More funerals, White House meeting follow school attack

Comments (34)
McBob08 wrote:

Let’s just hope that the gun lobby clings to its soul instead of its agenda in the wake of this senseless tragedy. Gun Control is NOT the same thing as a Gun Ban, and it is in everyone’s best interest to ensure that we do our best to ensure that criminally and/or medically incompetent people are not able to get their guns legally. Yes, the illegal process of acquiring guns will always exist, but that existence does not preclude the need for the legal process to take sensible precautions. It is significantly more difficult and expensive for an irresponsible person to get a gun illegally, so precautions to prevent them from getting guns legally IS an effective deterrent for gun crime.

No rational person could possibly argue that having every single gun sale be dependent upon a clear criminal and medical background check from a complete database is a bad thing. It vindicates legal gun owners even as it defends against unsavoury elements from getting their hands on gun. It is simply not rational to oppose such measures unless said person IS one of those unsavoury elements himself.

Dec 19, 2012 9:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
redmerlot wrote:

Controlling guns is not the same as controlling violence. Until we all understand that, our efforts will be a failure. Washington will pass their gun regulations, pat themselves on the back, and a year from now, we will hang out heads and cry again, when some other nut-job walks into a school with a home-made bomb strapped to his back and kills 50 more school children.

Dec 19, 2012 10:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TxCharlie wrote:

We should be looking at the root cause first : Detection, treatment and monitoring of CRAZY PEOPLE. Then the secondary problem, woefully inadequate security at schools.

Believe me, the anti – gun lobby are in a statement of breathless excitement to finally have a tragedy pop up that makes the gullible public throw the Constitution under the bus.

Dec 19, 2012 11:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stevestum wrote:

I say shame on our government for using these two tragic events to push their agenda.

Dec 20, 2012 12:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
willie48 wrote:

Political history is nested within natural history. The social structure of a population as mandated by their government, is also an evolutionary environment. And environment shapes the character of its constituents, for worse or better, dysgenic or eugenic.

Gun control fosters learnt helplessness. Gun liberty fosters moral self reliance. And moral self reliance is the absolute requisit for self government. “Control” by force of arms and perfidious propaganda, is an important instrument to the yankee government; they want the people to leave the driving up to theme. Acquiescence, by the force of moral cowardness, dressed up in the shallow guise of courage and patroitism, seems to be the moral stance of the current majority ; they want government to save them.

“External safety” is a contradiction visable only to the critical thinking sapient; the creative minority. Auto – government is not self government, but rather autocracy, tyranny by another name . Moral self reliance is also a requisit for the evolution of mores that guide the tribe to survival .

Psychologist L Kholberg’s research reveals that the moral self reliant, the post – conventional moral reasoners, are a minority; the majority are a class of uncritical, follow – the – leader, authoritarian, conventional moral reasoners. Babbitts delux.

The domination of authoritarian personalitys over the self reliant personalitys, is profoundly repugnent, and provokes the radical alienation of the sapient from the dominant system. This naturaly provokes the self reliant to secession. That is, self reliance is a genetic trait that enables the critical assesment of the legitimacy of state society, and the raising of consciousness of the intrensic rift between the sapient and the credulous. It is the beginning of a speciation event. Those who want to live in the padded cell of a made -safe society are welcome to do so, even as it drives them to extinction. Good riddence.

Dec 20, 2012 12:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
FrankOtheMT wrote:

There’s no answer here. Sick of all of you yonkos arguing about guns. These guys can’t even make a budget, but you expect them to regulate weapons somehow? The guy was a freak and everyone knew it. You can’t do anything until they flip out. Even then, they are let right back out. There are 1000s just like him. Some people are just defective.

We are primitive idiots.

Dec 20, 2012 12:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dakotacountry wrote:

gun control isn’t the answer and one might think that those that think so are part of the reason we have these type of shooting,, 50 years ago we had gun racks at the back of the school for the country kids that hunted on the way, guns haven’t changed much since then.But people have. We have a ban on drugs and you can buy them on any street corner. when a drunk driver kills someone we don’t blame the kind of car he was driving or that it was to powerfull or talk about taking them away. Maybe it s those Video games that kids play like the ones you kill people or gang members popping in and out of corners, Kids practice these ganes over and over untill it gets in there blood. They show the characters getting shot with big blood spots,Let’s look into the real reason for the killings, not the guns.

Dec 20, 2012 12:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dakotacountry wrote:

gun control isn’t the answer and one might think that those that think so are part of the reason we have these type of shooting,, 50 years ago we had gun racks at the back of the school for the country kids that hunted on the way, guns haven’t changed much since then.But people have. We have a ban on drugs and you can buy them on any street corner. when a drunk driver kills someone we don’t blame the kind of car he was driving or that it was to powerfull or talk about taking them away. Maybe it s those Video games that kids play like the ones you kill people or gang members popping in and out of corners, Kids practice these ganes over and over untill it gets in there blood. They show the characters getting shot with big blood spots,Let’s look into the real reason for the killings, not the guns.

Dec 20, 2012 12:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
sgreco1970 wrote:

I’m a demcorat but I’m anti-gun control. While I don’t want to see full gun control in our nation ever, I would be interested to see what lawmakers might propose. Something does definitely have to be done and we can take measures without rescinding american’s right to bear arms. We have to find a middle ground here because, while I feel full gun control is wrong, I feel its just as wrong to just do nothing. Something has to be done.

Dec 20, 2012 12:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
tergen wrote:

He’s been re-elected but still the pointless speeches, empty promises, and road to nowhere?

The only efficient system seems to be the flow of trillions of public dollars back and forth between the administration and their buddies in big business.

American dream? It’s dying. The business of America was business. Now, the business of America is the financial scam.

After Joe solves the gun problem he can take a couple of days and solve the Mid-East. And then over the weekend he can cure cancer.

Dec 20, 2012 12:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
Evo1 wrote:

This is complete BS. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. It’s a fake term made up to scare the ignorant into supporting a failed political agenda. There is such a thing as an assault rifle, but those are military weapons invented in WWII, and have been strictly regulated in this country from the moment they were invented. When California passed one of the first “assault weapon bans” in the US, they couldn’t even come up with any definition of an assault weapon at all, and so they just listed a bunch of guns by name. When the manufacturers just changed the names California had to try to come up with a definition, so they list a few strictly cosmetic features that supposedly make a semi-auto sporting rifle into one, although the same rifle, functioning exactly the same way, firing the same bullets at the same rate from the same magazine is not one if you just remove the cosmetic “evil” fixtures, like a pistol grip or a bayonet lug, none of which affect the way the gun functions at all. As a result, people just remove these cosmetic features and the exact same rifles are once again legal despite California’s supposed ban. So the idea that such a ban makes anyone safer, even if we accepted the total BS claim that these rifles are a threat (they are used in only 2% of gun crimes, according to the FBI, and have only been used in 3 school shootings ever, with most, including the deadliest, being carried out with handguns). Thousands of the same rifles are owned and sold in California still, because there is no way to functionally define “assault weapons” that doesn’t include many guns that clearly are not. And all these anti-gun politicians know this, so for them to try to sell you on the idea that this law is needed, or that it would actually even accomplish anything, is an absolute lie. They’re just trying to make guns the scapegoat so that they don’t have admit that they aren’t about to even try to address the real causes and cures of violence in the US. There’s no political gain in it for them, because feeding fear keeps them in power. Actually solving the problem would take away the fear that wins them votes.

Dec 20, 2012 1:43am EST  --  Report as abuse
bootcut1 wrote:

Yes something has to be done. Instead of always having a knee jerk reaction and blame any kind of gun when a tragedy like this happens, lets address the cause first. These school shootings is a recent phenomena. I blame some of society and the way some parents raise their kids for fostering this rise in school shootings more then I blame the guns used. Lack of monitoring or even the lack of caring in their child’s activities, and violent and graphic video games play a major role in that. Now before the gamers chime in and say “I play them and I don’t go out shooting people” and most probably, a great majority of them it does not affect. But the few that have a social disorder, been bullied or have a mental illness it can affect greatly. I find it shocking that some parents see no problem with little Johnny playing these violent and graphic games for hours on end while guzzling cans of energy drinks. Now I say little Johnny because I don’t recall any girls perpetrating school shootings. And the reason being girls are generally not as aggressive as males and they generally don’t play the violent video games. Kids growing up are subject to enough violence through other media outlets including the internet. And these games just keep getting more realistic and Graphic. Some parents are allowing their children to become desensitized to violence, and look at other people as inanimate objects. Same thing that happens to some military personnel from combat. I’m not suggesting banning video games, but the most graphic and violent ones should be regulated like alcohol and tobacco and yes firearms. No one under eighteen can buy them. If you are caught selling them at a garage sale to a minor or purchasing them to give to a minor or even giving them to a minor, you would be prosecuted just like you were giving alcohol to a minor. Unless we address the cause, adding more to the existing firearms laws will do nothing. Banning the size of a magazine is stupid. I’m no expert in firearms but It takes only a couple of seconds to drop a 10 round clip and pop another in. And even if guns were banned altogether, a person with a sick mind will find another way to carry out their act. A speeding car driven into a crowd of people could do a lot of damage. Its been done before. Address the cause not the object used.

Dec 20, 2012 2:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
bootcut1 wrote:

I would also like address the people who keep saying you don’t need assault rifles to hunt. It is apparent these people have no idea why the we have the second amendment. It was not written to allow people to poses guns to hunt with or for defense against criminals. Hunting was a everyday way of life then and how many got their meat. It was written so the people would have a defense against a tyrannical Government.

Dec 20, 2012 2:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
Vanessa_st wrote:

so the answer to gun violence is to ban guns. What is the answer to knife violence, blunt-instrument violence and car-violence?

Dec 20, 2012 3:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
19cashman57 wrote:

I wonder if Joe will come up with the idea of removing those “NO GUNS ALLOWED” signs at the entrances of the sites of the massacres, schools, malls, and theaters?
Those little signs mean “PLENTY OF DISARMED VICTIMS, OKAY TO SHOOT” to the nutcases and weirdo’s that commit the crimes.
In order for there to be security in a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. When it is infringed by silly policy makers and the liberal types we see that there is no security.
If they want to stop the mass murderers they need a plan that is better than a little sign on the door.

Dec 20, 2012 5:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
idonthinkso wrote:

Proverbs 22:6 Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

Children who are raised and taught to place a high value on loving and respecting others do not commit the many mass murders we see. Mass murderers are not formed in a vacuum, they are formed by parents and the society.

Jesus said, “And you must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.”

I doubt that any kid who was taught that, and who saw his parents live that way ever went on a killing spree.

Dec 20, 2012 7:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

The problem is not the guns. I have yet to see a gun jump in someone’s hand and force them to shoot. One influence I can see is mainstream entertainment and just the acceptable social norms that laud being a “gangster” and a “thug” and show that the proper way to handle any kind of agreement is just to “bust a cap” in someone and suggest that anyone who tries to actually deal with disagreements in a non violent way is weak. Perhaps if we started addressing these issues then people will start talking when they disagree rather than shooting. But then that would mean people would have to be responsible for their (and their children’s) actions and we cannot have that can we?

Dec 20, 2012 7:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
BillKlein wrote:

The biased Reuters reporting collective shouts out its headline: “White House readies gun-control plan as more children laid to rest”

Notice that it did not read: “White House readies gun-control plan as more than 150 million legal gun owners who’ve never hurt anyone will continue not to hurt anyone today”

Dec 20, 2012 9:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
VultureTX wrote:

none of the DEM proposed changes so far would have prevented the NewTown shooting. yet they trot out the same stuff that failed thanks to their own legislative efforts.
Assault weapons ban reenacted (it sunsetted in 2004)
Large magazine ban (same)
Supposed gun show loophole (individuals are not allowed to use the instant check system that dealers use. why?)

Add mental illness info to the background check system. (oh wait DEMs won’t touch this one seriously. they would lose their base)

So a bunch of proposals that would not have stopped Adam in Newtown, would not have stopped Nidal Hassan at Ft. Hood. and likely won’t stop the next mass murderer.

/to a person fixated on death the gun is only a tool and there must be 50 ways to off that mutha’

Dec 20, 2012 9:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
BillKlein wrote:

VultureTX is correct. Despite Feinstein’s posturing to reinstate the so-called “assault weapons” ban that expired in 2004, Columbine occurred in 1999–smack in the middle of the 10 year stretch that the last ban was in effect. Did it matter much, Diane? BTW, Diane, are you still carrying concealed as you once said you were? Or is it enough for you now to be surrounded by your own private security force? Must be nice to be a part of those 1%-ers. What about the rest of us 99%, huh, Miss Feinstein?

Dec 20, 2012 9:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

What we need are better ways to identify disturbed people like Lanza and Loughner, and either get them some help, or get them locked away from the general population.

In the case of Loughner, a lot of people knew he was unbalanced, but nobody did a damned thing about it, especially Pima Community College.

Dec 20, 2012 10:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
venturen wrote:

What a useless effort. How about the glorifying of murder in Hollywood and video games. And Washington NASTY fighting!

Dec 20, 2012 10:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobber1956 wrote:

Yes oabam wants total control-but not of guns. He wants North America to fullfill his agenda. islam. He can not do that if we are armed. He has been working with the UN long before now. This just helps him push the issue with the unsuspecting sheep of his base. baaaaa! WAKE UP!

Dec 20, 2012 10:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
GaryChadwick wrote:

Who is going to be in Control of Gun Control. Who is going to Police that and them? Who or what suggested the Sandy Hill shooters mother to purchase firearms and what kind of firearms she should have. Who assisted her and her son in learning how to shoot them? They must have got to know her son some while doing that. Who would not want someone to be able to defend themselves when their rights are being violated? Were any of those answers in any news reports of the Sandy Hill incident? Check. Would special access to firearms be granted such as Handicapped Parking Access is to so many who don’t need or deserve it? (Know a dirty one you got one) Are the soldiers rights to bear arms going to be taken away when they turn their firearms in at their discharge? Do those who wish to be in charge of Gun Control have any hidden agendas? Are their friends,family,cronies and such going to be given special access to firearms and types of firearms? Could someone who is supposedly trained to sense and spot abnormal behavior and/or criminal behavior have prevented the Sandy Hill tragedy? Questions to ask yourself and others who sincerely wish to try and prevent these types of incidents from taking place.

Dec 20, 2012 10:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
mbgodofwar wrote:

The government is so keen on passing new gun regulation because that would mean that they’ve “protected us” and keeps them in office. How many schools did NOT have an incident of violence, shootings/stabbings, or homicide? Why punish the entire nation over something that happened to 0.001% of all American schools?

Dec 20, 2012 11:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
Mutantone wrote:

First “attacked an elementary school with an assault rifle.” Is a lie the Rifle was discovered in the car in the parking lot,unused in the tragic events, he used only handguns. And no mention of the medications that he was on at the time that were at the least a contributing factor. There are more Children and People killed yearly by Medical malpractices, yet where is the outcry about this?
There is another agenda here that is being ignored. Obama has a goal of disarming the citizens and we should be asking why? His original efforts with “Fast and Furious” was only to further restrict and remove fire arms from legal citizens his and Holders stated goals for the project. and again no one mentions that Obama’s fast and furious put weapons into the hands of people that should not legally have them.
Project Gangwalker the ATF and the DOF allowed the straw purchases of weapons which eventually ended up in the hands of United States gang members in Indiana” Operation Community Shield,” individuals are from El Salvador, three are from Mexico, one is from Honduras and one is from Haiti. ICE said the individuals are members or associates of the following street gangs: MS-13, Sur-13, and Zoe Pound.  Charged in connection with the shooting of an Indianapolis police officer last week are gang members, the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office Gonzalez-Ramirez is a member of the Puros Vatos Locos street gang, and Taboada-Perez is a member of the SCT-13 gang. Both have tattoos that express allegiance to those gangs, authorities said. and other weapons have been found at crime scenes in that state and surely have spread out from there to other gangs.
An Unarmed population would allow the expansion of the restrictive-unconstitutional power grabbing attempted by the Obama regime. If he is allowed to continue the Citizens will not have the means at hand to over throw the Regime. As the Constitutional right to bear arms is being destroyed by saying the exception is that it states a well As passed by the Congress:

“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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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..”
It does not require that the people belong to a Militia to own fire arms but for the Militia to exist, the people are required to bear arms. and the democrats are trying to interpret that Second Amendment to fit their restrictive goals Just what part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is it that they do not understand? And yes this should mean that the People should have fire arms equal to those of the military, as the intent was to keep the nation free from those that would try to overthrow the Rights and freedom of the People.

Dec 20, 2012 12:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GospelVenice wrote:

Obama wants to turn the U.S. into Benghazi with their gun control laws. A dangerous lawless immoral country like the U.S. needs people trained in how to use guns (like police are trained) and they need to be put in public places (like the Israeli’s do) in airports, train and bus stations etc. Also the teachers who teach in the failed public school systems need to be trained in the use of fire arms to protect the children while in their care. Some schools already do have an armed presence to protect the Children. The U.S. is becoming a failed state like many in the middle east and elsewhere and it’s not going to get any better as it’s already become a gangster ridden place.

Dec 20, 2012 12:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BeanerECMO wrote:

I’m not enthused by guns. The only weapon I have is the one I carried for survival in Vietnam and later in other places, as well as home protection. That being said (excuse the strong language; no, don’t excuse it, absorb it), the stupidity and ignorance of the liberals and so-called progressives is mind-numbing. If all the anti-gun laws were enforced, only criminals and evil persons would have weapons. Clearly, we must advertise more around schools that this is a gun-free zone and then the evil people will shy away from such places – NOT!!!

As a “combat veteran”… IF you know there is an enemy out there who ambushed your children 31 times in the past; i.e., school shootings; and you also discovered that the police NEVER yet arrived on time to stop the shooter; and that all the “safety precautions” lock downs, hiding, running; RUNNING AT the shooter as did the principle at the school; “shielding” the children did not in fact save those children or themselves. I would ask why is it then that the Brady Brainwashing Bill that is embedded into teachers, principals, fathers and mothers of children at schools; not to mention the police, who if THEY were being shot at would shoot back to kill, is still being looked at as the answer for saving the lives of innocents murdered? Gee FBI and Law Enforcement; why are YOU so silent to the OBVIOUS!?

Did you notice, (probably not) that not one time was the question or statement directed at what could of or would of happened if the principal, the nurse, or any of the teachers had a gun and shot at this killer what the result would have been? Would it have been worse in terms of results? Does anyone think that a trained loving woman who wants to protect those children would rather have had a chance to SHOOT AT this killer rather than RUN AT him?

All the safety measures put in place and appear to continue to be maintained will NEVER protect children in schools from this. AND NOT ONE 911 call has been in time to stop the massacre…not one. I call it “Dial 911 and DIE”. All you see after the “killing field” has been established is police acting like they are doing or have done something when in fact…they did NOTHING!

So if teachers who love children, parents who love children, who want to protect their children; then be as prepared as a cop or a veteran would be for potential combat. Better to have a gun and not need it than need it and not have it. It is because the 2nd Amendment was in the school trash can that those kids are dead.

There should have been a sign on that door and all school doors…”Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempt to harm our children will be met with deadly force”. The “other sign” is an invitation – as it was in Aurora where there were 2 theaters closer, but the one where the tragedy took place advertised that concealed weapons were prohibited – and always will be and always has been including on this day of infamy. It was not the gun that killed those children; it was NOT having a gun to protect them that killed them and I say that from being shot in combat. I would have laid down my life for those children…by not running at them…but by placing one bullet in his head before he had a chance to do what he did. Why can not a woman; who is a teacher or a principal; who loves her children, do the same, or want to?

By the way, the deadliest school attack in this country — deadliest school attack in American history — was in 1927. That was the Bath School murders in Lansing Michigan. Thirty-eight children and seven adults were killed, including the killer himself. Oh, he didn’t use guns. He used dynamite.

Also, have you heard anything of armed citizens stopping attacks in public places? No? There were 13 such episodes within the last 3 weeks and several were done by women, one as old as 86. But, you won’t hear any of that from the lapdog, progressive MSM, either.

Dec 20, 2012 12:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mitchrx7 wrote:

All Gun owners/ enthusiasts I know are doubly sad about the past events. We gather together in the gun shops to mourn the coming attack on the Constitution as well as to insure our defense. You can see it in their eyes, the dejected look that it has all come to this. That the emotional populous would reject history and choose to deny defense, in order to stop offense. It’s a poison recipe that has created dangerous criminal heII holes like Chicago and Washington D.C.
Of course the recent bloodshed is senseless and the reasons why this child/man chose to break the primary law, “thou shall not kill” will be explored. But again we are saddened by the desperate attempt to undo what has been done by needlessly and ignorantly attacking the right of others to defend themselves against the EXACT same threat.
Natural disasters like Katrina and societal disasters like the Rodney King flashmob riots proved that the rapid breakdown of the local society is possible thereby illustrating the law biding citizens need for this capacity of defense.
A gun is a tool, not a being. It is a good tool, that can insure the safety of the defenseless against deadly threats. It is THE equalizer. This fact should be especially important to women, and the weaker among us. The US has known this since our founding and placed it prominently in our Constitution, second, as the second defends the 1st.
The problem is people.
The answer is education, not legislation.
The problem is people.
The answer is Liberty, not tyranny.

Dec 20, 2012 1:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GaryChadwick wrote:

Revision on previous comment: Sandy Hook not Sandy Hill. Please excuse. Gary Chadwick

Dec 20, 2012 1:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dbryceman wrote:

This was a terrible crime. Laws cannot prevent crime.

The way to make it more difficult for this to ever happen again:

Private Schools on Private Property with Armed Private Security.

You can sacrifice all of your freedom for a little security, and you can pay for it. That’s a right that you have as an American. Nobody has a right to blame all of America for one man’s crime, and make all of America pay the price in new legislation and new regulations that will also fail to prevent this crime.

Regardless of gun laws, if the last line of defense for these children was unarmed teachers throwing themselves at the shooter, our problem is not guns. Our problem is security and law enforcement. Signs do not create gun-free zones. Metal detectors, security checks, proper identification and law enforcement would take care of most weapon threats.

I don’t blame guns or gun laws for this. I blame the same government that gave you Fast & Furious and Benghazi. Incompetence kills people. More than once the federal government has repeated, “The border is as secure as it has ever been.” Apparently, so are the public schools.

Dec 20, 2012 3:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Rima68 wrote:

Let’s think. Did a gun go in there and kill those children, or did a crazy person do it with a gun. There is a big difference. We need to pay attention to the mental issues of our citizenry with a view to, either heal them or incarcerate them when they have violent tendencies. Until we address the mental health aspect of this kind of violence we will be at the mercy of it. A note to newscasters everywhere…DO NOT MENTION THE NAME OF THE CRAZY PERSON WHO DOES THIS SORT OF THING. That way they have no “blaze of glory” exit that they can comfort themselves with.

Dec 20, 2012 6:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
lemonfemale wrote:

Well, Rahm to the contrary, public opinion is generally against gun control. Unless you generally disarmm the public, stricter gun laws will not work because the guns are there. You want to stop a massacre? http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=4020052892030&set=vb.140211482669395&type=2&theater
Something I learned. The Aurora shooter had seven theaters showing “The Dark Knight Rises” on July 20th within 20 minutes of his house. Six of them allowed persons with concealed carry permits to bring their guns. One was “gun free.” Guess which one he chose?
I would not mind using the background check if it were available to me as a private citizen. A dealer at a gun show must use it. Just FYI. There IS no “gun show loophole”.

Dec 20, 2012 7:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
anti-milton wrote:

Some basic statistics available show that the NRA has 4.3 million members, and about 70 million US adults own firearms. The economics of gun manufacturing was valued at about $31 billion last year. In 2008 the same industry was valued at $19 billion.

That’s a lot of weaponry, money, and kill capacity driven by a small percentage of the population. In these hard times, selling deadly weapons is very profitable.
The NRA and Gun Owners associations are populated by an angry, cynical, paranoid, fear-mongering, conspiracy obsessed, racist minority.

The safety of American children, their innocence, their well-being and optimism for the future is buried under the weight of our cold hearted, hysterical gun owners, the NRA and firearms industry.

In my personal effort to move gun control regulations forward I will generously contribute to any anti-gun organization on the NRA’s (NRA-ILA) Hit List. You can view the list on the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action website. Get an eyeful of NRA strategies and check out “national organizations with anti-gun policies”

Dec 22, 2012 9:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.