113 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
legalbutunjust says:
by tsigili January 14, 2013 1:22 PM EST

When you try to trample on citizen rights.......you deserve what you get........LOTS more gun sales.

by infantryman11B1968 January 14, 2013 1:11 PM EST

Amid record sales, a call for restraint at gun shops
LOL!
Obama should get gun salesman of the year.

-----------------

How bright and thoughtful, these postings.

More guns are the answer, right? Afterall, the restraint of gun-owning America is zero match for the fantasies and obsessions had by these people. Everyone else but those who own the guns are ill-informed, everyone else is out to take ALL of their already existing purchases away forever and ever. Everybody who owns a gun, or five or forty, needs one or three or ten more. And those that have none need to get at least one or two, or five or ten.

The more guns, the safer. The more guns, the more controlled, orderly, and free we all are! The less guns, the worse we are. The fewer the guns, the much more vulnerable we become. I mean, what common sense or good judgement could challenge that? Three hundred million (or is is it 400,000,000?) isn't enough to tame this beast yet!

The more our sovereignty or civility becomes rendered completely imperiled, without more and more and more! We're just a macrocosm of the biggest and most expansive gun show one can possibly think of, as one great big society. We are all forming the 'big picture' of a much smaller one where nobody gets hurt and guns are all abound and everywhere around, crawling out from every conceivable nook and cranny. We're all gonna be just alright, no mental illness or criminality afoot here!

Magical thinking, in its purest.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
THGdriver2 says:
The new gun law that would have prevented those baby's from being killed will never exist. Gun laws don't work.

How come God did not intervene? God is not allowed in school anymore.

Here is my challenge to the gun grabbers.-----What law, if in place the day before the mass murders, would have prevented this horrific event?

Answer? There is none. There will not be one after Nobama uses his presidential powers either. Just more feel good legislation that makes people think they did something.

Let God back in school, What do we have to lose?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
chrisintheus says:
they are so worried about banning assult weapons because of sandyhook was done with one, ok so what about the shooting in CA with a shotgun how come they dont want to ban shotgun's, why ill tell you because as bad as it was they dont care about sandyhook its just an excuse for them to try to tell us what they want us to do. I think they need to just shut up and make the laws in buying one more strict, thats it. thank you
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
CarsonCitySteve says:
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
- Ayn Rand
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
harv823 says:
Isn't it obvious that those who are adamently opposed to banning assault weapons are doing so because they make a $$$$$$ profit on the sale of them.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TimeToEvolve says:
Thanks Bullard for making the case for stricter gun control. We can at least try to keep assault weapons out of the hands of the few wackos. The mother of that wacko did not have the proper safety training.
reply
99gst_racer replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
And legislation doesn't keep guns out of the hands of wackos.

If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bullard42 says:
Everyone wants to address the "how" of those pieces of fecal matter that have done shootings but NO ONE wants to address the "WHY". There are appx, give or take, 300 MILLION guns in the USA. 99.9% owned, used for self defense, sports or fun and kept by LAW ABIDING good folks. So because some POS is a whacko and does a shooting at a "gun banned" area, I and the MILLIONS of other gun owners have to give up my RIGHTS (yes, it is a RIGHT guarenteed by the US Constitution). You people who advocate "gun bans" all say....well, DRUG bans don't work..............but ya sure want to ban guns. HYPOCRITES!!!!!
reply
TimeToEvolve replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Turn off the Fox Keeps You Stupid Channel quick. Why not do 100% background checks, mandatory waiting periods, mandatory safety training and registration and permitting (yearly like autos)?
TimeToEvolve replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
And rights can be taken away or modified if they start damaging the people. People's right to bear arms is trumped by people's right to be safe.
st247 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Bullard42,
Gun owner here. I don't think anybody is suggesting we "give up our rights" to own guns. Stricter background checks to help prevent guns from getting into the hands of bad guys is a good idea - I support it and damn near every gun owner I know and shoot with agrees with that. I believe if someone fails to meet the background check criteria, it is THEIR fault they have lost or given up their rights.
Nobody wants to see another Aurora or Newtown or Virginia Tech, nor to have our families happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We could own all the guns we want and never be everywhere to act in defense. The system will never be perfect but we should be wanting to clean the bad apples out of our ranks as best we can. We can't be making the assumption that just because somebody owns a gun or wants a gun he is one of us and a "good guy" because they're not all "good guys."
Would you want to sell or give one of your guns to someone who would fail a background check (NICS) according to the laws already on the books? If you don't know what the criiteria are you should know, every time you buy a gun from a licensed retail FFL you answer the questions, so those are the basic criteria for NOT owning a gun. Are you opposed to that?
And as for you screaming about your RIGHTS and the Constitution, the Supreme Court has already ruled that guns CAN BE REGULATED. If we don't regulate ourselves, and try to keep these massacres from happening, is that the kind of society you want?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TimeToEvolve says:
So what is so wrong with controlling guns like we do cars? Or liquor? I can't see why law abiding citizens would be against that.
reply
Lucubration replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Guns are currently controlled, more tightly than cars or liquor. People who commit crimes with guns are going outside of those regulations.
99gst_racer replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Because there is nothing in the Bill or Rights about cars and liquor with the words "shall not be infrindged" after it.

Rights are exercised, not controlled.
harv823 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Of course common sense gun safety laws need improved on. The problem is that the gun industry pay the NRA. The NRA,then,uses these monies to leverage politicians (largely republicans)to assure that no common sense gun laws are passed. So, people in our country are being slaughtered because of $$$$$$ greed.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
PhilipPeake says:
So the basic premise of this article is that laws need to be rammed through before people come to their senses and make a calm, considered un-emotional decision.

You people are pathetic. More, you are dangerous to society as a whole.
Hope you enjoy life when The Messiah decides that he needs media control and guts the 1st amendment.
reply
TimeToEvolve replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You know darn well that the gun nuts want to be armed against their fellow citizens. A lot of these paranoid right wing wackos actually want another civil war. The say they want to protect themselves against the government but they know that is a sad, sick joke.
99gst_racer replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
^^^ TRUTH!
99gst_racer replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Truth to PhilipPeake, that is.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
woozybarnes says:
I would like to ask an honest question about gun control: Do the most avid gun enthusiasts recognize any limitation on what kind of arms people should be able to own? For instance, should we be allowed to own bazookas or RPGs? .50 caliber machine guns or long range sniper weapons such as the M107? If there should be limitations, what would they be? (I do believe in the right to own and bear arms by the way and I don't think that it would be desirable or even possible to go around collecting all 300M of them in the US. Nor do I believe that the gov't is proposing such a confiscation.)
reply
harv823 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You're correct! Actually Judge Scalia previously stated that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
1/6
Scroll Left Scroll Right