We do have a National Guard.

Besides, one more time – just for fun. No one is saying ban all guns. No one. We should be able to enact some common sense gun laws modifying the back ground check loop holes and large capacity magazines. I personally don’t see the need for any assault-style weapons, but am willing to discuss a compromise.

Too bad “gun nuts” can’t even bring themselves to discuss rational compromise.

Those that are nuts about guns refuse to educate like the "gun nuts" accomplished

►the right of the people◄ The people, not the national guard
► to keep and bear arms, ◄ Arms, firearms, semi automatic firearms. Not Slingshots
►shall not be infringed.◄ period

This group is not willing to listen. So it appears this need to be re said. No one is looking to bad all guns. There is willingness to compromise. Compromise needs to happen on both sides, however

Point Proven

► I personally don’t see the need for any assault-style weapons◄
►No one is looking to bad all guns◄

Yes you are. Since almost all guns today are semi-automatic what do you suggest we own? Bolt action, lever action? Or do you just not like the military look of an "assault weapon"?

So you ban weapons that look military, what do you do with the millions legally owned?
How about 100% gun free zones, maybe we should ban those. Since, by fact, 100% of recent mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones.

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.

Troy:

There is always someone looking to ban all guns. Guns really aren't the problem. Until we address the violent tendency of our society, we continue to have mass killings.

An AR-15 with a 30 round magazine versus a five round hunting rifle? Absolutely yes that makes me uncomfortable. I neither deny or feel embarrassed about that. And no. I am not proposing we ban all guns. I know you don’t believe me, but really-really. I am not proposing we ban all guns. Your accusations are not right or fair.

“How about 100% gun free zones, maybe we should ban those. Since, by fact, 100% of recent mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones.”

Nice NRA-style response with no merit. Repeating the Second Amendment does not change my position. There are interpretations of a well-regulated militia that just don’t hold up. And what if a business wants a gun free zone. Are you really going to regulate that and get in their way? What kind of free market capitalist are you? Sounds like oppressive government to me. I guess Obama isn’t the Socialist here.

Guns may not be the ONLY problem. I agree we need to review our violent natures. The loopholes and availability of the over the top weapons of mass death dealings need to be addressed, also. They just do.

Troy:

I really don't think it makes any difference if a guy uses an 'assault weapon', a semiautomatic hunting rifle, or a pistol. In 'gun free zones', the victims are all sitting ducks. Banning any or all of these weapons will not prevent mass killings, and I would even argue that gun bans can actually increase the amount of gun violence--we saw this happen in both Washington DC and Chicago.

I'm fine with closing 'loopholes' and have background checks and registrations done for every purchase. I don't agree with causing the lawbreakers to be better armed than law biding citizens.

There are no interpretations of the 2nd. It is what it is. The priest at the sik temple shooting got all the way to the killer with a butter knife. Then was killed. If he had a gun, he would have stopped it.

Craig:
Again, I agree with 90% of what you said. I just personally believe more hot lead flying through the air will not lessen the death toll. In a vast majority of these mass shootings, the perpetrator was wearing body armor. Any counter attack only increases the possibilities of bystanders getting caught in the crossfire.

And Martin Riggs can hit Anthony Kiedis’s Dad multiple times in the stomach while rolling around on the ground. I don’t know what would have happened if these church members had guns while worshipping an open and peaceful religion. I do see the benefits in separating fact from fiction.

Troy:

There doesn't have to be any crossfire. The knowledge that the would be victims, or a bystander may be armed is often enough to prevent the situation entirely.

… and just as often, it isn’t. Just ask Gabby Giffords.

Who's going to expect that any individual in a group of Democrats would be armed?

Don’t be so sure. There are plenty of Pro-Gun Democrats. Besides, if some nut-ball TeaPublican wins the presidency, I’ll take up arms.

KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

►“How about 100% gun free zones, maybe we should ban those. Since, by fact, 100% of recent mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones.”

Nice NRA-style response with no merit. ◄

Explain. Because it is fact.

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.

Again, just repeating the text of the Second Amendment doesn’t make your point more valid. Gabby Giffords was shot in the head and multiple people were killed – including a little girl and there were people around with guns. Indeed. One of the them almost open fired on those trying to subdue the shooter.

Compromising a bad idea is not rational.

FreeThought Troy: "...No one is saying ban all guns..."
Actually Troy, yes you are, just in baby steps like Liberals do everything else.

First it will be banning "assault" rifles using Diane Feinstein's new definitions. Then when another act of violence occurs, it will be something banning semi-automatics. Then when that fails it will something like Lyle's proposed ammo limitations. Then those limits will be lowered, and lowered again.

Eventually there will be no advantage for a law-abiding citizen to own a handgun since it will be remade into a slingshot with marshmallows as ammo.

Troy, We do have a National Guard but it is not a militia. Further, the governor's of the states lost control of the guard with the passing of the HOMELAND SECURITY ACT. We ought to be having a National Discussion about repealing Homeland Security not banning and strictly controlling guns is my best take. Smoke and Mirrors.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_happens_if_a_convicted_felon_gets_caught_carrying_a_gun

Looks like 15 years, but there are state to state exceptions. Of course, I could be reading this wrong.

But this is a rational discussion. I agree, those who treat these tools of death with the respect they deserve should continue to enjoy their guns. But I would really push toward the need for high capacity magazines and caches of ammunition (don’t know how to enforce and measure the cache requirement – seems pretty subjective so I would bow to your argument).

But these are the kind of discussions we need to be able to have. Glad there are some gun rights advocates who are willing to at least review policy.

FTTroy: I agree some changes need to be made. The Ct shooting did not affect my opinion about that. I feel upstanding citizens have a right to fully automatic weapons.
Laws that we have on the books need to be strictly adhered to. Those who are fraudulent in their application to purchase a firearm should be penalized with jail time.

Craig:
I personally think we have more common ground than our arguments. I agree with 90% of your positions. I think there is enough room for compromise to address the other 10%

Troy that may be the case. But in the political world everything is bizarro.
The vote to patch the hole is the fiscal cliff is a prime example of Government stupidity: it included $200 million to Hollywood movie producers, some $70 million to NASCAR to build a new track- the Country is going broke and the fools are spending like there is no tomorrow.
No chance the idiots will find common ground.

Sigh – I am afraid you are very correct in your assessment that nothing will happen. The news cycle is shifting to the debt ceiling and the NRA has a sh!t ton of power. Even if something will be proposed, it will get blocked either in the House or the Senate. Nothing will get done.

And yes - they are idiots in this way

Craig, is it logical to refuse all Felons the right to own guns? When the Federal Felon law on guns was passed we didn't have nearly the amount of felony crimes on the books as we do today. Then, Felons were infamous criminals. Today, many crimes are labeled felonies that are not heinous crimes. The drunk drivers, the non-supporters, the repeat offenders on and on. If were going to review gun laws lets do it right. Today we allow the crazies to own and use guns but we ban many sane little people who rely on hunting to supplement feeding their most often rural families.

Vocal Local:
I see your point. Please try to understand mine. I feel rights to vote and own a firearm are contingent to law abiding citizens.
That being said, if you payed your time, and the crime did not involve a weapon- you should have the right. As long as you are off of paper.

Thank you Bob!!! Finally, some one speaks the truth!!!

And throw in the fact that the Sandy Hook shooter was Jewish' a point the media has failed to report. Can you imagine if the Sandy Hook shooter was a Southern Baptist? You would never hear the end of it.

Hitler and most of his staff and Generals were all practicing satan worshipers and socialists. Look at the grand results of atheism around the world. Pretty deadly, pretty ugly.

The Colorado Shooter was also Jewish. How many others?

You are every socialists dream, a USEFUL IDIOT.

There's no reason to be paranoid when your have control of your gun.

VL1: A Well regulated Militia as defined by the US Supreme Court does not mean military or Guard. Well regulated back then meant capable, not government regulations- there was no such thing as Government Regulations back then either.
Militia simply meant armed citizens.

Your first mistake was using Wikipedia, as it is not credible.

They'll come for our nail guns too, our 22 cal Ramset fastener guns and lawn fertilizer.

The Second Amendment is not being attacked. Whoever is telling you that is lying.

What is happening, finally, is a review of the entire Amendment, not just a sentence fragment, and a robust, healthy discussion of what the 2nd Amendment actually means. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect citizens and it will continue to do so as long as our form of government remains.

Bren you are living talking points. The second amendment is being attacked and like a blind sheep you are following. What's sad is your inability to see what this administration is working at; taking your God given rights away. Some of us do not want to wake up one morning and see our liberty and freedoms gone. You, on the other hand will never wake up - you're perpetually sleeping. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

You do not have a right to go to the mall but you do have a right to bear arms. And it shall not be infringed.

Read the Bill of Rights Carol. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It's about liberty and securing YOUR freedom. Stop the BS about muzzle loaders and all that other non-sense.
We have waiting periods and registrations for law abiding citizens. When will you get it through your head that a criminal doesn't care about waiting periods or registration or big oil or Carl Rove (where did you come up with this?)
In case of a terrorist attack, you bet I'd want a RPG or whatever it took to fight on their level of power. But if it were up to you we'd have toothpicks and rubberbands.

carolo I absolutely agree. The well funded special interest groups and their strategists have done an excellent job of obfuscating the issue and stimulating the amygdalae of the easily-influenced for many years. As a result, these confused people cling frantically for life and freedom they believe, to a sentence fragment as if it was a plank of wood in a storm-tossed sea without really understanding the true intent of the 2nd Amendment (which doesn't ban them from owning guns). It's sad.

At the time the Constitution was written the Guttenburg printing press (single page hand set type setting) was state of the art. If you believe the The U.S. Constitution Amendments were only good for the times they were printed during, then by all means limit the news media today to the speed of the old Guttenburg press era. But why stop there? Rip up The Declaration Of Independence and strip out the all the Amendments up to the 12th because by 1803 (12 amendment) the Guttenburg press was becoming antiquated too.

You liberals are true to form. There's just nothing motivating you to learn or grow thus you let government policies you've created give you and tell you all they think you should be happy with and no more.

You liberals are THE USEFULL IDIOTS every socialist dictator has called you. Doesn't that insult you at all?

I like turtles.

Well, it may remind you of Union Workers, but it has no comparable bearing. If I do not want to pay NRA dues, I don't have to. I simply don't have to join. If I don't like what my dues are supporting for the NRA I can simply quit the NRA or again, never join it.

As a public school teacher, I don't have a choice. I will be in a union and I will pay union dues. If I don't like what my union is spending its money on, I can just suck it. I have no say in it.

The difference is in the more coercive nature of the unions. Some professions, some lines of work, it simply is not optional,. The NRA always is.

@WPN1488...If I follow your logic, then there must be some kind of correlation between male white's gun ownership and the fact that it has been predominately white males who have committed the vast majority of these random acts of mass killings. I can think of only four, incidents of where persons of color where the perpetrators of mass shootings; the Hmong man in Wisconsin's Northwest Woods, the D.S. Sniper, the shooter at Virginia Tech and the recent shootings in Brookfield. To my knowledge all the other mass killings where committed by white male perpetrators. Now why do you think that is?

The vast majority of shootings can be traced to commission of one on one crime or crimes of passion. These occur predominately in high crime areas, such as the inner cities. For those who aren't residents of these areas, crime can mostly be avoided by avoiding those areas. The vast majority of crime is associated with people of color, but it is usually an act for gain, whether armed robbery or "turf" wars. What can be learned from this; is that white folks are at more risk from other white folks, whether domestic partners, white supremacists, or the mentally ill white male.

Good morning Lyle,

I see you are back on your "it's the white man's problem" kick again. How do you sleep at night knowing that you are the root of all evil? Or, is it just someone who is a white male that is not you? The vast majority of drive-by's and gang shootings are committed by inner city black males. What are you doing about that? Actually, not a thing. And why? Oh, as a liberal, you'll find some reason why it is the white man's fault. Again how, as a guilt laden white male, do you sleep at night?

Lyle Ruble is the epitome of what defines a self loathing liberal Jew.

I am not really into conspiracy theories but here is a comparison of Hitler and Obama..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdOpg8KDkxE

Funny, but when I attempted to pull up this site, my filter blocked it as a Hate site. Just saying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
The scholars disagree on the personal, private, religious views of Hitler. One thing is common knowledge is the Holocaust was based on Christian principles – not Atheist. It is easy to peg all atrocities to Atheism especially in the -40s as Communism was Atheist. This; however, is not the case. The Nazis were Christian. The Church presided over the Inquisition and guaranteed forgiveness and automatic salvation for every Muslim killed in the Crusades. Christianity has had its fair share of atrocities. Presently, it’s not Atheists preaching hatred and bigotry. It’s Christians in this country. The President is not Atheist. He is Christian. His father was Atheist. He is not. He is Christian.

Awwe it's cute what the media feeds you

nom nom nom

FTTroy: Thanks for the uplifting link...
I love the smell of Liberty in the morning.