NRA has too much influence

Register
Apr 4, 2013

 

Excerpt from the Chicago Sun-Times: 

Don’t look now, but the U.S. Senate might actually pass legislation that has a chance to significantly reduce gun violence. Some advocates of stronger gun laws were discouraged recently when the Senate dropped provisions to ban assault weapons and highcapacity ammunition magazines from legislation that will be considered starting next week.

But what remains — a bill that would expand background checks when guns are purchased and stiffen penalties for straw purchases — is perhaps the single measure that could do most to tamp down the shootings in America’s neighborhoods. Mass shootings with assault weapons are awful when they occur, but over the course of a year, as we in Chicago know too well, far more Americans are killed by handguns.

We need universal background checks, because we need to stop making it easy for criminals to buy guns. Virtually all firearms start out as legal, but gaps in our laws allow guns to flow from legal to illegal hands. Under the “gun show loophole,” no record keeping is required in private gun sales, which now account for two out of every five firearms transactions. A “straw purchaser,” someone with valid credentials who buys guns for those who can’t legally purchase them, can easily operate in the nether region where no records exist.

That’s a huge loophole, and truckloads of guns are driven right through it.

The NRA opposes universal background checks. It helped push through a measure that prohibits the FBI from hanging on for longer than 24 hours to records of those who pass the existing background check system. That makes it hard to spot a pattern of straw purchases. Lawmakers should not be swayed by the NRA on this issue.

Comments

Bluto

The NRA's ONLY concerns are to help the gun manufacturers sells more guns . They could care less what people do with them once they get their money .Their greed is killing our children .

JACKEL

If I were black I would be a lifetime member of THE NRA,They fought the KKK for the rights for blacks to have guns to defend themselves .Sure they want to sell guns that is their business, just like who ever you work for .

Centauri

How about cops with guns allowed to be on the job under the influence of alcohol? How many cops get tested for alcohol or drugs when a shooting occurs?

http://www.bettergov.org/a_dange...
"The City of Chicago recently approved a $4.1 million settlement to the family of an unarmed man fatally shot by a Chicago police officer who was reportedly drinking before work."

http://www.bettergov.org/
"The Better Government Association promotes reform through investigative journalism, civic engagement and advocacy. We're a watchdog, shining a light on government and holding public officials accountable."

No matter what gun laws are passed against law abiding citizens, crooks will always be able to acquire guns. I have an opinion of how to deal with gun sellers and gun buyers at gun shows or between two private citizens. For now, I will keep my opinion to myself. I ask the Sandusky Register readers for their opinions about how to deal with gun sales between private individuals? I do have a gun permit to carry and I am pro gun for law abiding citizens.

MiddleRight

Chicago should know about gun laws. They have the strictest, and one of the highest homicide rates in the country.
How's that working for you?

commonsense1969

Facts never matter to a Marxist.

The Big Dog's back

Somalia has no gun laws. How's that working?

goofus

USA has gun laws and background checks, how's that working?

coasterfan

Correction: America has relatively weak gun laws, compared to many other countries (England, for one), and only has background checks for gun purchases for about 60% of gun purchases (which is like building a fence around 2/3 of your yard in order to keep your dog kenneled). Last year, England had 139 gun-related homicides.

vicariouslyAlive

you see... the problem with comparing one country with another negates many variables... variable 1, the united states have over 6 times the population of england. variable 2, higher standard of education. variable 3, economic standard are better off in england, meaning if everyone has more, then there's fewer that have less and have to resort to a life of crime. there are a myriad of other very influential variables that will dictate the crime rates of one country when put up against another, this is why countries like england and Thailand both have gun bans, and yet the total number of people killed in both countries by firearms are vastly different. so to say that the gun ban is working based only on the amount of people killed by guns is a farce argument at best. that's like saying India is better than America because they have more people with genius IQ's that america does... sometimes it's not the legislation from one country to another that is working in an arguments favor... sometimes it's just the laws of statistics that people feel like ignoring.

Pterocarya frax...

So what you are telling us with the variable you listed is that if we can raise the education levels here in the U.S., and give everyone more, then we will lower our crime rate like England. Excellent argument for socialism, dude.

vicariouslyAlive

Ignorance.... associating 1 thing and calling it another. Raising the education level and lowering senseless taxes isn't exactly socialism. But you people and your fear of l isms, stuck in a mind set that's so dated you still classify how a club try is run by giving it an ism or an ocracy name... people need to realize that on a social level we are no more civilized than anyone else and many of the free domes that you think you have are a farce if it pisses off the wrong people. Nice try though

SamAdams

With all of its gun laws and its lower percentage of gun homicides (England, by the way, has a lower murder rate than the U.S. of ALL kinds, so that's not really a fair stand-alone statistic), know what ELSE England has? The most dangerous city in the Western world, London.

When gun laws in Great Britain were changed to make guns all but illegal, guess what followed? A dramatic spike in violent crime. Australia? Same exact thing. What we see in Chicago and DC here has happened on a larger scale country-wide in places that thought it'd be a great idea, too.

Never mind that there has never been a gun registration program in history that didn't result in confiscation. Never mind that Dianne Feinstein has publicly and REPEATEDLY admitted her ultimate goal IS confiscation (she, of course, has a hard-to-get CCW in California because apparently she's much more important and worthy of self defense than any of us "little people"). Look again at Chicago, DC, and WHOLE COUNTRIES that thought such laws were a good idea, and explain just how laws HERE will prove different.

Good luck with that... (Extra points taken away from any idiot who brings up the thoroughly discredited "study" — including by those who actually conducted said study — that suggests a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than an attacker.)

Darkhorse

Another point to make is to guess what weapon is used most in attacks. I know I didn't believe it when I first searched, but after searching through around 25 major cities crime rates the one weapon that was used most was the "Hammer". Now does this mean that they are going to require us to register a hammer when it is purchased at Sears or we find one at a flea market. This is just a feel good measure for the Feds and this illegal president so they can come back and later confiscate your weapons. Just ask the people of Germany how Hitler did it. They had them register first then went house to house and confiscated them. The people had to hide them so they could not take them away.

KnuckleDragger

Don't forget their violent crime rate is higher than the US. As for the 40% not getting background checks, well even the publishers of that study no longer stand behind that number. It has been debunked so much I don't even think the Brady bunch uses it anymore.

JACKEL

The majority of their murders is with knives.The ratio is higher than guns here .

commonsense1969

Somalia, ruled by communist, marxist, socialist butchers

WiseManOnceSaid

It's mostly ignorant people who view the government as trying to "take away their guns". They generally like to forget the rest of the quote "right to bear arms". The rest of that says "against tyrranical government". It does not give the right for every person to have a gun, just the right for everyone to be able to fight the government if it is being unjust...

SamAdams

Actually, that's NOT what the Second Amendment says. You might want to re-read your handy dandy pocket Constitution since you've either forgotten or didn't understand it the first time around...

arnmcrmn

I was thinking the same exact thing Sam. Funny how people get on here and claim to know what the 2nd is about, yet their postings show otherwise.

WiseManOnceSaid

I did not mean literally although my post seems to indicate that. The interpretation is viewed as a militia to overthrow government. It has never been ruled as an amendment protecting individual ownership of guns. As a law student it is brought up in just about every class.....
•The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns. The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation, and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then.

BW1's picture
BW1

The Heller decision established it as an individual right. Furthermore, if you support the insurrection rationale you cited, exactly how are people supposed to overthrow a tyrannical government without guns? Torches and pitchforks?

WiseManOnceSaid

The amendment was written before we had an actual military. Not until Adams created the Navy to protect our trade ships did we have a group of professionals. But today would it even be possible to overthrow the government with guns? I think it would require tanks and aircraft. The only way to overthrow the government now would be by non violent actions. Insurrection could not be executed with firearms alone. Especially with the increased domestic use of drone aircrafts. The situation (dont quote me here) where we ok'd the drone attack of a US citizen who was supporting Al Qeada abroad bypasses due process which is scary enough when you think about it.

Centauri

"But today would it even be possible to overthrow the government with guns?"

How about a group of terrorists who made bombs to try to overthrow the government? Weather Underground, Bernadine Ohrnstein AKA Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers among others did try to overthrow the government. Where were the sedition and treason charges?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wea...(organization)
"In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, under the name "Weather Underground Organization"

http://www.collegehillreview.com...
"By March, the New York collective's immediate goal was to turn Fort Dix, New Jersey, seventy miles away, into Saigon. There, a dance for noncommissioned army officers and their wives and dates would provide a setting for bringing the horrors of Vietnam home to America. As they planned the bombing, Cathy Wilkerson later claimed, "we still didn't talk about the physical impact of the actions, either on buildings or people . . . 'You cannot act with such greed and recklessness without consequences!' I wanted our message to be, and I wanted to say it as loud as we could." It was the bomb they planned to plant in the Fort Dix dance hall, a dynamite pipe bomb studded with roofing nails to shred the dancers, that exploded accidentally in the townhouse basement around noon on March 6."

SamAdams

Untrue. The Heller case ruled the Second Amendment does, indeed, protect an individual right. Further, the words "the people" as used in the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments have repeatedly been determined to mean "the individual," so why wouldn't "the people" in the 2nd Amendment mean the same thing?

The answer? Well, maybe a few guys who were actually there and actually WROTE the Constitution and Bill of Rights might know more than either you or I do. They uniformly affirmed not only the individual right to arms, but also the notion of individual self defense.

Centauri

"It has never been ruled as an amendment protecting individual ownership of guns. As a law student it is brought up in just about every class....."

It appears that all schools are attempting to change history but historical documents and newspapers say the opposite. Ohio's militia is not the Ohio National Guard as some may want you to believe. There are plenty of references to militias as shown in documents. Militias have been used to stop riots before the state National Guard arrived.

http://www.daytonhistorybooks.co...
" Without waiting for a mob to organize, Sheriff Cook called on the local militia for assistance in guarding all approaches to the jail. This had an opposite effect to that intended, since it served to increase the crowd about the courthouse and jail, and to anger the populace, now apparently deserting their regular routine for a place where they could witness any act of violence that might ensue. During the early evening the crowd had swelled to considerable size, and Sheriff Cook appealed to Gov. McKinley at Columbus for aid."

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fi...
Good reading about militias. If it were not for the citizen militia to stand up against the standing British army, there would not be a United States. The Founding Fathers knew what they meant by the word militia. Today, you have rich and powerful people who want to strip the average American of their rights.

vicariouslyAlive

yeah, and look at what happened to those folks up in Michigan when they were accused of forming a militia even though it's well within their american rights to do so... that might just be the reason they were all released without a single charge... possibly because the government broke it's own laws???? hmmm....

BW1's picture
BW1

The Heller decision established it as an individual right. Furthermore, if you support the insurrection rationale you cited, exactly how are people supposed to overthrow a tyrannical government without guns? Torches and pitchforks?

JACKEL

The government that controls the guns, controls the people.You can BS all day, it is that simple !

coasterfan

Statistics show that 90% of Americans are in favor of universal background checks for all gun purchases. Why are we letting the other 10% control the debate? And why are we letting them hide behind an imagined attack on the 2nd amendment? Nobody is planning to take anyone's guns away. We just want to stop all the senseless killing, and stop making it so easy for people who shouldn't have guns (felons, mentally ill) to purchase guns.

SamAdams

Percentages don't matter one whit where unalienable rights are concerned. The Bill of Rights was crafted solely to, in the words of John Adams, protect the minority from "the tyranny of the majority."

I'll bet a majority of people disapprove of certain books you've read, movies you've seen, opinions you have, etc. Does that mean we can invade your library and burn your books or duct tape your mouth shut? Admittedly, the latter is tempting in some cases (relax, not you, but some REAL extremist wackjobs), but that would be an egregious — and illegal — infringement.

KnuckleDragger

Why not? We are letting about 2% control the debate on the definition of marriage, something that isn't even a Constitutional right. Geez liberals, admit it the only time a minority has a right to be heard in your pea brain is when it's for a cause you support. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Mr Bean

It`s mostly ignorant people who post these comments----how can you talk endlessly about things of which you are "mostly ignorant" . Try taping yourself , then playing it back----You obviously know nothing about the NRA. Without it, you would be living in a cage, waiting for the "Colonel" to call.

The Big Dog's back

Bullspit.

KnuckleDragger

^^this one lives in moms basement.

your babies Daddy's picture
your babies Daddy

come on boy anytime anyplace.

KnuckleDragger

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).

your babies Daddy's picture
your babies Daddy

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Off-topic comments.

SamAdams

From the Chicago Sun-Times, eh? Where the NRA doesn't have ENOUGH influence, and Democrats all too much!

The Chicago Sun-Times might want to look closer to home than DC. After all, even considering DC's own crime problems (and strict gun laws), Chicago's even stricter gun laws have resulted in the city becoming the murder capital of the country! NOT a list I'd personally like to top, though those far left Dems seem to think that more of what hasn't worked (and never will) will SURELY work THIS time...

arnmcrmn

Hows it working for Chicago, a place that has one of, if not THE strictest gun laws in our nation.....yet they have the highest homicide rate by guns. Can't blame the NRA on that one.

commonsense1969

Why are politicians protected by armed guards?

KnuckleDragger

Why does Diane Feinstein own semi-automatic weapons and possess a concealed carry permit in California?

The Big Dog's back

I dunno know. Why?

goofus

Do we have to spell it out porch puppy L-I=B-E-R-A-l H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E

Bluto

It would help if you knew how to spell L-I-B-E-R-A-L ;))))

The Big Dog's back

To bad you have to resort to lying about Senator Feinstein. Feel better doing it?

KnuckleDragger

Nope, already been proven. Do you ever do research or do you always shoot from the hip? Feinstein admitted that she owns a .380 semi-auto pistol, and California records show she possesses a California Permit to carry a concealed firearm. Hypocrite.

deertracker

The NRA does have too much influence and distorts the facts. Fact is, there is and never has been an attempt to "take" people's guns but that what the NRA wants us to believe. I am all for gun ownership and the right to own guns but I believe you should use good sense as a gun owner. There is no need for any law abiding citizen to own an assault weapon. A thorough background check really isn't too much to ask.

your babies Daddy's picture
your babies Daddy

Who cares what the NRA has to say? They make as much sense as that ACORN group. Is it legal to poisen song birds for fun and profit?

commonsense1969

guess some people never heard of Hitler, Stalin and so on...

4-wheeler al

take guns away, what next?

Centauri

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/n...
"NEW ORLEANS (AP) — City officials have agreed to return hundreds of firearms that police officers confiscated in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, part of a deal to resolve a lawsuit filed by gun lobbying groups."

http://www.examiner.com/article/...
" In the days after Katrina hammered
New Orleans and adjacent St. Tammany Parrish, an order was issued that only police would be allowed to have guns. Law enforcement personnel from various other states, as far away as New York and
California, along with National Guard troops came in to help restore order. In the process, many citizens’ firearms were seized, sometimes at gunpoint, and invariably with the use of intimidation."

Bluto

In certain situations the government CAN seize weapons from the public . Perfectly legal.

vicariouslyAlive

yes, when those citizens are breaking the law. no officer of the law can confiscate a fire arm from a law abiding citizen that has has't made a threat, acted in a threatening manner or other wise committed an action in an attempt to cause a panic. gun on the hip in open sight perfectly legal... but when an officer of the law tries to say that you're trying to insight a panic just because you're living within your rights in this state, it turns into a crappy game of your word vs. theirs, and judges tend to side with the cops, even if the whole thing is foul.

Bluto

Yes they can . Look it up . In times of Marshall law / state of emergency.

vicariouslyAlive

"David Kopel, October 2, 2006 at 1:16pm] Trackbacks
Congress outlaws gun confiscation during disasters or emergencies:
This weekend, Congress passed, and sent to the President for his signature, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, H.R. 5441. The Conference Report of the bill includes a variety of non-appropriations measures to enhance homeland security. The most notable of these is the construction 700 miles of fence along the portions of the Mexican border which are the main transit zones for illegal aliens. Also included in the legislation is a ban on gun confiscation during emergencies and natural disasters, to prevent a repeat of the post-Katrina abuses such as law enforcement officers breaking into homes and confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens."

looks like they looked into that issue and rectified that problem.

law abiding citizens need not worry about gun confiscation.

good day sir.

Bluto

All this talk of government taking our guns , I have yet to see any legislation that attempts any such thing . The NRA actually pushed for universal background checks at one time , until it became a political bargaining chip .

vicariouslyAlive

although a ban on guns with particular features and a confiscation of guns are 2 different things, they both result in the same act, the removal of guns from law abiding citizens. the proposed legislature that you claim to have never seen must be at a fault of your own. the latest attempt at gun removal was targeting anything with a vertical grip, anything, that had a clip that held more than 10 rounds, and anything with an adjustable butt stock... that basically that puts us back to the wild west days of 6 shot revolvers... kinda tips the scales in the governments favor in the arms race if they in fact did turn this place into a police state.

whether its a ban on gun types, or guns in general, it's still removing them from many people that have done nothing wrong. yes, there is a large number of people using guns in morally objective ways... but when you put that number up against the amount of legal gun owners... you'd see that the guns used to commit crimes only account for 1% of all total gun ownership, and most of those guns used to commit such crimes are illegally owned... new laws only punish those that follow them... for the people that already aren't following the letter of the law, it means squat.

Bluto

Sorry , but regulating the types and features of guns doesn't equate to abolishing the 2nd amendment . To me it just reflexs the times we now live in , where weapons technology has increased guns deadly efficiency . I believe that's why the founding fathers designed our government to be flexible ; to adapt to changing times and attitudes.

KnuckleDragger

Regulating, "scary looking" guns won't do anything to stop criminals from murdering either, so why do it? Our own government even admitted that the last assault weapon ban did nothing.

The Big Dog's back

Why have any laws then? Criminals are going to break them anyways.

vicariouslyAlive

the laws are there to keep a general consensus as to what is right and wrong and a justifiable punishment. laws aren't created to control people, they are created for punishing people, let's not get things confused. although the fear of punishment might be a controlling mechanism, the main purpose of a law is to administer a just punishment if it's broken. basically they are there for people like me that think breaking in my house means death by pistol where the government sees it fit to just slap them on the wrist if they claim it was for a drug habit...

the holy grail os isms is anarchism. no, it's not the anarchy depicted in the movies.. that kind of anarchy is actually called chaos. utopian anarchy is not having any laws because laws are unnecessary. people do the right things because its morally right. but, since humans can't seem to follow what's morally right all of the time, we have laws to administer punishment.

Bluto

oops double post .

2cents's picture
2cents

And some dems are just plain stupid!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/...

WiseManOnceSaid

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenr...

And some Republicans know less than people WHO WATCH NO NEWS AT ALL!!

2cents's picture
2cents

In my car that I am in a great deal, I have the first three channels on the radio programed to.

- FOX
- CNN
- MSNBC

I listen to all three for a broad opinion!

WiseManOnceSaid

Haha very well then. Although the report says that NPR listeners know the most about what is going on, but I myself find it a little too boring and don't want to fall asleep while driving..

2cents's picture
2cents

- CNBC comes after that but on Sirus they all are scheduled to have a comercial at the same time so then music is just a click away : )

coasterfan

If you watch Fox, that tells me one thing: you're unable to tell the difference between real news and "ideological opinion masquerading as news"

2cents's picture
2cents

Coaster, it is funny that you say this. I made a special note today to listen to the specific words while driving. In particular it is each news caster that speaks their own dialect. Take Rachel Madcow for example MSNBC, she was talking about the house and senate, her words identify each “the idiots in the house” Then turns around and says “the senate that is trying to move forward” This is not reporting, there is no more reporting anymore. Every newscaster puts their own personal opinion into everything no matter the station!

KnuckleDragger

This from a man that gets his news from Rachel Maddow, and his wife.

Grandpa04

Take the guns they will kill with other weapons! Lets ban kitchen knives too!

Bluto

Then let them use other weapons . The gun made the sword and the battle axe obsolete , because of it's efficiency as a killing machine . So , bring back the swords , axes , maces and such . Perhaps it will also help us to remember how real taking anothers life is , and not something you can do without getting actual blood on our hands .

goofus

With an honest background check, confiscation is next when govt. knows where to get them!!!!

coasterfan

We register cars and many other everyday items, and nobody is confiscating them. Get real, and come up with a REAL argument for why we shouldn't have universal background checks and mandatory gun registrations. Nobody wants to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Sheesh....

KnuckleDragger

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. If you don't know the difference you need to go back to school. Maybe you should ask you wife.

Bluto

No one is disputing the right to bear arms , even you have to agree that not just any wacko , or criminal should be able to easily get a gun . And some just can't handle them , like Dick Cheney ; ))))

Bluto

We register our children when we get them a social security number . Why isn't there a big stink being raised on that ? I guess to some , their guns take priority over their children.

goofus

U.N. wants your guns, Obozo wants your guns, Liberals want your guns so Annie get your gun.

Bluto

And gun manufacturers want you to buy MORE guns . Pretty obvious to see what their motivations are . Money , money , and more money .

wiredmama222

@goofus...may I ask why you think that an honest background check will cause a confiscation of your gun in your mind? Please be specific? If you have no felony background or mental illness in your past, why would background checks cause confiscation, please?

The Big Dog's back

goof doesn't know. He is just repeating something he read on a right wing website.

KnuckleDragger

Ok, I will explain it then. It has already been said by the Justice Dept. that the expanded background checks won't do anyything without registration. Why? Because there will be no way for the government to know if someone is breaking the law in a private sale. As it stands, the only guns registered with the Federal gov't are fully automatic weapons (which is not only difficult, but expensive for the average citizen to own.). So in essense a person could continue to sell guns in a private transaction without a background check. Who is going to know? As it stands there is no way for the government to trace the gun back to the person who sold it. As for registration and confiscation, do I really need to post all the instance in history where registration has led to a dictator confiscating private firearms? The reason we don't have registration is for that very reason. If you think it would never happen, I'm sure those who lived in Nazi Germany, or the former Soviet Union thought the same.

KURTje

Thank you Gov. Strickland for making the Castle Law happen. Gov. Taft fought it. Figures.

FlowerMom

I find it ironic that the Chicago Times says the NRA has too much power, when they have the strongest gun laws around, but have the highest death rate from guns in the US. How is that working for Chicago?

Why does anyone want to take guns from law abiding citizens? We would not need personal guns if the judges would keep the lawless, and violent offenders in jail or prison instead of pleading them out. Also if crazy people were put where they cannot harm themselves or others.

If guns are taken from the average citizen, the only people with gun protection will be the rich, the connected, and Hollywood. They can hire professional protection, and carry a gun.

The Constitution demands we the people be allowed to keep and bare arms, for self protection. It has little to do with hunting, but a lot to do with keeping violent people out of the homes and schools of law abiding individuals. The president is armed. Why aren't our schools protected with armed guards? IT is a gun free zone in many instances, and a target for anyone wanting to shoot someone. Gun free zones are the cause of crazies targeting them.

There should be NO gun free zones. Guns are for protection from criminal behavior and the mentally ill.

Mr Bean

You should all spit your gum out! Except "Flower Mom"---you are the only one to make a sensible argument--Go girl!

The Big Dog's back

Sensible? Looks like the same old right wing gun nut argument to me.

coasterfan

Sorry, flower mom only makes sense when viewed through an NRA frame of mind.

Mime Bloggling

So this article falls under the "Register Viewpoint" section? The same Sandusky Register who published the addresses of all the law-abiding citizens in Erie County who obtained a legal concealed carry license? No surprise. Shame on you SR.

OSUBuckeye59

For at least 5 years we've been reading and hearing how Obama is going to "take our guns away!", yet no federal legislation has yet been passed to do this, while gun & ammo manufacturers and sellers have realized record profits. Fear sells.

And no one knows better about selling fear than the NRA. NRA chief Wayne LaPierre has drawn comparisons to Israel, saying that the U.S. should follow Israel’s example of loose gun laws and of responding to mass shooting by posting armed guards at schools. LaPierre says Israel has lots of guns and lower rates of gun violence, so clearly the problem with America is not our guns but something else. Only problem is that Israel actually has quite strong gun restrictions and very low gun ownership rates, some of the lowest in the developed world. Back in late December LaPierre said, “Israel had a whole lot of school shootings, until they did one thing. They said we’re going to stop it and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then.” A spokesperson for the Israeli Foreign Ministry told the New York Daily News that this was simply wrong. “We didn’t have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism,” he said. “What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years.” The spokesperson added, “It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion.” Israeli guns laws, it turns out, are much stricter than America’s gun laws. This may help explain why Israeli gun ownership is just 1/13 of what it is in the U.S. To bring that number into focus, it would likely be even lower if not for mandatory military service, which means Israelis are more likely to be familiar with guns. Israel’s unique security challenges and its periodic bouts with terrorism would also seem to bolster an NRA-style case for allowing more privately owned guns so that more citizens can defend themselves. And yet, there are far fewer guns in private citizens’ hands, and far less gun crime. Israel limits gun ownership to security workers, people who transport valuables or explosives, residents of the West Bank, and hunters. People who don’t fall into one of those categories cannot obtain a firearm permit. Moreover, Israel rejects 40 percent of firearm permit applicants, the highest rejection rate in the Western world. Both Switzerland and Israel require yearly (or more frequent) permit renewals to insure that the reasons are still applicable.

Even if the Senate were to pass any type of gun legislation, be it even for increasing background checks, it's DOA once it gets to the GOP-controlled House. And in the meantime, gun & ammo sales will continue to increase as the fear machine keeps chugging along full-steam.

coasterfan

Excellent comments, OSU. You hit it out of the park, and dispelled many of the phony reasons the NRA fights even common sense gun reform.

Any illusions that the NRA has Americans' best interests in mind Evaporated when they began robo-calling Newtown residents recently. They are the ugly underbelly of America that most of us wish would just go away.

vicariouslyAlive

the problem with america is that everyone has been made to believe that they should be afraid of their neighbor... on a one to one basis a giant portion of the nation feels the need for a higher level of personal protection. they also feel the that the person beside them shouldnt be able to have that same amount of protection... it's the whole, "i should be able to carry my gun but no one else should" mentality. high government officials have armed guards, but every day civilians can't protect themselves... that alone speaks volumes of what our government thinks of it's people.

Pterocarya frax...

vicariouslyAlive said:

"the problem with america is that everyone has been made to believe that they should be afraid of their neighbor"

Why is that? And who is spreading all the hate and fear you speak of? Certainly it can't be the conservatives and Fox News and the NRA? We all know it ain't the tree huggin', peace lovin' liberals.

The right wing exists to create fear and hate in everything and everyone. Sorry, but the gig is up, and you have lost, but you just don't see it yet.

vicariouslyAlive

Oh I forgot.... its the liberal media flooding us with images of hate from all over america... one side said fear the drug dealers and the other says fear the bank. Again, your classifying into only a few categories. Liberals... republicans... too ignorant too see that there is more to it than that.

But I'll break KT down into terms you can understand. There are some god fearing Republicans that want to take guns away just as there are tiedye wearing hippies that will fight on a picket line. It its poeple like you that think people should be labeled just for a labels sake no matter what their beliefs are. Watch the news, no matter what channel, be it fox or some underground news paper, and what you see is one side telling you not to trust another. Fear sells, why do you think theres always bad news or something destructive on every broadcast?

Sir, you're either blind to all of this, or just flat out stupid. And if you even for a second think that one of your sides in this argument is anymore valid than the other just because of the label assigned to them by society, then you are both.

gene44870

If it were up to me , there would be no residents holding guns . They can pass all the laws that they want in refrence to to back ground checks . But the thing that you have to remember is that the drug dealer or the gang member is not going to buy his gun, or ask for a permit to carry a fire arm . so the brack ground checks are useless and the only way to get a grip on guns and vilance is , to take the guns from the public as a whole .
and inforce the laws on the books that are being plea bargained down to allow these thugs from getting out and repeating these crimes and placing the public at risk , not to mention put a risk to law enforcement and cause the deaths of the law biding not to mention our children .I know about the right to bare arms , but when it was signed into the constitition , they didnt have drug dealers and people shooting up schools and killing police and if they did , then there was no plea bargain , they were put to death by way of hanging or electric chair , and thats just what we need today

KnuckleDragger

So just how do you suppose we are to get 500 million guns off the street? No way its gonna happen. The criminals would never turn theirs in. Which means they would be the only ones armed. Also, only girly men have "bare arms." I don't really see the need to shave 'em. LOL

Bluto

I agree , there's a crap load of weapons in the wind , but that doesn't give us an easy out , to just ignore the problem . We are talking years to get this under control . Some times you just gotta do , what you gotta do.

Centauri

My original question was "I ask the Sandusky Register readers for their opinions about how to deal with gun sales between private individuals?"

The NRA and ACLU is to the rights of citizens as labor unions are to workers. All three are needed but I have criticized all three. Some people are so brain washed in that they will gladly give up their rights as well as those of others.

Somebody mentioned Martial Law in confiscating guns from civilians. How can civilians protect themselves from mobs, rogue police and rogue soldiers? Civilians need their guns to protect themselves from these mobs, rogue police and rogue soldiers. Know your history. British soldiers committed atrocities against the American colonists who opposed British rule. Soldiers and police will fire upon unarmed civilians if ordered to do so. As in many cases of atrocities, the police and soldiers will plead that "they were only following orders" to commit murder and genocide against American civilians. The Founding Fathers wanted the American civilians to be armed so that they could protect themselves from a rogue government that has taken over.

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.co...
"Will American troops fire, when ordered, upon their American brothers and sisters?"

http://www.propublica.org/nola
Journalism in the Public Interest

http://www.propublica.org/nola
After Katrina, New Orleans Police
Shot Frequently and Asked Few Questions

http://www.propublica.org/nola/s...
"Feds Find ‘Systemic Violations of Civil Rights’ by New Orleans Police Department"

goofus

Liberals and the left continuously bombard us how they only want registration and don't want to confiscate our guns but you have people like Gene44870 and their kind always posting on topics like this. Can we honestly believe the Obozo administration will not confiscate at a later time. Obozo even campaigned that flyover country was full of bitter clingers to their guns and religion. We can't trust Obozo, I mean President Harrison J. Bounell. The biggest fear we have is from our own government and President Bounell.

OSUBuckeye59

@goofus, the Obama administration is indeed wanting to expand registration, not confiscate guns, but the Gun Lobby, supported heavily by the NRA, will continue to orate loudly, every chance they get, that Obama "wants to take your guns away from you!". Your mistrust of the current administration is exactly the fear the NRA wants and will continue to foment.

As for me, I'm an equal opportunity distrusting person: I don't trust the NRA *OR* our federally-elected officials. For each, there's simply too much power and money at stake. In many respects, the NRA is like their own political party. They have their plank and are sticking to it. They're just as untrustworthy and self-serving as the federally-elected officials whose pockets they're stuffing with money.

KnuckleDragger

Gun registration has been the precursor to nearly every gun confiscation by a tyranical regime. Thank goodness the NRA has our back. If you truly believe that federally elected officials are not trustworthy than how could you possibly willing to allow a mechanism that would allow them to confiscate privately owned firearms?

OSUBuckeye59

I miswrote . . . the Obama administration is *NOT* pushing for "expanded registration", they're pushing for "expanded background checks".

The key points of Obama's plan are: expanded background checks for all gun buyers, restrictions on the capacities of ammunition clips, and a ban on assault weapons.

Again, Obama is *NOT* pushing for registration. And thank God for that. But even if he would have a fleeting thought of even trying to pursue that agenda, it'd be pure political suicide, not to mention utter insanity.

Bluto

The only backs the NRA has are the gun manufactures . They cater to the paranoia of some in order to keep their pockets lined . I'll say it again , the NRA backed universal background checks until it wasn't in their interest to do so .

goofus

Liberals and the left continuously bombard us how they only want registration and don't want to confiscate our guns but you have people like Gene44870 and their kind always posting on topics like this. Can we honestly believe the Obozo administration will not confiscate at a later time. Obozo even campaigned that flyover country was full of bitter clingers to their guns and religion. We can't trust Obozo, I mean President Harrison J. Bounell. The biggest fear we have is from our own government and President Bounell.

The Big Dog's back

I'm not sure you should have a gun goof. Like putting a pistol in a baby's hands.

whocares

Lets go after the video game industry.

whocares

Bluto Just go buy a gun and have fun shooting it. Join a conservation club. You will come over to the other side. More people were killed by hammers last year than guns.

Bluto

I am an owner .

Pterocarya frax...

Stupidity kills more people than guns, but not hammers.

KnuckleDragger

If that was true, you would have passed away long ago ;)

Pterocarya frax...

Thank you again for proving my point that conservatives are vindictive and hateful, and think they are better and smarter than everyone else. I know origen, oops, I mean vicariouslyAlive attacked me for some statements on it, but you continue to prove I was correct.

Oh, and by the way, the fact is there are more gun homicides each year in the USA than ones committed by baseball bats, knives and hammers put together. That also kind of proves the stupidity comment.

vicariouslyAlive

im not sure why you felt the need to liken me to a great scholar, but if you meant it as an insult, you fell far from the mark there sir.

i simply pointed out the fact the you believe that a bipartisan system is the only system at work is a bit of a farce. not all conservatives believe that guns are to be in the hands of all just as not all democrats believe that guns should be banned. simply believing in the stark black and white mentality clearly shows your lack of understanding and knowledge. you seem to look at the world as a child does, in simple right and wrong and us vs. them mentality, when the reality is there's much more to it than that. defending your beliefs of such a mentality shows further more that your ignorance is the kind that cannot be helped. you're too involved in the us vs. them mentality that you cannot see that not every one plays along the same lines that you are only able to see.

i simply pointed out your ignorance in believing that there was any difference in the ways we get screwed whether it's by a democrat or a republican... getting screwed is getting screwed no matter who's doing it... the fact that you find any solace in one side over the other is just an astounding and monumental amount of not only ignorance, but arrogance as well.

by the way... now that i think about it... since origen was a christian scholar, i do find some offense... i think just as little of any organized religion as i do any organized political party... all are fools chomping at the bit of power at the sacrifice of human rights and liberty.

good day, and again, nice try. keep playing the fool, and i'll keep finding reasons to laugh at you.

Pterocarya frax...

Believe me, I would never liken you to a great scholar. First off, I likened you to origen, not Origen (yes, I for one know how to use the caps key). Maybe you are not the commenter formerly known as origen, but your style of writing and means of attacking liberals is very similar.

It is interesting that you accuse me of assigning labels, and yet have labeled me as, and I quote: "ignorant", "child", "fool", having "arrogance", "blind", "stupid".

So it appears that anyone that doesn't ascribe to your view of life is stupid, etc. In many of your comments, I have seen you attack certain liberals such as myself, and certainly attack Democratic politicians, and ideas that are generally considered to be liberally held ones. But nowhere have I seen you attack any Republican politicians except very vague references to no one in particular, and certainly not any of the conservative commenters on here that would vote for a turd sandwich if it had an "R" after it's name.

So, as the old saying goes: "If the shoe fits, wear it".

vicariouslyAlive

i use capitol letters as a sign of respect, which is why i type "god," "obama" and "bush" they way i do.

and i don't attack just democratic views, i attack anything that is only seen in black and white. there are many levels to which this gun debate could be played out to, just the same as the abortion debate. no, i do not think that a gun in the hand of every american is a god idea, but i do think that for those that have followed the laws, it shouldn't be any more difficult for them to enjoy their rights. for a sway on a republican view, abortion shouldnt not be illegal, there's too many circumstances where abortion is justifiable. we should keep birth control unless we want to look into population control, we should have all states follow Texas's model for gun control since chicago's doesn't seem to be working out, and the whole republican push for drill drill drill for more oil will only last so long, obama did at least have the alternate energy resources thing right.

so you see, i don't have a problem with only democrats or republicans, i distrust both equally and both have equally flawed ideas because of their all of nothing mentalities. it's either ban guns or one in every hand. it's either no abortions, or abortions for everyone... there are always varying degrees that most political topics fail to even consider because of these ridiculous dividing lines that we've assigned to the only 2 parties that get any credit for existing. our country is run literally on a toddlers mentality. right or wrong, black or white, all or nothing... and in most situations those are never the answers.

the gun topic just happens to have me swaying more towards the "republican" side because i own guns and want to keep them, but i dont want every johny fart knocker law breaker and drug runner to have the same access to guns. i want to be able to protect myself against those kinds of people.

KnuckleDragger

^^Pot meet kettle. One had to laugh at the lefts propaganda. The guns the lefty's want to ban only accounted for 3,915 homicides out of 68,720 since 2007. The other dirty little secret they don't talk about is the fact that since the sunset of the assault weapons ban the homicide rate by firearms has dropped nearly every year. If anything, the statistics prove that this has nothing to do with saving childrens lives (the CDC has already confirmed that the majority of gun homicides are gang related), this is about eventual confiscation and the incremental loss of liberty.

The Big Dog's back

You too knucklehead. :)

KnuckleDragger

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Off-topic comments.

Bluto

@ Whocares - I don't consider shooting a gun fun , just a useful skill .

vicariouslyAlive

who are you kidding? it's a BLAST!!! pun completely intended. just re-sighted in my ar-15 after taking off my dot optic this week since the weather was nice. also taught a few people a bit of gun safety and how to aim through a peep sight. educational as well as fun.

wiredmama222

In TV on Wednesday, a gun shop owner decided to give away shot guns to three particular areas in Tucson to assist the residents there to protect their own homes. They started a month ago in Tucson, Arizona.

The police cannot assist the homeowners with the rash of break ins in these three areas. One of the residents in particular had been robbed FOUR times in two weeks, twice at gun point. The police could not get to him fast enough to catch the robbers.

This gun shop owner, because this is a lower income housing area, outfitted this man with a shotgun, shells and shooting lessons for both he and his wife. They have also outfitted others on that street of about fifteen house without saying which homes now have guns.

They plastered the street with signs saying the homeowners are now armed with guns. In the month since these homeowners have been armed, there has not been a single break in at ANY of the homes on this particular street. In fact, there hasn't been any cars on that street that do not belong there.

They are ready to move to the next area on their list to help another low income group to be armed and secured.

I am not a great lover of guns, but I used to live out in Tucson. Crime is rampant out there. If it can stop breakins out there, I wouldn't mind that at all. Like the man said, if it stops ONE, it was worth it. To go from that many to NONE, it WAS worth it.

Bluto

I agree with protecting ones self and family 100 percent , but I hope the gun shop owner checked the backgrounds of those he gave guns to . You see , the problem is the gun manufacturers and dealers who want to be able to sell weapons indiscriminately to the masses . They are playing people like fiddles by stirring up fears of the government by people who , to be honest , probably border on clinical paranoia . I also think that this fear mongering is why we are now seeing so many " losing it " and committing acts of violence lately . The NRA seems to be making the problem worse , and oddly enough that plays to their advantage . Kind of like Hitler using Jews as the boogyman to help control non Jewish Germans .

KnuckleDragger

Why would he? Background checks aren't required for shotguns.

Bluto

And , that is exactly the problem , because there should be . If people got nothing to hide , then what's the big deal with universal background checks? The NRA endorsed it in the past.

camm

Fred come to perkins we will trade you for gunner

Mime Bloggling

" The NRA seems to be making the problem worse , and oddly enough that plays to their advantage . Kind of like Hitler using Jews as the boogyman to help control non Jewish Germans ."

You do realize it was Hitler who made it illegal for Jews to own guns right and we all know how that ended AND it began by them having to nationally register their weapons? Hence the resistance of a national registry of gun owners here in the United States.

If there's any boogyman it's those on the left side of the aisle politically and in the media making people think that any law-abiding citizen owning a gun has to somehow be irresponsible or a nutcase.

Think Matt Westerhold publishing all the names and addresses of the law-abiding concealed carry holders in Erie County a few years ago.

Bluto

You are wrong . Hitler didn't disarm Germany . Germany's gun control laws came about after WW1 , and were put in place by the allied powers to prevent Germany from regaining a military presence . All this took place about 15 years before Hitler came into power . Hitler actually supported deregulation for those deemed worthy that is . After Hitler's Germany fell , those same gun control laws that we help put in place returned .

Mime Bloggling

I didn't say Hitler disarmed Germany...I said he disarmed the JEWS.

Regarding the 1938 Weapons Law in Germany:

"Finally, with regard to disarming the Jews, there is no dispute that the
Nazis did disarm the Jews aggressively—of all firearms, as well as “truncheon stabbing weapons.”

The Minister of the Interior, Frick, passed Regulations
Against Jew’s Possession of Weapons on November 11, 1938,
which effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.
It was a regulation prohibiting Jews from having any dangerous
weapon—not just guns. Under the regulations, Jews “are prohibited from
acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as
truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and
ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.”
Moreover, prior to that, the German police and Nazis used the 1938 firearms
law as an excuse to disarm Jews. In Breslau, for instance, the city police chief decreed the seizure of all firearms from Jews on the ground that “the Jewish population ‘cannot be regarded as trustworthy’”—the language from the 1928 and 1938 firearms laws.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/file...

Bluto

So , you are saying the Nazi's used their position of power to tweak the existing laws in order to persecute a specific group of people because they didn't like them . Kind of like Republicans discriminating against Gays and Lesbians by hindering their rights as Americans , trying to reorganize voting districts to give Republicans the advantage , trying to weaken the Violence Against Women Act , by not including LGBT , Native Americans , and immigrants . Seems to me that the Conservatives are emulating the Nazi's on a much broader scope then Liberals .

Pterocarya frax...

Better watch out Bluto...you might get attacked as being stupid or ignorant.

Bluto

I guess it all comes down politics . We pick a side and follow them over the cliff . This whole gun issue has become a fight to keep control over an industry that doesn't want to give up any of the power and money that comes along with it . The NRA exists only to run interference for gun manufacturers , so they don't have to deal with the issues directly .

goofus

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Personal attacks (including: name calling, presumption of guilt or guilt by association, insensitivity, or picking fights).

Bluto

What's the matter Goof , can't come up with your own material ? Well , if all else fails ... right . Oh , and I'm sorry I made fun of you because you didn't know how to spell liberal , or use the edit function . : )))))

vicariouslyAlive

pterocarya-fraxinifolia, if you didn't prattle like the ignorant, there would be no room to call u such.

and that's exactly the problem, only 2 sides of the extreme are represented and no credence is given to any sort of middle ground, forcing the die heard lefties and righties to agree with what ever nonsense that years poster child of infantile mentality choose to spout out. i believe it was a republican that made the nonsensical remark that was something to the tune of "there's no need for abortion clinics because a woman's body can just automatically shut down an unwanted pregnancy..." or something of that nature... not only is it bad enough that idiots like that guy are running the country, but millions of people actually agree with that moron. the same goes for the gun debate, there's no middle ground of letting those with a clean record keep going on, business as usual, but making those with misdemeanor charges file their guns to some sort of record. i do agree that the sale of a gun without a background check should be illegal, and sales of a certain number of guns at one time without proper licensing needs to also be recorded. just by doing those two thing it'll help stem some of the flow of guns making it onto the black market...

but all we hear is all guns must go, or all guns must stay, and that's such a childish way to look at it... in fact, with most of the governments debates if both sides could agree on some sort of middle ground they might actually get something done that's worth a damn. but instead, we're stuck in a country that's run by people that only see decisions being made by the red or blue, with no attempt at looking any deeper into the situation than that.

Pterocarya frax...

I don't know if you think that by bullying and name calling, you can get me, and other liberals to just go away, thereby being able to dominate all the conversation, and get everything you want...but it won't work. You see, true liberals are working towards realistic and common sense ways to reduce gun violence.

The Newtown 26 wanted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well.

vicariouslyAlive

Its not buying when you actually say foolish things. To sit here and think that any one side of government liberal or republican actually has the everyday citizens best interest in mind is ludicrous.

And again with the new town? You people pull up an event that happens nearly once every few years and cling to it like it happens all of the time. How about you people think about how ma
NY lives the private sales of guns saved last year, ljt that number up against u
Your by grail of mass murder, the single event, and then tell me that guns do more harm than good. In just Ohio alone in the week that followed new town 3 residences were broken into and defended by gun owners. So the amount of people saved in that week, just in Ohio, accounts for half of those killed in new town.

Like I said before laws only only created to km part a punishment. They stop nothing. Speed limits are broken every day causing mass murder. Breaking the speed limit is breaking the law. It won't matter how hard it is to get guns on the black market, they'll always find a way there. The law abiding citizens just want a way to protect themselves that won't involve a cavity search and a credit check. How is that too much to ask for? In the last 3 months the gas station around the corner has been robbed 3 times. I bet if it was known That the attendants behind the counter were carrying a gun it wouldn't happen so often.

Pterocarya frax...

Did you re read this after you posted it? And you called my posts "prattling"?

"And again with the new town? You people pull up an event that happens nearly once every few years and cling to it like it happens all of the time"

There were 14 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2012 alone. Over 3000 people have died from guns since Newtown in this country. You wouldn't say that if it was your daughter, or wife, or family member. So yes, I will cling to the lives of innocent children, over clinging to guns.

And then you prattle on about guns doing more good than harm with no proof to back it up. At least that is what I think it says. Your comment is so discombobulated it is hard to tell.

vicariouslyAlive

My mistake for answering from my phone and trusting auto correct. And your number of mass shooting seems a bit bloated... besides, when the number of individual shootings still greatly outweighs those of mass shooting, having people a le to defend themselves in a one on one basis seems to quell those numbers. Why don't you take a look at where most citizens dies of gun related homicide... oh, that's right, DC, Chicago, Colorado and vermont. All places with elevated or restrictive gun laws. How many of those deaths were in a gun free zone? How many of those deaths were unarmed civilians? My guess is you don't have answers for those questions nor would you want to answer them in the first place for fear of yet again playing the fool.

KnuckleDragger

Nope, because Bluto actually makes some fairly good points and is capable of engaging in a civil discussion. If you are being attacked, maybe you should reread the unsubstantiated junk you post.

Pterocarya frax...

Go ahead and keep piling on and acting like 5th graders, and crying about the stupid dumbocrats. Meanwhile, the people on the correct side of this issue have the American people on their side. A vote is scheduled on new laws in the Senate on Thursday. By then Portman and several other Republicans will have swung in favor of background checks, and it will pass.

Then Boehner really will have a reason to cry, because he ain't seen nothin yet. You see, times have changed, and liberals are motivated like they haven't been in a long, long time. So while you people are typing your hate we are working for real outcomes.

vicariouslyAlive

yeah, and just like raising the pentagon with your good intentions back in the 60's i see this all going over like a fart in a submarine now, just as things went for those that put feelings before logic did back then.

it's much easier to point a gun when you know one wont be pointing back. plain and simple. removing all of the guns from circulation is a pipe dream still being chased by the countries you people seem so desperately to want to modle the united states after.

the problem is this. for all of the countries that banned guns they're either 1, much much smaller than the US. england and australia for example have a total population smaller than the amount of registered gun owners in america never mind those that arent registered. point 2, for the countries of equal or greater size that have banned guns their political views a bit different from ours... something like dictatorship and/ or very oppressive comes to mind... china, vietnam.... countries like that.

so with our extremely high gun carrier to total population ratio and our seemingly free nature of a political system, i'd really like to see how one would propose to actually make things safer without breaking any of the founding rights in the constitution... because if one amendment falls, you can expect the rest to drop off just as quickly as the patriot act and the homeland security acts popped up.

the gun debate goes a bit deeper than people just wanting to carry a gun. for some of us, we've seen enough history to know that when one link in the chain that protects the citizens of a nation is weakened or breaks, it's not long after than the whole big show comes crashing down.

it starts with one thing that they get away with taking, and then the ball starts rolling. in the last 15 years we've lost the right to privacy, the right to not be detained without just cause (all the government has do to is cry wolf on terrorist activities and you go away, and their limitations on doing so are so vague that ordering certain books over the internet will get you red flagged, trust me i know first hand) and now our rights to protect ourselves not from only each other, but the very government that seems to be baring down each and every year more and more... the people that wrote the constitution broke away from an oppressive government and wrote the 2nd amendment to make sure that no government would be so powerful over it's citizens in this new nation... it's such a shame to see all of that hard work and lost life end up becoming the very thing they swore to never let this nation become.

what you short minded people fail to realize is laws stop nothing. if they did a simple sign that reads "gun free zone" would have worked in all of those places that got shot up. the plain and simple fact is that guns are here, and they're here to stay, this debate isnt about that, it's about being able to fight back against those that will pay no heed to this new law because they didnt heed the ones before it.

the war on terror? stalemate at best, and that's being extremely gracious there. the war on drugs... we've been losing that since the 80's... now they want to start a war on guns... 150 million registered gun owners and countless owners not registered... good luck finding the funding for man power and prison space there chief, because the last two endeavors have already bled us all dry.

Mime Bloggling

"So , you are saying the Nazi's used their position of power to tweak the existing laws in order to persecute a specific group of people because they didn't like them."

No, I'm not saying that at all..you did......but your uninformed bloviating and your inability to stay on task would make an interesting case study for any psych major. How many of your straw men does it take to shoot down the argument that Hitler knowingly disarmed the Jews for the purpose of annihilation?

Bluto

I never said he didn't target Jews . I said he used the people of Germany's fears and prejudices to control them by making the Jews out to be boogymen , just like the NRA is fear mongering by stoking peoples paranoia that the big , bad , boogyman government wants to take their guns . Republicans are in the pocket of the gun industries and are doing their bidding despite the overwhelming support for background checks coming out of conservatives own jurisdictions , you know the actual voters . They are doing this kind of thing across the board . You can't fight for 2nd amendment rights while at the same time suppressing the rights of Americans just because you don't like them , but that's EXACTLY what conservatives are doing as we speak . It's funny , when you people can't make a real argument you always revert to insults . By the way , you brought up Hitler , so if I were you I wouldn't throw stone about staying on task . I just responded to your comment . I say it is you with the straw army and guess what . They are burning .

camm

Fred come to perkins we will trade you for gunner

goofus

OSUBuckeye59

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 3:32pm

I miswrote . . . the Obama administration is *NOT* pushing for "expanded registration", they're pushing for "expanded background checks".

Funny but on either applications wouldn't logic require name AND address. More easier for Obozo to confiscate if he knows where you live.

OSUBuckeye59

@goofus, registration would be the same as a background check in terms of a person having to provide their name and address, but there *IS* a difference: current law bars the FBI from retaining records on those who pass background checks, and nothing in the president’s plan — nor those proposed by the congressmen — would change that. Some gun rights groups make a “slippery slope” argument that background checks could lead to a federal gun registry, but that’s simply not part of any of the plans being considered in Congress. The FBI is required to destroy any records generated by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System — which was created as a result of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993. The law strictly prohibits the “registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions” of those who pass the background check. Since 2004, Congress has inserted language in annual spending bills requiring the FBI to destroy firearm transfer records within 24 hours of approval. Although Obama has proposed a universal background check system, nothing in his plan would result in the establishment of a federal firearm registry.

Also, whereas I'm guessing you don't much care for President Obama as you continuously refer to him as "Obozo", he is our sitting President. I'm not particularly thrilled with what he's done/not done during his Presidency, but I wasn't thrilled with some of what his predecessor did/didn't do either. And I'm none too pleased with some of what our Congressional members have done/not done in the past 12+ years. Still, as much as I may dislike some of what our federally elected officials have or have not done while in office, I personally think resorting to derogatory name-twisting tarnishes any debate message.

Ned Mandingo

This article is pure propaganda and anyone who believes it is a fool
The NRA has influence because they represent their members. A large part of America. This article is originally from chicago, a city with some of the most illegal restrictive gun laws in the country. They also are high on the list in murders and violent crime. How is their gun laws working out for them.
FBI statistics indicate that after a state legalizes a concealed carry law violent crimes go down greatly.
"Assault weapons" is a term used in propaganda to grab your attention. Semi automatic rifles are statistically used in very little murders and banning them would not save any lives.
They would be useful for citizens to use to protect our country from enemy's foreign or domestic. That is the reason for this propaganda war on the second amendment.

Ned Mandingo

Adam Lanza was denied firearm purchases sever times in the weeks before the sandy hook murders. That's why he had to steal the guns he used. And he used hand guns not semi automatic rifles, it's a fact. Look at the autopsy reports, handgun bullets.
Hitler took the guns, Stalin tok the guns, chairman Mao took the guns. All dictators take the citizens guns.

Pterocarya frax...

Oh come on Ned...Lanza never was denied purchases. He didn't steal any guns. He didn't murder any kids.

In fact, Adam Lanza never existed! The proof is right there at your fave website:

http://planet.infowars.com/polit...

Ned Mandingo

Get the truth at infowars.com

The Big Dog's back

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained Profane, obscene, sexual or derogatory language.

gene44870

I dont know why they are so worried about these gun laws . Let me explain
1 If I am in a gang or I am a drug dealer , I am not going to give permits a thought , I am not going to apply for a permit to get a gun I am just going steal a gun that someone has in there home .like a law bidding resident that works hard for his money and that has a gun to protect himself and his family from people like me
2 as long as the NRA is fighting for the right to bare arms and goverments need money to get another term I am going to have a gun
Its as plain as and simple as that , And no I am not a drug dealer or a law breaker . I am a law bidding resident .
What we need to do is get rid of these so call pea bargains and change the laws in refrence to the death penalty and then use them laws
Get these thugs off the streets and make sure they are not let out to repeat there crimes against law bidding residents such as myself ,
Thats the only way we can get through to these thugs and let them know we arent going to let them run over us , by selling drugs to our young children and rob us of what we have worked hard for
Times are hard and they dont have to be as hard if we take these thugs off the streets and make sure they dont get out to repeat there crimes against us

Pages