Gun (In)Sanity

Despite a Democratic Congress and President, it's been a bad time for common sense measures to curb gun violence.

Earlier this year, a voting rights bill for the citizens of the District of Columbia was stalled by a Senate amendment that would strip the city of its right to regulate guns. And last month, the credit card reform bill was hijacked in the Senate and amended so that concealed guns are now permitted in our national parks.

Here's hoping the majority of Americans who support sane gun control begin to turn the tide.

Bills have now been introduced in both the House and Senate to at long last close the absurd and dangerous gun show loophole which permits the sale of guns without any criminal background check.

Background checks are required for any gun purchase at federally licensed dealers. The result? 1.6 million felons and other prohibited purchasers have been stopped from buying guns. But those same people can go to a gun show in more than 30 states and buy a weapon -- no questions asked. It doesn't matter, for example, if Maryland requires a background check when the same individual can cross into Virginia and buy an assault weapon without a hitch. That's why 4 out of 10 guns are sold by unlicensed sellers without background checks.

The Columbine killings were committed using two shotguns, an assault rifle, and a TEC-9 assault pistol -- all four weapons were purchased from gun shows. The person who bought three of the weapons later said she wouldn't have done so if a background check had been required. Recently, the brother of a Virginia Tech victim was followed by ABC News into a gun show where he was able to purchase ten guns in under an hour -- again, no questions asked.

Senator Frank Lautenberg's Gun Show Background Check Act would require background checks at any event where 50 or more firearms are offered for sale. It wouldn't stop a grandfather from giving his prized handgun to his grandson, as the cynical NRA would have America believe. Nor does it take on the 2nd Amendment. Despite the NRA's whipping gun owners into a buying frenzy over the notion that President Obama and the Democrats are coming after their guns -- a hysteria that has led to a surge of sales at gun shows nationwide -- this legislation does no such thing.

It simply insists -- in the interest of public safety -- that you clear a criminal background check before buying a gun.

"There is no rational reason to oppose closing the loophole," Senator Lautenberg said when he introduced the bill with 14 cosponsors last month just days after the 10th and 2nd anniversaries of the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, respectively. "The reason it's still not closed is simple: the continuing power of the special interest gun lobby in Washington."

Which brings us to the politics.

The Senate bill is in the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy, who perhaps has made a decision in his career to never be outflanked by a pro-gun opponent -- despite his generally progressive values. So, frankly, the prospect of the bill getting a hearing there is bleak. The House Judiciary Committee is chaired by Congressman John Conyers so it might stand a better chance of consideration there. Conyers has supported similar legislation in the past and will in all likelihood support this bill too.

What seems more likely, however, is that the legislation might be offered as an amendment to a different bill -- the same tactic the GOP has employed to try to get guns on Amtrak, in our national parks, and throughout our nation's capitol. In 1999, Senator Lautenberg successfully passed legislation identical to this bill as an amendment to a juvenile justice bill (it was later killed in a House-Senate conference).

The White House has clearly made a political decision at this time not to push for closing the gun show loophole or the assault weapons ban -- both of which it clearly supports and would gladly sign into law.

So it's time for rational, concerned citizens to take matters into their own hands. Polls show over 85 percent of the public wants the gun show loophole closed now. That's a lot of voters. Speak out -- let your Senators and Representatives know where you stand. Threaten to stop any contributions to representatives who won't listen. Hold house parties to get the word out. Ask MoveOn and bloggers to launch a day of blogging to ensure people know how wrongheaded this is.

Don't let the NRA's lies and fulmination hold sway over this life-saving measure.

Comments (160)

1. Problem of course is that gun control is a proven loser for Democrats and not going near it a proven winner.

   Call it "panic" or "fearmongering", if the GOP can make it seem as if "them durn lib'ruls are coming after yer guns"....Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc. go up for grabs

   Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 11:30am

2. Here I am, a gun owning, freedom loving social liberal. I have purchased guns at gun shows, carried guns while traveling, used guns to hunt my food. There are more of us than you think. Gun control will never, ever, work in this country. The control suggestions and legislation introduced by anti gun fanatics (yes, that is what you are) will only serve to bolster the paranoid fantasies of gun owning, freedom loving, social conservatives, and ultimately cause more social chaos than gun show purchases have or will. Get off your high horse and start talking to fellow Americans from the other side of this issue. I suggest you go to gun shows and talk with "them" if you can stand it. If you don't know how to handle a firearm, learn. Work to find the common concerns we Americans all share, rather than attempting to impose a highly divisive opinion on so many of the people.

   Posted by louda at 06/02/2009 @ 11:54am

3. With the country and the world in the toilet, why waste one minute on loser gun issues? Why does the editor have so little political sense? It is a mystery that this keeps coming up. There is no gun show exception to background checks. Dealers have to run checks, ordinary citizens don't. If I sold a bunch of guns at a gun show, I would worry about a federal agent charging me with being an unlicensed gun dealer.

   Posted by samstone at 06/02/2009 @ 12:25pm

4. Why does the editor have so little political sense? It is a mystery that this keeps coming up.----Posted by samstone at 06/02/2009 @ 12:25pm

   Not really a mystery, sam.

   Ms vanden Heuvel is like many on the Left, isolated in her own culture and opinions. Thinks "all of America is New York...even the Upper West Side."

   In fairness, same for the Right, never going to get Haley Barbour to see that "not all of the USA is Mississippi".

   Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 12:46pm

5. With the country and the world in the toilet, why waste one minute on loser gun issues?

   Posted by samstone at 06/02/2009 @ 12:25pm

   I totally agree. Gun control is not an issue worth spending any politcal capital on. The gun show loophole is a slippery slope, in that the next loop hole would be private sales in general. If I want to sell one of my guns to my neighbor (in state), or give a gun to a friend.

   The ease of access to guns is a problem, but it would not be solved easily. The only way to prevent future school shootings is to make guns illegal. Just like to prevent traffic deaths we would have to make cars illegal, and makes about as much sense.

   On a side note, the term assault rifle is a loaded leftwing term. Like the term baby killer from the right in regards to abortion.

   Posted by Extraneous at 06/02/2009 @ 2:23pm

6. If you take away the American people's guns, if you even make guns harder to get, then the Electoral College will give you another Republican administration and all that entails - the destruction of America.

   So get used to it. Get over it. Let it go. Your obsession with guns will only bring defeat and ruin.

   Posted by Dolmance at 06/02/2009 @ 2:37pm

7. I love the "slippery slope" argument, a favorite argument of the fearmongering right and all other demagogues that cautions us to do Nothing because in theory doing Something will inevitably lead to Something Else. So much for personal choice and responsibility.

   Posted by gmburt at 06/02/2009 @ 3:42pm

8. The Columbine shooters absolutely did NOT use an "assault rifle". By process of elimination the author is speaking of the Hi-Point 995 9mm carbine which is essentially a 9mm pistol with a shoulder stock and a longer barrel. It is not an assault rifle, assault weapon, or anything of the sort. Mechanically, it is no different than a common 9mm pistol; it just looks a little weird so people who don't know any better call it an "assault rifle". PLEASE do your homework!!

   Posted by benminer at 06/02/2009 @ 3:48pm

9. Why the Left does not embrace the 2nd Amendment as a bullwork against tyranny is simply absurd. Without the right to keep and bear arms, all the other so-called rights are meaningless, a "parchment barrier" as Jefferson put it. The only reason I can come up with as to why the Left in general, and the Dems in particular, maintain such a stance is to show some differentiation from the other faction of the business party, where, in fact, none exists. As Gore Vidal so accurately put it, "We only have one party in this country - the business party, the party of money - and it has two right-wing factions." What this country is lacking is a party that represents the majority, and a press that isn't beholden to the divisions so beneficial to corporate interests.

   Posted by FrTothus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:59pm

10. The author sites links from anti-gun sources. For an unbiased view I offer this.

    This from the most recent Gallop poll.

    April 8th 2009 "While similar to the 30% recorded in 2007, the latest reading is the smallest percentage favoring a handgun ban since Gallup first polled on this nearly 50 years ago."

    Gun ownership is at an all time high in the US and crime as at a low. Tragic suicide/murder events and all.

    Think about it.

    Posted by scotttoland at 06/02/2009 @ 4:05pm

11. As a Nation subscriber, a liberal Democrat, a veteran, a former police chief, and a firm believer that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the disarming of the citizenry by a potentially despotic central government, I don't find much of anything Katrina Van Den Heuvel has to say on any subject to be reasoned, or even reasonably well informed. She substitutes anecdote for data as th0ugh unsubstantiated claims are okay for her, but not for Dick Cheney. Frankly I'm more than a little sick of the journalistic bombast as a cover for investigative sloth. Depending on which study you care to cite, guns shows are at most a source of 2% of the guns used in crime, and of that, some perecentage from unlicensed attendee-to-attendee sales. So aren't we majoring in the minors here? Or is the real point to shut down gun shows?

    Personally, after eight years of Bush-Cheney, I'm more attached to my firearms than ever and wondering if I have enough.

    Posted by rgarret3 at 06/02/2009 @ 4:09pm

12. In case some of you aren't aware of it, the powers that be have already taken care of us gun users (legally, of course) They have just about cut off the supply of ammunition. At least I, who am elderly, live alone near the Mexican border am finding it hard to get ammo from my usual place, Wal Mart. None available. The shelves are EMPTY. Check it out. I have tried a few other places and found it still hard to get of they are pricing ammo way out of sight. Maybe in the East it isn't that way, but it sure is here in the South West. Just another way to keep us from our freedom. Will they form a Gestapo to raid our houses next? This complaint is from a LONG TIME Liberal. Who is fast changing her ways. I hope they don't make a criminal out of me because I will have to learn to hand load, and I will have my ammo. Maybe we can buy ammo from China, every thing else seems to come from there.

    Posted by claves1 at 06/02/2009 @ 4:27pm

13. OK, we in the US run about 30,000 gun deaths a year, last time I looked it up, which is in the low range of the number of Americans we lose each year from seasonal flu: so it's a serious loss -- especially given how many die in the prime of life -- but a sustainable one for the country, though a bad loss for the people involved.

    Stats Q., though: How many of these people were killed by professional criminals? My impression is that the problem is less with pros who pretty much only kill intentionally and more with amateurs who get drunk or angry or drunk and angry and lethal. It's a complex problem: vicious cycles of guns readily available when people are pissed (there's a pun there if you know Brit usage), and too many American males being often pissed oft, and fearful that their opponents will have guns, which is fairly likely given the easy availability of guns. As Michael Moore points out, Canada and Switzerland are as heavily armed as we, without the murder rates. So as well as making guns less available, we need Americans who are less fearful of their neighbors and in better moods.

    We could stop raising kids to fear strangers and training parents to assume any stranger is a potential kidnapper/pederast/rapist.

    And we could respect the 2nd Amendment as protection for The Right of Revolution, while noting that pistols aren't really weapons for your common soldier of the revolution, or anything else. They're for officers to shoot recalcitrant common soldiers, or for (necessarily relatively aristocratic).

    So, here's to our right to well-cared-for rifles, borne by sane, sober folk who feel safe and comfortable with neighbors and strangers -- or at least nonhomicidal -- and who know enough to shoot almost always only those they intend to shoot.

    Posted by ErlichRD at 06/02/2009 @ 4:38pm

14. I own guns and am a social liberal as well as a fiscal conservative. My values are progressive and egalitarian.

    I also support President Obama and his efforts to reform the spiteful and disrespectful rhetoric between extremists of the two legally privileged political parties that passes as political discourse.

    The President's admonition that we listen to all and to proceed to discuss issues of our differences from a perspective of mutual respect should also be followed with regard to guns. The fact is that a substantial majority of U.S. adults support the 2nd amendment as one of our individual rights as citizens of the U.S. The Supreme Court also found that the right to bear arms was an individual right of a citizen.

    The simple truth is that gun laws and gun rights needed by society already exist. Start enforcing them.

    Posted by gmarple at 06/02/2009 @ 4:40pm

15. Wow!!! Bring up the subject of guns... all the right wing vermin crawl out of the woodwork. Those guys won't be happy until every five year old has a jeep with a double 50mm cannon mounted on the back.

    I myself am waiting to buy one of the main guns/turrets from the USS New Jersey. And you'll have to pry that out of my cold, dead hands!

    Posted by James Sauli at 06/02/2009 @ 4:48pm

16. Karen's comments about getting guns at gun shows and the supposed fact that a certain number of criminals would not be able to get guns is misleading. You do get a bacground check on anyone who buys a gun via each states system which is mandated by federal law for all FFL holders such as myself. You may not have a witing period to take the gun. Gun shows are irrelevant since you can buy guns from a private party in most states and no background check is required nor really possible and they are readily available. I would have no problem with closing the loophole of gun shows if a reasonable set of gun laws would replace the morass of bureaucratic crap that states like California throw up in front of gun dealers and buyers who are law abiding. There are numerous fees and checks that are redundant to federal and are just there to eliminate the gun business. A nationwide federal law and background check would be fine and retention of serial number and name of buyer....but unless you have reviewed the paperwork, fees on top of paperwork and fees....you would not understand why NRA and many others such as myself reject any regulations. It's the same for our current president and congress...when they fail us miserably eg; freddie and fanny, they claim not enough regs and must be those terrible CEOs......cop out....bad government/law enforcement and perhaps parenting is responsible for all of our gun related issues....not the average citizen who shoots, hunts etc......get a clue.

    Posted by brianm at 06/02/2009 @ 4:53pm

17. KVH,

    I am NO fan of guns: I have never owned one, and have no plans to ever purchase one in the future.

    That said, there really is a POLITICAL issue you are missing here. In several of the "swing" states that Obama won, guns are popular! They are popular for the reasons you stated - the successful Republican campaign of fear.

    But this too will change over time.

    Fear is a disease that is based on attachment to possessions and the body. Once one realizes that possessions don't survive the death of the body (or the ego), then all this fuss about "protecting possessions" or illusions that your body and ego is your true self go away.

    One of the most remarkable scenes one can fathom are from tombs of ancient royalty, in which all of these "valuable" possessions are buried with the person's decomposed body. The scene somehow looks completely out-of-place - all of these precious stones glittering on a corpse - and I think that is the point.

    Things that enhance the body or make the body and ego feel good when you are alive completely lose their meaning and purpose when the body and ego dies.

    At some point, America will have to come to terms with the limited value of the body and ego and understand that human life on Earth has a much greater and noble purpose.

    Cremation is the ultimate acknowledgment of this false self notion practiced in the West, so look for a drop in gun use as demand for cremations rise!

    Posted by Metteyya at 06/02/2009 @ 5:16pm

18. The day after Obama won the election I became a first-time member of the NRA. The reason is obvious given Obama's much earlier statements concerning his take on the meaning of the second amendment. I also know Katrina's real motive concerning gun control - the elimination of personal gun ownership. So yes, the slippery-slope is as real for us concerning guns as it is for the left concerning abortion.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/02/2009 @ 5:32pm

19. Posted by Metteyya at 06/02/2009 @ 5:16pm: You know, I really don't think many gun owners intend to be buried with their guns when they die. :)

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/02/2009 @ 5:52pm

20. I am sick and tired of being told I need guns/weapons because I am scared. That is not true of me or for any of friends that enjoy shooting sports. For the record I currently own 34 guns. I have handguns, rifles, shotguns, AR-15's, and even a couple of Blackpowder smokepoles. I compete in benchrest, cowboy action, and Sniper style competitions. I shoot for the same reason that most folks golf, play football, basketball, pool or go to quilting parties. The 2 major diffrences between those folks and shooters is that we don't care if you don't shoot and the tools for our sport are protected by the Constitution. I am not scared of anything except you wack jobs wanting to make my hobby illegal. Oh, I also load my ammo at home it relaxes me after a long day at the grind. Like The Nuge said "if guns kill people my are defective." Now I have to clean my Sako 75 300WSM that I took to the range today. Bye bye

    Posted by 1longrange at 06/02/2009 @ 5:53pm

21. The outpouring of gun-nuttiness from self-proclaimed progressives here stinks of an NRA-sponsored intimidation campaign. Concealed weapons in national parks, refusal to carve out safe zones, tolerance and hyper-technical defense of assault weapons, the relentless push to have more guns and more dangerous guns in every corner of the community; all these are our gift from the gun industry and fanatics in the industry's thrall. They live in a Nietzchean fantasyland where the community is the enemy. Every schoolyard holocaust, every police standoff, every family murder-suicide, will move us in the other direction until eventually this virulence is purged. The end will come when the Mexican drug cartels--whose access to American weapons is currently being protected by the NRA--open fire on US judges, prosecutors, police, city halls, schools, and gun-loving citizens.

    Posted by mark1999 at 06/02/2009 @ 6:27pm

22. Posted by pyeatte at 06/02/2009 @ 5:32pm

    At the end of 8 years of Obama and a Dem Congress with him the whole way, pyette...

    you'll still have EVERY gun you had before or "rushed out" to buy after November 4th.

    And the gun manufacturers will still have your money and the NRA your dues.

    You've been conned...again.

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 7:11pm

23. Common sense will never stand up to symbolism. The pistol shape and placement on the ol' gunslinger's belt rivals only the rock star's low slung electric guitar for its phallic importance. This is all unconscious. Good luck trying to get those "working class whites", those Hillary dem's to understand. Their understanding organ lacks blood supply. Much better to jump in and revel in the symbolism. Have a blue ribbon panel, all cops and hunters, with a super gun czar of impeccable all things guns cred be the media's main source, in their effort to reduce everything to gay, softie, commie, hippie, tree huggie, gun hating, gun taking, gun fearing extremists vs the real men, real studs, real guns, 2nd Amenders. Have this panel and czar use the best writers, cinematographers, publicists come out guns blazing on Gun Smarts, Gun Strong, Gun ho. Tiered proven systems assuring only true American gun studs, knowledgeable and skilled, are protecting their little barefoot women and offspringo's, only talented, smart Woodsmen are braving our forests. Not aliens and wife-beater ex-cons or nubile city slickers who have no business toting guns.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/02/2009 @ 7:46pm

24. why don't you make it more difficult to buy the bullets?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2009 @ 7:51pm

25. That's how you regulate baby. Never use the word regulate. And certainly not "control"! Confuse those Hillary and McCain fanatics with bumper stickers of ol' glory and images of Iwo Jima overlaid with "freedom isn't free, especially when it comes to being gun strong" sort of thing.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/02/2009 @ 7:53pm

26. Then put the cops / hunters in charge of the bullets. If you have to buy bullets at the sheriff station or hunting lodge that might save a few urban teens from blowing each other up.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/02/2009 @ 8:01pm

27. The point is the corporate media ensures intractable polarization, and essentially zero change in the ridiculous numbers of loser urban thug gun violence. Countless, endless, merciless, thoughtless cycles. The ones not killed cost us all in ER visits, revolving legal/penal interventions, decimated emotional lives of kids/parents. Sure, have your 36 guns. We all love guns. We're Americans. Not some of us. All of us you fools. So are our brother fools shooting up each other in Watts, Southside Chicago, and Harlem. But these are dated examples. Now it's Des Moines, Atlanta, Reno. Everywhere. Gun ho!

    Posted by winyahn at 06/02/2009 @ 8:09pm

28. KvH: "Don't let the NRA's lies and fulmination hold sway over this life-saving measure."

    Where any gun--used later to commit criminal killings-- is purchased really isn't all that important. Sure, background checks may prevent some ex-Cons (and minors) from trying to buy legal firearms but something tells me, any ex-Con has `connections' to get much of what they need for their next `job', know what I mean? Sure?

    Posted by Happy at 06/02/2009 @ 8:17pm

29. "Wow!!! Bring up the subject of guns... all the right wing vermin crawl out of the woodwork."

    Ummmmm....

    You might wanna go back and read those posts again. Most made a point of saying they were not necessarily right wingers. Of course KVH would say those posts were made by GOP plants.

    Obama knows where to come down on gun rights.

    That's why he's president and KVH is wasting away trying to relive her boomer youth years.

    Posted by bleedingheart at 06/02/2009 @ 8:42pm

30. Those Urban Teens will find other ways to defile themselves and hurt/kill others. Once again people act as if the tool is causing the Harm. It is the person with the tool that causes harm. That gun will not do a thing unless a person is operating it. Simple, easy concept....Yet folks just don't get it. Maybe we need be more active in the area of people control. What I mean by that is raise your children with a moral sense, to counteract all the negative influences in the world. Be a good neighbor ect. No....that's to hard lets restrict a simple tool instead. I work in corrections and have seen inmates killed with ink pens and hurt with an assortment of homemade weapons crafted from any number of things. Remove one tool they will replace it another. So take the guns away from the law abiding folks, who are doing NOTHING illegal with their guns makes no sense. I want one person to answer this question for me. If a law were passed that said all guns had to be turned in to the government. Do you think that the criminals would turn theirs in? I don't believe so those laws would only effect those that obey the law. How does that make sense? You are correct, we all are Americans so why should the wants of a few cities override the wants of people like me in small towns across this country? Control the bad actors not a tool, that is knee jerk policy which equals bad policy. I just want to be left alone to enjoy my hobby with my friends and family. Some thug in Compton that uses a gun illegally should be held accountable for his actions. Not me in Dugger, Indiana. And I believe the opposite is true hold me accountable for my bad acts. Lets have an attack common sense. GUNS NEUTRAL PEOPLE GOOD AND BAD

    Posted by 1longrange at 06/02/2009 @ 8:44pm

31. I wonder how many of you that think guns are necessary to protect against tyranny realize that all your rights except gun ownership were pretty much stripped away by the last administration? Do you care? Or are you just happy they let you keep your little peashooter that will bounce off that M1 tank you're afraid of coming down your street? You cannot express your freedom of speech, right of assembly and free association, right to petition the government for grievances, etc, without permission beforehand. If you try, you're thrown in jail. If you try against conservatives, you're charged with terrorism. Oh, and if you just want to eat only plant-based food products and like to hang out with others who feel the same way, you end up on a terrorist watch list. Enjoy your guns.

    Posted by zmann at 06/02/2009 @ 10:00pm

32. I wonder how many of you that think guns are necessary to protect against tyranny realize that all your rights except gun ownership were pretty much stripped away by the last administration? Do you care? Or are you just happy they let you keep your little peashooter that will bounce off that M1 tank you're afraid of coming down your street? You cannot express your freedom of speech, right of assembly and free association, right to petition the government for grievances, etc, without permission beforehand. If you try, you're thrown in jail. If you try against conservatives, you're charged with terrorism. Oh, and if you just want to eat only plant-based food products and like to hang out with others who feel the same way, you end up on a terrorist watch list. Enjoy your guns.

    Posted by zmann at 06/02/2009 @ 10:00pm

    If you believe all of that, you really are nuts.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:55pm

33. Come on gang; don't we all just envision Katrina with her hands on a Glock 19 or a Sigarm P239!

    Now that would be a vision to behold.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:18pm

34. As an American who has lived outside the USA for more than 30 years -- in a country (one third the population of the U.S.) where no citizen can own a gun, and where there are something like 30 gun murders a year ... I really wonder: why do Americans want all those guns? Aside from the obscene number of murders and violent crimes -- what about the number of gun ACCIDENTS and suicides. Minors with guns killing other minors. Guns used to settle marital spats. Guns used by teenagers against parents for nagging about homework and chores. Gun murders in schools, universities, and churches. Guns used to settle disagreements with neighbors and traffic mishaps with strangers. Guns used to cripple, disfigure, paralyze. What about the children orphaned and lives tragically and irrevocably altered because of guns. Do you really feel the US is a safer, better, greater country and society because of easy access to guns?

    Posted by kha at 06/03/2009 @ 01:06am

35. hear, hear, kha. that is the six million dollar question. are we really better off because ANYBODY who wants one can quickly get a gun in this country?

    yeah, I know half of you are all devoted sport shooters, responsible hunters, NRA posterchildren. Yay! good for you! you shot your own dinner last night? AWESOME! let me be the first to congratulate you.

    but what gives on resisting background checks? is it really so terrible to take common sense measures to make guns just a little harder to obtain for the people who truly should not have guns ( - and they are out there, as the families of four recently killed Oakland police officers can attest - ) I mean, why not?

    IS it really because you are so afraid of what might happen, that suddenly the good ole USA will morph into George Orwell-1984-land and you won't have the right to go shoot deer for venison anymore?

    REALLY? you can't see ANY middle ground at all? You don't see any way that the responsible owners can keep their weapons and that it can be just a mite harder for, oh, I don't know, someone who is criminally insane, to lay their hands on a so-called "assault rifle"? That- now that's just amazing.

    because I have not yet heard ANY rational counterargument against better background checks.

    Posted by canaro71 at 06/03/2009 @ 02:08am

36. Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:55pm

    Coming from someone who makes Bobby Jindal's exorcism experience seem like more of a joke than it already is, I'll take that as a compliment.

    Posted by zmann at 06/03/2009 @ 06:25am

37. In my 58 years I have never needed a gun for anything. The police are always here in minutes if i need them. The police have guns. Let them walk around all cocky and intimidating.

    Shooting someone is rarely if ever the answer to any type of problem.

    If you live in a combat zone, maybe you should move.

    Posted by guitarsandmore805 at 06/03/2009 @ 06:36am

38. If you believe all of that, you really are nuts.----Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:55pm

    A guy was a secret double-nought spy for the Navy doing secret missions OUTSIDE of Southeast Asia in the 1960s....who is now a "prophet of God" because some Pakistani missionaries and a "Businessman's Evangelical Assembly" SAID he was....who "fights demons and witches".....and who ROSE FROM THE DEAD...

    and...If you believe all of that, you really are nuts.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:55pm

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 08:30am

39. It seems most of the gun laws have done only a bit of good and that the real problem is the people using guns.

    If we are serious, really serious about gun control, the states should look at passing laws to put people in jail for life when the use a weapon in the commission of a crime.

    This won't remove all the problem because criminals will generally act foolishly, but at least they will only be able to do something foolish once.

    Posted by tomlew at 06/03/2009 @ 08:51am

40. At a time when civil liberties have been gutted by the previous administration, I think we are better served to focus on restoring civil liberties rather than looking for another liberty to restrict...no matter how well intended.

    Dismantle the Patriot Act and the prerogatives of unchecked power that Bush arrogated to the Presidency. Investigate the crimes of both parties during the past 8 years and prosecute where appropriate. Get our civil liberties returned to us. This is a better focus.

    The citizens of our country need to see a true respect for our liberties from those who govern. The democratic leadership has not shown this yet. Let's focus on hammering THAT message home rather than confusing them with a message that encourages politicians to trust the American people even less.

    Are you REALLY serious about cutting down the violence of our nation? Then focus on stopping our futile and devastatingly harmful "war on drugs" and start calling for legalization. Just as prohibition of alcohol caused crime and violence on a huge scale, so does our "war on drugs". Background checks at gun shows are much ado about next to nothing compared with the gang violence, drug cartel violence, and general corruption stemming from our misguided war on drugs.

    Posted by Reason_with_me at 06/03/2009 @ 09:16am

41. The Supreme Court also found that the right to bear arms was an individual right of a citizen.

    Posted by gmarple at 06/02/2009 @ 4:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    no, the court has found no such thing.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 09:27am

42. <The Supreme Court also found that the right to bear arms was an individual right of a citizen.

    Posted by gmarple at 06/02/2009 @ 4:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    no, the court has found no such thing.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 09:27am>

    Perhaps you aren't reading the NY Times any more?

    <Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights

    By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 27, 2008

    WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday embraced the long-disputed view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for personal use, ruling 5 to 4 that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.>

    http://tinyurl.com/

    <District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It is the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.

    On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).>

    http://tinyurl.com/2f2ffu

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 09:54am

43. Why the fear from gun owners over expanded background checks before buying/acquiring a gun?.

    Recent apprehensions of would be "terrorists"have revealed that most are hoodlums first & terrorists second. Making a firearm quadruple in cost to these guys due to squeezing the supply would result in fewer thugs & thusly fewer homegrown terrorists.

    If people like anti are concerned about more home invasions in order for these same crooks to acquire weapons, that would only result in more opportunities to make his day! And the NRA would pad their list of legal gun owners thwarting crime! Head shots receiving special recognition!

    Fight crime & terrorism simultaneously with tougher background checks.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/03/2009 @ 11:41am

44. we license cars and don't permit private ownership of tanks.

    get over it, gun people. we need fewer guns, and we need responsible gun ownership, and fewer suicidals with easy access to guns.

    the thing in the constitution clearly refers to state militias, as a federal standing army was not contemplated.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 12:11pm

45. If people like anti are concerned about more home invasions in order for these same crooks to acquire weapons, that would only result in more opportunities to make his day! And the NRA would pad their list of legal gun owners thwarting crime! Head shots receiving special recognition!

    Fight crime & terrorism simultaneously with tougher background checks.

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/03/2009 @ 11:41am

    I've not posted an single entry about concern regarding home invasions, so I don't know why you singled me out on that issue.

    Secondly, I've made it known that since I became a pastor many years ago, I no longer own any guns. I simply am defending the constitutional right of others to make that determination.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 12:12pm

46. funny that the behavior of obama and the executive branch which has recently violated contract law and stolen the legislative branch power left and right doesn't make the liberals here wonder about how this could be ana analogous issue to gun ownership. I own guns, have an FFL(federal firearms license)....hunt, fish etc.....no gun laws stop anyone from getting a gun.....i can get a gun any time of day...any day of the week and I never need go to a dealer. And I live in the state where gun laws are ridiculous..CA. 15000 people are killed by guns each year. nearly 50,000 by cars....let's outlaw cars. More than that by alcohol....lets outlaw alcohol.....we already tell private restaurants they cannot have a smoking restaurant....lets stop breast implants, lets stop the eating of pastries and lets put people who are over eaters in prison until they get skinny..and lets make all the other people pay for these people and all the dumb laws we want to rule others lives with.......1 person pays for 10 people to be regulated...how's that sound?

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 1:37pm

47. 'The ease of access to guns is a problem, but it would not be solved easily. The only way to prevent future school shootings is to make guns illegal. Just like to prevent traffic deaths we would have to make cars illegal, and makes about as much sense. '

    Amazing how the right-to-arm -ers immediately jumped on this cogent and informative article. The above is an example of their distorted ideas.

    Why do we buy a car? For transportation. Do we need a license? Yes.

    Why do we buy a gun? To kill. Do we need a license? No.

    --Oh, and by the way, then some righteous gun-toting white trash can take it upon themselves to kill abortion doctors.

    What an idotic country. You people should go back to school and learn how to think critically. You will then see that guns, in all ways, shapes and forms HARMS our society. We should be a society of peace and love and not hatred and defensiveness.

    Yes, the new mentality will filter down into your hell soon enough, and innocent people like me will feel safe walking around my own neighborhood. I don't now because of you gun-hiding psychos.

    It's as simple as that.

    Posted by mdgelly at 06/03/2009 @ 1:38pm

48. .how's that sound? Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    how does it sound? old

    it's the old reductio ad absurdum.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 1:40pm

49. and you...what's your solution?

    do you have any idea of what gun laws exist?

    what contract law is?

    doubt it

    i manage a 100M P&L currently...I pay bonuses by contract to sales people like AIG, we have bond holders who have first dibs on bankrupt assets.....think the gov is not out of control? If so you likely make no money like my sister, don't work and are looking for handouts from a nanny.

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 1:56pm

50. Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 1:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    you are a confused puppy. who asked about that crap?

    I live in NYC, where an illegal handgun gets you a year in the slammer. period.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 1:59pm

51. i am from ny....have a permit for ny and know the law there....just like dc...nyc law could be overturned...ny crime is way down since row v, wade.....aborted all those unwanted neglected kids and Rudy helped some(took credit for all).

    and many illegal guns are had in nyc....criminals do as they will....and shop owners including friends of mine have guns in their shops/houses and many without permits....the law has not stopped crime....nyc cops are shooting people all the time(though less than in the 70s..and the handgun law existed then as well).

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 2:20pm

52. although now the cops put more bullets in the criminal.....semi auto pistols i guess ;>)

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 2:24pm

53. Jeezust! This only serves to confirm my suspicion that the dark root of violent insanity does indeed run in (much of) the American psyche!

    The weirdest thing of all is that it is often self-professed Christians who want these weapons. Remember that guy... what was his name again? Oh, yes, Jesus. He said weird liberal things like "turn the other cheek" and that you should forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven. And preached the Beatitudes... "blessed are the meek" - remember that?

    Posted by mikecope at 06/03/2009 @ 2:25pm

54. what christian you talkin' about..bale?

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 2:28pm

55. My friends all own guitars and when we get together we make music. None of us ever gets shot and sometimes we even earn our own dinner. It is far safer than a gun club and very spiritual and uplifting.

    Posted by guitarsandmore805 at 06/03/2009 @ 2:43pm

56. Gun laws do work. One thing the media has almost universally ignored is the rise in violent gun related crime ever since the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration, Conversly those very statistics were down during the Clinton years.

    Interesting also is the vitriol that is spewed when even reasonable, conservative proposals such as Ms. Vanden Heuval's are suggested.

    As one commentor noted: car crashes also kill. So at the very least we need to require liscences for every gun owner to use a weapon and registration for every gun owned. Just as is done with operators of motor vehicles. This is a minumum, and should have been universally supported and enforced in this country years ago.

    And no - if you are required to register your gun it doesn't mean the government is going to come to take it away - When was the last time they came to take your car?

    What has been really telling about the state of this debate in our country recently - is the fact that Mexico is complaining that due to the laxity of our gun laws here, they are infiltrating and making it impossible for the government there to stem the tide of gun related violence.

    Finally, we need to dispel this rubbish that individual gun ownwership is somehow key to protecting our freedoms, etc. The entire Soviet bloc was brought down without any need for the use of rifles, assualt weapons, pea-shooters etc. That should be evidence enough that guns are completely unnessesary in promoting the will of the people when it becomes overwhwelming and unified.

    Posted by waseziyato-on at 06/03/2009 @ 3:47pm

57. Posted by waseziyato-on at 06/03/2009 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    nice point.

    handguns will never protect our freedoms.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 3:50pm

58. Posted by waseziyato-on at 06/03/2009 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    nice point.

    handguns will never protect our freedoms.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 3:50pm

    Name a totalitarian state that openly allows all citizens to own guns.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 4:14pm

59. Howard Dean said it best: God, guns, and gays, that's how Karl Rove won elections. So, Katrina, are you longing for a Democratic minority already? Did Karl send flowers? Obsessing about gun laws makes about as much sense as having gay marriage on the ballot during national elections! Oh, wait, that's been done, hasn't it? How about the Nation and Moveon focusing on the guns we're exporting to Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the rest of the world? Now, THAT would be progressive!

    Posted by samstone at 06/03/2009 @ 4:30pm

60. I wonder what Thelma and Louise would have to say about this!

    Posted by jbuzz1973 at 06/03/2009 @ 4:54pm

61. LOL - the "fair-minded" lefties running this site deleted my earlier post (probably because I thanked KVH for reminding me that I needed to run out and buy some more weapons before the dems had a chance to pull any shennanigans).

    So much for freedom of expression - hypocrites!

    Well, you can delete the post but you can't delete the idea - Live Free or Die, Bitches!

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/03/2009 @ 5:17pm

62. "Gun laws do work. One thing the media has almost universally ignored is the rise in violent gun related crime ever since the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration, Conversly those very statistics were down during the Clinton years."

    this is actually bull and you need to show the data....the assault weapons ban could not change anything....it was for show. It illustrates peoples' ignorance and the ability of congress to "snow" the public...automatic guns have been banned for a very long time....these guns were semi-automatic and banned for show because of how they looked....and what was even funier is that almost no American made semi-auto guns were banned that look identical. You can buy a semi-auto version of the Colt AR15 today with and without the ban and it is the standard issue of the US army and other military forces in it's automatic version which again cannot have been purchased way before Clinton and former Bush.

    What's even funnier is that most of congress doesn't know the difference and on top of that...a high quality semi-auto hunting rifle in 30-06 caliber can do a lot more damage from a lot farther away.....and it doen't look like an assault weapon...cut the barrel to 16" and it's still legal and it's a short range weapon...leave it at 24" and it's a sniper rifle..although a bolt action would be more acurate as a sniper.

    Get a clue and show me the data.

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 5:17pm

63. Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 5:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    tough to get a date, huh?

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 6:02pm

64. Posted by canaro71 at 06/03/2009 @2:08am I am not against the "instant background check" where it hits an online database and weeds out the psychos and other types tracked by the FBI or Homeland Security. It could be done as you enter the gun show. If you pass, you can buy whatever you want without registering or recording in any way what you bought or who you bought it from. If you didn't pass or you didn't submit to a check, you can still enter but you cannot buy. If it is limited to something like this, it might be acceptable but you have to leave out all the other junk the libs want which is much more invasive and would never be supported.

    Posted by pyeatte at 06/03/2009 @ 6:19pm

65. The Columbine killings were committed using two shotguns, an assault rifle, and a TEC-9 assault pistol -- all four weapons were purchased from gun shows.

    They had propane bomb in the cafiteria that were designed to kill hundreds. If they had been better electricians, they would have. They planned the massacre for over a year. You think that if these four guns weren't available that this sociopath and his retarded friend wouldn't have killed?

    That's the point that liberals always miss. These boys planned a massacre for over a year. They built propane bombs.

    Yet you pretend against all common sense that a background check would have prevented them from getting guns. There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. There are knives. There are plans on the internet for building zip guns out of pipe.

    Background checks wouldn't have saved a single life a Columbine.

    It is completely stupid to bring up Columbine. If anthing, it show at a detemined killer is going to kill, which is all the more reason that private individuals should be allowed to be armed so they can protect themselves.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 6:35pm

66. OK, we in the US run about 30,000 gun deaths a year, last time I looked it up, which is in the low range of the number of Americans we lose each year from seasonal flu:

    Posted by ErlichRD at 06/02/2009 @ 4:38pm

    Here are the statistics from 2002 (first link in Google from "Firearm Death Statistics")

    Total number of deaths 2,403,351 (100%)

    Motor vehicle accidents 43,354 (1.8%)

    Firearms 28,663 (1.2%)

    Accidental Discharge of Firearms 776 (.8% of all accidental deaths)

    Accidental firearm deaths chidlren below age 15; 88

    Deaths for 15 - 24; 202

    http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 6:55pm

67. Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    rather shoot frogs

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 7:05pm

68. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 6:55pm

    Ok, we in the U.S. suffer maybe 3,000 civilian deaths from terrorism every 2 or 3 decades. Why did we launch a War on Terror?

    Posted by zmann at 06/03/2009 @ 7:05pm

69. Ok, we in the U.S. suffer maybe 3,000 civilian deaths from terrorism every 2 or 3 decades. Why did we launch a War on Terror?

    Posted by zmann at 06/03/2009 @ 7:05pm

    because they issued a formal declaration of war against us-it's called a Fatwa.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 7:11pm

70. Darin

    I think the firearms death you quoted actually include police actions....it's about 15K as a result of criminal activity.....and if you look at accididental deaths from doctors.....

    Number of physicians in the US: 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician.... 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

    Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000. Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188(* Benton County News Tribune on 17th of November, 1999).

    Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    "Remember, Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least one doctor."

    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand.

    Remember guns don't kill people, doctors do!

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 7:12pm

71. "Ok, we in the U.S. suffer maybe 3,000 civilian deaths from terrorism every 2 or 3 decades. Why did we launch a War on Terror?"

    ------------- ...we shouldn't have launched a war....we should have launced a few thousnad missiles...after all....why did we spend $2M each for all those cruise missiles?

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 7:15pm

72. Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 7:11pm

    War is between states you know. That's the dumbest explanation I've ever heard for this.

    Posted by zmann at 06/03/2009 @ 7:25pm

73. Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 7:12pm

    Yes, a surgeon accidentally nicking the wrong artery during surgery really compares to someone pointing a gun in someone's face and murdering them in cold blood. Murder has been a crime since the dawn of human civilization. Medical malpractice in most cases does not even result in a criminal charge, only civil liabilities and/or internal disciplinary actions, unless I'm quite mistaken.

    Posted by zmann at 06/03/2009 @ 7:32pm

74. War is between states you know. That's the dumbest explanation I've ever heard for this.

    Posted by zmann at 06/03/2009 @ 7:25pm

    Where have you been the past 20 years?

    From the 9/11 Comm Report

    <FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM

    2.1 A DECLARATION OF WAR In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a "World Islamic Front." A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."1

    Three months later, when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, Bin Ladin enlarged on these themes.2 He claimed it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels. "It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities," he said. Asked whether he approved of terrorism and of attacks on civilians, he replied: "We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets."

    continued

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 7:39pm

75. to Zmann continued

    <Many Americans have wondered, "Why do 'they' hate us?" Some also ask, "What can we do to stop these attacks?"

    Bin Ladin and al Qaeda have given answers to both these questions. To the first, they say that America had attacked Islam; America is responsible for all conflicts involving Muslims. Thus Americans are blamed when Israelis fight with Palestinians, when Russians fight with Chechens, when Indians fight with Kashmiri Muslims, and when the Philippine government fights ethnic Muslims in its southern islands.

    America is also held responsible for the governments of Muslim countries, derided by al Qaeda as "your agents." Bin Ladin has stated flatly, "Our fight against these governments is not separate from our fight against you."14 These charges found a ready audience among millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers.>

    http://tinyurl.com/67l62

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 7:41pm

76. Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 7:41pm

    So, OBL runs our foreign policy now? There are several definitions of war, but since my schooling centered around international relations, I use the definition based on officially declared states of war between nation-states. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and thus we cannot be at war with it. Al Qaeda is a terrorist and criminal organization and can most effectively be dealt with by diplomatic, legal, and intelligence measures against it. I suppose you could nuke the area too.

    Posted by zmann at 06/03/2009 @ 8:22pm

77. Just think of dying from a gunshot as a form of late term abortion.

    We've got to get this population thing under control people!

    Posted by bleedingheart at 06/03/2009 @ 9:15pm

78. Common sense measures to curb gun violence lead to knife, blunt object and tooth violence. Just say "no".

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/03/2009 @ 9:30pm

79. Qaeda is a terrorist and criminal organization and can most effectively be dealt with by diplomatic, legal, and intelligence measures against it. I suppose you could nuke the area too.

    Posted by zmann at 06/03/2009 @ 8:22pm

    ?????

    Diplomacy over what? Don't kill too many of us?

    Just today, AL Jazeera featured a member of the Al Qaeda leadership warning that they will bring biological weapons through the drug tunnels from Mexico.

    He claimed they won't need a plane to kill over 300,000.

    Tell me about your diplomacy again.

    You are precisely the kind of person who helped bring about the more than 30 years of escalating terrorism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 9:42pm

80. You say:

    "Those Urban Teens will find other ways to defile themselves and hurt/kill others..."

    And you suggest the solution is: "raise your children with a moral sense, to counteract all the negative influences in the world."

    Posted by 1longrange at 06/02/2009 @ 8:44pm

    Exactly. Kids need mature, moral, stable parents...

    Duh and the sky's blue. You make my point and don't realize it:

    Kids not raised this properly (e.g., those Urban Teens who will find other ways to defile themselves and hurt/kill others) will use guns to kill and disfigure and cripple.

    This does not = "defile".

    You're reaching hard to claim that pens and pencils will become the new lethal weapon if these thugs were prevented from getting their hands on guns - but go ahead with whatever "logic" keeps you from facing the facts:

    Kids from super dysfunctional screwed up violent families and neighborhoods CAME FROM parents who were once kids from super dysfunctional screwed up violent families and neighborhoods and therefore never achieved emotional and psychological maturity and shouldn't have had kids. Those not aborted often kill.

    So I know: abortion bad, guns neutral, kids may be good / bad, depending on if parents are good / bad which depends on whether their parents were kids from good or bad parents... Anyway, you have zero reality or empathy for how @)(*&@#$ up your logic is and how doomed so many millions of minorities are given that they didn't have anything like the upbringing of responsible gun owners.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/03/2009 @ 9:42pm

81. Tell that shoeless crack baby born into a hellish situation to cease the pity party, pull himself up by it's bootie straps, and learn how to break down, clean, load, fire and handle his guns, or if not to be a loser, defile and land in jail where he belongs.

    Posted by winyahn at 06/03/2009 @ 9:47pm

82. Enforce exsisting gun laws. We dont want your forced victimization by taking our guns. Enforce immigration laws and get off our backs.

    Posted by mike63 at 06/03/2009 @ 10:23pm

83. Blaming law enforcement?

    Posted by winyahn at 06/03/2009 @ 11:24pm

84. to brianm and others heres a link to follow and a quote: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19853442/ "Bullet-resistant vests are designed to stop normal handgun ammunition," he said. "Criminals are getting their hands on high-powered assault weapons, and those weapons pose a great danger to police because their soft-body armor won't protect them, in most cases." This points to the fact that one of the results of letting the assault weapons ban lapse has been a rise in the murder of police officers. I think this law worked and needs to be re-instated.

    Posted by waseziyato-on at 06/03/2009 @ 11:35pm

85. "It is completely stupid to bring up Columbine. If anthing, it show at a detemined killer is going to kill, which is all the more reason that private individuals should be allowed to be armed so they can protect themselves." ---so the solution to gun violence in the schools would be to arm the students?

    Posted by waseziyato-on at 06/03/2009 @ 11:44pm

86. to waseziyato-on

    quoting msnbc soundbites with no data and "i think" statements is hardly evidence of anything...again, the ban was on semi-auto weapons which had a particular look....US military issue Ar15 and similar weapons use a 223 bullet. AK47 uses a 7.62mm x 39mm (essentially 30 caliber). Any rifle with the right jacket on it...teflon, full metal jacket with various coatings will be more likely to penetrate a bullet proof vest. Its the bullet not the gun. And those bullets are illegal.

    A high powered hunting rifle will more likely penetrate than either of the above guns even with a standard bullet jacket.

    The ban is a farce......it bans a bunch of guns which are indistinguishable from hundreds more which are made in the USA and of better quality and not banned. Th AR15 is available from Colt in semi auto model. Automatic weapons and specialized bullets have been banned for a very long time. The only difference in the banned guns and the typical looking semi auto hunting rifle is the look...military plastic stocks etc.........not functional difference........it's like Sarbanes Oxley and other regs which congress can point at and say they did something.....actually did nothing to stop the financial melt down........don't know when people will learn.......you want to stop crime with guns...get rid of apologist mayors like Ron Dellums in Oakland.....and get tough on crime......the only place in the USA where violent gun crimes have not gone down dramatically are places like LA and Oakland where gang activity is still strong.

    Many of my country friends in Europe had guns leaning against the wall no locks with kids around. No issue.

    Posted by brianm at 06/04/2009 @ 12:44am

87. Typical response Statistics of police deaths have gone up - and to the pro- gun faction its meaningless. The issue is sensible regulation of fiream sales - that is what this country sorely needs. If not, then lets have guns of all kinds on sale on everywhere without restriction to all ages and make sure we are all armed with concealed weapons for our protection - especially the most young and vulnerable among us.

    Posted by waseziyato-on at 06/04/2009 @ 01:00am

88. Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 9:42pm

    Uh, diplomacy, as in you work with the governments of the region Al Qaeda operates in to keep them contained, and you cooperate with other countries in preventing movements of their members, freezing and seizing their funds, preventing them from acquiring deadly weapons. And you don't get other countries to help you by bombing the hell out of them and their people. Unless of course you want to create more people who want to attack America and further justify your bombing of innocent people. And try not to buy into Al Qaeda's propaganda, although I'm sure you did and voted for Bush in '04 and McCain last year.

    Posted by zmann at 06/04/2009 @ 06:20am

89. Number of physicians in the US: 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician.... 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

    Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Posted by brianm at 06/03/2009 @ 7:12pm

    Brian, I believe we are generally of the same ideological stripe, but I pride myself on debating forthrightly, so I feel compelled to provide some context to your stats that might otherwise be unintentionally misleading.

    The stats you cite sound reasonable to me, but they seem to imply that all deaths are created equal; they are not. The death of a 90-year old because his physician forgot heart medicine didn't mix well with boner pills, isn't really the same as the death of a four-year old because his 6-year old brother found his father's pistol.

    The measure of "tragedy" is the quality and quantity of years of life lost. Certainly the quantity of life lost to firearms are high because, wether through murder, suicide, police, or accident, guns kill the young much more than doctors who spend about 60% of their time with people over 50.

    Perceptions of quality of life lost vary because, for suicide and criminals, most would judge the quality of lost life as minimal.

    (Before Mask jumps my shit by claiming I said "Suicidal people deserve to die", let me clarify that the suicidal aren't enjoying their lives, which is what leads me to say they are of lower quality. I'm not passing judgement on their quality of life, the suicidal are passing judgement by ending it themselves.)

    Continued below

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/04/2009 @ 08:15am

90. At the heart of the issue is an attempt to identify preventable/avoidable deaths.

    Presumably, doctor mistakes are avoidable, but I don't know how you eliminate mistakes. We are human, after all.

    As to whether gun deaths are avoidable, I believe that largely they are not. Better controls might lower the 800 accidental deaths from firearms, but it seem more efficient to address the 45,000 motor vehicle deaths as the low-hanging fruit of preventable deaths.

    If someone is suicidal, if a gun isn't available, pills are. Gun control won't stop it. As to the comlumbine killers that KVH brings up, agian, they planned this massacre for over a year. It takes a special kind of fool to believe that the deaths could have been prevented by gun show background checks.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/04/2009 @ 08:15am

91. All other arguments aside - the crux of the matter is this: The need to close a loophole that has existed in our current gun legislation. If in evironmental regulations, for example, there was a loophole that was being exploited by unscrupulous corporations and one ore more of them were polluting our air or water as a result - would we say - "that proves that regulations don't work - let's scrap them all?" NO - the sensible thing to do would be to try and bring forth legislation to close that loophole - even if it were one small stream, say - that was being polluted as a result. The same holds true here. A loophole exists in current firearms regulations and - gasp - certain unscrupulous dealers are taking advantage and guns are - gasp - ending up in the hands of criminals who ought to have been prevented - by our current law - to have purchased them in the first place. So even if only one crime is committed as a result - it is evidence that this loophole needs finally to be closed. Sometimes we need to advocate for what is right, and not only what is politically expedient - and that, I believe, is the point that Ms. Vanden Heuvel is trying to make.

    Posted by waseziyato-on at 06/04/2009 @ 08:24am

92. Let's see - the murder capital of the country has the strictest gun control. The most liberal/blue state areas of the country have the highest crime rates. Concealed carry works EVERYWHERE it is tried. What does it take to get through to you Katrina? Here's a bottom line news bulletin for the left - WE AREN'T GOING TO GIVE UP THE RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES! Read into that whatever you want. Get over it! And one final thought: Perhaps your favorite moral equivalent of a Nazi death camp guard "Doctor" Tiller should have taken a handgun self defense course - he just might be back at the "clinic" doing his gruesome best instead of being at room temperature.

    Posted by mikecampbelly2k at 06/04/2009 @ 08:26am

93. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/04/2009 @ 08:15am

    Agreed, and you made a far better argument than my little post.

    Posted by zmann at 06/04/2009 @ 08:32am

94. Posted by mikecampbelly2k at 06/04/2009 @ 08:26am | ignore this person | warn this person

    the murdered physician does not require Doctor in quotes. he has served humanity. you don't even know what it is.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 08:33am

95. This is the most outrageous thing I've heard in weeks, anti-gun advocates are "fanatics". Let me get this straight, the people who don't cradle guns like a child are the fanatics? Surely more stringent gun control laws won't end gun crime in this country alone, we need to couple that with smart criminal justice, but this is certainly not a fanatics idea. All it takes is a relative or friend to be shot down to become a proponent of stronger gun legislation. Loopholes such as the gun show loophole do need to be closed, and there is no necessity for assault weapons - you can't hunt with them anyway. While I could make a sound argument for the Second Amendment being outdated, and for stronger gun laws, I do understand there are smart, responsible hunters and gun owners out there. However, we concern ourselves with other things we deem a danger to the social well being of our country such as video games, gay marriage, and other abstract issues when the facts speak for themselves, people die every day from gun related violence; And no, guns don't kill people, crazy, stressed-out, or angry people with guns kill people. The issues goes beyond the guns, but the guns are certainly a part of the problem, and something needs to be done about this problem. To call someone who would like to save lives and who values human life over a weapon a fanatic however, is inane.

    Posted by Jetfly83 at 06/04/2009 @ 09:44am

96. Right on Jetfly83!

    Posted by waseziyato-on at 06/04/2009 @ 09:51am

97. Katrina: Katrina: I hate to rain on your parade, but I'm a fairly progressive Democrat that has lived in the deep South my whole life. I've been to hundreds of gun shows, for my whole adult life and I'm at retirement age. For some reason assault weapons are always brought into the equation, but a good pump shotgun at close range is far more deadly. BTW, it's even legal to own a shotgun in the UK. Also, it's a moot point for knee jerk liberals with no knowledge of weapons to keep using the tragedy of Virginia Tech as a reference. The nutjob from that massacre, legally obtained his guns. In the Columbine massacre, the kids stole their parents guns. In the LIRR killings, his Ruger 9MM was legally obtained in a state that has some of the strictest laws concerning carrying a concealed weapon illegally. Maybe if NY made it easier for the common folks to obtain CCP and not just celebrities, there would be a way for people to legally carry a handgun. Here's the problem as I see it, you and many other anti-gun zealots really need to admit that in reality you are totally against personal ownership of all guns period. I know many people, that are outright afraid of all handguns and rifles regardless of their capacities and capabilities. So all gun enthusiasts just fear your hidden agenda, and will fight you tooth and nail. When there's no middle ground to compromise, we must just oppose all suggestions by even well meaning folks like you, because we know you have no idea what our rational is for owning a gun. We just like the freedom of having them. They're really fun to own and shoot, and we have no hidden agendas. There are many ways for a criminal to kill someone. Anyone can go into Walmart and buy a pump shotgun, without a background check. Far worse then V. Tech weapons!

    Posted by Kinggypo at 06/04/2009 @ 10:29am

98. great post Kinggypo

    a few other funny ones...being an FFL holder and small part time gun dealer in CA and having come originally from NY where I have a permit for pistols, I know what the laws are. And believe me between the ATF and the state.....there is a whole bunch of redundant paperwork and activities including at gun shows.

    Accidental deaths aside which of course are tragic, the majority of gun related deaths are criminal related and a high degree are gang on gang.....

    Someone started to quote here that the violence in mexico was based on mostly guns from USA. The data should be corrected....it was misquoted by Hillary and Obama that 90% of the guns came from the USA.....that was a lie....90% of the guns with serial numbers which were sent to the USA for tracing came from the USA.....only 16% of the guns had serial numbers....90%x16% = 14.4% from the USA

    and if anyone can't do the math.....look in the mirror and you will see the reason why misinformation is everywhere on guns!

    Thank you very much!

    Posted by brianm at 06/04/2009 @ 10:49am

99. Smart criminal justice and criminalizing gun ownership, oxymoron? It will work like criminalizing drugs.

    Posted by srjenkins at 06/04/2009 @ 11:28am

100. good one srjenkins

     Posted by brianm at 06/04/2009 @ 11:42am

101. Guns don't kill people....rednecks with guns kill people.

     The only use for a pistol is kill someone at close range. It's not a hunting weapon. Semi and automatic weapons are made for warefare, so we know what they're made for. Last I checked, Joe Blow wantin to play Army isn't part of any legally recognized militia and doesn't necessarily have right to own weapons to kill people with.

     The argument that if we take guns away from innocent people, the bad guys already have them and will take over and yadda yadda yadda. If the laws were made to where anyone caught with a fire arm would do 5 to 10 years in the slam, a lot of the bad guys would be up a creek without a paddle. Crime committed = x amount of time in jail. Crime committed with a weapon = X + ten years automatically with no time off for good behavior.

     Another truth is that a lot of the deaths from home owned weapons are accidental which means the weapons aren't handled in a safe manner or worse, kids get their hands on them which means the parents are negligent.

     Guns are deadly toys and they aren't necessary. A car is deadly, but if someone gets drunk and goes out and kills someone while DUI, he goes to jail. Some idiot slams half a bottle of whiskey and goes out huntin with his buddies and shoot one of them comes home a hero.....see Dick Cheney.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 11:51am

102. them comes home a hero, meant to say, he becomes a hero

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 11:53am

103. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 11:51am

     I think there are laws like that in Florida, I remember the old commercials about them. Use a gun in a crime, 10 years automatically. Fire the gun, 20 years. Shoot someone, live or die, 20 - life.

     Posted by zmann at 06/04/2009 @ 11:54am

104. Posted by zmann at 06/04/2009 @ 11:54am

     Sounds good to me. I'll bet the NRA didn't like those commercials did they?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 11:56am

105. brianm: Thanks! I had an FFL and a Class 3 license for over 30 years. About 10 years ago, I decided they were too much of a hassle, because ATF would rather bother rural FFL holders then to check ones that were drop boxes in Detroit! You are 100% correct with your facts about what's across the border. I worked 10 years south of the border, and their gun laws are really tight. How can a legal FFL dealer really stop straw purchases? Also, the news always reports about the use of automatic AK-47's that was bought here, and everyone knows that automatics and silencers have been illegal since the great depression. Then the news shows a Tec-9 (BTW, it jams every other round) and a AK-47 semi piece of junk with a thumbhole stock. I'm surprised Katrina didn't bring up the shooting out west, with the 2 guys using full auto's and wearing bulletproof vests. I don't mind some concessions, but that's not the aim of the anti-gun zealots. They think America would be safer banning all guns. NYC has had the Sullivan Act for over 80 years, and I certainly feel safer were I live then there. Try to get a CCP in NYC, it's virtually impossible unless your Donald Trump or anyone famous or rich. NYC Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, blocks everyone but the well connected!

     Posted by Kinggypo at 06/04/2009 @ 12:30pm

106. As regards the simple-minded assertion that a populace armed with double-barrel shotguns and maybe some revolvers somehow serves as a "bulwark against government tyranny", I'd be interested to hear those making that claim laying out exactly how that would work.

     Do you intend to imply that unorganized gangs of surburban soccer moms and their overweight spouses are going to miraculously hold the line in the event the US military decides it will relieve it's citizens of their civil liberties?

     That some angry, disenfranchised hillbillies will stop US military forces from doing exactly what they want, when they want?

     If so, then you are woefully ignorant of the sheer scale and killing capacity of the weaponry the US government has been squirreling away compliments of your tax dollars.

     Posted by lumenpro at 06/04/2009 @ 12:34pm

107. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 11:56am

     I don't remember, I was a kid back then.

     Posted by zmann at 06/04/2009 @ 12:44pm

108. Wolfgang1: "Guns don't kill people....rednecks with guns kill people."

     That's really a great line. I'm far from being a redneck. I have an AE Degree from the Un. of Texas and a masters in physics from Tulane. It always amuses me the misconceptions people have for why anyone, would own and enjoy any gun. I also have a CCP, and so I'm licensed to carry my handgun. My wife also has a handgun, and we keep others locked in the safe. We live in the country and get to shoot whatever we like, whenever we like. Being we live outside of America's murder capital New Orleans, we occasionally have to go into the city. Well, maybe you'd feel safe but I don't. Generally people that live in tight heavily populated urban areas, are afraid and against anyone owning guns. I here it from my relatives that live in the North East constantly. My father was a cop and a detective for many years. When he died, he left 2 really nice guns. My mother called the local police and asked them to dispose of them, knowing that I've owned guns since '63 and would've loved to have my dads guns. My dad had them stored away, and she stumbled on them emptying his closet. This was many years ago, and it still pisses me off. My own mother that I love dearly, was afraid to touch them or even let me come and get them. One was his WW2 Colt semi-auto I've wanted my whole life. The other was a snubnose S&W .38 he carried. People that don't like guns, really even just fear the piece of metal. It goes beyond what the actually item can do. It's like the fear of sharks or swine flu. Just nuts!

     Posted by Kinggypo at 06/04/2009 @ 12:51pm

109. Wolfgang1: "Guns don't kill people....rednecks with guns kill people." Sorry, Typo!

     That's really a great line. I'm far from being a redneck. I have an AE Degree from the Un. of Texas and a masters in physics from Tulane. It always amuses me the misconceptions people have for why anyone, would own and enjoy any gun. I also have a CCP, and so I'm licensed to carry my handgun. My wife also has a handgun, and we keep others locked in the safe. We live in the country and get to shoot whatever we like, whenever we like. Being we live outside of America's murder capital New Orleans, we occasionally have to go into the city. Well, maybe you'd feel safe but I don't. Generally people that live in tight heavily populated urban areas, are afraid and against anyone owning guns. I hear it from my relatives that live in the North East constantly. My father was a cop and a detective for many years. When he died, he left 2 really nice guns. My mother called the local police and asked them to dispose of them, knowing that I've owned guns since '63 and would've loved to have my dads guns. My dad had them stored away, and she stumbled on them emptying his closet. This was many years ago, and it still pisses me off. My own mother that I love dearly, was afraid to touch them or even let me come and get them. One was his WW2 Colt semi-auto I've wanted my whole life. The other was a snubnose S&W .38 he carried. People that don't like guns, really even just fear the piece of metal. It goes beyond what the actually item can do. It's like the fear of sharks or swine flu. Just nuts!

     Posted by Kinggypo at 06/04/2009 @ 12:54pm

110. lumenpro: Wants your point? I understand you're taking liberties regarding what the constitution states about a well the right to bear arms and it's literal translation. It's all a moot point and myself as a gun owner, never use the 2nd amendment as an affirmation of why I should be allowed to bear arms. I also don't hunt. I've collected military guns since I was a kid, and just enjoy owning them. I don't even keep ammo for most of them, and keep them locked in a safe most of the time. The genie has been out of the bottle for a very long time regarding gun ownership, and no law is going to shove 200 million guns back into the little bottle. I'm certainly not "simple-minded" and or can be called an "overweight spouse", nor can I be termed a "disenfranchised hillbilly" ready to go to war with our military. I'm a combat veteran who served our nation honorably and received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart from injuries I received. It's really very rude the broad stroke you use to paint anyone who owns guns, or who enjoys firing them. I hear this non-sense from anti-gun zealots all the time. I legally can own them, and will continue to do so. I'm of no threat to you, or anyone else. I've actually thwarted a few crimes over the years, by just having my gun legally in it's holster on my side. I do know some real wackos over the years I've run into at gun shows, but they're nutjobs without the guns. They're just the typical right wing bigots. I happen to be a very progressive liberal, that just enjoys owning guns. Sorry, if it offends you!

     Posted by Kinggypo at 06/04/2009 @ 1:13pm

111. BTW: Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe's take on the 2nd Amendment:

     'The central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.'

     Posted by Kinggypo at 06/04/2009 @ 1:25pm

112. Posted by Kinggypo at 06/04/2009 @ 12:51pm

     Sorry to hear you don't feel safe in a large city. I live in the outskirts of DC, in a neighborhood where pretty much everyone is a minority and fairly poor. I have yet to feel worried about my safety, except from some annoying dog that leapt at everyone who passed. And the only reasons I would ever want to own guns would be to collect WW2 weapons like you do, I learned to read by reading about WW2, or to protect myself from the right-wing bigots at gun shows who think those of us on the Left are trying to put them into FEMA camps and may rise up with their teabagger fellows. Being big and physically imposing doesn't work as well against someone holding a gun 20 feet away.

     Posted by zmann at 06/04/2009 @ 1:43pm

113. People that don't like guns, really even just fear the piece of metal. It goes beyond what the actually item can do. It's like the fear of sharks or swine flu. Just nuts!

     Posted by Kinggypo at 06/04/2009 @ 12:51pm

     Here's the problem. I know that there are people who like to go out and shoot at targets, and furthermore know there are people who like to hunt. Neither of these require concealed handguns nor automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

     I also am aware the it's not just rednecks killing people with guns. Bangers and criminals are the reasoning behind owning weapons for many. But, you aren't safe even carrying a loaded weapon on your person if someone walks up behind you, points a gun at your head and tell you to hand over your wallet or whatever. If that person panicks or just doesn't want a witness, you're popped whether or not you have a gun.

     My brother was stationed in Germany and he was telling me that they have a system where you may own a gun, but you can't keep it on your premises. You can check it out any time you like, but there's a timestamp not to mention ballistics of your weapon of choice. Anyone caught with an unregistered weapon is in deep crap, but people who aren't nutcases can have them. So, heat of the moment things don't happen has frequently and home accidents would be reduced as well.

     All I know is that letting every jackass out there who didn't make it past the 3rd grade or nutballs who kill people because they don't agree with their religious ideology or is in a gang doesn't seem to work too well. So, should Muslim extremists be allowed to own their weapon of choice in the U.S. if they are U.S. citizens....since it's their right too? We can't have it both ways.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 4:00pm

114. Posted by zmann at 06/04/2009 @ 1:43pm

     I do find it interesting why so many people collect guns. I know a bunch of guys who have gun collections...WWII stuff, old Soviet weapons etc.

     In context, I put it in the same category as collecting beheading swords or perhaps electric chairs or something else of lethal proportions. How about collecting syringes they use to off people on death row. A gun is nothing more than a piece of metal as Kinggypo pointed out, but the fascination with them and the reason for collecting them has been hammered into Americans to the point where we can't see straight. Once again, as Kinggypo pointed out, they are nothing but a piece of machined metal.....what's so friggin great about them besides the fact that they are lethal?

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 4:21pm

115. here's the equation:

     on one hand: the gun nuts, hunters, collectors, murderers, stick up boys, etc

     on the other hand: the parents of little girls caught in crossfire, the parents of the rampage killed college students, those killed in church, or the workplace by the gun people.

     your choice.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2009 @ 4:36pm

116. Wolfgang1

     clearing up misconceptions here

     - very few people have concealed permits - nobody but law enforcement own automatics - people do hunt with pistols, I hunt wild boar in CA with my Ruger 44mag - people also have semi-auto hunting rifles, not just assault or for killing people - average time in jail = 2.5 yrs for those indicted on murder based on plea baragining(police doing best they can...courts suck) - majority of gun deaths are gang on gang or other criminals on criminals - even in nice neighborhoods, thugs come in...2 weeks ago 2 hispanic guys robbed the house under construction accorss the street(took 10K worth of fixtures), last week I called 911 because a thug with tattoos accross his back swearing in spanish got in a fight with the neighbor kid...he was standing out in front screaming "you fucked with the wrong person" over and ove and posturing with his hand like a gun, when I heard the yelling I went out front to see what was up and the situation didn't look good...I yelled at him to leave that I was calling 911..he looked at me and just ignored me so I called...the guy was there for at least 10 minutes and started going back towards the house...he was simply unafraid that the cops were coming...his girlfriend in the car must have convinced him to leave.....the cops showed up about 10 minutes later...they never even got back to me..never stopped and no report even though they had the license number of the car....I was 1 minutes away from pulling my Winchester out of the closet and firing a tripple 000 shotgun shell in him(was about a 70 foot shot ...a bit far for a single shot from my Glock 9mm).......and I live in Saratoga CA...median house price about $1.5M.....go figure...guns don't kill people, educated, high paid tech guys might!

     Posted by brianm at 06/04/2009 @ 5:01pm

117. I live in Saratoga CA...

     Posted by brianm at 06/04/2009 @ 5:01pm

     Know anybody living in Saratoga that works for Phillips?

     Posted by Happy at 06/04/2009 @ 5:52pm

118. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2009 @ 4:21pm

     Perhaps because they are easier to hold up on the wall with a couple pegs underneath them. I won't deny that I, along with many other Americans, are fascinated by war and guns. I have no desire to ever use one though.

     Posted by zmann at 06/04/2009 @ 9:15pm

119. When the founding father's (and their Father) spoke of "arms" and the right to "bear arms" they were referring to HEED's, dirty bombs, shoe-bombs and also to Anthrax and Sirin gas -in addition to pistols and fires: see Bill of Rights appendices, also Deuteronomy 5:11, verses 15-21.

     Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2009 @ 9:24pm

120. err typos IEDs &... rifles... too much texting while passing on a curved mountain road, Playa del Fuego Costa Rica--

     Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2009 @ 9:29pm

121. Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2009 @ 9:24pm

     The thing that nobody, especially you'll-take-my-gun-out-of-my-cold-dead-hands types ever mentions is that at the time this was written, the firing rate for arms was 3 per minute at best. Kind of hard to go on a murderous rampage with weapons like that. Now that a tiny pistol can pump out a magazine of up to a dozen or more shots in just a few seconds, murder is much, much easier.

     Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 06:35am

122. The oddest slice is this:

     WHITEY rednecks & you'll-take-my-gun-out-of-my-cold-dead-hands types

     eat up & fuel the media's polarization

     preventing any ingenuity in social and legal policy and thereby

     perpetuating BLACK on BLACK problems

     where most of the RED blood is spilled

     --largest penal colony on earth, and still growing.

     Posted by winyahn at 06/05/2009 @ 07:00am

123. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=zmann

     good point.

     that is especially evident in cops shooting citizens. they hear the word "gun" and they empty the clip.

     what is most troubling is that they are rarely if ever held responsible. they have a license to kill.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 07:32am

124. very few people have concealed permits - nobody but law enforcement own automatics -

     You mean to say legally, right? That's the cool thing about having them in your collection.

     people do hunt with pistols, I hunt wild boar in CA with my Ruger 44mag ....A rifle packs as much power and is far more accurate.

     I was 1 minutes away from pulling my Winchester out of the closet and firing a tripple 000 shotgun shell in him(was about a 70 foot shot ...a bit far for a single shot from my Glock.....and guess what, you probably would have gone to jail for homicide. If he didn't have a weapon he couldn't very well carry out his threat now could he. You said he was holding a pretend gun as a threat. You may have ended up killing an asshole, but doing quite a stretch in prison because you had access to a weapon and weren't thinking clearly. By the way, the Mexican guy you just described sounds like a banger or a banger wannabe. He's probably full of crap and was trying to show off in front of his girlfriend.

     Sounds like the police force in your neighborhood sucks. You should call in and file a complaint and follow it through. Contact the local newspaper or news media if they don't follow up on it.

     The reason I am for gun control would help in a big way against the bangers. If these idiots have their stash of weapons and are caught with them, it's mandatory prison time for them. They are then off the street, the weapons are confiscated. Of course law enforcement can't catch all of them, but it does allow them to arrest more threats. As it stands, these guys can own weapons legally and even have a permit to carry them if they don't have a rap sheet.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 08:08am

125. Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 07:32am

     Yes, I wonder if it's legally possible to injure or kill a police officer in self-defense. Probably not.

     Posted by zmann at 06/05/2009 @ 08:36am

126. in my city, the guy was reaching for his wallet, when he was met with a 48 shot barrage.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 08:50am

127. Inane Bumper Sticker:

     "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

     Factual Bumper Sticker:

     "If guns were outlawed, there would only be a few less idiots running around with guns, but your chances of being shot by one of them would be greatly diminished, judging from the collective experience of all civilized nations."

     I own 5 pistols, 3 rifles, and 2 shotguns. I am favor of registering them all. I would like to say that I own guns and I am committed to using them responsibly. We must give the police as many weapons as we can.

     Posted by plover at 06/05/2009 @ 10:21am

128. I own 5 pistols, 3 rifles, and 2 shotguns. I am favor of registering them all.

     Posted by plover at 06/05/2009 @ 10:21am

     You are on the right track. If only registered weapons can be sold, then it would be a crime to be in possesion of an unregistered weapon.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 10:27am

129. it would also be a crime to SELL an unregistered weapon.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 10:46am

130. it would also be a crime to SELL an unregistered weapon.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 10:46am | ignore this person | warn this person

     It is a crime to sell unregistered pistols if sold today...rifles vary state to state and waiting periods as well...10 days for all guns in CA...but no registration on rifles...most states do not have this.

     Bottom line for me is I have no problem registering guns...all of them.....but you cannot believe the paperwork and expense that the law abiding person is put thorugh not to mention the cost...In CA it will cost you ~$200 more than any other state to get a gun. If you ship in from out of state it must ship to an FFL(that's the main reason I have one)...transfer fee = $100 + $20 for safety card + 40 for registration + 9.25% tax.....ridiculous.

     We don't even require any documents for people who break into the country illegally to get all kinds of free benefits, yet we can't take a simple drivers license + serial number and put it in a computer for guns.....10 minute job + 10 day waitying period(I'm ok with that too)......there is a bureacracy of enormous size associated with this. On top of that CA harasses gun dealers all the time over te inane paperwork and tries to shut them down. You cannot imagine the nanny state that CA has become...100X worse than when I came here 26 years ago. Business is leaving, manufacturig is nearly gone...I'm moving my residence out so I don't have to pay income tax....will still work here but be a "remote" employee of my company...with FL or NV as my address.

     If you have ever seen the pile of crappy guns that people turn in to police when they offer $50/gun.....you'd know that the guns killing people don't come from people who paid a good dollar for a good gun/pistol or rifl

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 11:56am

131. it would also be a crime to SELL an unregistered weapon.

     Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2009 @ 10:46am

     Bingo. You know the NRA would throw everything they have against something like that. Even come up with a new Charlton Heston if need be.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 12:45pm

132. Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 11:56am

     I personally think that the control and registration should be operated via federal guidelines and incorporated at the state level. For example, if state X wishes to receive any type of federal funding, it must comply with federal gun registration laws. Tie the gun registration to their ssn or whatever. As a matter of fact, an excise tax for purchasing weapons could be added in at the time of the purchase to pay for the registration of the gun. The person doesn't get the gun until the check runs through a federal system which ties every state in the union together. That way, if Joe Blow is convicted felon, he can't purchase a gun. If Joe Blow is an illegal alien, he won' t show up in the system and he can't buy a gun. When the person then shows up to pick up their gun, they can be arrested for attempting to purchase a weapon illegally....kind of like a minor trying to buy alcohol.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 12:56pm

133. Watch gun sale rise among the Wolverines!

     Michigan shuts 8 prisons to save $120M

     Struggling state looks to stem budget bleeding by closing 3 prisons and 5 prison camps. Michigan is facing a $1.4 billion budget deficit for fiscal 2010.

     By Tami Luhby, CNNMoney.com senior writer

     Last Updated: June 5, 2009: 2:40 PM ET

     NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Michigan officials said Friday that the state is closing three prisons and five prison camps in hopes of narrowing a $1.4 billion budget gap for fiscal 2010.

     The state, which has been hammered by the auto industry meltdown, estimates that it will save $120 million by shuttering the eight facilities. None of the 4,149 prisoners in the facilities will be released early, but up to 1,000 workers may lose their jobs....

     Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 2:11pm

134. wolfgang

     what you just described is exactly what the system is already. Federal ATF/DOJ is the background check system. But it goes through the states' DOJ...which is crazy because it makes them a middle man.

     On top of that, each state makes their own laws and in the case of CA...the paperwork is completely redundant.

     Also, if a felon does try to buy a gun...bingo....they just notified the Federal and state DOJ and I guarantee you if they were a current wanted person...they wil inform the gun seller to notify on site when they return to get the gun.

     You described exaclty what happens.

     But here is the rub....CA for example is so incompetent and is just a middle man....they often do not get backt o the seller within 10 days on the background check...the state actually causes a delay in the Fed DOJ telling the gun dealer not to deliver, the person is a felon ro even a wanted man.

     Very dumb...it is harrassment and stupidity. They don't even have electronic entry of form yet....the only thing which is electronic is transmission of the drivers license to the Ca DOJ via scanner...all paperwork is held for 20 yrs on the dealers site.

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 2:13pm

135. wolfgang

     oh, and there are fees/taxes for everything

     a state as dumb and liberal-dem as CA and has a 24B deficit in what is the 7th largest and richest economy in the world and has some of the highest overall tax rates......think they'd miss a chance for another tax and spend wastefully opportunity?

     Ha! No way. These guys were way ahead of BO(obama)...they've been spending everything above their means since 20 yeasr ago.

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 2:17pm

136. Happy

     I wish all Govs would let at least the 400K people out of jail who are there for non-violent drug use...would save us all 20B/yr

     their only harming themselves

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 2:19pm

137. Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 2:17pm

     Ah, but the system in place is run by the states according to the way the states want to run it. I'm talking about a standard federal system overseen by the FBI . In short, the system would be overseen by the feds with federal money not state governments. In each state, the system would be run exactly the same.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 3:06pm

138. I wish all Govs would let at least the 400K people out of jail who are there for non-violent drug use...would save us all 20B/yr

     their only harming themselves

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 2:19pm

     No objections here......I was looking forward to future visits to CA (or anywhere) when one can buy legal joint in packs!

     Posted by Happy at 06/05/2009 @ 3:20pm

139. wolfgang...it is run by federal DOJ...not sure where I am not clear? They take the fingerprints of all FFLs such as myself and they are the clearing house/licensing body for all background checks.....they then require you to meet all state and local licensing, operating and business laws......it is essentially rendundant.

     If you are in a state such as Nevada, you need only satisfy the ATF/Federal DOJ rules since the state has minimal.

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 3:42pm

140. Happy.....ha! Not sure thye come in packs....looked to me like on the news they come in baggies just like when I was in college! Ha!

     Put me to sleep....would rather drink a Guiness.

     Our DEA and any other "drug enforcement" group are a waste of money....facts prove it out....if not illegal....there would be no business in it for violent drug dealers.....just like with alcohol the legal drug....prohibition has never worked and never will....it only works if you put the individual to death for smoking pot like in Asia. You wipe out the buyers.

     Even William F. Buckley famed conservative promoted legalizing of personal drug use due to the overwhelming proof that drug enforcement was never going to wor and was wasting billions of tax payer dollars for zero results

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 3:48pm

141. If you are in a state such as Nevada, you need only satisfy the ATF/Federal DOJ rules since the state has minimal.

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 3:42pm

     That's not what I said. I said uniform rules applied exactly the same. What you are saying is that the rules are not applied the same. If the feds run it versus the states running it, it would be uniform. For example, military installations are pretty much run the same though they are located in different states etc. and that is because they are run by the federal government versus state governments wishing to add their own two cents worth here and there. Right now, it's implemented by the state, not the feds. CA has expanded the laws set forth because of the states right to do so, but if it's a federal program, the state would have no say in it anymore.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2009 @ 4:03pm

142. www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0622/opinions-steve-forbes-evil-agency-not-ci a.html

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 4:15pm

143. wolfgang

     ok ..I see what you mean.....if we could get the fed to eliminate the states meddling...it would be completely uniform

     agreed

     and you'd get your answers on whether a person should get a gun sooner....and you'd catch crooks who were trying

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 4:17pm

144. cut and paste the link I last posted if you want good reason to keep your guns.....Bo and his ilk are a continuim of this type of law breaking....breaking contract law, etc.

     would you buy a corporate bond now after what happened to chrysler and gm bond holders?

     the legal order of their right to money from the bankruptcy was completely thrown out and people (unions) who had no right to any onwership other than stock they may have owned stole their money with BO help

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 4:27pm

145. cut and paste the link I last posted if you want good reason to keep your guns.....Bo and his ilk are a continuim of this type of law breaking....breaking contract law, etc.

     would you buy a corporate bond now after what happened to chrysler and gm bond holders?

     the legal order of their right to money from the bankruptcy was completely thrown out and people (unions) who had no right to any onwership other than stock they may have owned stole their money with BO help

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 4:27pm

146. cut and paste the link I last posted if you want good reason to keep your guns.....Bo and his ilk are a continuim of this type of law breaking....breaking contract law, etc.

     would you buy a corporate bond now after what happened to chrysler and gm bond holders?

     the legal order of their right to money from the bankruptcy was completely thrown out and people (unions) who had no right to any onwership other than stock they may have owned stole their money with BO help

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 4:27pm

147. cut and paste the link I last posted if you want good reason to keep your guns.....Bo and his ilk are a continuim of this type of law breaking....breaking contract law, etc.

     would you buy a corporate bond now after what happened to chrysler and gm bond holders?

     the legal order of their right to money from the bankruptcy was completely thrown out and people (unions) who had no right to any onwership other than stock they may have owned stole their money with BO help

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 4:27pm

148. want a reason to retain guns

     cut and paste the link i posted

     BO breaking laws left and right

     would u buy corp bonds now?

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 4:29pm

149. snowball666

     love the moniker.......point is the government broke the contract of the bond holders in GM. They would have more money if they sold off the parts of GM for bond holders and let the rest of the unsecured risk takers take a bath....being employed does not mean you own any part of that company eg; unions, owning stock means you own a part which is tradeable, may have dividend until the company goes thru bankruptcy...holding the bond means you own a right to assets on liquidation 2nd only to the IRS. When you violate this contract, you might as well eliminate all contract law. And you would have bought bonds as a low risk asset in GM 5 to 10 years ago likely...so either you don't get it or you don't care about a legal contract..some bond holders are suing the gov (hope they didn't give in ..will be ineresting to see result in court).....our ~70B will never be recouped...max cap on GM ever was 56B....will be gone after parts sold off, economy picks up and no need for the gm "jobs program"

     Posted by brianm at 06/05/2009 @ 6:45pm

150. I have every right, under the bill of rights, to kill someone who tries to break into my house with...

     Why stop at assault rifles? The founding fathers clearly wanted citizens to be allowed to bear the the best weapons of the day.

     Say I have a really big house and I'd rather try my luck with hand tossed IED.

     Say I have a really really really big house with a huge South Library / Pool wing, I might just drive my up-armoured Chinese Hummer by the intruder and sling an IED at 'em.

     Making those Founders proud!

     Posted by winyahn at 06/05/2009 @ 9:59pm

151. snowball666

     Breaking the law is breaking the law whether you are the president or anyone else. The congress has abrogated their responsibility to the executive branch and nobody is complaining and both the executive branch and the congress are breaking laws and spending money ignoring the public with impunity.

     Companies are supposed to go out of business and there are far too many bad cars being made and far too many car companies. What about the foreign companies who are also hurting but are still building new plants in the USA? They may have a case on antitrust/monopoly against the government. It's highly unfair to Ford as well. Chrysler? Ha! We are seeing massive transfers of US tax payers money once again to fat cats...Cerberus? Why does Chrysler matter to the USA? It doesn't...it's small and if any value some company would have bought them.

     Our gov was already leaning socialist when it comes to companies failing. Look at United Airlines....went under bankruptcy 3 times in the last 20 years and finally dumped their pension on the pension trust fund which should be closed completely.....when you work for a company...you take all the chances of that company being around 10 years from now. And that makes for mobile workforces.

     Our gov(s) including state are out of control.

     Posted by brianm at 06/06/2009 @ 11:36am

152. snowball666

     I've worked in small and big COs and government intervention is never the right answer. We have plenty of regs.....the available oversight is just not done...Sarbanes Oxley is a great example.....run by appointees who are not gov employees, pay themselves by way of arbitrary fines.....chairman paid himself $650K last year and didn't catch a single one of the financial issues which occurred under their watch and in fact were complicit with allowing some of the vehicles of mass financial destruction to continue.

     Yes w/35% corporate taxes and BO saying he will now tax "deferred revenues"(those kept overseas to run those operations), companies like mine with 80% of overseas revenues like Haliburton which has begun the process, will register as foreign COs...now all BO can tax is exports to US or US based entities. It's blocking globalization, growth and American growth in general...jobs will be lost. Taxing the business here or the exports to here will only hurt US companies here worse. 40% of my employees are US and EU now...my goal for end of year is 25%. Our gov has no idea how to make mfg happen here but it could with automation...it's less about labor now than ever before.

     Our biggest competition has ~8% corp and personal tax and zero for exports out of their countries--> Asia.

     Posted by brianm at 06/06/2009 @ 3:21pm

153. Katrina....wonder if you ever read any of this?

     Realize how naive/uninformed you are to guns and gun laws?

     Posted by brianm at 06/06/2009 @ 3:23pm

154. snowball666

     I've been in high tech biz for 26 yrs....currently manage a 100M p&l. We are 80% overseas and we pay almost exactly 35% on profits after R&D credits. We are high tech. and billion dollar corp. Tax deferred is the key....the money doesn't escape taxes forever.....but I personally recommend to my company to take the action so that only the 20% that is here gets taxed and register offshore for the whole company. BO and congress can do what they like then. Their actions can only harm the USA.

     Why not be smart. Eliminate corp taxes and tax consumption or do a a flat tax on personal income. The $$ not taxed will compete for more employees at higher wages and along with the ones that get reinvested in the companies will spin thru the economy about 3X more. a $1 that is spent by an indvidual goes through on average 6 exchanges adding to the GDP. A $1 spent by gov ~2x, when a company is taxed...that stifles the GDP by about 2 exchanges. Companies will be pouring into the USA.

     Corp taxes are only about 330B/year (1/4 of personal taxes)....GDP adder by not taxing corps would be generate higher personal tax take.

     Also, eliminating corp taxes and simplifying personal taxes would lead to huge reduction in waste and misdirection of the economy by gov. bias.

     Companies spent $1T on sarbanes oxley compliance since 2002......my company was already super anal about how we did our finances...and we spend about $4M extra per year on SOX.....and it doesn't stop any fraud....if a company wants to commit fraud....it's easy...regulators were being reported to on Madoff for 13 yrs and caught nothing. Caveat Emptor is your only protection...and that goes for those who voted for BO.

     As for me....I will profit from BO and get out before the big crash and high interest.

     Posted by brianm at 06/06/2009 @ 7:14pm

155. snowball666

     good points ......relative to taxes on person of low income. My opinion is everyone should pay some taxes and everyone that can should work. I have 2 sisters. One has barely worked in 27 years....she's been married twice, divorced twice....she wants to live her life alternatively(very liberal socially and fiscally).....she thinks her son is her job....while 70% of American mothers work...she thinks it's her right not to because she has a "job"...her kid... and on top of that....she thinks fat cats(me) should pay for her. I've worked 12 hour days for the last 27 years(spent 6 yrs in school and paid my own way). I have another sister, works always....did not finish school.....had some hard times....has kids....but has always worked hard. Doesn't believe anyone should pay for her lack of achievement. In both cases, I believe they should pay taxes..... if we had a consumption tax and we had food, clothing, housing, medicine exempted from taxation......anyone with a family under 50K/yr would pay very little in taxes.

     The data on consumption of all products in this nation is very good and the GDP over the long run is mostly positive and even in a bad yr we drop 2%.......this recession being an exception....that said, government income would be very steady and predictable. And tied to success of the economy. What we have now is a system both in states and fed where they keep spending more as economy grows and they don't have any surplus put away....when the economy shrinks and you and I have less moeny....they raise our taxes....not just by income tax which is hard to pass.....but fees on everything.

     Posted by brianm at 06/07/2009 @ 10:12am

156. snowball666

     I too am socially liberal/fiscal conservative.....I couldn't care less how others live their lives...want an abortion...fine...not my problem...want to be a polygamist ....fine.....but our gov has been way into our lives especially since the late 80s.....the nanny state is alive and well...especially in CA. A private restaurant can't call itself a smoking restaurant even though you can have a cigar bar and serve food.....if people don't want smoke...don't go there...the market for non-smoking restaurants already exists and always has...that's why there has always been separate spaces for smokers since eons ago.

     live and let live as long as you do not violate the "commons" ala Adam Smith "Tragedy of the Commons".....the right treads on the commons by wanting to control us via puritanical christian/religious doctrine(a word I think loosely applies to them) injecting themselves into our lives and gov and the left wants to take our freedoms to do as we please with the fruits of our labors and steal our moneys and invent wasteful programs to transfer that "fruit" to the supposed down trodden.....a load of crap.....the mortgage debacle is a good example.....I've met several people in my area that have been foreclosed on and not a single one was because of their being poor.....they over extended and pulled money out and lived high on borrowed money....dumb....now we pay...people with good credit and who behaved responsibly.

     A friend of mine just got a $300K reduction in his mortgage which he had refi'd up to 900K on a 900K value home.

     Medicare cost 650B/yr, 3x the cost insurance for that demographic and pays only $25 for an office visit...that's a 12X more costly program than private sector....and we want British or Canadian Health Care? Ha!

     Posted by brianm at 06/07/2009 @ 2:54pm

157. License gun users, not guns.

     Concealed carry in public places requires different skills, a far more stable psychologcal profile and better liability insurance than squirrel hunting or shooting trap. It's just like the difference between driving a car, a schoolbus or an eighteen wheeler.

     The government should encourage everyone to at least train for, say, a "Primary Safe Use" permit so even if you never intend to fire a gun you could still pick one up and unload it safely. That would put pretty much everyone in the category of "gun user" so the paranoiacs could stop worrying about the mythological army that will somehow go door to door and divest them of their weapons. It would also make life simple for law enforcement. Insufficient training for any given gun use would result in confiscation and a huge fine. Period, you're done.

     I'm a liberal gun owner. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to satisfy both the guys who know more about their guns than their wives and children and those of us who don't want untrained mental cases packing heat to church.

     Posted by Pogge at 06/08/2009 @ 11:33am

158. Pogge

     thoughtful post

     you do need a gun safety card for pruchase of a gun...does that mean you are really safe?

     I do not think it really makes a person responsible...guns are so simple to be safe with, it is more about an indviduals self discipline.

     Posted by brianm at 06/08/2009 @ 2:30pm

159. Pogge

     ps...many states do license the gun owner...even for non-concealed weapons

     Posted by brianm at 06/08/2009 @ 2:34pm

160. Leave it alone! The gun issue is far too divisive for Dems to mess with.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 06/08/2009 @ 6:24pm