Lawmakers touched by gun violence take debate personally

Senator Diane Fienstien has displayed extreme ignorance with firearms.
Semiauto rifles are only good for “Killing the most people in short periods of time”. Shes speaking of a weapon the kills less then 400 people a year, which pales in comparassion to handguns, tabacco, fast food, sugar, car accidents, achohol, etc.

Diane Fienstien enjoys armed secruity, she has no right to dictate how we defend ourselves.
Banning standard capacity Magazines is just wrong.

Reuters I bet you got your “reporters” from used car lots, right?

It seems it is time for the honest upstanding American citizen to start debating when to exercise their 2nd Amendment right against tyrants in this country who wish to enslave them.

Perhaps we need to think about a declaration of independence from King Obama and his minions?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Let’s ban guns from cops, that’s what crippled the Congressman. There were 4 handguns found in Newton and no assault rifle. Prior to theincident the shooter tried to get a gun and was denied buying one. What is the real story here.

” declaration of independence from King Obama and his minions”?

Really? He is the legally and democratically elected President. You are aware that America recently had a free and fair election, right? You like to quote legal and constitutional documents so this should be easy for you to verify. Why are elections fair when teh GOP wins, but a monarchy and dictatorship when Obama wins? Please, snap back to reality.

You are welcome to “declare independence” by turning in your passport and moving to Russia, like Gerard Depardieu. Oh, wait, handguns are illegal there. Maybe Somalia would be a good place for those who want independence from a govt trying to protect it’s citizens from having criminals and mentally deranged people owning guns. You are welcome to exercise your 2nd amendment rights, they may just not be precisely as broad as they have been the past 4 years. Speed limits change, states modify abortion rules, gun limits may also change very modestly. Get over it, really, we will all survive.

In four years you can step up to the plate maybe with a better candidate that America would actually want as a president.

Sarcasm, derision and a shallow misunderstanding of the legal, social, historical and constitutional aspects of firearms issues will not help anyone.
Pay attention to President Clinton who warned citizens against trivializing away gun owners concerns.
The proposals being brought forward are an attempt to legislate away firearms ownership. The only reason to compile a national firearms ownership list is to collect taxes or confiscation.
Hey, Reuters, don’t think we haven’t noticed your bias. Might be more professional to be a little more objective to both sides of the issue.

Why don’t we consider issuing a six-shot revolver to every citizen when they get their social security card/number. It would then be registered to them for life. If it were used in any crime, they would be held responsible, equally as guilty as the perpetrator. If that idea would be made law today, it would bring gun violence to a halt. Failing that, maybe we could start the ball rolling when ED drugs are perscribed to the testosterone-challenged GOP-NRA wanna-be cowboys.

WhyMeLord – All your proposal would do is create a black market for stolen six-shot revolvers to be used by criminals. Kinda like how SS info is stolen and sold to criminals already.

It appears that all male members of society should be locked up since we, collectively, have the physical appendage to commit rape. This is the same analogy that is being applied to firearms. I have firearms and not a one of them was used to assault these stump screaming anti-gun politicians. The politicians need to attack the root cause of violence. Mental illness, criminal intent and anything that desensitizes one to the value of life. The current federal and state laws are quite adequate to qualify LEGAL purchasers for gun ownership. The criminals and criminally insane will not fill out any forms or obey any law that gets in the way of their intended act. The politicians are, basically, saying to us legal gun owners; give up your guns, be restricted in what you may have, and/or anything else to cause undue hardship on law abiding citizens. The criminal element is waiting for the politicians to make criminals out of legal law-abiding gun owners by violating 2nd amendment rights or hamper their ability to defend their home, family, hunt, target shoot, and all other legal firearm activity.

Liberals believe in guns for me but not for thee.

I am pretty sure Feinstein is not trying to take away ALL guns, and further, if she were, you should trust that she has zero chance of passing through congress so some of you are expressing an irrational fear for something that most certainly cannot happen. They are not trying to repeal a constitutional amendment, they are specifying limits to the rights to bear arms. Just as there are limits to free speech, for example, personal threats and yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

I support the 2nd amendment, the rights of individuals to bear arms, even “assault rifles” which are really costume rifles for people who want to pretend to be in the military. I also support stricter background checks and research to understand why wackos are shooting up schools. If guns were just slightly harder for a normal person to obtain, like a motorcycle license, then I think less people would be accidentally and unlawfully killed while legal responsible people would still be allowed to have guns, including handguns and “assault” rifles. I know that sounds unreasonable for some people on both sides but I hope as a society that we can compromise and take reasonable steps to curb unnecessary and violent deaths.

While not-constitionally protect rights such as “driving a car” were not specified (hello, no cars in the 1700′s)what was available as a right was slavery, and slave [guarding] militias were a significant factor in arming local state militias in the south, and a influence on the wording and implementation of this amendment. It wasn’t until the 1970′s, nearly 100 years after its formation, that the NRA stopped advocating for licenses, background checks and modest curbs as part of the “well regulated” requirement of the amendment. So, the NRA can change it’s position and so can society, though the legal actions by elected officials.

The president is well within his rights to ask congress to consider passing new laws. This does not mark the end of our society as we know it, this is not tyranny, these is constitutionally provisioned adjustments to our civil society within the legal framework established by our forefathers.

If the NRA is so sure that guns will protect them from tyranny, than you really should have no fear of your ownership on a list because you will have your guns to protect your guns, as you say. Do not be afraid, you are a minority but powerful interest and no one is suggesting now or in the future that the gub’mit is coming to round up your guns. It’s just that everyone else would like to add just a little bit of friction to the ownership process to deter criminals and dangerous elements.

Lanza certainly wasn’t shopping the “black market” for guns, he got them from his mother. Lot of good they were protecting her we might add.

I disagree with a total ban of semiautomatic rifles, but not for the reasons half the bully-type commenters have given.
I’m a victim of gun violence that almost killed me too, but it wasn’t a semiautomatic that did it.
The reason I’m against a ban is simply that fully automatic weapons exist even as we speak but none have been used in any recent massacres. The reason is that they have so much regulation and documentation on them that total IDIOTS like Adam Lanza are extremely disinterested in using weapons like that. They hate anything to do with paper trails and documentation for obvious reasons.
So why can’t you just put the same regulations on semiautomatic weapons that already exist on fully automatics. They’re both about as dangerous from the view of anyone you shoot with either an automatic or semiautomatic. That way people who like the weapons for other reasons would still be able to get them, but people like Nancy and Adam Lanza wouldn’t. I don’t think she would have bought a weapon you can’t sell just anywhere. I also don’t believe Walmart has any business selling weapons like that. You should have to go to a gun shop and go through all that documentation, which should intimidate nobody but a suspicious person.
I think that’s a better way to compromise than banning something for others that wasn’t even banned from Adam Lanza, and he’s the one who did it. Other people who’ve never even thought of doing that and never WILL think of it shouldn’t IMO have to suffer Adam Lanza’s sins that he killed himself just to get away from having to be held accountable for.
That’s my opinion in the matter. I don’t believe the sins of the father need to be visited on the children. I think the children who are different from the father should be acknowledged for being different.