Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: A serious attempt at a natioinal gun law - what do you think?

Posted 11 years ago on July 23, 2012, 7:35 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

All gun sales require a background check &
minmumtwo week waiting period &
no "gun show" loop holes
All guns must be registered like cars
All gun owners must be trained & licensed like drivers.
Buying bullets requires proof of license & registration
Owning an unregistered gun or by an unlicenced owner carries a $1000 file.
Using an unregistered gun or by an unlicenced owner carries a $10,000 file.
Selling or buying a an unregistered gun or to an unlicenced buyer caries a $100,000 fine
Police are authorized to anonomously buy back unregistered guns from unlicenced owners at 50% over "street" price
ban gun clips that hold more that 12 bullets
ban semi-automatic weapons
All contributions to the NRA over $100 must be accompanied by a trigger finger



Read the Rules


[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 11 years ago





[-] 1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 11 years ago

Zen! you're back. Good to see you.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

What we see around the world is where gun law are very restrictive, there are fewer gun deaths.



not to pick a fight, I guess folks can disagree, generally I support taking effective action


[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

But wouldn't be a nice change of pace? I can see it now, "Deranged killer drowns 15 people in vanilla pudding!"

"Mass murderer sneaks onto a bus and flogs 23 people to death with dacron filled pillow." Film at 11:00PM.


[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Sorry, but some who won't respond to sense will to sarcasm. In fact, gun legislation has a very clear record of affecting these situations.

Two sources of evidence, one, other countries, another is the record in the US while we had the assault weapons and large magazine ban.

The easiest answer to every problem is that nothing can be done. It may well be that there isn't the political or popular will. But almost always, something can be done. Will it be a solution? Maybe an improvement is all you can get. Something may be better than nothing.

Maybe this one isn't completely solvable. How about compensation? I can't fix this one, but there is another one that I can get a greater improvement on than fixing this one completely.

I can give you one where we can save 100,000 lives every year, without fighting the NRA.


[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

OK, I accept that. Property criminals don't want any attention. Hate crimes and mass killings perpetrators etc. crave attention. There is some overlap in the tools they use.

One size solutions don't fit all.


[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Clearly there are psychological factors, process issues and tool management issues. There may be and probably are other aspects deserving consideration. It is a little like cancer. The term is too broad and ambiguous to to be useful. The uniqueness required tailored solutions for each. That said, while looking for the cure, lives have been prolonged by some rather crude interventions.

Implementing interventions is no replacement for understanding the problems well enough to craft each required cure, but they may be better than nothing. Even false hope is a quality in demand. Is providing it ethical?


[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

You can try some things that might work or just make people feel better but that real solutions for each of the many aspects of the problem are complex and unless you are lucky, will take a long time. One size will not fit all.


[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

You alluded to the difference in general violence and mass killings, psychological.

The process by which "things" are obtained. e.g. fertilizer, C4, dynamite, nitroglycerin, saren, shoulder launched missiles etc.

The regulation of who gets to produce what under license.

These are all areas that have been considered and acted upon, rightly or wrongly, effectively or ineffectively, politically acceptably etc.

Any of these might figure in the various solutions that might be crafted and implemented when real causes and effects are identified.


[-] 1 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

Fertilizer is now regulated at the retail level?

[-] 1 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

No it's not ethical to just throw caution to the wind to justify the change you desire. Especially when you don't even know the consequences of the changes you want to implement. Gun control is not good when it takes the rights of people bearing firearms away from them. The USA is the last and final standing country of liberty(what is left of it anyway). Once the guns are taken from the populace of the USA, the complete and total subjugation of the planet commences. We are the only thing preventing the 1% from completely and totally bringing us 99% to our knees in supplication. We already are forced into debt slavery, isn't that too much already? I sure as hell think so. I will defend at all costs the final stand for humanity on this earth if that day comes. Because trust me, those in power only fear one thing, an armed constituency.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

The man with a hammer sees the whole world as a nail.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

the world bank already determines who get loans

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

When I was growing up in east TN no one I knew owned a hand gun (they were useless, everyone owned a rifle), now they act like it's their heritage, this did not happen organically, we have more killings because we have a lot more guns.


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

We are not that far apart I think, I'm a math guy so I tend to look at the odds, and how to affect them, but there is no doubt folks are folks.

Any time we speak of the power of peace instead of war, when we talk about OUR achievements instead of the achievements of “great people”, anytime we champion the power of love over that of hate, we move forward, on this as well as many fronts.


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

no but that song in the eighties Radioactive or something like that was pure money if you played at the right time there was a time my man there was a time....


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

hey ZD did you see I was answering up here to the question below, I was both in the Navy and private sector nuclear power, talked for a bit last night to a guy at the labor bureau about the new numbers; will be posting , learned that it was 1996 when "the shit went promote stupid" as we used to say


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

both, flux is fun too, sort of like facts, if you pay attention you can use your math everyday, nuclear physicist hardly ever get to do the really fun stuff (though down in southern AZ they had a really cool flashbulb),. I was more in the center of things, but yeah you got to watch them engenders they'll melt your core if your not careful, like TMI and Chernobyl


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

ran a nuclear plant for about twenty years, lots actual application of concepts


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

I think a living wage for all - along with the end of usury practices - and the end of outsourcing jobs so that people can be employed and the elimination of false value/inflation - would all do much to reducing violence and people snapping and becoming nutters.

[-] -1 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

We used to have gun day at my school growing up. That was junior high school about 1979 or 1980. Kids would bring their gun to school and be carrying them in the hallways. In a shop class we also had the choice of projects to build one time, either a gun cabinet for the home or a working crossbow. Shows the amount of responsibility parents used to be required of in educating their kids about right and wrong where today all that is placed upon the schools and as such there is no trust or responsibility given to or allowed to the students. which helps the schools to administer their new responsibilities as a parent of a child.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Excuse me, if I could step in here. I see your point ZD, but here's the thing, when huge banks collapse and millions lose their homes, we know that “The Event” was not just one or two rouges, we know it was a system that allowed it to occur, that the huge collapse is a symptom of a sick system. The same is true here. Better bank regs won't stop all the outright thieves and huge schemes will still occur, but with better regs we reduce the danger. We use the large events to focus attention on the boarder problem; I don't think that is a bad thing to do.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Do I really need to repeat what you actually said to prove comprehension? Is it my reasonability that underneath your words were memories of real pain?

Wouldn't it be more useful to address what I actually said than sharing your pain right now, right here? Do you really think you are the only one with loss in their life? In any case we've no need to fight.


[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

OK, I was referring to the earlier comment of course but a detailed response no doubt, (and what the heck this could be fun), Here's the "what I actually said" that I was referring to.

"Excuse me, if I could step in here. I see your point ZD, but here's the thing, when huge banks collapse and millions lose their homes, we know that “The Event” was not just one or two rouges, we know it was a system that allowed it to occur, that the huge collapse is a symptom of a sick system. The same is true here. Better bank regs won't stop all the outright thieves and huge schemes will still occur, but with better regs we reduce the danger. We use the large events to focus attention on the boarder problem; I don't think that is a bad thing to do."

You did give me a clue in that you said the things were unrelated, my bad, here's what I'm saying, we know that the banking abuse didn't just happen, it happened because we set up a set of rules that made the conditions ripe for it, many people warned us, Reich was writing about this in the eighties, but few paid attention till something big happens, yes people die everyday in this country because our guns ownership laws are too liberal, (there I said it sometimes you can be too liberal), and yes shit will still happen, but we could change the chances, just as there will always be bad people in banking we can change the chances and limit their harm by changing the rules the same is true of guns, things will happen but we can change the chances and limit the harm, it’s not that different. I admit yes it is opportunistic to seize upon events like this to raise concerns, but in matters of life and death all tools must be used.

Now to address at least part of what you said, it seems people in Aurora reaching to buy more guns to put themselves at ease, I wonder how many will be packing in the theaters from now on. No one who could do it is suggesting more gun control, that’s just a pipe dream of the peacenicks.

Oh and you did discover something about me, I find spelling to be boring like following the rules.

Let me add this too we have more guns and more people in prison than any other country, this is good for the 1% and their control, IM(not so)HO


[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 11 years ago

I'm not in favor of everyone carrying a gun but if you really think gun control will solve the problem then you need a reality check. People are corrupt and crazy. Guns are nothing more then a tool like a knife or home made explosives. If someone wants to kill people in a public place and they don't own a gun then they will simply employ another tool or resort to poisoning a large number of people via the water supply or food.

Let me know when you get to the heart of the problem and have a plan for changing the minds and filthy hearts of people.


[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 11 years ago

Yes the drug prohibition coupled with the fact of making tons of money from the illegal business and not being able to support yourself let alone a family with legal employment - if you can find it - and there you go - much gun violence defending turf expanding turf and trying to discourage the law from locking you up.

[-] 3 points by Nevada1 (5843) 11 years ago

No thank you.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

If you want to be convinced that there should be gun control, don't bother listening to those who believe there should be,

Listen to those who believe there shouldn't be. They will erase any doubts that you have.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 11 years ago

Britonsage, my friend, glad to see you’re still posting. I rarely visit this forum anymore. Just seems to be too much gibberish. But I do stop by occasionally. I remember your post about the time you shot a skunk in the hen house. But I digress.

A story on one of the major networks web sites tonight published a poll and story about the public’s views on guns. To make a long story short, it said 52% of the people were pro-gun; and 48% wanted more restrictive gun laws or guns banned altogether. The news story breaks it down a little further, but I won’t go into those details here.

I have a post on another thread that provides some numbers related to gun ownership. It’s kind of long and I won’t post it again. However, people should be aware that there are between 220 and 340 million guns in America today (depends on who’s numbers you believe). Also an estimated 85 million gun owners in the US. Bottom line: For good or bad, Americans love their guns. I don’t see that changing in the foreseeable future. The recent shootings have not changed the percentages.

The confiscation of guns will never happen in the US. Too many gun owning voters and too many guns. It just couldn’t be done.


[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 11 years ago

Yep, gibberish. What's your point (other than a typeo)?


[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

It seems to me that there are still skunks in the House. Skunk scent must get under your skin or you could get rid of it,

I spent my whole careers (there were more than one, I seemed to be able to put whole industries out of business), solving problems proving to people that what others said couldn't be done, could, in fact, be done. Usually when people say, "It can't be done", what they really mean is, I don't want it done, so please leave it alone."

If people say, "I would really like to see the slaughter of innocent people with guns stop", then you can start exploring ways that it can be done, a piece at a time. If they say, "We have to make sure it continues to happen" it is going to be hard to fix any part of it.

It is probably true that that a single fix won't make it all go away. But how many lives saved would make the effort worth while? 1,100,1000, 5000?

"For good or bad", SOME "Americans love their guns."

Some Americans feel safer around people who don't believe that they and everybody else should have guns.

Some people feel less safe around people who believe that they, and everyone else, should have guns.

Some people feel safer around people who believe that they, and everyone else should have guns.

Some people believe that other people's feelings are totally irrelevant, or that the only one's whose feelings matter are the ones who agree with them.

There are a lot of statistics around to help figure out where the most significant problems are and to identify opportunities for improvements. Here are a few.

Total cost of firearm assault injury and death in 1992: $63.4 billion In 1993 prior to the passage of the assault weapons ban, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), reported that about 1% of the estimated 200 million guns in circulation were assault weapons. Of the gun tracing requests received that year by ATF from law enforcement agencies, 8% involved assault weapons.

The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contained over 2 million reports as of March 1995. In 1994, over 306,000 entries were added to this file including a variety of guns, ammunition, cannons and grenades.

These are only a few stats.

Some times you have to change the description of the problem to get people to think about it. e.g. If RPGs were to be used in mass murders of 100-500 people in a year, would it be worth some effort to reduce it?

If you have a problem, break it down, understand it, find the best opportunity for improvement and try it.

There are already too many people dying from suffocation in sand, so that isn't a safe place to hide.

My role is to get people to think about problems in new ways, so it will get the emotions out of it and real incremental improvements can be made.

How can some some one say, "I don't want child gun deaths to go down?" or "One person should be able to shoot more than 75 people before cops arrive in 7 minutes." If that is said, we had better figure out a response to it, pronto,

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 11 years ago

I appreciate your rational response. But for me, and I think most legal gun owners, we don’t understand how taking our guns away solves anything. In most gun purchase situations you must pass a background check. To carry a handgun you must pass an even more stringent background check. In spite of the recent mass shootings few guns crimes are committed by legal gun owners. As a group, gun owners are the most law abiding part of society. It’s a matter of record.

It’s been repeated so often it has become a cliché, but still valid. If you take guns from honest people then only the criminals will have guns. You say you want to find more inventive ways of solving gun crime. I agree, but fail to understand why taking my guns helps anything. I say go after the bad guys, make gun crime laws tougher, make background tougher (which could include mental health checks). All legal gun owners would be quite pleased if someone could stop gun crime. But taking law abiding citizens guns doesn’t help.

If your search for a solution starts from the premise that guns are bad, then you’ve already stumbled.

By the way, on another thread a poster had a very good idea that could be a starting place for the pro-gun folks and anti-gun folks to start talking to each other. Can’t remember the thread, but guns were in the thread title.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Thanks, one of the reasons I included the data on traces. It represents thefts, not all of whom are reported. The most recent mass murders didn't involve thefts but many crimes do. So, that is an area to consider. Did I say I was in favor of taking your guns? Don't recall that. I would remind you that law abiding citizens caused the financial meltdown. And they stole billions of dollars from other law abiding citizens. So, there are good law abiding citizens and bad ones. And there are some law abiding citizens who sound like nut cases to other law abiding citizens. So just because someone is law abiding, to the present, doesn't mean they aren't of concern to others. The recent mass murderers were "legal". "All legal gun owners would be quite pleased if someone could stop gun crime.." Apparently not quite all.

My premise is that people being injured and killed is bad. I though I made that clear. I also come from the premise that causing fear in innocent people is also bad. So reducing both of those is a worthwhile objective.

We also have a Constitutional right to have our mail delivered by the government."To establish Post Offices and post Roads;" How seriously do people "love" that?

I will forgo the family history re militias etc. but it is a pretty good story.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 11 years ago

Not sure either of us are addressing the issue directly enough. The biggest hurdle is there are two camps, pro-gun and anti-gun. Neither trust each other, not in the slightest. They tend to hate and mistrust each other with a fervor rarely seen on other issues. Pro-gun folks think the gun grabbers want to take their guns away; and the anti-guns folks think gun nuts want to go back to old west days when everyone carried a sidearm and have gun fights in the street.

Anti-gun folks say to ban semi-auto rifles, reduce magazine capacity, outlaw some types of ammo, mandate a number of unneeded safety features on weapons, require waiting periods to buy a gun, require more stringent licensing for gun owners, etc.. . Pro-guns view this kind of talk a just a nickel and dime gradual effort to eventually ban guns. They don’t want to give an inch for fear it will never end. Not many moderates in this argument.

I’m not convinced even if we implemented every gun restriction the anti-gun folks want it would make a dent in gun crimes. Because very few gun crimes are committed by legal gun owners. So, to answer the question of how to reduce gun crimes; I don’t have an answer other than stiffer penalties for illegal gun use.

Also, as far as carrying a gun causing fear in anti-guns folks. I’m not responsible for what some people are afraid of. I would prefer my carrying a weapon not bother anyone, but not much I can do about it. Besides, most States don’t have legal open carry, so no one knows if you’re carrying a concealed weapon.

Bottom line. Best of luck to you in finding a solution to the gun crime problem . The current situation is gun sales are out of the ball park, selling like hot cakes. Gun laws are trending toward more gun rights rather than more gun restrictions. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. That is the reality of the situation.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

That is half of the reality of the situation. The other half is the death and pain and suffering and the financial cost. The Colorado shooter was legal and the Sikh temple shooter was legal and their victims are dead and disfigured for the rest of their lives and they were all innocent. Innocent. And they were all just collateral damage standing between some people and what they want, correction, what they LOVE. They love having the means to kill other human beings any time they want to, to shoot someone who disrespects them with no concern for the crowd behind them, to bust a cap on someone who beat them to a parking place or changed lanes without seeing them in their blind spot. "Best of luck fixing this", because you won't have my help, because I love guns more than people and that is the reality of the situation.

It is, you must admit, a strange, perverse kind of love. 'I won't consider anything that might help, because in my mind I have already decided that the only thing that could possibly work is if you took my gun away from me.'

'We have to make sure that the mass murders continue, because otherwise I might doubt that I could do one myself, if I decided to.' Is that the real motive of the folks buying those hot cakes.? Maybe the test really is, if you want them, you shouldn't have them. People who don't care, just don't care. If they did, this is a problem that could be reduced. Guess the downside is, it might actually save lives?

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 11 years ago

Oh, my friend, I am taken aback. I was not expecting such an emotional response from you. Seems uncharacteristic, based on your other level headed posts.

Your inference that gun owners are crazies that shoot into crowds without thinking, shoot someone over a parking spot or pull a gun in a fit of road rage is just an emotional response. The vast majority of gun owners are vividly clear on when, where and how to use a weapon for self defense; and I suspect you know that. By your own admission you used weapons while growing up on a farm. Probably much like me, but in different States.

You also suggest that gun owners have no feeling on victims of gun crime. I counter that gun owners pay attention to gun crimes more than the general public. They get really mad when a legal gun owner commits a gun crime because it reflects on them. They take personal offense.

To say that gun owners want the mass shooting to continue is absurd; and again I think you know that. These days the primary reason people buy guns is for self defense. Used to be hunting rifles were the number one selling firearm, but that stopped some time ago. People now days are concerned about their safety and want to be able to protect themselves. It’s a dangerous world and people know it. Can you really blame them for wanting to defend themselves.

I suspect we’ve reached a point where we will have to agree to disagree. So I stop on this thread. However, I enjoy the debates with you. Maybe we’ll do it again sometime. Kind of fun when two old geezers argue a bit.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 11 years ago


I think there is not going to be the gun control you want except in places like NYC. I think the rightists are never going to yield their guns. I think their guns are for killing people- who? Occupiers, racial minorities, leftists, sexual and gender minorities, trade union activists, low wage workers, people on welfare. I think that people who fall into those categories should be considering obtaining and training on firearms legally of course. The other side is not joking or wishing.

[-] 1 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

You are promoting adversarial tactics by using name calling and labeling. You should wake up and realize those you listed in your post are a lot of the gun owners today. Just because you don't own a gun now doesn't mean your best friend doesn't. They may have heard your discriminatory rhetoric and remain silent in order to not have to deal with your idiocy. Because we all know too well your type. There are a lot of "rightists" involved in the promotion of OWS, I am one of them. Being a "rightists" does not mean being a bible thumping gun toting backwoods hick who's intent is to force his will upon you. But that sure seems to be the idea most of you "leftists" think. Quit promoting hate and learn to support your neighbor and their right to be free without forcing your will on others.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 11 years ago

I stand by what I said.

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 11 years ago

It's [always] only adversarial when it comes from the people.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 11 years ago

Great ideas.

We should be able to have a common sense gun control conversation in this country without being labeled anti gun or anti 2nd Amendment.

The ideas you laid out are simple common sense ideas that all work well together without attacking anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. I like it.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 11 years ago

Absolutely not, more restrictions just mean more government intrusion. I hate to parrot a right-wing, nutter line, but guns alone do not kill people; guns must be in the hands of people to commit mayhem and murder.

Other countries have easy access to firearms; Switzerland requires most adult males between twenty to thirty years of age to possess a government-issued firearm. Tighter gun-control referendums have been defeated in Switzerland. Yet, they have almost none of the same problems we experience with gun-related crimes.

No one really wants to discuss the peculiar nature of American society, which has already spread through some European countries like a cancer. Basically, from almost the time children can speak they hear and see that violence is an acceptable, a preferable way of resolving problems. Our society reinforces that concept through games, sports, entertainment, and national action. The American creed has become force others to submit by whatever means necessary.

Since our culture teaches that violence is an acceptable method of resolving problems, people tend to behave in that manner. In the Las Vegas area we see that often. Tourists will physically attack street entertainers and vendors because they feel bothered. People are beaten or killed in bar fights. The Aurora shooting isn't an isolated incident; it's just the tip of the iceberg.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 11 years ago
[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 11 years ago

I thought I made that clear. I don't blame the gun culture. I fault the American romance with violence, but there's no happy ending to this love affair. It only gets worse.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 11 years ago

I was just adding back up to your reply.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 11 years ago

Thanks. Brain fart on my part.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

The shooter in Colorado is a symptom of a culture that has stopped caring. More gun laws won't prevent these acts.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Yet fewer of these laws will create more of them.

Take your pick.

As I've said before, we've quit accepting that people can be insane, and prefer to deal with them as criminals, so that's what they often end up becoming.

I guess it's just cheaper that way.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

"Yet fewer of these laws will create more of them."

So lack of gun laws creates more insanity? Access to guns does not produce insanity, our culture does.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Yep, and then it gives them guns.

And calls for more of them. It's actually quite similar to the MAD doctrine.

If only there's enough of them around, no one will use them.

Plus you ignored the FACT that the (R)epelicants began dismantling mental health care decades ago.

Around the time these kinds of acts became more frequent.

What I'm saying is, lack of gun laws and lack of mental health care creates more of these kinds of actions.

It's a solvable dilemma, but it will cost money, rational laws and a rational health care system that includes mental health care.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Rational laws do not stop irrational people.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Irrational people passed the laws that we have.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

You give me a bumper sticker?

That is kind of irrational.

How about this?

Irrational laws, can stop rational people.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 11 years ago

fuck this!!! How about do away with gun checks, encourage people to get more guns so they can protect themselves. Gun control currently encourages, more to be unarmed and easy prey to criminals. Did you know I as an american citizen can sell any of my guns to whomever offerse me cash, and they dont need a background check? This loophole will always exist. And.... honestly if everyone in that theatre became unbrainwashed, and started enforcing their constitutional right to bear arms, how many people do you think would have been shot, 1? If so then Im 12 times over in correctness on this point.

Why are you so brainwashed that you think BIGGER GOVERNMENT is the solution, when if just more people had guns we could take care of it ourselves? You see, when people want more rules, its the same thing as saying, "LETS PAY THE GOVERNMENT MORE MONEY". Those rules and permits cost us money, but why, why should we pay for our constitutional right? Im tired of it, and i dont want to even pay the government to drive my dam car! And I sure dont want to pay them cause I didnt fasten my seatbelt! Show me that in the constitition!!!!!!!!!!!!

We need to keep more of what we make, unbrainwash the people, SMALLER GOVERNMENT IS THE KEY TO PROSPERITY!

Here in utah, rarely are their burgularies because the last few that made the news the intruders were shot dead. Most everyone I know has a loaded gun in their home! And cops showing up the next day to take down worthless information never results in return of our merchandise. Hell twice they even caught the guy that robbed my vehicles in California, and said, they cannot release any information due to privacy act. The cops ended up auctioning off my stuff, and didnt even have the sense to tell me where to go pick it up, (my wallet was on one guy). Typical government worker. Im for shooting people who take away my constitutional rights! if congress doesnt start responding to the peoples wishes. We are the fucking boss, not the government worker bums who failed at self reliancy, dont ever forget!

[-] 2 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

Yea!!!! Thank you for putting it right on this matter. More regulations DO mean sending MORE money to gov't. And gov't being in charge of anything is the wrong answer to any problem. Why? Because they are usually incompetent or desire power of authority they can abuse. We see it every day with the TSA now. It is just disgusting. There are NO terrorists in this country who could have been prevented from getting here if we upheld immigration laws and defended our borders instead of policing the world and the people of this country with the countless police agencies throughout gov't.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Except for the ones who decide to become terrorists who have lived here all of their lives. I am sure there is a list here somewhere.

A lot of people would feel more secure, if the only people who had guns were the one's who don't think anyone should have them.

The corollary would be: A lot of people would feel less safe, if the people who want guns, have them.

I guess a lot of people don't want others to feel safe.

[-] 1 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

"Except for the ones who decide to become terrorists who have lived here all of their lives. I am sure there is a list here somewhere." You hit the nail on the head. Ever hear the term "domestic terrorists"? who do you think they are talking about? You and me and our neighbors and brothers and sisters and everyone else who is not one of them in those gov't police agencies or in a position of authority. Domestic terrorist makes it perfectly clear to me who they are talking about. We are the enemy combatant, the foe they fear more than any staged false flag event like planes flown into two skyscrapers who's owner just took out massive insurance policies with double payoff for terrorists attacks. And that were being forced to comply with asbestos laws that would have bankrupted the owners.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Oh yeah. The NRA. I should have thought of that. We are the victims. They have been terrorizing us for decades by arming crazy people who commit mass murders and scare the rest of us into buying guns to protect us from them This is even weirder than the rogue ATF agents that staged the gun running hoax.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

The cell phone wasn't invented by a guy who said, "You can't get rid of wires."

When someone says they can't solve a problem, I believe them. When they say a problem can't be solved, I don't.

When people are in love the problem, the problem doesn't get solved. Too many people with too much money love this problem.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 11 years ago

An armed society is a polite society. I know it’s a cliché, but still true.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

All guns should be illegal unless the owner is willing to go to training 3 times a week to be part of a "well regulated militia".

No private gun sales.

Anyone who sells guns illegally should get life in prison.

Thats constitutional.


[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 11 years ago

No, If the constitution says we have the right to bear arms, why do you want to add an ammendment that says only if I pay the government money, then I can bear arms? How do you people get so brainwashed into adding to a bigger government?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Where does the well regulated part fit into your thinking?

That always seems to get glossed over, as well as the founders thoughts on the meaning of "well regulated", in terms of a militia.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 11 years ago

i think we the people should form a well regulated militia as it is obvious that our government is trying to take away our rights, like a meat grinder of the law. We could call our militia, "whitewater".

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Nothing at all about what the founders said about it?

Not surprising really.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

There was an implied entity who was doing the regulating. That's the one they don't want to talk about. Is "un" a synonym for "well" ?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

You did notice he wanted to call it after whitewater.

Will they ever give up on their conspiracy theories?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Memory's for conspiracies - Good,

Memory's for facts - Bad.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Hmmm, but somehow they always manage to forget all about Watergate.

But then that wasn't a theory.

That was a proven conspiracy, perped by (R)epelican'ts, and truly treasonous.

So that one just goes on down the memory hole

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

But recently released (why?) tapes show it was even worse than the cynics imagined and Nixon was in it up to his eyeballs from the beginning.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Yep. Including shattering the Paris Peace Accords that would have ended Viet Nam and gotten Johnson re-elected.

He was about as treasonous as it gets, but you won't hear thing from that "wing" about it.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Winners get to write the history, they say, but some losers surely have, as well.

[-] 0 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

How about Barry's involvement with gunwalking? that is even worse than anything Nixon did. Nixon just erased a conversation to try and avoid being pointed at as knowing the breakin occurred. Barry knew all about the program before during and after it was happening and tried to cover up his involvement in it. Like him or love him...you don't know him.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Nixon prolonged the Vietnam war in a successful effort to get elected.

That's World of difference, from a failed plan to attack drug runners.

A World of difference..

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

No need to add an amendment. lets follow the 2nd amendment. Guns only if you are willing to train 3 times a week in a "well regulated militia"

No private gun sales. Illegal gun sales get life imprisonment.

Thats constitutional

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

That's correct!!!

Shoot all the poor people!!!!!!

Shoot the desperate!!

Shoot everybody that looks at you funny!!!

Shoot those that disagree with you!!

Do you own stock in Browning?

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 11 years ago

nobody said, lets go shooting, but consider those 4 planes that got hijacked, do you think we would have lost even one plane if everyone on board had a side arm? NO, this used to be one of our strenghts that we the people were well armed, well guess what, we arent now. We are sitting ducks, and the trillions of dollars that our government is spending to try to protect us since "the terrorists attacks" is just plain ridiculous. all the scanning at the airports, is wasted money, a good side arm is only a few hundred bucks, and it wouldnt cost the government a cent!

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

Ever see what happens to a plane at 40,000 when it looses a window or starts a rip in the skin?

Let me know which plane has a bunch of armed crazies on it (I know they aren't all crazies, but it only takes one, and obviously, there will be more than that.) and I'll take the bus.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

What do you think people do with guns?

They shoot people. It's the simple truth.

Your paranoid bullshit, is just that, bullshit.

NRA paranoid bullshit.

This is what it creates. More nut cases.


[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 11 years ago

you ask what people do with guns? Ive had a gun half my life, and i carry it just like my wallet, and i know that whereever i go, i offer a little bit of security to those around me, and alot for myself! Whats so hard to understand about that? Having proven and tested carrying a gun for years now. Even though the movie theatre says no weapons allowed, i still go in packing, just think if i was in there, i would have saved the day, and you would be eating your words. ha!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

I can see you've overthrow the government and replaced it with the NRA, as per the constitutional purpose.

You're more crazy than not.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

More weapons will mean more death!

Lets make all guns illegal unless a gun owner is willing to train 3 times a week in a "well regulated militia".

That seems constitutional. Training, observation, tracking, counseling,

And make it a life sentence to sell guns illegally.

That'll do it.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 11 years ago

Who do we trust to do this check? Define loop hole. Do I need to buy insurance like a car?etc. I learned to drive in the army,can I also transfer my "gun training" $1,000 is not what it used to be. What if I only could pay $99,999 Do the police not have enough guns as it is? Can you not double back a twelve round clip? Is the ban like a new war on firearms by the U.S Govt? Not a big fan of the NRA

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

If you want to be convinced that there should be national gun control, don't listen to those who say there should.

Listen to those who say there shouldn't. They will remove all doubt.

[-] 1 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

Every gun is semi-automatic unless it can only hold one round of ammo. This is a stupid idea or outright deception put up for a pointless debate. The last one about cutting off a finger with a donation even dumber. Grow up and learn real gun control is hitting your target in one shot.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 11 years ago

I think this is a thoughtful attempt. This is one area where we might benefit from trails of a variety of approaches on a state by state basis. I would like something to happen soon. As ZenDog points out mass killings are different from property crimes and perhaps gang warfare.

Since we never seem to learn from other country's experiences, (because "they aren't like us"), trying the same things they have implemented might finally convince some of us that some incremental changes might make incremental improvements in various aspects of the gun and non gun violence problem.

"Nothing can be done" means "I don't want anything to be done." We seem essentially split on the issue. Partitioning the country to reflect the diametrically opposed philosophies that are entrenched in this country may be the only solution. It seems to be getting worse not better. I am tired of trying to civilize the un civilizable. Maybe it is a Neanderthal ting?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

ADD ONE MORE part of the law;:
Gun owners must carry liability insurance
Since so many people are careless about where they keep it, if a child gets their hands your gun and shoots someone, the insurance will protect the victim, and COST will go up after it is used

[-] 1 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

homeowners insurance already covers this. and forcing people to pay another insurance fee will further increase the 1% ability to rule over us. Don't you get it at all? The 1% are the corporations that buy the law, that buy the justice system, that buy the legislators, and that run the executive branch and make appointments without elections of their other 1% friends into positions of power and authority. Wake up Please. PLEASE WAKE UP. You have been brainwashed, please wake the fuck up.

[-] 1 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

Restrictions on gun ownership and/or ammunition only empower the criminals in DC and on the streets. In DC it gives them full reign over the populace by giving them the true perception that they can not be held accountable by their fraudulent actions either by the justice system(already in place) or by a last resort method of vigilante justice. Restrictions only allow criminals to become better able to perform their criminal actions of violence and oppression and theft. Less restrictions allow arming more good people who prefer to not be on any government list which would automatically make them a target of the government. A list which no criminals would ever consider being on. Criminals do not adhere to proper and lawful laws imposed. Only good people who would otherwise never be a lawbreaker would grudgingly do this. But even more about this is the extra legislation would mean more taxes be imposed and those would be spent wrongfully also. Used in ways other than collected for and abused. Deny consent to these law breakers.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

are you wayne lapierre ?

[-] -2 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

Hell no, I never have even considered joining that organization. But they do prevent the passing of legislation that would destroy parts of the Constitution and our rights we are born with. Following the Constitution and limiting the powers of the gov't will only make the country better. We see what increasing their powers has done. Created the 1% and is now anihilating the middle class and the rest of us. Guns mean freedom from oppression by the ruling class.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

"would destroy parts of the Constitution" what parts?

[-] 1 points by DenyConsent2government (9) 11 years ago

Duh the second amendment. The NRA has fought a lot more battles on the side to maintain our right to bear arms than I will ever know.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

WRONG- the nra has "fought" no battles
they have bought congressmen
money ◄▬► power

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 11 years ago

to emphasize a point. when we take away our rights to gun ownership or make it extremely difficult to maintain that right, all we do is better arm the criminals. For example, I know people who could supply a grenade launcher, but at 5g on the black market, i dont know anyone who could afford one, (except the government).

[-] 1 points by tedscrat70 (-35) 11 years ago


[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 11 years ago

no way dude. our rights need to stay the way they are. i do believe in your thing bout training. education is the key to understanding. something you missed. when i buy an 1 assault weapon shouldn't be an issue. but if i buy 20 then i need to meet with an ATF official. if all guns were registered. then a government or anything else could get those records and disarm a militia. not a good idea.

[-] -1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

considering what happened at ruby ridge - you belive the government would try that with 50%-80% of American households ?
How long have you been a member of the NRA ?
Are you one of the suckers who bought extra ammo just before Obama was sworn in ?

[-] 3 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 11 years ago

to b honest i think the ATF is a worthless bunch who mess up everything. i think the Marshall service should run gun registration. NRA is lobby org. dont believe in the lobby idea of government.

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 11 years ago

vote on issues not people...

[-] 0 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 11 years ago

no sir. eastern ky hillbilly and i understand the meaning of the amendment the way our for fathers meant it to b. Article the fourth..... 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..
lets think for a minute. lets say some government power toppled our government, and trust me that could happen, we will need our arms unregistered and unlicensed. our nation can take over a country in a couple weeks. but a country couldn't take over an american city in three years thanks to our arms. if they became registered then all gun owners could be rounded up. not a good idea. i believe in occupy totally. but gun rights must be understood for what they are. protection of our nation.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

This position is the position of the NRA - you know the argument of the other side.
Most amendments need "tweaking" and HAVE BEEN Do you have the legal right to own a tank or patriot missile?
Or a fully automatic machine gun ?

[-] 1 points by larocks (414) from Lexington, KY 11 years ago

then here is a ? to you. if i develop a weapon that is more advanced than anything the government has does that make it illegal. should i be jailed and my property taken from me?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

no - but your straight jacket should be loosened

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Not yet, but the NRA is working on it.

Gotta keep those liberals down, don't ya know.

Please note the paranoid rant above.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 11 years ago

We can start by closing the gun show private sale loophole. And give the seller life in prison for illegal sale.

We'll see real improvement in gun death stats.

I also agree with pot legalization. That would also mitigate gun deaths.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 11 years ago

Go forth and lobby. The ideas are good but go nowhere unless we develop some political clout to make them succeed.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

emasculate the NRA by taking away their ability to buy congress

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 11 years ago

Or learn to fight fire with fire and begin engaging the system.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

Add legalizing drugs - would not stop Aurora type event
but would cut the Chicago & Mexico gun problem by 90%


[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 11 years ago

Can you guarentee that we will not have any more mass killings by putting this law into place?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

of course not

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 11 years ago

Well then why is it though that "more gun control" will solve the problem?

I can't understand that logic - especially when we live in todays "violet society" where you never know when someone will attack you to take away your belongings.

Don't need a gun to mass murder people - a car can do that with efficiency - all one has to do is drive into a crowd of people.

Oh, I guess it's not an issue because it was an "accident" - not intentional but yet people die everyday in car accidents more then 20 a day.

No news reporting on that though.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

Proper con control will not stop insanity. It will reduce some killing. It is a lot easier to buy a semi-automatic + 6000 bullets than figuring out how to build a bomb or fly a plane. This killer was smart enough and crazy enough to use bombs if he could not get guns. Most are not. Legalizing drugs, taking the profit motive out of the trade would drop American street gun crime by at least 50% [ IMHO ]

here are some OLD statistics from 2000 - gun deaths per 100,000
countries with little gun control: canada 34
chile 12
spain 20
hungary 21
mexico 26
us 65
with strong gun control
estonia 15
finland 19
new zeeland 15

Of course the gun nuts would say NY & Chicgo, with very strong gun laws have high gun death rates, and just like willard's campaign, hide & twist the truth
these guns are bought but the truckload in the south and sold in the cities.
How many guns would be purchased in the south for $100 and sold in NY for $500 if there was a file of $100,000 for doing that for each gun?

[-] 0 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 11 years ago

Also, if you want to be taken seriously, you might not want to suggest amputating limbs from people you dislike. And you might not try something as futile as trying to ban pieces of metal that are easily 3D printed. Also you might not want to increase the value of stolen weapons by 50%, unless you secretly want there to be a greater incentive for criminals to own guns.

[-] 0 points by Clancy (42) 11 years ago

So basically the only guns would be bolt action rifles and shotguns? What about people who already own semi auto weapons? This whole national registration is pretty much a list of all possibly dangerous persons .

[-] -1 points by vvv0729 (-189) 11 years ago

We need to be disarming the Pentagon, not the People.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

we cannot disarm the pentagon without FIRST disarming the war profiteers

[-] -2 points by vvv0729 (-189) 11 years ago

There is no difference, you idiot. The Joint Chiefs of Staff answer to Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrup, General Dynamics, United Technologies, etc.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

Ahhh- name calling! Are you in third grade? or senile?


[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 11 years ago

we have a ntional gun law, its the 2nd amendment.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

works well doncha think?


[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 11 years ago

Here, I will edit the typos out of your post so people will take you seriously:

  • Change "minimumtwo" to "minimum two"

  • Change " "gun show" loop holes" to "private transfer loop holes"

  • Change "file" to "fine" (twice)

  • Change "or by an" to "by an"

  • Change "a an" to "an"

And put a period after lines 3,4,6,9,11,12,13 and 14

[-] -1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

the US economy sells a lot of weapons

Global Arms Sales By Supplier Nations

39% United States

18% Russia

8% France

7% United Kingdom

5% Germany

3% China

3% Italy

11% Other European

5% Others


[-] 5 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 11 years ago

Call A cease fire of US Military Aggression