Well now, I bet you made that up but it's not too far from the truth. A more paranoid group does not exist (evidence below).

It's more than too far from the truth, TML35. Call it what it is. What Ed Harris presented as the truth is a complete lie. He is a fool to not realize that decent people can't see through his weak attempt to look like he is worth listening to. Typical 47% mentality.

Does anyone see a connection between attempting to remove God and freedom from our lives with the incidence of nut cases rampaging with weapons? Instead of shouting about guns and the legality of such how about trying to find the reason the insane folks who perpetrate Newtown,CT type massacres are running free and are able to commit such deeds. Only one who is totally insane could kill children. SOMEONE had to realize this kid wasn't right in the head.....

The babbling of a true idiot!

Nicely done Ed. Nicely done. I agree. As a Marine vet, I have always wondered why the civilian population was ever allowed to have weapons only the military had.

I don't own any guns, and I certainly don't belong to the NRA or Tea Party. However, I am not convinced there is any need for more gun control. This is merely a matter of liberty.

If you find the owner of any firearm, and ask him why he needs it, I think the answer should be, "It's none of your business. I have never broken a law. I purchased the firearm legally". There is no need to defend it.

Personally, I would never ask anyone why they own some particular item. It's really none of my business. The objective is less laws and less infringement on an American citizen's freedom.

When are these people gonna realize that fewer crimes are commited with assault rifles than any other weapon in this country.

And you expect anybody to believe this story???? what are smoking???

Isn't there a minimum age requirement to comment on this site? Harris I have never heard such BS in my life....oh wait, except when I was in middle school! Get a life, come up with some facts then come back and speak your mind.
CJ you are right on the money!

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

so have a hand gun or a shot gun... why do you need a machine gun capable of killing dozens of people at one time to protect yourself?

Thank you Tine Marie, your comment of "gangbangers and criminals" is just the type of narrow-mindiness that will keep me employeed for a long time.

You got it Tina!! I believe in protecting ones self.

Hear hear!

Tina, the truth hurts these bleeding heart liberals. Don't mention "gangbangers and criminals" to them as that is their voting base.

It has nothing to do with gangbangers, etc. They will always have guns. That is the way things are. Law abiding people also have the right to protect themselves.
What is insane is that people want to own semi-automatic combat weapons. What does anyone need that kind of fire power for? There should also be more stringent controls to keep as many as possible out of the hands of the mentally ill.
If a home invasion occurs in your house, you don't need enough fire power to fight a Talaban Invasion. Following your mode of though would make it OK to have bayonetts, & hand granades 'just in case needed' which would have given the crazy kid in last fridsy's killings the option of just one hand granade in the classroom. How about Napalm canisters? Guns don't kill, people kill, BUT people can't kill as efficiantly. If the crazys can only get NORMAL guns, they can't kill wholesale in such large #'s maybe someone could have stopped this tragedy if he needed to reload every six shots, or so. Kids still would have been killed, but no where near as many. I'm not saying that we can't protect ourselves from criminals, but there is no need to arm like Rambo.

John,
I'm glad you enjoy the ignorance of the comment. Most Gangbangers and Thugs do not own or even know how to properly operate an assualt rifle. A legal citizen with a pistol or especially a shotgun would eliminate the threat before it because a serious threat. But I'm sure you want to make another ignorant comment about liberals or something like that first.

Why do you need to 'Ammo up?" are you afraid that the chance to snuff out life may be taken away from you? There is a picture published on the Patch home page of the gun dept in some retail store. If each of those guns takes only ONE life, of animals trying to survive, that is a good thing to keep them out of hunter's hands. It's not only people shooting people. It's killing God's animals that are just struggling to stay alive. We have the audacity to call it SPORT. Mankind has the nerve to think we are created in God's image. Mankind is the ONLY creature that kills for SPORT. MAN In God's image. I don't think so!!!!
Besides, we aren't talking about guns being used to kill animals. We are talking about weapons made for WAR being available to normal, everyday citizens.

John and Michael. John's comment brought up a point I mentioned in another reply. I think Michael's reply also points it out. I am GOP, not part of the 47%, and I think there is probably 90% of "that" (the 47%) group (follow that?) that are against gun control. Now...lol...many gang bangers (for lack of a better term right now) will have to worry about not only getting arrested for the crime they are committing, but also for having a banned weapon. That charge alone could end up sending them to federal prison for a longer sentence for a crime that otherwise would simply land them in a state prison. An interesting Dilemma for Obama, eh? He stands the chance of alienating some of his 47% flock. I have said all along I can see why his 47% wanted to vote him in again to give him a chance to redeem himself...but I also predicted that once they saw the next 4 years is headed for the same old same old...that his 47% would start rethinking their decision to vote for him again. Too bad it's too late for that to even matter. In regard to this issue, we are finding liberals views from both Dem's and Gop'ers. Michael...personally, I ''partially'' define a liberal as someone who can live with implementing law over other ''all'' of us that ''they'' deem is appropriate...and they could care less if the viewpoint would never win in a national election. They're the kind of people who mess up the Monopoly Board once they have lost all their property so that so nobody else can play.

CJ,
I understand your definition of liberal. That is why I am Independent. I beleive both sides are try to take advangtage of the common man. Strangely, I lean towards towards true limited government to the level of which we will never see in our lifetimes. But yes, that prison aspect of the crime is an interesting angle.

@ jeri cushman
the same reason we dont use muskets and knives in war it is better to have and not need then to need and not have.

When will people wake up to the reality that guns are no different than a car. Both are useless without a person operating them. Many more people are killed and deformed by cars every year than are by guns. This country has a real problem with putting responsibility where it belongs. It is the major issue for all of us and needs to be understood. This goes far beyond the gun issue. Unfortunilty we have past the tipping point where the irrespnosible now out number the responsible. Its like the kids are running the world now. what a mess. Back to the gun issue. You emotional liberal gun haters need to try and calm down. You need to try to be logical, I know that it is hard for you, but try. Blame the person, not the inanimate object. Very simple isn't it.

Gray Ghost,
So you want to have a rational conversation while labeling and talking down to people. Hmmmmm... So with the Car agrument. A pistol is similar to a sudan. A Military Assualt Rifle is like an F1 race car. A semi auto rifle would be like Sports Car. An assualt rifle would be like a Formula 1 race car. Am I allowed to purchase and drive that F1 race car down the middle of the city streets? No, it's illegal. In fact it is what we would considered banned. Too much speed and power for the average citizen in a public arena.
Let me guess, your going to tell me I'm a gun hating liberal who just wants to ban all guns with that agrument.

NEVER SAY NEVER tina! NRA is not the final voice. We see where you freedom people have lead us. The guns involved in the shooting were all bought by a woman with background checks and all the precautions we could enforce. All LEGAL. And in case you haven't heard, those guns ended up killing her, her child, and the soft target bodies of six and seven year old children. How would you feel if this was your child?? I hope none of these moms dads and family members never have to read about your dismissal of helping the police ( who only repond after the fact) by giving them laws to remove these weapons. The law is set up where their hands are tied and they CANNOT respond until after the fact. If given the laws to remove these items from legal and illegal gains is theONLY way to get them off the streets and out of the hands of 'law abiding citizens' like the one who just handed over her guns to a very sick individual. Your background checks don't work. Your we the people was written in the times of muskets. one ball at a time. No one wants to take away your right to a firearm for hunting or to protect yourself in your home. We want to take away the rights of the FEW that want to own repeat-fire guns that can kill soft targets like little kids, or people shopping, or kids on busses. And we will get it. Hopefully, then we'll have a better sense of feeling safe. DO YOU HAVE KIDS???

From the land of "Complete Gun Control"!

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/1-dead-13-wounded-in-christmas-eve-christmas-shootings/

Well, to answer the question why do you need such a weapon, think of it this way, why would you think we would want a hand gun or shotgun to fight off a CRIMINAL who ILLEGALLY has a semi auto rifle or a fully auto riifle. People in high crime areas may just need this firepower, while people in country settings msy get away with a handgun oor shotgun. Sport shooting is done with these guns dos occur, but self defense is a right. If you do not think so, do not compain when the Police take their
average 10 or 15 minutrs to respond to your family members rape or murder.

It is working in Australia.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/5060929/mass-shooting-in-australia-provides.html

TM, hows it working out in Mexico??

Samual Clemens wants to know how gun control is working in mexico. Well, the only people that have weapons in Mexico are the criminals & the cops, but 20 yr old kids & teenagers don't shoot up their schools because they just go off for no reason. If they do, they don't have the firepower of Columbine, The Batman Killer, or the CT. killings. They'll never stop criminals from having guns, but I'm more concearned with the teenage loner that decides to commit suicide by Columbine insanity.

Jim....your talking common sense. Most of these people don't seem to speak that language.

When will people wake up to the reality that guns are no different than a car. Both are useless without a person operating them. Many more people are killed and deformed by cars every year than are by guns. This country has a real problem with putting responsibility where it belongs. It is the major issue for all of us and needs to be understood. This goes far beyond the gun issue. Unfortunilty we have past the tipping point where the irrespnosible now out number the responsible. Its like the kids are running the world now. what a mess. Back to the gun issue. You emotional liberal gun haters need to try and calm down. You need to try to be logical, I know that it is hard for you, but try. Blame the person, not the inanimate object. Very simple isn't it.
As for why we need AR15s, I know how these liberal hate groups work. Once they get rid of AR15s, they will go after the next weapon on their list and so ans so. That is why I am not for giving an inch.

Gray,
Just like the last time they banned these weapons. They went after so much more in that decade?

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

Actually it did have an impact on crime, it went up!

u r so correct no guns would crete alot more crime espesialy now that there cutting back on piolice and sherrifs or giving the few they haev larger zones to patrol laws that there inspireing are affecting good law abidiing citizens and there saftey as well people who did what they needed and and properly use what they have been trained to use correctly next wel b banning cars cause some mainac drives a bus of kids off a cliff nobody wants anybody to die (atleast not me) but im not about to let some jrk sneek up on me and my kids because he wached me take 40 bucks out of an atm and i have my little angels and he got a knife and attempts to hurt us or them alone what am i supposed to do pick up the phone and call the police while i watch him knife my kids and then come after me i cant pick both of them up and run this could happen at any time and the sad part is that it does although the results arent as drasitc but what r u to do pepper spray a coke head yeah right he so hopped up on dope that ur just a nnother way for him to get a fix and when the police come were just another sad story thatll last for a few weeks and forgotten .this happens alot more offten then u think and many of thesse r ending diffrently because the guy with the babies had a gun the legal way where there is one dead coke head instead of two innocent little girls and a father one took out some money from a walk up atm(no drive up) on a sat when it gets dark @ eight after they just left mc hawk night

frist of all guns dont kill people ...people kill people as far as gun control goes there are alot of people who have guns already so do u just want to focus on large capacity guns (ammo) and make them harder to get or smaller capacity easier to conceal there is a need for firearms for protection and just because the person that goes thru the proper steps to get a firearm doesnt mean they wont one day use them improperly but rememer that although guns do take lives they have also saved countless lives but we only talk about the hgorror like it was the guns fault and cry ban firearms or control them so much that there impossible to get then how r we to protcet orselves from the violence that insue after the new restirictions anybody and if fighting isnt a winable option and the police are 4 min away what r u todo when there is a life or death situation...die then who idid the new measure really save..

people keep saying that the NRA this and the NRA that and they want us to buy guns well that's all crap its all supply and demand if nobody bought guns then there wouldn't be a NRA but people do buy guns and pay good money for them so for u to say that there controlling the politicians is crazy its just simple supply and demand we need guns and sooooo we buy guns just like anything else gun protects like all weapons do but there will always be people who misuse them like with everything i do think it is a shame about what happened but i know full well that this is one of those things that u want to prevent but how its not the weapon its the person when 911 happened they didn't blame the airplane and they didn't ban box cutters nor was it harder to get box cutters or for that matter attend flying school and class it only got harder to get on the plane which affected a lot of innocent people but didn't really change anything because them same type of terrorist can still get a license to fly and buy a prop-plane fill it with explosives and boom 9/11 2 it only stopped a few small threats @ the expense of millions of non threats that u see stories about getting searched and little girls not getting late on to planes

Where do your children go to school? Where do you walk down the street? I for one am wondering how obama can make any noise about gun bans when he is surrounded by more than enough guns to take out a crowd. Or when his children are protected by 11 armed men at the school? I pray that you or yours are never in a situation that requires self protection. I for one do not want to find out how long it takes the police to come when I have seconds to live. It does not matter what type of gun you own or use in a situation. If those teachers or principal had been armed instead of throwing themselves in front of a lunatic, maybe those children would be alive today. Ask their parents now if the teachers had been armed, would they be against saving the little ones lives? Yeah, I believe in carrying a weapon, I am 62 years old and want to live a few more years. I also am trained in firearms. And understand and accept the responsibility of what I am doing.I was born an American, raised as an American, and hold my Constitution rights very proudly. You can not stop a criminal or a crazy with banning a gun. They will always be there and find a way to hurt someone.Legal protection is what we need. And the police can't walk next to me 24/7. There is not enough of them.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/1-dead-13-wounded-in-christmas-eve-christmas-shootings/

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

why would an honest and responsible person need a assualt rifle to begin with? Seems to me a man with a shotgun who knows how to use it is better than a criminal with an assualt rifle he doesn't really know how to use.

You are spot on with regard to Fast & Furious

Bravo! On the Fast n Furious reference.

One thing that people seem to forget is that criminals DO indeed have semi-automatic weapons and WORSE. True assault rifles which the law abiding citizen is not privy to purchasing.

Tina,
I know all criminals or "thugs" as you like to call them have assualt rifles. That is why only 8% of gun related crimes involve assualt rifles. Because we all know the AK-47, M-60's are all in criminals pockets. Just like regular citizens there are small pockets of them with those weapons. But fear and fearmonigering media is a great thing.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

imagine, if they accident hit one of the kids instead of the gunman. Or shot before knowing there was a threat. Or got gun down allowing the gunman to have another weapon to use.

Maybe we should issue assault rifles to kindergartners their first day of school so they could protect themselves?

Shootings happen at both of those places as well.

Jerry,
The rifle that with video evidences he entered and used in the school is the civilian version of the AR-15. Another rifle was left in his car. He also had to pistols which were also used. So as you said read the whole story.

The new law is going to be that NO gun or rifle that repeat fires will be legal and that WILL include gunshows and gun swaps. Even the gun industry knows there are more people NOT in the NRA than are IN the NRA. And we will make sure that you in the NRA will abide by laws made for the MAJORITY of us. Not the MINORITY. That Mom who had her 'collection' legally, did not lock it up properly, so we don't care how sane the person is with the permit, that didn't help in this instance, did it. 3 and 4 bullets in a tiny 6 year old's body. You need that to shoot a deer? NOBODY needs any such gun or rifle. What is wrong with you people?? Duh! We're tired of your stupid arguments about being law-abiding and passing background checks. How about idiot checks?? How many of you have nutcakes in your family or close circle of friends??? This mom's "stability and respect for guns" did NOT help those kids. YOU CAN'T PROTECT US FROM YOUR GUNS. YOUR OWN KIDS ARE KILLING OTHER KIDS OR THEMSELVES BECAUSE MOST OF YOU CAN'T PASS AN IDIOT TEST. OH that's right. Yous be lor-bidin citizens DON'T BELIEVE YOU AND THE MAJORITY WILL RULE THIS TIME

Michael D.: The AR-15 IS the "civilian version" of the military M-16. It is not capable of firing full automatic without serious (and illegal) modifications to the receiver.

Get your facts straight. He used the rifle. Shoots 30-40 rounds a minute. No one who isn't in the armed forces needs that.

Roy,
Yes the civilian version of the AR-15 which is semi-auto. Not the military AR-15 which is semi, spurt, and full auto. The civilian version is also known as a Bushmaster.

@ sandy this is tragic but america already voted with the almighty dollar and banning repeat fire weapons is kinda silly because all guns are pretty much repeat fire unless un mean rapid firirng weapons .well as far as that goes i wouldnt ban them be cause most of them u can trace if bought thru proper chanels but what ur missing is that semi-automatic weapons can be made rapid fire with a few mods and shaving down the firing pin on some models so ur not stoping the fire rate by pulling those guns ur just stopping a way of trackingwho bought a rapid fire weapon and from who and how many rapid fire weapons a person bought @ a time or in a group u do realize that @ most places u need id to purchase bullets and based on caliber you can almost pick which type of weapon and capabilites it has but if u own a hand gun that u modded then u get the bullets with no flag going up saying this person has a rapid fire high caliber wepon like 44 on 1911 which with the right mods and mags can fire 20 plus roungs a minute and the clip mods r cheap along with the bullets so now u got a small rapid fire weapon with multple mags and high calibers that can be hidden more easily then the spotable large rifle with know bullets types for riffles that can be falged based on bullet purcchases.and i believe this is what will come if u force criminals hand to do so

Mr. Harris, I am requesting that you please show the links to all of your reported statements that you say are true. If you can't show the links, please refrain from making them because they will just be "heresay" and not worth the time to print or read them.

Thanks for stipulating that "facts" be backed up with documentation, Joe

are you saying that as a citizen or as a person who unlike 99% of the people out has the training to properly use the weapon?

Richard,
You lost your liberty with the Patriot Act. Gun Control is nothing compared to what they took away from you there.

John, you are correct it had to do mostly with a volunteer militia when it was written. So by your own agrument, are you part of the local militia?

By our founding documents every able body male above 18 is automatically in the militia .. but it quotes the security of a FREE state which means freedom from oppression internally and externally and the right of the PEOPLE ( not militia ) shall not be infringed ...

John,
Thank you for the expected and factually flawed agrument. You should probably read the court cases involving the statements you claim to know so well. Nice use of editing. Strange you fogot the first part of that statement... here is is
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]"
Ohhhh, I guess that didn't work with your agrument.

My argument is valid if you know what their intention of each amendment was so I'm not sure what your talking about ? .. and if you read the Bill of Rights 1-9 are all individual rights the 10th allows all powers not granted to the federal government to the states . Tell me how the 2nd is not and individual right and the rest are ?

Spot on John Q. Well said.

Tell Homeland Security you and your militia buddies are prepared and ready to go.......I'd love to see their response.

To any paying attention, so-called present day militia groups are deemed as terrorists groups. Heck, even though we are supposed to stockpile some food and water for potential hurricanes, this behavior is also deemed as "terrorist activity."

Michael D.: A "militia" is informal and is raised as needed, if you don't have your own weapon you are useless to them. The National Guard, a State Army is not a Militia but a resource to the United States Army when federally activated. The National Guard is under the orders of the state governor where their unit is located. I spent 8 years in the military, I am ready when called upon, as probably John is........the question is Mike, are you?

And as ruled at least four times by the Courts, the Federal and State governments have the right to limit what guns you have legal access to. You have the right to bear arms, but not the right to bear anything that the government has deemed you do not need. initially which is the basis of your agrument it was written for militia service.

Roy,
I maybe mistaken, but are we in the same place as a country we were in the 1700's? If I am needed I have my weapons if called upon and have been trained in a number of military weapons. Barring my knees yes, I am.

both sides aren't thinking clearly.

Do you work for a local PD? Is that what you get these paychecks that you have been so proud to crow about?

Barry,
Work for a Weapons design and manufacturer for the government.

Well la dee da... Another profiteering cogwheel collecting a paycheck for making the machines of murder while stumping to curtail a guaranteed right of every lawful US citizen.

Owning a firearm is a right granted to every American citizen by our Constitution. Nowhere in our Constitution does anyone have the right to own or drive a motor vehicle. Maybe getting and operating a vehicle is more difficult because of the laws that govern it, but it sure as hell hasn't made operating them safer by any standard. Motor vehicles kill nearly twice as people in the US in one year than firearms kill in that same year, yet it barely registers a ripple on the radar.

Barry,
And the Supreme Court has stated they the Federal and State government have the right to limit the weapons you have the right to bear.
Owning a firearm is a right, owning particular firearms is a priviledge.

Micheal --
That same Supreme Court has also stated that law enforcement whether local or federal; does not bear the responsibility for the defense or safeguard of the individual nor property, or personal effects thereof, thus and by that rationale, law abiding citizens maintain that as a codified right for common defense; reserving no judgement on method other than it stand a reasonable and prudent litmus.

Ok, OK, next are we going to blame abortion, gay marriage, etc..... I heard that the Westboro Church still has some children funerals to protest, you might want to catch up with where you are going with this agrument. According to them this was an punishment from God.

How about just blaming the person. The number of incidents haven't really gone up in the last 30 years. The number of offenders also hasn't gone up by a statistical margin. But the number of victims has, what is the reason why? Better tools. So instead of blaming society or some boogie man. Just per capia there is always going to be crazy. And crazy is as crazy does. Also on Friday a man in China stabbed 22 students with a knife. Crazy is Crazy.

By your own admission, society changes and so should laws. There are no laws that say a woman can't wear shorts on a Main St. anymore, but when I was young it was a law. The constitution when written and talking about firearms didn't even dream about guns with automatic or semiautomatic capabilities. Tell me how your owning a firearm protected those kids. 6 year old little bodies with two and three bullets in them. The reason we have such a problem and manufacturers kept making money is because the laws weren't strict enough to begin with. Had they not been manufactured due to the right manufacturing laws, we wouldn't even be in this debate. TOO LATE? TO CHANGE THE LAWS OR TO GET THOSE LITTLE CHILDREN BACK??? WHAT IS THIS ARTICLE ABOUT? WHAT COULD YOU AND YOUR GUNS HAVE DONE TO SAVE THOSE KIDS?? READ THE ARTICLES AGAIN AND WATCH THE MISERY OF THE PARENTS ON TV.

You are a veritable encyclopedia of nonsense.

Once again, spot on John Q

Right on.

RIGHT - SO WHY put guns in the hands of undisciplined and irresponsible people?? Things have changed. Have you once mentioned what this article is about?? 2 and 3 semi-automatic bullets in a little, tiny five year old's body. You do not have to pass an idiot test or a responsible person test or a disciplined person test to own these firearms. That MOMMY reaped what she sowed. Now she's DEAD and her son is DEAD and 20 five year olds and six year olds are DEAD and HEROES are DEAD. Be a hero, John Q Public and step back a minute and think about that! Before you spew your ME ME ME AND MY MY MY RIGHTS CRAP/ These kids were shot with weapons that were bought legally by a 'gun enthusiast' like you.

John,
Worst violance against a school was in 1927 in Michigan. 45 dead, 38 were children. So yes these things did happen more than 40 years ago. Crazy is Crazy. I'm not spinning an agrument, when you are trying to blaming things other than the person for the reason something this senseless has happened. Just showing you other agruments that sound just like yours.

J,
And only 8% of crimes happen with an assualt rifle. A private citizen with a concealled pistol and proper training is better than any criminal with an assualt rifle. One shot, one kill.

Thank God for people like you, Ed Harris. I feel much better when I see sanity amongst raging insanity. All they care about is themselves-probabley never shed a tear for one of those little ones. Wonder how they'd have felt about how great those guns were if one of them shot one of their kids or grandkids. Would they be screaming about their gun rights then???

You know, Kathryn...you are so right. Your comment is one of the best ones here.To think she was worried enough about her son to be trying to obtain conservator-ship over him in order to consider having him committed....and then she did all you pointed out is just too weird to comprehend. All I can say is it's a good thing her son killed her, because if she was still alive some body ought to shoot her dead. Harsh? Maybe...I admit that...but it's how I feel right now.

Kathyrn is on the right track, Guns don't kill people, irresponsible and mentally unstable people kill people (especially small children) . Other people, besides the mother, may also be responsible. There maybe reports that the mother filed papers had asking a judge to commit her son. If true, why did judge not respond timely? Our courts and government agencies are too slow to react in removing mentally unstable people who are a danger to the public. That should be the top priority for any new legislation.

Kathryn Baker -- No one (least of all me) will argue that this woman was a colossal moron for allowing her emotionally and mentally retarded son access to her firearms and furthermore training him in the use of them. There are already laws in force that strictly prohibit access and use of firearms by individuals adjudicated to have a mental deficiency.

Many things that are common in our modern society were not even dreamed of when our US Constitution was written so comment is as feckless as it is weak. My point is now and always be that our US Constitution is time honored and sacrosanct, but more importantly it is the supreme law of our nation.

I do not agree with all the rights and would see some curtailed or vacated, namely the protection given to religion. But that right is cherished and enjoyed by other US citizens and it is as sacred and untouchable as the right to bear arms that I enjoy.

The same old NRA garbage. Right, guns don't kill people, only people with guns kill other people. When are you going to figure it out?

Bill,
People with Knives kill people. People with baseball bats kill people. Baseball bats are the most used weapons in violent crimes.

Well stated, Chris

Ted,
The Patriot Act took away all those rights you believe you have. The Corporations and the truly influental took them away a long time ago.

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually wind up plowing for the ones with swords"......Thomas Jefferson .......and Ed, please, take a vallium and see your local mental health professional.

CJ,
Yes I'm sure that mass rioting will happen. Because in the end mass mentallity as shown even on these fourms breeds stupidity. What is the best to defeat the mob mentallity, fear.
Thinking like that is from fear. If the mob is big enough and ready enough, do you truly believe in the scenario that you have created that one man with an assualt rifle(most likely untrained in how to really handle it in pressure situations) is going to truly be able to hold them off. Why do you think that when the intelligence agencies build squads to go against mentallities and close quarter militia groups most are armed with shotguns. Think about the mental and physical effects of a shotgun.

If you saw the movie (The Getaway...???...can't remember) I am thinking about, I think anyone of us would like Steve McQueen and a 12 guage pump protecting us.

It was a much better movie with Steve McQueen than the remake with Alec Baldwin.

Argument? My statement was not directed at anyone in particular. I simply made a comment on the subject. Part of our freedom is deciding for ourselves, according to law, how we personally deem is prudent to arm ourselves. If the entire nation votes to control guns, then so be it. I will comply. However, to let a minority of people make that decision for all of us is only something the "47%" would approve of. I can see where you stand. Since you want to confront me, then try answering one of the questions about the situations I gave examples of. And spare me your rhetoric about how you would rush a person and "snap his neck" while he is loading a new magazine. You can make comedy and fiction out of this, but I prefer to consider the possible future. You go ahead and rush someone like that...if I have a conceal and carry, I am going to shoot him dead. How about not skipping what I wrote: ''If you are in your own home...I ask all of you who support guns bans...''what type of weapon will you wish you had to protect yourself with?''. Are you telling me you want to protect your home and family with your bare hands? If so...I think if anyone loses an argument..you would lose that battle...or be a fool to not prefer a gun. And lots of bullets. Your comment about worrying about a bullet exploding and taking off your hand or head is about as much to worry about as an asteroid hitting me in my computer chair in my own home. You ''are'' funny, though.

If I was in need of holding down the house for weeks like it was the Alamo, then running out of bullets may be an issue. Your scenario is what's fiction, not what I said. Even my 100 round box of .22's for my semi-auto Ruger with laser sights would be adequate for any problem around the house...but the .22 is not what I would grab first. FYI, having laser sights practically eliminates needing to be a fast and/or good shot. Just put the red dot on it and shoot. This is good thing to know for homes out there who have women in them wishing for a good firearm to protect themselves with that won't blow out of their hand with the first shot. It may be a small round, but nobody wants to get hit by a .22 hollow point or frag. I'd probably go with my Glock, which I think can have mags with as many as 33 bullets. That is more bullets than the same size mag as this shooters Assault rifle had, and it's just a hand gun. Good luck trying to snap my neck while I take the 2 seconds (if that long) to load the next one. I can't imagine running out of rounds before the police arrived. Even I could not hack that many people off to come after me all at once...but even if I did...I assure you I am not going to run out of bullets. If you were a crook at my house, you'd actually want to pray I don't grab my 12 guage pump loaded with magnums double ought buckshot. I actually think you would probably rather be shot by me than have me use one of the items from my knife collection. Ouch.

CJ,
From you statements I have to ask. Do you watch Doomsday Preppers on National Geographic. Because you sound like that kind of vibe.

Michael. You point out a big problem in this country how many think it is funny to imagine ever being under direct attack upon our soil. Either by rouge nations or marauding citizens engaged in anarchy. Tell me that you don't fear that for your young children long after you are dead? You don't fear, for example, the likes of N Korea or Iran? Go ahead and think like that. I don't think I have painted myself as some fanatic scaredy cat, but I also remember the stories my Dad told me of WW2 and Pearl Harbor...and some lingering meaning stuck with me. If you don't care about the concerns of the people in the future more , then you you should tweak your thinking a bit. I don't mean to be overly critical of you, because I like a lot of what you write. You may even be just teasing me, which is fine and I can appreciate some humor in return among some of these dreadful viewpoints. I don't know what Doomsday Preppers is, but I do remember how afraid my family was as we cowered helplessly in out home (not here) as truckloads of rioting men armed with guns drove reckless and fearfully right in our streets and once right of our front lawn...as we wondered if they were going to choose our house to plunder as they were enraged with hate. And all we had was a small 1920's gun in the house. My vibes come from things I have seen with my own eyes...and many of those lessons have been learned long after those childhood memories and leaned in places, among others, such as while in the Army.

CJ,
1. Doomsday Preppers is a show on National Geographic Channel I beleive ever Tuesday night. And it was a joke.
2. The next attack in my opinion is not going to a physical confrontation in my opinion. It will not be from a known state either. It will be from an entity that we don't know yet (In my opinion).
3. I believe in the right to bear arms, but also that the priviledge to own certain weapons should be verified. Weapons from legal weapon sales should come with a through background check (lacking in many point of sales).
4. If I'm doing my job correctly and those in the same industry, then we as a people shouldn't need to rise up against another country. Because we will continue to have the finest equiped military in the world.

Again, Ed, you seem to miss points painstakingly made for your benefit. I already briefly described the speed, beauty and lethality (hollow points, frags) of laser sights on a lower caliber handgun (.22 Ruger/laser sights) and how taking a ''clean shot'' is so last century. Putting the red dot on the target is about as easy as looking at it with your eyes. Shoot a full mag (10 rounds) of these rounds off in mans face in about 3 seconds or less and see if it does not stop him. I can get off all ''ten'' rounds with laser sights while you only get off ''one'' shot while trying to make a ''clean one''....effectively turning a pistol into something that fires near as fast as a machine gun. You need to put down ''The Flash'' comics and realize how slow you are compared to how quick even a feeble old lady could be with one of these weapons in her hands. You are not that quick, even if you do eat Wheaties every morning. Don't worry...Ed...despite how I sound...I think you are fine...I can see we are basically on the same side...but you think you are faster than me or anyone else. The only people who come close to being this as fast as you describe are kindergarteners and their teachers, and you see what he did to them. Also, you need to quit storing your ammo out in coffee cans buried in the back yard...it tends to causing issues like you worry about.

The difference is that rifles and shotguns you refer to are the same as a family sudan, and the assualt weapons are a mustang. Both have existed for 6 decades both have been improved in those 6 decades. The assualt weapon of the 1960's wasn't as good as the assualt weapon of the 2010. Just like the rifle and shotguns of the 1960's aren't as naturally accurate as those today. You are comparing apples and oranges. The Sudan in the 1960's wasn't as technologically advanced as the ones today, same with the Mustang. Though personal opinion still prefer the 1960's Mustang. If you want to compare a shotgun then compare it to a shotgun. If you are going to compare an assualt rifle then compare it to an assualt rifle. A car can kill you and a gun can kill you.

Budd. I stuck with you on your amusing analogy and I see your point. With the same reasoning, do you also suggest we go back to dressing in breech cloths and carrying wooden Fred and Barney endorsed clubs on our shoulders to claim our women? I think the women might like us running around in breech cloths, Tarzan style, but the club thing is not going to go over very well.

and to think that as a kid I used to make my brother cry uncle while holding him at bay with a cork pop gun aimed point blank directly at his eye with little thought of making him go blind

And do we have the right to own machine guns, or grenade launchers, or Stinger missiles, or anti-tank weapons?????

Those are also evolutions of weaponry, i the same way that golf clubs, and music-playing devices, and phones have evolved.

Therefore, if those machine guns, or grenade launchers, or Stinger missiles, or anti-tank weapons can be limited, then why can't assault weapons and oversized ammunition clips also be limited?

American Patriot,
By Supreme Court ruling you are correct.
By definition all the weapons you used in your agrument are chemical propellant weapons like a firearm. With just a different form of munition.

CJ,
But in this case, most criminals don't have assualt rifles. that is Hollywood that gets people all worked up. Most criminals also do not know properly how to use the guns in their possession. A good gunowner with the proper rifle, shotgun, or pistol will be able to eliminate the average criminal with an assualt rifle. Like you said earlier 12 guage pump shotgun is something no criminal wants to face. Any 4/5 would run just from hearing the sound of the pump action.

or a red laser dot on them anywhere...lol

I would like to add how correct you probably are about how most criminals are not proficient enough to handle the guns a lot of them own. First of all, going to a gun range is not cheap. It is unlikely many of them have been to one. That means most of them have not been anywhere where they could ever shoot the gun they own...or not very much anyway. Any gun over the size of a .22 requires the shooter to know what he is doing if he expects the weapon to be viable protection. Many guns, to an inexperienced person, could easily fly from their hands from the kickback...even a handgun. Aiming with a gun of power is not as easy as many people think...especially if they are fool enough to try and shoot holding the gun with one hand. It's takes a rather strong grip to fire most hand guns that way. My wife is rather poteet and not strong...lol. She is not afraid of guns, but due to her physique, a big gun is simple not for her. But, put my Semi-Auto Ruger .22 with laser sights and some hollow-points or frag rounds loaded in it...and she is deadly...even one handed. It is a fine enough gun for anyone, especially for smaller people. However, I am big and an experienced shooter, and even I would feel pretty safe defending myself with it. The laser sights on a mans face/head with the quickness of how fast that gun will lay down rounds, small caliber or not, make it a formidable self-protection weapon especially due to how instantly it can be put to use.

I am right on the same page with you how the word ''assault'' along with a weapon is being exploited. Few realize that. For the most part, all the term ''assault'' means when tagged onto a weapon simply means the weapon is adaptive to adverse conditions such as you might see in combat, rain, sand, etc...it is designed to stand up to rougher treatment than the guns or rifles that look ''prettier''. It also often is associated with more compact weapons and ones designed for more accessories.

Well it does not ban them.

In agreement with the intent of the founders of our nation, and the framers of our Constitution, I am in favor of our right under the Second Amendment to own a muzzle-loaded musket.

Everything else is beyond what the founders and framers intended.

I agree with Gene that the mental health industry needs to be addressed.

Ed: It's actually scary that you know how to spell valium so well!

Dad of Three and Mr. Aldridge, I agree. we need a federal ban, not states...too much confusion and bickering. Also, teachers don't want to be killers, they are healers and teachers. Leave the protection by gun to professionals. Fortify our schools and make it impossible for another nutcase to get inside. The cost is worth it to save lives. The 2nd amendment was written in a different time and place. Weapons of great destruction should be limited to law enforcement and military. Regular citizens do not need semi or automatic weapons and the ammo they use. Even though there are thousands of those weapons in circulation, do we need to add to that number?

While mulling over imposing yet more stricture to lawful firearm ownership, consider that these last few shooters were mentally disturbed and in one case acknowledged as sociopathic.

The laws barring these mentally and socially retarded people from buying and possessing firearms have worked and will continue to work as long as the folks working in the mental health field are on board and genuinely show an interest in keeping accurate records as well as reporting to the proper authorities when they have a dangerous person in a program. It is way to damn late to pop the flare when the guy has already carried out the attack that he has been scribbling in crayon during his weekly feel good meeting or boasting about on some bobbleheaded social media blog.

It is high time that the way healthcare deals with mentally ill and emotionally disturbed people needs to be looked at very hard because involuntary or forced commitment to secured facilities would have contained these last few shooters and saved our nation a great deal of innocent bloodshed.

Dear Teresa Trubilla,
I read your comment and though you expressed your opinion that you didn't like any of our opinions, you did not offer one idea or solution to the problem.

The problem I believe most people see in regards to this issue, is two high profile wack jobs used the same type of rifle to committ mass murder in the last 6 months. Aurura, CO and the Connniticut Shooting were both done with a AR-15. So it has become a hot button issue.

Michael. You are exactly right on the hot button thinking. I am just glad these guys did not kill all those people with gasoline. At least he was ''that'' humane, and I am sure you catch my sarcasm. If he had done that, then logic would tell you that Obama should be pushing to make to make less gas available..lol...and I would sure hate that...I need my car. Now politicians are using this to make them ''look concerned'' when so far all I have seen is the suggestion they require ''better'' (what the heck does that mean , anyway?)background checks, etc. And that is basically done already anyway. The only other thing I have seen mentioned is attacking 30 round mags, for example. There is a complete snow job going on about increasing gun control...but personally I am glad that is what it is...a snow job...because I don't see a lot of change coming yet, but the point is...all the anti-gun people want is a ''baby step''. Besides...snow jobs are exactly what the ''47%'' fall for. Oh...and thanks for letting me know you are independent because I was trying to figure out which side you were one sometimes, and now it makes your comments more clear now. And they are right about being happy for a baby step...because ''any'' additional gun control is a step that will be hard to ever reverse. The libs work like the middle east Al Quida (sp?)...step by step...slowly and closer to their goal. If you give a liberal an inch...it's all they want for now...but good luck ever taking it back.

CJ,
Then if we are going to bann anything can it be the corn ethanol in my gasoline. To create it, is an endothermic reaction. Which means is costs more energy to create than it produces. And it is driving my MPG down. I have an 8-cylinder car, I don't need any help driving the MPG down.
I'm not big on banning weapons, but their should be a conversation. Not based on Fear, but knowledge and rational thought.
I enjoy pointing out flawed logic on both sides, but that is because i'm a bit evil that way. Should we ban keyboards?
I alway believe in the right of the citizenship to bear arms. I make my money on that fact. But both sides lib and conserv want to reduce the power of it's citizenship. They just approach it in different ways.
Gun control is no where near as invasive as the Patriot Act. The server farm that collections our data from an IT professional propective is a beautiful thing.
By the way, Thanks your rational and thoughtout replies CJ.

Hear hear, James

Rich,
Are you confusing the agruments. There are very few people on here saying a total ban on guys. But your yahoo, capitolizing and assumption based agrument shows the education of the last portion of you statement dumb and ignorant. Instead of having a real agrument, or actually reading the agruments on this thread you go off half-cocked.
"I Support It And Any Gun That Is Legal." Which is your statement, is the very conversation of this thread. What guns should be legal. Not, no guns should be legal. The second admendent entitles us the right to bear arms, but doesn't say that there isn't a restriction on the type of arms that we can bear. Also the Supreme Court has ruled since the late 1800's that the government can't take away your right to bear arms, but does have the right to determine which of those arms you are allowed to bear.
So instead of using the ignorant agrument and labels that you did in this post, why don't you actually read what people are saying and contribute.

Oh you have got to be kidding, Rich!!!

Our country needs assault weapons in the military and in our various police forces; they should not be in the civilian community.

That sick young man killed twenty little children, and six adults, because his assault weapons had large magazines and heavy firepower. He even had time to shoot eleven bullets into one little child, and most of the children had multiple gunshots. That is insane.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "leftists" or "rightists", but with soundness.

Vietnam Vet and retired military officer

Sandy,
I don't think anyone is agrueing that the people who do these things don't have issues.
Your second point, actually most of the people who commit crimes at least initially gain their weapons through legal means. I believe the Virginia Tech killer purhcased his from a local gun store. So what is your point there again?
As far as the pesky Constitution that allows you to bear arms is correct. Again the government has the right to determine what is the level of force that you are allowed to bear. See Supreme Court rulings since the 1800's. BTW, it also said that states were allowed to succeed if they felt the need to, how did that work out?

Ms Baker........Really''? why Do We Have gestapo At Americas Airports? (TSA) Fourth Amendment ring a bell? Once the Feds Take an inch..They Always Want More. The weapon Used in Conn was a semi auto.....Thousands Of Weapons Are Legal and Semi Auto. who Makes the Judgement? Some Leftist Dumbocrat who Never served In Americas military? (Charles Schumer,Diane Feinstein,Lautenberg,Levin,Boxer?) People Who Give Up Liberty....To gain security......Are Not Entitled To Either'!

Rich,
So lets have a rational conversation by using terms like "Leftist Dumbocrat". Glad we are all adults here.
Why do we have a the "gestapo" at America Airports, because a George W. Bush and a Republican House/Senate allowed that. All the weapons used in Conn were semi auto. Now they are picking out one of the weapons in particular, a AR-15 which has been used in at least two high profile shootings this year. Why is it called an Assualt Rifle, I'm pretty sure CJ covered that in a post on this fourum. But is a a military designed rifle that without modifications is a semi-automatic. I like how you just point out the Democrat, but not the Republican politicans saming the same thing. Bias much?

Todd,
Sooooooo, what you are saying is that the Republican Congress and Senate has been stellar in their last 10 years?

Tommy,
Why admend the Constitution, already in case all the Government has the right to limit the type of weapons you can own. Just look at the Supreme Court since the late 1800's for those rulings. The Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights was written as intended. Broad Laws to be filled in with the evolution of a country. The right to bear arms should always be in place. A limit to what is owned is the question. Will mass shootings still take place, of course. Will as many get shot if the shooter has to reload more often or has a less effecient firing mechanism? Maybe. The part is having a conversation that isn't based on fear on both sides. Fear this could happen in our community and people scared the Government is going to come take their guns. The ignorance and labelling has to stop before that conversations starts. Also actual knowledge of how these laws were written and why? That includes how these laws have been molded to our country and our country molded to them. To say the 2nd Amendment give me the right to own any weapon, why don't people have rocket launchers and anti tank projectiles. Those are guns with different munitions?

Wrong, Mr Frain.

The issue is the amount, and quantity of damage that can be done with assault weapons.

If the lunatic who murdered those 20 kids, and 6 adults, was armed with conventional weapons, he might have been able to shoot a few before someone was able to tackle him.

No human being, outside the US military and police forces, needs assault weapons. There are plenty of firearms choices for legitimate needs.

This is purely a matter of egos, and obsessions, disguised as "rights", and not at all a matter of actual needs.

Tommy,
I understood your core agrument. That we need to address the issues with these people, and why they do them. In the last 30 years there has been no significant increase in the number of people who commit these crimes and the number of these crimes committed. But the number of victims have increase steadily in the last 10 years after being statistically flat for the previous 20. What is the difference, we are making better tools. Do we need to fix the core issue? Without a doubt. Do we also need to see why two variables of the equation are staying steady and the third is increase at an exponental rate? We also need to address that as well.

Fine, it may be a societal problem, but until such time as society has solved the problem of severe mental illness and potential access to lethal weapons, it is essential to reduce the risk of mass murders such as Newtown.

Assault weapons belong in the five branches of the US Armed Forces, and in the various police departments around our country.

By having such weapons among the civilian population, it increases the risk that another lunatic will obtain such weapons, whether by illegal means or theft or whatever, and be able to shoot large numbers of children in a very short period of time.

S. Ripley,
First I like your agrument, but let me just address a few of your points.
As far as banning not having meaningful impact. Actually yes, in a number of areas it has showed verified impact in the reduction in serveral types of crimes. But I would also say that like all impacts both for pro/con ban agruments other things in those area also effect crime rate. I would say their is no direct statistical/socialogical correlation have any impact.

1. Background checks are only good for people who previously have had issues. The Virginia Tech Shooter had no previously reported (keyword) issues. Still passed a background check. Though I agree in all weapons sales, even gun shows, a background and waiting period for a proper background check should take place.
2 & 3. They really should be one point, and so far the best point on her for the average home gun owner. This should be mandatory, possibly part of the reason for a waiting period.
4. Surprisingly something that is being talked about in Washington currently. Due to last week. Also correlating with a big to have penalities to shop owners who sell to those who had questionable/non-existent background checks on people who commit crimes with their weapons.

I am OK with the harmless first three suggestions, but I think the issues around your fourth suggestion need to be at the discretion of the gun owner, homeowner, etc. I firmly believe the home owner should be able to decide just how "ready" his guns need to be. Guns for protection locked in a safe can get you killed. Freedom of choice, and the right to bare arms, and our right to protect ourselves are all issues that should not be stomped on by rash laws that punish the honest , responsible people but do little to alter the behaviour of criminals. However, if an act of violence stems from a household that it could be shown should have had the guns in a safe...then...yes...the home owner should have to, at the very least, pay stiff penalties. That means the home owners discretion would need to be used wisely. In this particular mass shooting, the mother had a son, the shooter/murderer, she was trying to obtain conservator-ship over in order to have him possibly committed. Knowing that, she reportedly took this murderer out to shooting ranges,etc. That's not just questionable, it was insane of her. The ''stiff penalty'' she would have been subject to under your suggestion was taken care of by the son. He shot her dead also. If the son had not killed her, then I think once she it was made clear how she was virtually solely responsible for this horror...then she should have been shot dead anyway. ''That'' would be the appropriate ''stiff penalty'' in her case.

Mike, as you put it, claims no more "genius" than anyone else posting on Patch. They may work, or they may no work, but at least he is trying to keep the dialogue above back-of-the-barn pissing.

If you have some constructive ideas, then please tell us. Otherwise, as the old adage goes, get out of the way.

Ms. Baker......I Believe The Feds Faltered In The 9/11 Fiasco. Both The FBI And CIA And NSA. None Of Their Leaders Were Terminated By MR..Bush? The TSA Is A Joke. They Shake Down Old Ladies Underwear,Babys Diapers, And Fail Miserably In There So Called Protection Of Americas Flying Public. They VIOLATE Your Fourth Amendment Rights And You Don't Care? We'll, I do'! The new Homeland Security Dept Violates citizens Fourth And Fifth Amendments To Our Constitution. They Radiate You Or Grope Your Crotch To Protect You.....Please..! Why Aren't They At The Mexican Border? Don't Want To Offend BROWN SKIN PEOPLE?? but, Its Ok To Harass And Intimidate American Citizens At OUR Airports. When A Federal Government Takes Away Your Rights You Don't Get Them Back. Ben Franklin Was Correct When He Said: People Who Give Up Their Liberty (TSA,FOURTH,FIFTH Amendment) To Gain a LITTLE Security......Are Not Deserving Of Either'''''! That Is My Mantra. The Homeland Security Dept.....A Unnecessary Evil And Bloated With 3.5 Billion In Wasteful Tax Dollars. Where Were They During WW 1-2'? They Weren't Needed Then Or Now.....! I Don't Like Being Groped By Some Homosexual Male TSA Agent Or Radiated. What Next....?

Private Companies Can Do It Three times Cheaper Then Our BLOATED Federal Payroll. Plus, You Can Fire Indifferent And Stealing Agents. You Cannot Do That With Another FAILED Federal Agency As The TSA. The American Public Has Lost Its Guts And Fair Play. They Are Sheep For The OVEREACHING Federal Government. Do as I say.......Or Else'! That Isn't The Government I Put a Uniform On To Defend During Another Federal Government Fiasco...... The Viet-Nam War. Even Todays Russians Say America Has A Large Illiterate Voting Public. (Obama A Marxist)

OK, now it's clear that Rich is simply wacko.

Proud Vietnam veteran sends.

Thanks for the clarification Kathryn.....this entire time I believed we had the TSA because of the THIRD building to "fall" that day in NYC.

Granps, you are really proud to have invaded a country due to the fraud that is the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

You just defended the unjustified invasion of a country that led to the senseless slaughtering of Americans and many other human beings and you are proud?? Wow.

FYI: The lies haven't stopped............but sadly you are still believing them. None of America's involvement in the middle East has anything to do with what we are told. The truth is still hidden in plain view, but unlike 50 years ago, we have more access to it.

For Sammy Boy, you can try to denigrate the selfless service of hundreds of thousands of Americans, if that's what you need to you get off, but your ignorance of what it means to sacrifice for this nation is appalling.

Our brave men and women in uniform don't get to pick where they go, nor what they have to go through, bout they do their duty and sometimes make the ultimate sacrifice of death or dismemberment in service to our nation. And even those who come back whole have had to endure different challenges while in service, some of which are life-changing; and even those who are not scarred have sacrificed personal time with their families and willingly put their own necks on the line.

If you want to criticize America's participation in any particular war, then blame the President or the Congress at the time, because they are the ones whom make the decisions. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines do not get to choose.

You should be praising the veterans, while castigating the politicians, but maybe that's just not going to suit your purposes of deflecting arguments away from your precious positions.

Prvdas, Rich you seem to be very versed in Communist ideology, are you a practicing Communist or just an admirer?

"Are we going to war?": I don't think any group or country will try to invade our soil as long as our citizens can be armed with weapons like these.

Wow; Mr McGinnis clearly has no experience with military strategy and tactics if he thinks any potential foe would give a rat's ass about "armed" civilians.

Now, if this was actually 1812, the he might have a point, but he may not know that this is the the Twenty-first Century and that weapons of war are infinitely more sophisticated and deadly than they were even fifty years ago, much less two hundred years ago.

We have the most deadly and sophisticated military in the world, and our police forces, by and large, are among the best in the world.

If he wants to contribute, then he should join the National Guard.

But it sounds like he simply lives in a fantasy world, perhaps developed by too much time on X-Box and its many gaming opportun ivies.

1969-1977.....So Your A Genius.... Patriot..? You Don't Know The Meaning Of The Word. If You did'' You Would Understand How Dumb You Are. A Patriot Is One Who sees The Lies Of His Government And Tries To save His Citizens From Lies.....Not Go Into A FEEL Good Patriot Mood'''!..I Served My Country'! I'M A Good Soldier......LOL,LOL'! your The Reason Why 5,400 Died In A Stupid And Unnecessary war...Bush's IRAQ War. Kuwait Was Another Of Your Wars (STUPID)(Bush's fathers War) For Ignorant Soldiers Who Think They Are Doing Their Duty. Did You Get Your College Credits''? Soldier Boy''? Hero''? Please.....................!!! Serve The Crooked Federal Government....Laugh,Laugh,Laugh..... Lay Off The Grass Of Your Generation........It Has Made You Invincible.......! Lol,lol.

For Mr McGinnis, as background, I retired as a senior officer after a twenty year and change career. I had advanced post graduate military training in addition to real-time combat zone experience, and my tactics and strategy insights come from that.

But, it doesn't take all that experience and training to realize that the enemies of the United States, past, present, and future, would not worry about your concept of "citizens [can be] armed with weapons like these."

That, sir, was my point.

PS I don't do video games; I leave that to my kids.

Rich 1:41am : People like you are the main reason the "Draft" should be reinstituted. I would really like to see if you would go to jail or flee the country on your "moral crusade rather than serve. I was in college in the middle and late sixties in NYC before I got my "Greetings". By the time I got out we hade converted to the "all volunteer Army". It was interesting to see that once protestors didn't have to worry about being drafted, all the protests stopped. So was it "moral ground" or "save their own asses" that was their motivation for the protests. Am I calling them cowards? Make up your own mind!

Education And Facts....Who Cares How They Are Presented As The Truth. You'? When You Wake Up...? And See All The Lies I Mentioned That Pissed Away A Generation For The War Machine....Then You Can Correct My Spelling.....Elitist.....Hillary''! I Did My Time As A Enlisted Person. I Did Not Wait For The Draft. My Best Friend Died In NAM. He Was A Marine. Ex Air Force Nam Era Vet. Thanks For Your Education Mention Of Me......It Really Changed My Thoughts. Lol,Lol.

..now that was funny...

Mark, I think you made a mistake with your family name, seems to me the "r" doesn't belong there!

If the spelling is flawed, one has to question the entire basis of your ideas! (Actually the spelling was correct except in it's context, it was the wrong word. Though I support gun rights, I would not be opposed to people like you who have such deep rooted anger being denied.