Very good point Rob and too it I also have to ask why isn’t this a state issue?  Commerce clause of course, but aren’t most other gun reg’s state by state?  That commerce clause sure gets a work out compared to what I think our founders intended.
DKK

Indignant claims to 2nd Amendment rights don’t sell ad spots. Weeping mothers and fathers in the media do. After seeing this emotionally gripping scenario on TV and the Web, a person’s right to live outweighs a person’s right to own guns in most minds.

Any time there’s any kind of a gun control proposal, gun owners staunchly oppose it. Against all reason, the question will be, how many of our children have to die so you can have your guns?

Hunkering down is only going to cut it for so long. It’s a media game and the owners of the media want to disarm you. You need to play. Gun owners would be wise to demonstrate some responsibility by publicly coming up with a plan that will quench the publics thirst and actually do some good before one they don’t like is forced on them.

Pass the buck with some headlines like, “Gun Owners Appalled Over School Shooting”, “Local Gun Owners vow to make Our Schools Safe”, “Local Gun Owners Suggest Volunteer Police Force On Campuses”, “Gun Owners Up in Arms Over School Shootings”, “Gun Owners Demand that Police Do More to Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals”, “Gun Owners Say that People Who Allow Guns to Fall into the Hands of Children Should Be Punished”, “Illegal Gun Trade is Arming Criminals”, “The Flow of Illegal Weapons into the Country Needs to Be Stopped, Says the NRA”, “Gun Owners Patrolling Campuses Unarmed”, “Gun Owners are Prepared to Give Their Lives so Kids Might Live”

The long term plan is to make the public demand that you lose your weapons. They are chipping away. With the 2nd Amendment still in place and the majority still on your side, short term, it would be very easy to make the public demand that you have guns. This is how the game is played.

Stop whining and launch an attack before it’s too late.

Holy Smokes, I found someone on this website that I agree with. What’s this world coming to? Great article, along with the one about 24/7 sobriety.

-tb

this is just redundant, there are state laws in place that prohibit any one who as ever been hospitalised for a 72 hr. psyche evaluation from purchasing or owning a fire arm for a period of five years following their date of discharge from said hospital.

Rob,

Its a GREAT Law and you are mentally unstable for opposing it.

Yes we have the right to bear arms, but it is the government’s job to make sure we have the capacity to bear them responsibly.

Assualt weapons and the like should be banned immediately.  The founding fathers did NOT have those weapons of mass murder in mind when they said we could bear arms.

Yes we have the right to bear arms, but it is the government’s job to make sure we have the capacity to bear them responsibly.

Bill Mitchell,

Exactly what part of the Constitution says this?  Which particular penumbra or emanation specifies the government’s obligation to ensure the citizen’s capacity for responsible behavior?

And this,

The founding fathers did NOT have those weapons of mass murder in mind when they said we could bear arms.

is not only suspiciously frantic and shrill, but assumes an omniscience across the ages that is simply not in evidence.  If you are that familiar with the writings and private thoughts of the Founding Fathers by all means please cite a source for your conclusion.

Assualt (sic) weapons and the like should be banned immediately.

Bill you are such a moron! And you call Rob mentally unstable! This point of yours was refuted in great detail the last post you crapped it in! If you would only follow up on some of the threads where you comment you might learn something!

The bright side here is that it does provide funds to restore the rights of those wrongly banned from owning firearms, according to the article.  The downside is that it was by voice vote; voice votes should be BANNED, as they prevent voters from retiring “representatives” that are out of touch with their constituents by preventing them from learning how they voted.

For the record, this law would NOT have prevented the Virginia Tech killings, because the perp had never been seen by a psychiatrist, and thus the evidence of his mental illness was not admissible as a grounds for removing his gun rights.

What it does do, however, is order the VA to forward evidence of any battle fatigue/post traumatic stress disorder to the database.  More or less, if a soldier has any difficulty dealing with the fact he’s been in combat and has seen rather grisly deaths, the bill disarms him for life. 

More or less, it tells him “thanks for your service--sorry, but we’ve got to deprive you of your self-defense and any hunting opportunities that you used to have"--despite the fact that the soldier has demonstrated very clearly that he knows how to handle a weapon responsibly.

For the benefit of Bill’s ADD, here is where he posted this ignorant, immature and anti-gun piece of dreck last time! That was at 7:10PM. Within 45 minutes, had Bill not spotted something shiny, he might have seen this response.
The short answer (Because Bill isn’t real sure about how to work all the link thingys!):

Here you’re speaking out of pure ignorance (although, it looks an awful lot like everything else you say!): You do not even know what an assault rifle is, do you, Bill?
An assault rifle is one capable of selective fire, enabling the user to fire bursts of fully automatic fire. For the most part, since the National Firearms Act of 1934, these are NOT in the hands of civilians, unless they possess a Federal Firearms License. These are expensive and somewhat hard to come by, but the owners of an FFL may own fully automatic firearms. What the MSM (and buffoons like you) typically call “assault” rifles, (at least those who spell it correctly!) are semi-automatic rifles, many of which are only different cosmetically from many of the “Hunting and sporting rifles” which you call:  “Good.”
(Maybe you could get your facts straight before you venture to opine on things you really know nothing about?) Or could you stand that much silence?

Note: how I include links, unlike some people who know that they are both rude and full of sh*t!

Assualt (sic) weapons and the like should be banned immediately.  The founding fathers did NOT have those weapons of mass murder in mind when they said we could bear arms. -BM

Not only were there not “automatic weapons that could fire hundreds of rounds a minute” there were not automatic printing presses that could print hundreds of leaflets a minute. Maybe ”assault presses” should be licensed under your tortured interpretation of the Bill of Rights? -Proof

They had hunting muskets.-BM

Which were the “assault rifles” of their day. Thanks for the historical context, Bill. You do shallow like no one I know!-Proof

Okay! “Assault presses” wasn’t in my original quote, but I’ve used the phrase before in that context!