Best
175 Comments
Post
  • #3
    !
    Where in that article, exactly, did it say Gifford wants to take away your guns?
  • #7
    !
    Very original. I must have seen thought remark a dozen times in recent days. Is it trending on Twitter now? Are you going to pop off a quip about "sheeple" "drinking the kool-aid" now?
  • #18
    !
    Enough will the Schinder's List commentary. No original thought? That comment appears daily boring.
    What is the problem with Giffords trying to raise funds to counter the NRA's salacious arguments. Is the NRA afraid that sane controls will inhibit gun ownership by mandating background check, maintaining database of mentally ill, eliminating hi cap magazines and the currently legal semi automatic available that are fully capable of firing 100 rds a min (see URL below). I believe their fear is that a majority of sane citizens don't possesses the extreme paranoia so common place among the strick 2 Amd. adherents

    Here's a good gun-gasm video = Every home should have one of these

  • R Load more replies

  • #10
    !
    No issue is more conflicting to myself than the gun issue. I see these hillbillies racing around with shotguns and a confederate flag waving from the bed of their pickup and just wonder to myself what kind of idiots are armed in this country? I see gangsters in Los Angeles who are armed to the teeth. Illegally. And i wonder to myself what kind of idiots are armed in this country?.

    I own guns and sometimes still go to the range and carry concealed sometimes but find myself wondering just what is the solution? The far right wants anyone and everyone to have a gun. They're willing to shoot up a 7/11 to protect the corporations profits just so they can. The far left is about as naive as naive gets thinking they are going to take all the guns. Hell, we can't stop ANYTHING from coming into this country illegally. We can't stop guns either.

    I don't know what the solution is. i know what I would do if I were in absolute power. I would make it a federal crime of 10 years on a chain gang for a convicted felon to be in possession of a firearm. I would make it 10 years for being drunk and in the possession of a firearm in public. 10 years for being a documented gang member in possession of a firearm. And I'd clean up America with all those people working on our roads, our backwaters, our wherever.

    But you can't take all the guns. It's simply not possible. I don't know what the Giffords have in mind but I can tell you pretty much what it's going to come to. Not much.
  • #14
    !
    Just looked it up - Felon in possession of a firearm carries a 'maximum' penalty of 5 years. And here I was thinking it was an automatic 5 years added to whatever the other sentence the felon already has.
  • #25
    !
    @DerivePI California has the law that it's an additional five years to use a gun in the commission of a felony. But the thugs don't care. prison is a badge of honor to them.
  • #37
    !
    Why not imitate the Swiss? Anyone over 18 who can pass a background and mental health test can have up to 3 guns which must all be registered. If I remember correctly (and I am not certain that I am) semi-automatics are okay but no high capacity magazines and they must be trained in the use of firearms.
    Conservatives love to point to Switzerland when the topic of gun control comes up as proof that a nation can be armed and safe. I'm open to that.
  • #44
    !
    @Cheenoguy My initial reaction is to ask you if you have ever been to Switzerland? That's a country about the size of Rhode Island would be my guess. I don't have a problem with what you mention but I don't think it's enforceable in a country this size or this population.
  • #45
    !
    @jessejaymes
    Set up individual state departments. Let each state enforce the federal policy much in the same way that Medicaid is a federal program administered by the states.
    Yes I know this will cost money, but I would argue that there are some things worth paying for.
  • R Load more replies

  • #6
    !
    Today (1-8-13) is the two year anniversary of her shooting.

    I think we can agree on one thing - doing nothing doesn't work. The question, it seems to me, is how to find the balance between lawful, responsible gun ownership and the safeguarding of innocents from gun violence.
  • #12
    !
    I agree 100%... unfortunately there are many who believe doing nothing is the right course of action...
  • #15
    !
    We lost JFK, Martin Luther King, RFK, John Lennon and many others. Maybe if Reagan hadn't made it the right would have gone along with gun control. As long as it is not right wingers getting blown away I don't see the right changing. I suspect that they might change their tune if somebody plugged Scalia or Clarence Thomas though. Each gun death costs society about $5.1M according to Businessweek.
    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-...
  • #11
    !
    If it was a car whose sole use is to kill as many people as quickly as possible... you'd probably be right.
  • #55
    !
    @AceLuby Good for you and your step Dad.  I was just wondering cuz there are so many out there commenting about guns when they have never used one.  I hunt deer myself.  I do not agree with your statement that the sole purpose of a gun is to quickly kill as many people as possible. But you are correct in cars sole purposes is not to kill anyone. Unfortunatly there are crazies out there, there will always be crazies out there. A firearm is just a tool, like a car or a hammer. A crimminal bent on killing will find a tool to do the job. Eliminating any guns from those who abide by the law will not eliminate a weapon from a crimminal who does not follow the law.
  • #60
    !
    @ProCCW I was not talking about guns made for other uses, I only have problems w/ guns whose sole function is to kill humans. And while I agree that you will never eliminate the threat of someone who wants to harm lots of people, that doesn't mean we should make it easy as stopping by wal-mart and walking out w/ weapons to do so (not saying that is possible, but you get the idea). Just like I want sane traffic laws and safety standards for cars I want sane gun laws and harsh punishments for those who break them. One thing I do know is that doing nothing most definitely won't work to help this severe problem.
  • R Load more replies

  • #68
    !
    AS many of you know, I am as pro-gun as you can get. But, I am open to legal, constitutional "answers". But what is the answer? I'm not sure that there are any. There are pros and cons to everything. Making everything illegal and taking everything back will not work. Letting everyone be armed to the teeth will not work. I have to agree with someone else, can't remember who, that posted about the CONSEQUENCES of ulawful use of a firearm. While prison is a country club, there is no punishment. Criminals kill people, whether in a robbery, gang shooting or just for the hell of it, they go to prison, do their time and don't care. So, until prison is a punishment for crimes committed, there is no punishment. Mental health treatment is expensive. And most that need it don't have access to it or can't afford it. So, until treatment is readily available and affordable, there is no treatment. Should a person be denied the right to own a weapon because they take antidepressants? No, because, based on statistics, most of the American public take one form or another. Guns are not cheap. So legal, responsible gun owners work for right to own these weapons. What they do with them, whether hunting, target shooting, or personal protection, is no one else's business. It becomes someone else's businss when they use that weapon while committing a crime.

    I also agree with someone who said that there may not be a national database but that the information is readily available (hence, the New York fiasco). Do I care if my name is on a national database? No I don't. Because it doesn't matter. Should I be allowed to go buy an AR-15? Yes, I should. Should I have a background check to buy it? Yes and would readily submit to one. Should high capacity mags be outlawed? No, because again, it doesn't matter. A criminal can carry one 100 round mag or ten 10 round mags. It takes about a second and a half to switch them out.

    So, what is the answer? I honestly don't think there is one. Because it comes down to this....a criminal will commit the crime that they wish to commit one way or another. Drugs are outlawed. Yet , 22 million Americans are dependant on ILLEGAL drugs. So outlawing guns will not stop a criminal from obtaining a gun and doing with it what they will.
  • #143
    !
    You've touched on too many areas, none of which seem to be relevant to the types of shootings we're focused on.

    Adam Lanza wasn't a "criminal" or on illegal drugs. Neither were Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold or most of the other mass murderers. Mentally ill? Quite possibly. But even then it would be difficult to know whether they could have been diagnosed as homocidal.

    Outlawing drugs isn't the answer either. In fact, illegal drugs are a major factor in criminal violence. What about alcohol? Tens of thousands of Americans are killed or wounded every year in alcohol-related gun violence. Should we go back to prohibition? I can see just as much furor over that as I'm seeing over this gun issue.

    We can outlaw guns. We can't outlaw alcohol. We shouldn't outlaw drugs. BUT...what we have is an out of control society that seems to use violence as a way of solving problems. THIS must stop! We have GOT change ourselves. We must look in the mirror and resolve to stop this madness by becoming better people. The anger, the hate, the virulence that oozes from our society is probably one, if not THE, root cause of this upswing in violence. We are reaping what we've sown.

    When we stop hating each other, stop hating the rest of the world, stop living in fear and paranoia and stop raising our children in such an environment I can almost promise we will see a difference and we won't have to give up anything else that we hold dear.
  • #27
    !
    Why? Are there a lot of registered gun owners misusing guns. No gun law would have prevented this last mass killing. The people who use guns to kill others will never be involve in gun control classes, and will most likely never be a legal gun owner. So other than harrassing good responsible gun owners, what is the point.
  • #33
    !
    "The people who use guns to kill others will never be involve in gun control classes, and will most likely never be a legal gun owner."

    As I recall, the weapons used in the mass murders since Tuscon were legally purchased. Indeed, the Newtown shooter had guns from his mother's legal collection.
  • #51
    !
    @DARSB right, but as I said, people who use guns to kill others. In this last case I do think the mother was irresponsible, mentally ill son left home with guns, duh.
    Gun control will not stop stupid.
    See the shooter did not have a gun collection, as you said the mothers legal gun collection. Now if you wanna go after the mom for being negligent, then make the case. But explain how more gun control would have prevented a lunatic son from unlocking moms gun cabinet, stealing a gun, and killing those kids. I personal could pass any requirements they wanna make. I keep my guns licked away and secure and my ammo locked in another ace locked and secure, however could someone break in and steal them, well, where there is a will-there is a way.
    Then also take a look at how many of those cases of multiple killing and see how many were on anti lunatic meds, which seems to have back fired, no pun intended.
    So instead of putting the blame on a gun, lets talk to some doctors who prescribe these meds even though there are plenty of well documented case where these drugs are involved, maybe blame them, or family who knew the kid was worse, yet failed to act.
    Far more people die from medical malpractice than guns, cars kill more people too. Plus when you look at gun deaths 70%, give or take, are gang related, which to me seems more of a social issue than the guns fault.
    Now there are around 270 million guns out there, I should say known guns, from a statistical stand point guns do not kill often, if often is the right word.
    We have people making bombs from tobacco cans and things anyone can by at the hardware store, are we going to have a big yard fertilizer control issue, no. Any teenage kids can learn how to make a pipe bomb on the net. See mental health and behavior heath seem much bigger issues to me, and far more to blame to me as well.
  • #85
    !
    @Thegrif Maybe he has to reload more often and one less child is killed...

    The question then becomes, what's the value of a child to you?
  • #107
    !
    @AceLuby so you think he couldn't kill 20 kids without a semi auto weapon? Hmm, well he could have in about 60 secs.
    But forget it lets say guns are outlawed all tigether, then what? Did bad people planning bad things give up their gun? Notta chance in hell! So this only accomplishes to take from good people.
    Or did they just make a couple of pipe bombs with stuff you can buy in the hardware store and kill a lot more than 20 kids, like the kid in Alabama made and planned to do, or what about the guy that just stabbed 30+ people before he was stopped.
    Killing is basic and easy, if someone wants to kill there are many ways to get that job done, especially when it is unexpected.
    The state this happened in already has the structest gun control law in America, they didnt come in to play because criminal and crazy people do not obey the law.
  • #5
    !
    Why isn't she going after the phsycotropes that cause people to commit these heinous crimes? Ohhh... I forgot!!! They want the sheep zombiefied on those drugs!!!
  • #72
    !
    @DARSB

    No, but the numbing (I don't give a f*#%) effect they inflict on the user sure contributes to the actions of a person carrying out an assault on another person!
  • #90
    !
    @AceLuby

    -Adam Lanza (Newton)
    -James Holmes (Aurora)
    -Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold (Columbine)

    What do all of these murderers have in common? Prescribed Psychotropic Anti-Depressant drugs!!!

    The numbing affects that these drugs cause have been linked to an increase in suicidal tendencies of the user/s!!! So my question is, if these drugs can cause a person to take their own life, then why isn't it reasonable to believe that these drugs can increase and contribute to a persons will to commit an act of violence onto another person/s?

    http://www.naturalnews.com/038353_gun_control...
  • #94
    !
    @Malitia_Man Doesn't depression itself have a solid link to an increase in suicidal tendencies?
  • R Load more replies

  • #163
    !
    I really Love these guys; my heart goes out to both of them.
    I truly believe they can make a difference!
  • #147
    !
    While she has a right to voice her concerns as democrat and a victim I believe her to be bias to the way the rest of Americans feel about this subject. Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat. Triggers don't pull themselves people do.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #133
    !
    These people, and Politix Lisa, disgust me. I would like to ask them what their views of responsible gun ownership is? What does that mean to you? You may say that's a way of reducing violence but that's just your opinion. Nothing factual to back it up with. I believe that racial profiling is a way of reducing violence. Could I get these liberals, including Obama, to support me in my desire to see racial profiling enacted all across this country? And don't start screaming to me about rights. After all, you are trying to take away my 2nd amendment rights.
  • #75
    !
    To gun advocates, any mention or change in current gun control laws is immediately met with the knee-jerk reaction that the government will be coming door-to-door to take all your guns away. I support the second amendment and the right to bear arms, but our society is not smart or responsible enough to have access to high capacity assault weapons. I support Giffords and her husband.
  • #69
    !
    Since they are not focusing on psycho control the psychos will abandon guns and learn how to make improvised explosive devices and start killing people by the busload or the mall-full or the school-full. If you are not targeting the idiots then you are one yourself if you think "gun control" will make any difference. We can all see how "drug control" has kept drugs off the streets and nobody dies from drugs these days. You people really need to try and grow a brain so you can see how things work.
  • #67
    !
    The right to bear arms as currently construed, is obviously archaic. It is the function of Supreme Court justices to consider and amend while maintaining the integrity of our constitution as applied. Unfortunately, their is little latitude for this amendment right, without dissection of firearm hardware, as a prerequisite.
    If proponents for gun control can effect whats reasonably unnecessary, we MIGHT get somewhere.
  • #62
    !
    I'll say yes for now. I do not know their mission statement because they have yet to write it. As gun owners themselves, I am willing to listen to what they have to say. The only problem with another group trying to effect gun legislation is that criminals will still be able to get any gun and ammo they please because of the country directly to our south. They will keep those arms readily available to anyone who decides to buy off the black market instead of going the legal route. That door was opened a long time ago and cannot be shut again. The US is culpable in this situation. Just look at the arms gained in the very ill conceived plan "Fast and Furious"! This was happening long before then. What do you think the US did with older weapons? Melt them down? No, they sold them to other countries.
  • #50
    !
    As a fellow victim of violent crime (I was wounded by 2 FELLOW soldiers suspected of being Muslim sympathizers while serving in the US Army), I can certainly empathize with Gabrielle Giffords and her husband. However, I think they are operating strictly on emotion and not on logic. Abrogating Americans' 2nd Amendment rights will not make the country safer. The delusion that giving up freedoms means acquiring safety is covered on this web site, complete with US Department of Justice Reports which DO NOT support the case for more gun laws or bans of any particular weapons.
    http://assaultweaponsbanof2013.blogspot.com There are direct links to statistics on causes of death in the USA and to Senator Dianne Feinstein's own web site, exposing disinformation she is propagating to ram this bill down the throats of The People of the United States.
  • #65
    !
    While do people see gun-control as gun-ban? This seems like a very silly position. That is like saying birth-control is a sex-ban. I am a gun owner so I am not advocating the banning or repossessing of guns. I do want us to come together to figure out why these things are happening and see what the best ways of preventing them from happening are. I just don't think having an arms race with my neighbors is a solution to making me safer. But this is what the right is suggesting. If someone has a gun get a bigger gun. Where is this mentality going to end when every American has a tank park in the driveway and instead of a car.
  • #42
    !
    The same thing happened when James Brady was shot in 1981, along with President Reagan. Little tangible good came of it. No reason to believe it will now either.
  • R Load more comments...
Post