car manufacturer because drivers misused their cars....the gun manufacturers sought protection....what would you have them do?
No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

If your goal is to put gun companies out of business , make a bunch of lawyers rich and make people less responsible for their own actions , then work to repeal the law .
Or maybe you want to make it so that the wealthy are the only ones that can afford firearms , as repealing this law will certainly a sure a huge spike in firearm cost . An interesting strategy , especially if your conclusion is poor people commit most of the gun crimes .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not my goal to do any sort of thing like that. Just pointing out the fact that gun companies have a special privilege. I think a jury should decide accountability just like they do with all other commercial enterprises.
If I'm a contractor and someone gets hurt even through there own stupidity...I can be sued. My son is a bartender, if he serves someone too much alcohol he and the establishment can be sued. Doctor makes a mistake ...he gets sued....not saying it's right but that's how it is for any business.

We can all site studies that support our views I suppose... but a study found that affluent societies with more gun ownership have more homicides.

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

no, the lawsuits were bullying tactics by thugs...comply or we'll put you out of business....I can quote a couple of mayors who said essentially that, in fact...of course that was their argument as destroying them through litigation was the stated goal

No, the NRA's argument was that the gun manufacturers didn't have the financial resources to respond to the civil lawsuits, which by the way, weren't about liability around the use of the gun as much as the gun makers responsibility (or irresponsibility) for how they market and track sales of weapons.

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

Not my goal to do any sort of thing like that. Just pointing out the fact that gun companies have a special privilege. I think a jury should decide accountability just like they do with all other commercial enterprises.
If I'm a contractor and someone gets hurt even through there own stupidity...I can be sued. My son is a bartender, if he serves someone too much alcohol he and the establishment can be sued. Doctor makes a mistake ...he gets sued....not saying it's right but that's how it is for any business.

We can all site studies that support our views I suppose... but a study found that affluent societies with more gun ownership have more homicides.
When we're the alcohol producers sued for the damage and deaths their product causes....it's the people not the product that are to blame for illegal use.
If I use a hammer to kill someone should the manufacturer be sued for my actions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.
Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.
And how about ghost guns that are made with no serial number or even with a serial number of a legal gun. It's the people who misuse the guns that are to blame. If I use a Bic lighter to set a home on fire killing the people inside should Bic be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So.... This is a gun nut

Again,I am not opposed to guns. Just stupidity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As am I.

Gun manufacturers fought hard against a regulation that would require additional sets of serial numbers in hidden locations on guns because it would cost too much.
Trouble is some of the guns used to kill people, including police officers have these serial numbers erased or removed and can't be traced, so killers can't be brought to justice.
Some of these victims families find it irresponsible of gun companies, why deny them the right to be heard in court.

How does the serial number on a gun prevent somebody from using it illegally ? The serial number could only be used to locate an owner if the police have that gun in hand. Chances are that gun was not purchased legally anyway .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And how about ghost guns that are made with no serial number or even with a serial number of a legal gun. It's the people who misuse the guns that are to blame. If I use a Bic lighter to set a home on fire killing the people inside should Bic be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ed it is required by law that the "ghost gun" be engraved to NFA standards when it is "ready to fire ". The ability for a person to manufacture a firearm is what people who are against firearms call "ghost guns". This is just another whole thread of lets blame the gun, not the criminal who steals it ,or the criminal that illegally removes the serial number or the criminal that uses it to commit murder. Lets blame something other than the person using it.
MA requires a citizen to complete a firearms safety course ,from there the applicant must pass a federal and state background check. Then it is up to the chief of police. After all that you may be issued a license to carry. As for any other useless bull#^&#^&#^&#^&? No thanks, I've passed all of it already. Don't like them ? Don't go near them, end of story. But to fabricate more redundant regulations is foolish.

Yea, but that would just make it easier to tell which shops are selling guns that find their way into cop killers hands...

Oh wait.

I know right...because criminals frequently purchase their guns legally and register them to themselves and then leave them at the scene of the crime so that the police can trace the weapon back them....good grief:confused:

I didn't say all, I said the majority of...you're just cherry picking.

And in several of these you mention the killer clearly didn't have a plan to stay alive. Creating a situation where you're likely going to die is basically the same thing.

Maybe they didn't believe they were going to die.....considering they were gun free zones....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know right...because criminals frequently purchase their guns legally and register them to themselves and then leave them at the scene of the crime so that the police can trace the weapon back them....good grief:confused:
You didn't do your homework.

Maybe they didn't believe they were going to die.....considering they were gun free zones....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
How did you suspend your logic to post that?

How did you suspend your logic to post that?

I fed the info into the Spence-O-Meter.....its an invention of mine that takes the info, strips out the facts, removes common sense......then neatly spits it out all wrapped up in a nice bundle of unsubstantiated beliefs and sarcastic innuendos.

Don't worry., I'll credit you when I get the patent registered
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As am I.

So your comment about hoping the weak are put into situations to suffer the consequence of their cowardice.....is that supposed to make you sound intelligent? Because I got the opposite effect. Btw,do guns make people stronger?
Again,there are no dumb guns. But an abundance of dumb gun owners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I fed the info into the Spence-O-Meter.....its an invention of mine that takes the info, strips out the facts, removes common sense......then neatly spits it out all wrapped up in a nice bundle of unsubstantiated beliefs and sarcastic innuendos.

Don't worry., I'll credit you when I get the patent registered
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:claps :claps::claps::claps::claps:

I kept reading and waiting for some good evidence, even one great anecdote and came up empty.

And your reasoning that because some mass shootings do happen in gun free zones as proof of it as a factor really doesn't pass the smell test.

You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence.

It is an executive action which is a lot different than an order thankfully.

God help this country from all the numb nuts who have their heads in the sand.
Keep right on believing and telling yourselves that it's those rich republicans who are the bad guys. There seems to be no understanding here anymore
Did all the liberals not take history classes in school?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.

So your comment about hoping the weak are put into situations to suffer the consequence of their cowardice.....is that supposed to make you sound intelligent? Because I got the opposite effect. Btw,do guns make people stronger?
Again,there are no dumb guns. But an abundance of dumb gun owners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And your thought or opinion of what I wrote is supposed to matter to me ? Wrong again. Do guns make people stronger ? No they don't. But it is an indivduals option to choose whether they own them. Yet everybody that is afraid of them thinks nobody should own them. Those people should have to suffer the consequences should anything happen. But hey I'm a dumb gun owner with my own opinion that won't be coerced into changing how I feel about things. And if it doesn't agree with how others feel well that's just too bad, out come the labels and insults. My feelings aren't hurt. Carry on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it doesn't matter then why do you keep responding? I am not a gun person but I am all for the right to carry. Your stereotypes are wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.

Written when to of the line firearm was a single shot musket....

I'm with DZ (and gulp, I agree with Dangles). CCW for self defense, sure. Hunting rifles, shotguns for hunting or home protection. Absolutely.

I think there is a limit where at minimum for some types of firearms a special permit beyond is required, I think to me, that is not denying someone there right, but does place some restrictions that hopefully keep some out of the wrong hands. A common theme in a lot of these instances is mental health.

And how about ghost guns that are made with no serial number or even with a serial number of a legal gun. It's the people who misuse the guns that are to blame. If I use a Bic lighter to set a home on fire killing the people inside should Bic be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, I am not a gun owner, and am admittedly a bit naive on the process. As a sportsman I have a lot of friends that hunt and support that right, and the right to carry if you feel the need.

What I want to know, and Andy and Ross, educate me. How DO so many guns get into the wrong hands? I don't just mean the mentally ill, but the gang bangers etc.. where do they come from?

Straw purchases (i.e. San Bernadino)?
Illegal imports (i.e. the 'Irish' on Sons of Anarchy)
Stolen? (from where? Homes? Factories?)
Secret manufacturing plants?
The so-called gun show loop holes?

How do we deal with this without restricting your rights?

My opinion is that majority are stolen and traded through black market. The registration of existing guns has a horrendous track record, which is slowly being addressed. But there are a great many guns in the hands/homes of an older generation that aren't offering them up for registration. Many, I believe, slip through the cracks in the subsequent "transfer" of weapons after an owner dies. I am handling one for a family now. Deceased was formerly a FFL. So far, I have taken possession (ie. removed from the house) 34 firearms. Police captain pulled up the record, and his PIN for me, in order to transfer. Only had three weapons registered..... Three. We still have two safes and the attic to explore as well....
Background checks? I am good with that. Mass seems to do a decent job with that. I think my Class A took just under three months to process. My twins are annoyed that I wont take them out shooting until they take the safety course with a certified instructor.... (My fault for taking them out once with a sporting shotgun and now saying we can't go shoot handguns.) And is the current safety course enough? Probably not. But these are the areas; background checks, registration, and training that need to be addressed. Not banning the weapons, and certainly not rewriting the Constitution.

So, I am not a gun owner, and am admittedly a bit naive on the process. As a sportsman I have a lot of friends that hunt and support that right, and the right to carry if you feel the need.

What I want to know, and Andy and Ross, educate me. How DO so many guns get into the wrong hands? I don't just mean the mentally ill, but the gang bangers etc.. where do they come from?

Straw purchases (i.e. San Bernadino)?
Illegal imports (i.e. the 'Irish' on Sons of Anarchy)
Stolen? (from where? Homes? Factories?)
Secret manufacturing plants?
The so-called gun show loop holes?

How do we deal with this without restricting your rights?

Like drugs if there is money to be made selling them illegally there will be those that will procure them to sell . Remember prohibition? The war on drugs ? How's that working out ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you Ross for a coherent and educated response. This thread has demonstrated that not all gun owners are reckless and also perhaps that those who choose not to exercise their privilege to carry may not be cowards who deserve to be threatened. I have to admit that I had no idea that anybody with a permit could purchase an assault rifle. I am all for an amendment to this area of the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you Ross for a coherent and educated response. This thread has demonstrated that not all gun owners are reckless and also perhaps that those who choose not to exercise their privilege to carry may not be cowards who deserve to be threatened. I have to admit that I had no idea that anybody with a permit could purchase an assault rifle. I am all for an amendment to this area of the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What's an assault weapon genius ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am honestly not sure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chris, the term "assault weapon" has been bandied about and misused on both side of the argument. This bill wants to also include any semi-automatic weapon capable of accepting a magazine of more than ten rounds. This would include many/most sidearms carried by LEOs... Are they assault weapons? Semi-automatic is simply a weapon that utilizes the energy from the expended cartridge to chamber a subsequent cartridge from the magazine. Can I buy a gun now with an extended magazine? Not in Mass. Do I have magazines manufactured and possessed in state before the ban, ie. 1994? Yes. And that is my right. If the weapon meets the standards of the state and fed, meaning that it is not all tricked out( with threaded barrel for example), and has the allowed number of foreign vs. domestic parts, it passes the test. A whole slew of kits are out there to build and add on, because people want a cool looking gun. This bill's authors would have me limited to .22 pea shooters. My point is if I am ready to put my finger inside the trigger guard, I do not want to be under gunned. While this bill leaves many solid weapons on the table, it is effectively putting the law abiding citizen at a considerable disadvantage when it comes to firepower. And that is not the intention of the 2nd Amendment.

Maybe they would rather we could only have flintlock muzzle loaders......

I am honestly not sure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I appreciate your honesty .
It's a made up definition used to scare people .A license for automatic weapons , if that's what you mean , is not easy to get and subject to a more thorough federal back ground check .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Very interesting read and I agree with the author...
http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/WhatArmsAreProtected.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

It's a made up definition used to scare people.
I never realized that. I thought it was just a very plainspoken way to describe a gun that has features designed and intended for combat over say hunting or self defense.

It's a made up definition used to scare people
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Repeat after me.... WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never realized that. I thought it was just a very plainspoken way to describe a gun that has features designed and intended for combat over say hunting or self defense.

Not exactly. My understanding is that Hitler came up with the name Sturmgewehr 44 for the new improved German battle rifle. Loosely translated it is assault weapon, as he wanted it to be used to "storm" enemy positions. One of the first to have selective fire feature, which usually means safe, single/semiautomatic, or auto with 2 or 3 round bursts more so than full auto. Full auto can melt a barrel within two or three mags....

I never realized that. I thought it was just a very plainspoken way to describe a gun that has features designed and intended for combat over say hunting or self defense.

Part of the problem is that misinformation gets propagated about what AR stands for in models like the AR15.......people think it stands for assault rifle, where it actually stands for the manufacturer of the original model......ArmaLite
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what happened to the five year jail term in Massachusetts for having or using a gun without a license???
To hard on the lawyers or judges???

I have thought that to be law for thirty , to fifty years.
Five years in a tent city should straighten things out

My understanding is that Hitler came up with the name Sturmgewehr 44 for the new improved German battle rifle. Loosely translated it is assault weapon, as he wanted it to be used to "storm" enemy positions.
Interesting how Hitler added the pistol grip and extended round magazine to make it look more scary :devil2:

I fed the info into the Spence-O-Meter.....its an invention of mine that takes the info, strips out the facts, removes common sense......then neatly spits it out all wrapped up in a nice bundle of unsubstantiated beliefs and sarcastic innuendos.

Don't worry., I'll credit you when I get the patent registered
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I figured you guys are smart enough to just get the summary product.

My opinion is that majority are stolen and traded through black market.

Interesting read on this topic.

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.htm

You didn't ask for proof, you asked for evidence.
You didn't really provide either.

How does the serial number on a gun prevent somebody from using it illegally ? The serial number could only be used to locate an owner if the police have that gun in hand. Chances are that gun was not purchased legally anyway .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The serial number isn't to prevent a gun from being used illegally, it's to make it easier to understand the flow of illegal weapons. Odds are a lot are coming from the same group of corrupt dealers and straw purchasers.

Read that link I posted above...

ATF officials say that only about 8% of the nation's 124,000 retail gun dealers sell the majority of handguns that are used in crimes.

Written when to of the line firearm was a single shot musket....

I'm with DZ (and gulp, I agree with Dangles). CCW for self defense, sure. Hunting rifles, shotguns for hunting or home protection. Absolutely.

I think there is a limit where at minimum for some types of firearms a special permit beyond is required, I think to me, that is not denying someone there right, but does place some restrictions that hopefully keep some out of the wrong hands. A common theme in a lot of these instances is mental health.

You people don't get it
It's not about the type, kind or size of the arms referred to in the 2nd amendment , it is to give the right to the people to protect themselves from the government. Have you heard of the federal employees like homeland security who were asked if they were told to fire upon the American people, would they? And when a negative answer given those were fired ? This is our government over stepping their bounds.
I will not hide my head in the sand
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I fed the info into the Spence-O-Meter.....its an invention of mine that takes the info, strips out the facts, removes common sense......then neatly spits it out all wrapped up in a nice bundle of unsubstantiated beliefs and sarcastic innuendos.

Don't worry., I'll credit you when I get the patent registered
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Outstanding !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You people don't get it
It's not about the type, kind or size of the arms referred to in the 2nd amendment , it is to give the right to the people to protect themselves from the government. Have you heard of the federal employees like homeland security who were asked if they were told to fire upon the American people, would they? And when a negative answer given those were fired ? This is our government over stepping their bounds.
I will not hide my head in the sand
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
At the time the militia weren't protecting the people from their own government, they were protecting them from the British!

What did Washington do during the Whiskey Rebellion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At the time the militia weren't protecting the people from their own government, they were protecting them from the British!

What did Washington do during the Whiskey Rebellion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You might want to check your history since the 2nd amendment was ratified after we declared our independence and Washington became our first president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You might want to check your history since the 2nd amendment was ratified after we declared our independence and Washington became our first president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well aware of the timeline.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well aware of the timeline.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what you are saying it was the citizens who were to defend the state/country from an invasion by the British.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is your opinion

But not mine
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did not offer any opinion slip
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Amendment, as written, was about the security of a free State. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would include "rising and fighting," as you put it, against ANY government which tried to limit or deny the freedoms granted to the People in the Constitution.

That was made clear by those who drafted the Constitution in their debates during ratification, and in their debates in various newspapers and journals, and especially in the essays in the ongoing debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As well as in various comments by Founders during and after the ratification of the Constitution.

They understood the federal government they were creating might one day become just as tyrannical as the British government they had just overthrown. If it were given power to control citizen access to firearms as the British tried to do, then it could disarm them.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, regardless if it was "their own" or a foreign government. Even more so to protect against "their own" government, since attacks by foreign governments could initially and more efficiently be repelled by the standing federal military, not by the "militia," of "their own" government.

The Amendment, as written, was about the security of a free State. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That would include "rising and fighting," as you put it, against ANY government which tried to limit or deny the freedoms granted to the People in the Constitution.

That was made clear by those who drafted the Constitution in their debates during ratification, and in their debates in various newspapers and journals, and especially in the essays in the ongoing debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As well as various comments by Founders during and after the ratification of the Constitution.

They understood the federal government they were creating might one day become just as tyrannical as the British government they had just overthrown. If it were given power to control citizen access to firearms as the British tried to do, then it could disarm them.

The Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizens from tyrannical government, regardless if it was "their own" or a foreign government. Even more so to protect against "their own" government, since attacks by foreign governments could initially and more efficiently be repelled by the standing federal military, not the "militia," of "their own" government.
That's the way I see it. And to claim they didn't forsee the advancement of arms in regards to efficiency or lethality is rediculous. They wanted the people/citizens to have the ability to protect their freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the way I see it. And to claim they didn't forsee the advancement of arms in regards to efficiency or lethality is rediculous. They wanted the people/citizens to have the ability to protect their freedom.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, that's one of those specious little arguments the left throws out in the hopes that we're too stupid to see through them. Currently, among lot's of other things, for instance, Obamacare. They were depending on the stupidity of the American people to not grasp what was really going on.

As for seeing the advancement of arms, OF COURSE, the Founders knew that weapons would become deadlier. They were highly intelligent students of history. The knew very well that the weapons as well as all the other contrivances of their own time were technologically superior to those of the past. And that the technological advance of history was not going to stop with their generation. Heck, Franklin was discovering electricity. There were many technological inventions and advancements being created right in their view. That's why they made the structure of the Constitution general enough to apply to future generations, rather than so specific and cumbersome so that it could only apply to conditions as they were.

They knew well that militaries and weapons could become far more lethal than in their days of ratification. And they knew that if the second amendment were to enable the People to fight against tyrannical government in the future, they would require sufficient weapons similar to those against whom they would fight. That's why they wrote "arms" rather than "muskets."

This is an example of how paranoia propaganda is spread. I don't think we need militias yet but the conspiracy freaks are coming out of hiding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the rub about the 2nd amendment is this- was it created to have a Militia ready to rise and fight for the country? Or was it intended to act as a deterrent from government oppression ? Is this question answered in the amendment? I do t think so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, since the Constitution and Bill of Rights are documents designed to be "deterrents from government oppression"(our government, not foreign governments) and a framework for the relationship between our government and the individual....I think it's pretty obvious...is it not?

as you said previously "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear...

As for seeing the advancement of arms, OF COURSE, the Founders knew that weapons would become deadlier.

They knew well that militaries and weapons could become far more lethal than in their days of ratification. And they knew that if the second amendment were to enable the People to fight against tyrannical government in the future, they would require sufficient weapons similar to those against whom they would fight. That's why they wrote "arms" rather than "muskets."

That is the most important part
I think debutch should go on CNN and explain things, he does a good job.

Our rights to bear arms have been infringed on enough already
I would like access to claymore mines and rocket launchers so we can make America great again :-)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is an example of how paranoia propaganda is spread. I don't think we need militias yet but the conspiracy freaks are coming out of hiding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-militia-oregon-20160103-story.html

Already happening
There are some real whack job extremists out there
Not sure if you have paid attention to what the agenda of our government has been for the past eight years but it's pretty obvious to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At the time the militia weren't protecting the people from their own government, they were protecting them from the British!


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they were fighting a tyrannical government.....the framers were intent that Americans always have the ability to fight a tyrannical government, even their own, if they found if it's operators leaving the framework of the Constitution

I think I need to back step a little and say I know exactly what the 2nd amendment says. My point is that they should have been a little more explanatory in what they meant. That said, the way I see it, our rights have been infringed upon a lot already. We should be able to own fully automatic weapons and an Abrams tank if we wanted.

This reminds me a lot of the Rhode Island state constitution stating that we are allowed to "freely" access the shore to fish and gather. However, don't try doing that with out a salt water fishing liscence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ff-militia-oregon-20160103-story.html

Already happening
There are some real whack job extremists out there
Not sure if you have paid attention to what the agenda of our government has been for the past eight years but it's pretty obvious to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bruce,the origins of that conflict go back more than 8 years
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

watch and learn

they want to have complete control, if they get that then how are we free?

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

watch and learn

they want to have complete control, if they get that then how are we free?
Great post! Thankyou!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I kept reading and waiting for some good evidence, even one great anecdote and came up empty.

I started out by asking "What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones? What evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns on a location, such as where he worked, even if it wasn't designated a gun free zone? If the majority of FBI defined mass killings [which differs in magnitude of what is popularly considered a mass shooting and includes private rather than public locations] were domestic in nature, occurring in private homes, which were obviously not designated as gun free zones, what evidence is there that the killer was not familiar with the lack of guns or where they were in those homes, especially if the available gun was in their hands?"

Of course, you didn't bother to come up with such evidence, but you ask for evidence of the reverse.

I pointed out that some articles that purported to debunk the gun free zone "myth" used straw man tactics such as by implying that the supporters of the "myth" were really claiming that the gun free zone was the motivation for killing. When such supporters don't claim that. They acknowledge that there were personal problems that motivated the shooters, but a gun free location merely made it easier to carry out their plan.

I pointed out that the gun-free-zone mythers used questionable statistics to show that the vast majority of mass shootings were not in gun-free zones. And that only 15% to 25% of the shootings were in designated gun-free zones. And by using the FBI definition of mass shootings they claimed that 60% to 70% percent were in private homes (which for the most part are gun free anyway). And about 30% were in work places (which for the most part are also gun free either by designation, understanding, or habit). So that in actuality, even using those misleading statistics, whether designated or not so designated, upon closer examination most of the mass shootings, even by FBI definition, occurred in what were effectively gun-free locations.


And I listed some articles that addressed all that. In one, for instance, a CPRC report showed that a Newtown shooting study claiming only 14% of mass shootings occurred in designated gun-free zones and 86% didn't was flawed because the 86% included private homes (which for the most part, as I said, are gun free). And that, actually, 92% of the shootings did occur in gun-free zones.


And your reasoning that because some mass shootings do happen in gun free zones as proof of it as a factor really doesn't pass the smell test.

You didn't ask for proof. You wanted evidence. And I provided way more, either circumstantial or direct, than you gave for "What evidence is there that some locations weren't chosen because they were gun-free zones?" You gave none.

Never mind that even if we take the faulty low-ball estimate of designated gun-free zones only being 15% to 25% of all mass shootings compared to 85% occurring in private homes or work places, the number of designated gun-free zones is miniscule compared with the number of detached private homes (over 91 million to which should be added another 30 million apartment buildings multiplied by the number of living units therein) plus the untold number of workplaces. By that closer analysis the comparatively miniscule number of designated gun-free zones accounting for 15% to 25% of all mass shootings is far more significantly reflective of the importance of location than the rest of the shootings spread over the many millions of not actually designated gun-free zones. Then, again, most of those gun allowed places are actually gun free most of the time.

And never mind the simple logic that a criminal, mass shooter or other wise, would rather that his victims were unarmed. That's too simple a concept and is not subject to impersonal statistical analysis. It would be possible to ask criminals what they would prefer. What do you think they'ld say if they were honest? I know, I know, mass shooters, according to you, all want to commit suicide. But don't they want more easily and assuredly to kill the right number of victims before they croak?

Then there is that troublesome human nature thing which prefers the path of least resistance. But . . . NAHHH . . . that's not an attractive sort of discussion for sophisticated, academic, progressive minds. And, certainly, military logic which seeks advantage in battle would be below the dignity of such minds.

No, it's a higher calling to consider more interesting and challenging notions on which to build a conclusive battery of statistics. The unreachable intellectual elevation of such studies would be more impressive, thus convincing, to the weaker minds of the general public. It is the appearance, the relative superiority of perception, the convolution of context, which produces the more sophisticated aroma in the contest of narrative . . . that passes the smell test.

I would guess that for you, the long history of tortured efforts to create the image of Hillary as Commander in Chief would make the aroma emanating from her butt crack an essence of fine perfume. And such from Cheney just a stinky fart.

And it's amazing how you can cling to and still insist that the notion of a crude video must be recognized as at least a part of the reason for the attack on the Benghazi compound, but the idea that mass shooters would prefer a gun-free zone to do their work rather than doing it in an armed zone is just a myth.

I think I need to back step a little and say I know exactly what the 2nd amendment says. My point is that they should have been a little more explanatory in what they meant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think if you read all 10 Amendments....you will find your answer...V mentions land and Naval forces as well as the Militia (citizen army)....a clear distinction...and as II states..."necessary to the security of a free state"..they weren't talking about free from foreign entities, they were talking about free from "oppression" by the Government that they were Establishing, as you put it, , which is as history has taught us, thanks to the propensities of man, inevitable....an armed citizenry is the ultimate guarantee against that....every Amendment limits and restricts the Federal Government from infringing on individual Americans, it is a list of individual protections.....as II restricts the Federal government regarding these rights no where does it empower the Federal Government in the area of citizens arms....you might argue "well regulated" but it would make no sense to give the Federal Government the power to regulate a citizenry's ability to protect itself from an oppressive and/or tyrannical Federal Government would it?

And as far as "well regulated"
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

isn't it interesting too that some will sneer at the idea that an oppressive domestic government might deny or infringe on enumerated Constitutional rights as they simultaneously argue that some individuals are currently being oppressively denied all sorts of "rights" not mentioned in the Constitution

No industry deserves the right to act with reckless disregard for the public safety.

But that is exactly what congress did when they allow only one industry to remain immune from acts of negligence.
Gun lobby has lots of money to bribe congress.

They wont allow gun violence victims the right to go to court and be heard. Cases are dismissed based on that law. No other business has that protection. Why are they so afraid of letting juries hear the evidence.
.

I'm in favor of the right to bear arms but not for shielding
gun manufacturers and dealers from negligence.

No industry deserves the right to act with reckless disregard for the public safety.

But that is exactly what congress did when they allow only one industry to remain immune from acts of negligence.
Gun lobby has lots of money to bribe congress.

They wont allow gun violence victims the right to go to court and be heard. Cases are dismissed based on that law. No other business has that protection. Why are they so afraid of letting juries hear the evidence.
.

I'm in favor of the right to bear arms but not for shielding
gun manufacturers and dealers from negligence.

once again

Our ruling

Clinton said the gun industry is "the only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability."

Clinton is talking about a law that says the gun industry is protected from liability in certain instances, but the law also specifies several situations in which the gun industry is susceptible to lawsuits.

Further, Congress has passed a number of laws that protect a variety of business sectors from lawsuits in certain situations, so the situation is not unique to the gun industry.

We rate Clinton’s claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/16/hillary-clinton/clinton-gun-industry-wholly-protected-all-lawsuits/

No industry deserves the right to act with reckless disregard for the public safety.

But that is exactly what congress did when they allow only one industry to remain immune from acts of negligence.
Gun lobby has lots of money to bribe congress.

They wont allow gun violence victims the right to go to court and be heard. Cases are dismissed based on that law. No other business has that protection. Why are they so afraid of letting juries hear the evidence.
.

I'm in favor of the right to bear arms but not for shielding
gun manufacturers and dealers from negligence.

They are not protected from act of negligence.

Curious if you're upset with all those that " bribe " or just those you don't agree with . If you have a representative that you think can be bought then you should vote them out of Congress or the Senate .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No industry deserves the right to act with reckless disregard for the public safety.

But that is exactly what congress did when they allow only one industry to remain immune from acts of negligence.
Gun lobby has lots of money to bribe congress.

They wont allow gun violence victims the right to go to court and be heard. Cases are dismissed based on that law. No other business has that protection. Why are they so afraid of letting juries hear the evidence.
.

I'm in favor of the right to bear arms but not for shielding
gun manufacturers and dealers from negligence.
Just for you answer my previous question.
Can I sue Bic because someone used a Bic lighter to burn my house down?
Someone drowns in a tub should the tub manufacturer be held responsible?
Someone dies in a car accident should the manufacturer of the fuel be held responsible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just for you answer my previous question.
Can I sue Bic because someone used a Bic lighter to burn my house down?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try sueing Halliburton if your well water is contaminated from fracking. They are immune and do not even have to share what chemicals they use.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Donald will Veto

A person driving gets distracted by texting and kills someone. Should the phone manufacturer or the carrier be held responsible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a gun volume issue if you follow the 2a guys only logic that gun laws attack law abiding gun owners ? Then were are all the illegal guns com ing from? If all sales need to go through a dealer As I have stated before have as many guns as you want but they should be regerstered .. I served 22 years in the infantry and 28 years and counting as a correctional officer not a liberal past. But as it's been said by some others if the Nra keeps it's current stance as the lobby of NO! Sooner or later legislation will be Ram rodded down their throats..

It's a gun volume issue if you follow the 2a guys only logic that gun laws attack law abiding gun owners ? Then were are all the illegal guns com ing from? If all sales need to go through a dealer As I have stated before have as many guns as you want but they should be regerstered .. I served 22 years in the infantry and 28 years and counting as a correctional officer not a liberal past. But as it's been said by some others if the Nra keeps it's current stance as the lobby of NO! Sooner or later legislation will be Ram rodded down their throats..
http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we already register guns in this state, I don't see how it will help anything at all if it is enforced acrosss the country for all existing guns. Do you think criminals are going to register their guns?
read the link above by ezduzitgood


registration is the first step the government needs to then disarm us law abiding citizens.
I don't want to see our country end up like Australia




Australian Gun Law Update;
Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts....
From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real
figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent,
Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria.....alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in 'successfully ridding Australian society of guns....'

You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST.
DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.
BE ONE OF THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO WON 'T STAND FOR NONSENSE
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

[QUOTE=wdmso;1089904]It's a gun volume issue if you follow the 2a guys only logic that gun laws attack law abiding gun owners ? Then were are all the illegal guns com ing from? If all sales need to go through a dealer As I have stated before have as many guns as you want but they should be regerstered .. I served 22 years in the infantry and 28 years and counting as a correctional officer not a liberal past. But as it's been said by some others if the Nra keeps it's current stance as the lobby of NO! Sooner or later legislation will be Ram rodded down their throats..[/QUOTE

Like I said before. If making them illegal would prevent criminals from having illegal guns then where is all the heroin coming from in this country ?
Obama's executive order will not save one life. Check 2016 stats and I will bet you , you will see no improvement
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't want to see our country end up like Australia

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

[QUOTE=spence;1089921]http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/[/QUOTE

Did you write that Snopes article ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spin numbers all you want
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
a simple fact, check it with snopes



In Lexington of all places, there is a guy proposing a ban on certain weapons he refers to as the made up term of assault weapons.
Figures he's from Harvard University

here is what I found

Dear Fellow Town Meeting Members and other Concerned Citizens:



For all of the obvious reasons, and because Lexington has first mover advantage and responsibilities, I have submitted a Citizen’s Article to the Warrant to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity gun magazines within the Town of Lexington. I hope that it will have your support now, and when the article comes before Town Meeting in March.



The proposed legislation will be modeled strictly on an ordinance enacted by Highland Park, IL (a suburb of Chicago) in 2013, approved in a Federal district court there, and by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, implicitly suggesting that local town and city bans on large scale weaponry do not impinge on Second Amendment rights under the U. S. Constitution, and are permissible despite its ruling in Miller in 2014. The U.S. has a long tradition of regulating weapons at the local level – think Dodge City, Kansas, and Tombstone, Ariz., not to mention Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.



The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court’s welcome inaction in the Highland Park case was the seventieth time since 2008 that the Court has declined to consider a challenge to state or local gun regulation. “This creates a big opportunity,” it said, “for Americans to put pressure on their…local leaders.”



As Nancy Rotering, Mayor of Highland Park and candidate for Congress wrote recently, the Supreme Court’s decision encourages “other cities and villages across the nation to follow our lead and pursue assault weapons without the threat of legal action under the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.” She also wrote: “One piece of legislation is not going to prevent every gun violence tragedy, but with courageous leadership, we can take steps to protect American lives.” I hope that the passage of the proposed amended by-law in Lexington will save Lexington lives and inspire other cities and towns within the Commonwealth to follow suit in this practical and sensible matter.



My proposed amendment to Chapter 97 of the Code of Lexington (Public Conduct) would in no way affect ordinary gun or hand-gun ownership in Lexington. It would, however, prohibit the possession within town limits of assault weapons – semiautomatic rifles that have the capacity to accept large capacity magazines. (The proposed article would specify in great detail exactly what kinds of weapons and magazines were covered.) The Highland Park legislation enumerates the brands outlawed. Large capacity magazines are defined as holding ten or more rounds.



Assault weapons do not include antique weapons. Citizens of the town would still be able to bear arms, just not weapons of mass murder.



I have consulted with the Selectmen, the Town Manager (and Town Counsel), the Moderator, and the Chief of Police. Everyone has been very helpful.



I will welcome your comments, criticisms, suggestions for improvement, and so on, but, please as few NRA rants as possible. This proposal will, I hope, attract widespread support from TM voters and from citizens of the Town. It is the least we can do to try to limit harm.



Robert I. Rotberg


so if you live in Lexington, protect your constitutional rights and let your town know this should not be considered.

spin numbers all you want
if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
a simple fact, check it with snopes



In Lexington of all places, there is a guy proposing a ban on certain weapons he refers to as the made up term of assault weapons.
Figures he's from Harvard University

here is what I found

Dear Fellow Town Meeting Members and other Concerned Citizens:



For all of the obvious reasons, and because Lexington has first mover advantage and responsibilities, I have submitted a Citizen’s Article to the Warrant to regulate the manufacture, sale, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity gun magazines within the Town of Lexington. I hope that it will have your support now, and when the article comes before Town Meeting in March.



The proposed legislation will be modeled strictly on an ordinance enacted by Highland Park, IL (a suburb of Chicago) in 2013, approved in a Federal district court there, and by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. On Dec. 7, Pearl Harbor Day, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, implicitly suggesting that local town and city bans on large scale weaponry do not impinge on Second Amendment rights under the U. S. Constitution, and are permissible despite its ruling in Miller in 2014. The U.S. has a long tradition of regulating weapons at the local level – think Dodge City, Kansas, and Tombstone, Ariz., not to mention Boston, New York, and Philadelphia.



The New York Times reported that the Supreme Court’s welcome inaction in the Highland Park case was the seventieth time since 2008 that the Court has declined to consider a challenge to state or local gun regulation. “This creates a big opportunity,” it said, “for Americans to put pressure on their…local leaders.”



As Nancy Rotering, Mayor of Highland Park and candidate for Congress wrote recently, the Supreme Court’s decision encourages “other cities and villages across the nation to follow our lead and pursue assault weapons without the threat of legal action under the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.” She also wrote: “One piece of legislation is not going to prevent every gun violence tragedy, but with courageous leadership, we can take steps to protect American lives.” I hope that the passage of the proposed amended by-law in Lexington will save Lexington lives and inspire other cities and towns within the Commonwealth to follow suit in this practical and sensible matter.



My proposed amendment to Chapter 97 of the Code of Lexington (Public Conduct) would in no way affect ordinary gun or hand-gun ownership in Lexington. It would, however, prohibit the possession within town limits of assault weapons – semiautomatic rifles that have the capacity to accept large capacity magazines. (The proposed article would specify in great detail exactly what kinds of weapons and magazines were covered.) The Highland Park legislation enumerates the brands outlawed. Large capacity magazines are defined as holding ten or more rounds.



Assault weapons do not include antique weapons. Citizens of the town would still be able to bear arms, just not weapons of mass murder.



I have consulted with the Selectmen, the Town Manager (and Town Counsel), the Moderator, and the Chief of Police. Everyone has been very helpful.



I will welcome your comments, criticisms, suggestions for improvement, and so on, but, please as few NRA rants as possible. This proposal will, I hope, attract widespread support from TM voters and from citizens of the Town. It is the least we can do to try to limit harm.



Robert I. Rotberg


so if you live in Lexington, protect your constitutional rights and let your town know this should not be considered.

I wonder when, if ever an "assault weapon " was used to commit a murder in Lexington .
Man has that place changed in the last few hundred years .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

Yes, because what works in Australia, would necessarily work the same here. Because Australia is exactly like the US, Australia has just as many blacks, and shares a similar open border with Mexico, right?

We don't have a problem here in the US with Australian immigrants committing a lot of crime. Our violent crime is predominantly taking place within population cells which have no socioeconomic counterpart in Australia.

Spence, gun ownership is huge in South Dakota, yet there is almost zero gun crime. Gun ownership is very low in Chicago, yet every weekend looks like a re-enactment of D-Day at Omaha Beach.

There is one, and exactly one, reason for these facts...cultural values (or lack thereof) will ultimately determine crime rates, moreso than the existence of guns.

There's also that pesky Constitution. Despite what the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave believes, we don't get to ignore the parts of the Constitution we don't happen to like. Australia, as far as I know, isn't bound by the same constitution.

Encourage people in Chicago to behave more like people in South Dakota, and then it doesn't matter if everyone owns a machine gun. Liberal policies have the exact opposite effect, they have incentivized exactly what we are seeing in Chicago every weekend.

When you plant potatoes, you get potatoes. For reasons that I will never grasp, liberals cannot comprehend that notion.

Like any other topic there will be some who are for it and others who are against it. I truly believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Certainly each side can present a compelling argument on their behalf and back it up to a degree that seems sensible to them. I have to laugh and shake my head when a moron calls those who choose not to bear arms a coward,hiding behind a gun is not my idea of bravery but it is certainly an escape you are entitled to. With or without a gun does not make one a tough guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like any other topic there will be some who are for it and others who are against it. I truly believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Certainly each side can present a compelling argument on their behalf and back it up to a degree that seems sensible to them. I have to laugh and shake my head when a moron calls those who choose not to bear arms a coward,hiding behind a gun is not my idea of bravery but it is certainly an escape you are entitled to. With or without a gun does not make one a tough guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Derogatory labeling of members here doesn't do much to sway a person's opinion. A little respect goes a long way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have to laugh at people who want restrictions on something they don't even know what they are.

So here is a prime example why I do not my rights limited by this proposed bill; North Hollywood Bank of America robbery and shootout. Look it up. The bad guys illegally modified their guns to be automatic. They were using 7.65x39 ammo. Also wore body armor, which defeated the police issued 9mm and .38sp ammo. Perps were walking, driving, shooting without deterrent. Police had to commandeer AR15s from a local gun shop in order to turn the tide in the resulting shoot out!
As I once told my son, when you are in a fight that involves physical bodily damage, you don't fight fairly. You fight to win. I do not want to be outgunned. Ever. No way I am going to be without a SHTF weapon available, safely locked, but available.

So here is a prime example why I do not my rights limited by this proposed bill; North Hollywood Bank of America robbery and shootout. Look it up. The bad guys illegally modified their guns to be automatic. They were using 7.65x39 ammo. Also wore body armor, which defeated the police issued 9mm and .38sp ammo. Perps were walking, driving, shooting without deterrent. Police had to commandeer AR15s from a local gun shop in order to turn the tide in the resulting shoot out!
As I once told my son, when you are in a fight that involves physical bodily damage, you don't fight fairly. You fight to win. I do not want to be outgunned. Ever. No way I am going to be without a SHTF weapon available, safely locked, but available.
So what, you can engage with the bad guys as they attempt to flee? Let the SWAT team handle it, events like this are pretty rare.

So where do theses gang bangers and criminals who legally cannot buy a gun.. get their guns?

Are they being supplied from? Legal owners ? or irresponsible owners? i think below gives us our answer ...


1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This number represents an estimated average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year— about 172,000 stolen during burglaries and 60,300 stolen during other property crimes.

Derogatory labeling of members here doesn't do much to sway a person's opinion. A little respect goes a long way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have read nothing posted by said moron that would come close to garnering respect. If we all walk around trying to have the biggest gun then our society is doomed. I have never met Andy but I have heard he is nice and would be happy to wet a line with him. I respect that he offers his opinion but to call somebody who chooses not to carry a coward is placing himself at the bottom of the food chain. I have been involved with a brave gun toter that decided to point it at me in a street fight,poor guy ended up peeing himself before sleepy time. Ha,another brave guy with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have read nothing posted by said moron that would come close to garnering respect. If we all walk around trying to have the biggest gun then our society is doomed. I have never met Andy but I have heard he is nice and would be happy to wet a line with him. I respect that he offers his opinion but to call somebody who chooses not to carry a coward is placing himself at the bottom of the food chain. I have been involved with a brave gun toter that decided to point it at me in a street fight,poor guy ended up peeing himself before sleepy time. Ha,another brave guy with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Which is dumber pulling a gun in a street fight or attacking someone with a gun pointed at you. I wonder what kept him from pulling the trigger.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chris, he may be an A hole but he is far from being a moron

So where do theses gang bangers and criminals who legally cannot buy a gun.. get their guns?



if we knew that, we would tell the police so they could lock them up to be prosecuted and sent to prison.

build more prisons

Spence, as I have stated in these forums previously, when I choose to carry a weapon, I do not go looking for trouble. I carry in the event trouble chooses to come to me.
I am no vigilante. Not looking to engage anything beyond a paper or steel target. The only useful statement in your post is that these events are pretty rare. True enough. My point was when trouble arises, the perps come prepared to pack a punch. Why should Obama's 124 Democratic reps think I should not have the right to punch back equally?

So what, you can engage with the bad guys as they attempt to flee? Let the SWAT team handle it, events like this are pretty rare.

Correct, these are pretty rare. What's much more common, are garden-variety shootings. Or accidents where kids get ahold of improperly stored guns.

I don't own a gun. I won't keep one in a house with little kids, that's just my belief.

But I do believe in the Constitution (even the parts I don't like), so we need to be careful here.

Liberals, as is often the case, are myopic on this subject. When it comes to the issue of gun violence, 99.99% of their effort is spent on gun control. That's part of the solution. But we also need to talk about making it easier to institutionalize the mentally ill before they hurt someone - liberals tend to be uncomfortable with this. We also need to talk about the violence we bombard our kids with - liberals tend to be uncomfortable talking about that (Hollywood gives huge $$ to Democrats, just like the NRA gives huge $$ to the GOP). And finally, we need to talk about implementing public policy that encourages (rather than undermines and mocks) traditional family values - liberals cannot stand talking about this, despite the fact that nothing would reduce violence more than this.

Part of the conversation is gun control. A small part. But liberals are fanatically fixated on this one small piece of the puzzle. Because they don't want to solve the problem if it means alienating their voting base. So they focus on gun control, and then accuse the GOP of not caring about the issue. That way, they can claim that they care, and as always, label the GOP as bloodthirsty hatemongers.

So you're suggesting a different permit for different firearms? No thanks. I must have skipped over that part in the second amendment.

The funny part about all of this is the people who are afraid of inanimate objects are all for forcing their will on firearms enthusiasts by imposing more ridiculous laws. Take a look around at what's really wrong in this country focus on those instead.

I sincerely hope the weak are put in situations where they are forced to suffer the consequences of their cowardice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like any other topic there will be some who are for it and others who are against it. I truly believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Certainly each side can present a compelling argument on their behalf and back it up to a degree that seems sensible to them. I have to laugh and shake my head when a moron calls those who choose not to bear arms a coward,hiding behind a gun is not my idea of bravery but it is certainly an escape you are entitled to. With or without a gun does not make one a tough guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have read nothing posted by said moron that would come close to garnering respect. If we all walk around trying to have the biggest gun then our society is doomed. I have never met Andy but I have heard he is nice and would be happy to wet a line with him. I respect that he offers his opinion but to call somebody who chooses not to carry a coward is placing himself at the bottom of the food chain. I have been involved with a brave gun toter that decided to point it at me in a street fight,poor guy ended up peeing himself before sleepy time. Ha,another brave guy with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am honestly not sure
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Here's my responses from the thread Chris. Where do I say Your're weak if you don't own a firearm? Where does it say I hide behind a firearm? Show me where I wrote that..This is the internet we can post our own opinions and agree to disagree. You'll note I'm not the one referring to you as a moron or an idiot because you're entitled to your own opinion and if it isn't the same as mine thats fine, I don't make the assumption you are a moron because you don't agree with me.
I may indeed be a moron but at least I know what I'm talking about. I don't jump into a conversation making suggestions for something "I'm not sure" about.

Yes Bruce I am an A hole! I hear the same about Chris but it's also followed up with "But he's a good guy" which is probably what he hears about me! I don't hide behind a gun or a keyboard.

Chris, he may be an A hole but he is far from being a moron

That may be true but online he comes across as a good Dad and a member who is willing to help others
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which is dumber pulling a gun in a street fight or attacking someone with a gun pointed at you. I wonder what kept him from pulling the trigger.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ha,I was young and dumb,now old and dumb.
He was a coward hiding behind a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if we knew that, we would tell the police so they could lock them up to be prosecuted and sent to prison.

build more prisons

Well not true . Since the last year of George Bush , gun violation prosecutions have seen a significant drop , as much as 42% lower . Kinda surprising for a gun control advocate like Obama . Makes you wonder what the #^&#^&#^&#^& he is doing .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So where do theses gang bangers and criminals who legally cannot buy a gun.. get their guns?

Are they being supplied from? Legal owners ? or irresponsible owners? i think below gives us our answer ...


1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This number represents an estimated average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year— about 172,000 stolen during burglaries and 60,300 stolen during other property crimes.

Guy on my hockey team is head of NB gun unit. He has been very busy lately. I asked him last nite where they are comin from and he said most of them are comin from house robberies or the such. He said a lot of the guns they take off street or used in the soarin murder rate are stolen from old family members that dont even know they are gone. A lot comes back to laws regarding proper securing and storage of firearms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The preferred gun is a ghost gun that has no record.
And when I say ghost gun I am referring to guns that are made in the shacks of poverty ridden third world countries like the Philippines. Exact copies of legal guns with no record that would cause arrest if the police find you in possession of a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just saw this.

http://www.vpc.org/fact-sheets/state-firearm-death-rates-ranked-by-rate-2014/

State Firearm Death Rates, Ranked by Rate, 2014

Rank State Rate
1 Alaska 19.68
2 Louisiana 19.27
3 Mississippi 18.27
4 Alabama 16.81
5 Montana 16.80
6 Arkansas 16.72
7 New Mexico 16.30
8 Wyoming 15.92
9 South Carolina 15.87
10 Oklahoma 15.76
11 Tennessee 15.57
12 Missouri 15.55
13 West Virginia 15.46
14 Nevada 15.11
15 Kentucky 14.37
16 Georgia 13.78
17 Arizona 13.77
18 Idaho 13.03
19 North Dakota 12.98
20 Oregon 12.52
21 Indiana 12.40
22 Colorado 12.38
23 North Carolina 12.13
24 Florida 12.11
25 Utah 11.45
26 Kansas 11.33
27 Michigan 11.05
28 Vermont 11.01
29 Delaware 10.90
30 Pennsylvania 10.87
31 Virginia 10.68
32 Texas 10.56
33 Ohio 10.44
34 South Dakota 10.43
35 Maine 10.00
36 Washington 9.94
37 Nebraska 9.51
38 New Hampshire 9.19
39 Illinois 9.15
40 Maryland 9.14
41 Wisconsin 8.46
42 Iowa 7.76
43 California 7.58
44 Minnesota 6.91
45 New Jersey 5.24
46 Connecticut 5.20
47 New York 4.43
48 Massachusetts 3.37
49 Rhode Island 3.22
50 Hawaii 2.82
. National Firearm Death Rate 10.54

*Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Just saw this.

http://www.vpc.org/fact-sheets/state-firearm-death-rates-ranked-by-rate-2014/

State Firearm Death Rates, Ranked by Rate, 2014

Rank State Rate
1 Alaska 19.68
2 Louisiana 19.27
3 Mississippi 18.27
4 Alabama 16.81
5 Montana 16.80
6 Arkansas 16.72
7 New Mexico 16.30
8 Wyoming 15.92
9 South Carolina 15.87
10 Oklahoma 15.76
11 Tennessee 15.57
12 Missouri 15.55
13 West Virginia 15.46
14 Nevada 15.11
15 Kentucky 14.37
16 Georgia 13.78
17 Arizona 13.77
18 Idaho 13.03
19 North Dakota 12.98
20 Oregon 12.52
21 Indiana 12.40
22 Colorado 12.38
23 North Carolina 12.13
24 Florida 12.11
25 Utah 11.45
26 Kansas 11.33
27 Michigan 11.05
28 Vermont 11.01
29 Delaware 10.90
30 Pennsylvania 10.87
31 Virginia 10.68
32 Texas 10.56
33 Ohio 10.44
34 South Dakota 10.43
35 Maine 10.00
36 Washington 9.94
37 Nebraska 9.51
38 New Hampshire 9.19
39 Illinois 9.15
40 Maryland 9.14
41 Wisconsin 8.46
42 Iowa 7.76
43 California 7.58
44 Minnesota 6.91
45 New Jersey 5.24
46 Connecticut 5.20
47 New York 4.43
48 Massachusetts 3.37
49 Rhode Island 3.22
50 Hawaii 2.82
. National Firearm Death Rate 10.54

*Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

I assume those numbers also include suicide and accidental deaths by firearm or is it just the homicide rate?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know. Here is the link from the original story that lead me to that chart.

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Connecticut-has-5th-lowest-gun-death-rate-6738257.php

I'd bet if you took out suicides and gang related incidents the #s would fall dramatically.

Liberal media won't delve into that though. Doesn't fit the agenda.

GO TRUMP