Feinstein is a truly abysmal creature and a wretched nanny-statist hag.

Mike,

And those are her good points.....

You telling me I can no longer buy "bullets" for my "shotgun"?

Excellent piece. It is a shame that this won't get wider exposure. My Governor, and Mr Gregory at last get some of the ridicule that they deserve.

Something that might interest you from The Federal Observer March 21, 2013...

"And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco - an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense."

I agree with Mr. Petzal on his 2nd law. That drives me bananas and I start to yell at the tv!

Mark - I have said this before, many times, and maybe on this blog, but if you fell that politics and your hunting rights are somehow separate issues, then you live in the same fairy tale world as Senator Feinstein. Mr. Petzal happens to be one of the few reasoned, intelligent voices that is vocal in the gun control debate, and he does so with a good deal of tongue in cheek humor.
If you feel that firearms for hunting are somehow different than firearms for recreation or self-defense in the eyes of an anti-gunner, then you sir suffer from a severe cranial rectal inversion of a rather immense magnitude.
There are volumes on the interwebs and in print regarding the relative merits of the always fascinating - .270 vs. .280 - Which kills Deader? - debate, but few people who actually have a gun owner friendly point of view that has real world merit.
Don't mistake your .270 for your AR-15, because as sure as a cat has a butt, the left doesn't care which is which.

The media comment that irks me the most is every shooting, hunting accident, or incident involving a rifle is always called a “high powered rifle” . So Mr. Journalist, “Whats a low powered rifle? a BB gun maybe”. Idiot! How come they never quite mention that shooting incidents are actually going DOWN, and hunting accidents (which were quite common when I was a kid) are almost nonexistant now.

Dave touched on media sensationalism in stories about fire arms, but what he really uncovered is the P!$$ poor state of journalism in this country. What happened to it? We went from Edgar R Murrow, David Brinkley and Ernie Pyle to twinkles with perfect hair. Congress and their pals are stealing us blind and the fourth estate spoon feeds us fluff.

You keep calling them like you see them Dave.

Hey Dave, you gave me one of the few chuckles I've had over this whole damn gun-grabbing mess. However your rhetorical question, "Words, after all, do have exact meanings do they not?" would, were they honest, be answered in the negative. Words, concepts, etc. are to be made as fuzzy as possible so that they can be stretched as broadly as possible.

Well, I see that I have been reading the wrong website. Enjoy your discussion. Over 'n out.

DEP- I really like your suggestions to Senator Frankenstein, especially concerning the Joe Biteme Act. Alas, all the suggested legislation is logical, thus, incomprehensible to the zombies and walking dead that inhabit the halls of the U.S. Congress and Senate. How about a Dave Petzal for Senate movement??

Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out!

There is a place in Government for politicians like Ms. Feinstein, But maybe the Senate isn't that place. She should be working with Nancy Pelosi to organize car washes, and bake sales to fund some of her party's spending habits.

Good points Dave. Mark out west sorry you have a thin skin man. Stick around we still love ya and you can spout your point of view all you want. Can't remember the particular group that got the video but one fo congresswomen was caught admitting that basically all firearms are fair game and that is the final goal, Australia and Britain serve as good examples of this.

At what age did Biden first discover that he could fit both of his feet in his mouth at the same time?

Right on Mr. Petzal! I'm especially peeved at the David Gregory incident and Cuomo's "safe act."

Markoutwest: You may have noticed, people who believe in the 2nd Ammendment and the Bill of Rights get very passionate about the politicians who swore to protect and uphold our Constitution actively trying to limit our rights. That passion for guns is probably one of the things that would have attracted you to this blog. You can't blame the man for having the same passion in defense of his rights. Sorry if you're not readying anymore.

Yep Dcast! That is THE Mikey D!

"It's not that liberals are dumb! It's just that they know so much isn't so!" - Ronald Reagan

Particularly like "The Homicidal Sh**head Philosophy Non-Disclosure Law," which would do more good when it comes to preventing acts of mass murder than anything being actually contemplated in D.C.
As a semi-former member of the wretched third estate (I still write sports), I believe that the media circus that erupts in the wake of one of these killings clearly serves to inspire the next one. Nor does the blanket coverage serve any useful purpose other than to indicate to some morose loser that he can gain similar public attention and immortality by blowing other innocents away. I'm not suggesting any infringement of the 1st Amendment, and these events are certainly newsworthy, but wall-to-wall video of the event in concert with repeatedly running photos and endless psychological dissections of the perp is not necessary to any public "need to know." All it does is glorify the killer in the minds of other equally bent wackos. Professional journalism societies used to set standards of behavior and enforce professional ethics and that is exactly what is needed here. The rule should be to fully report on but to show no superfluous video of the event itself, and to avoid any pictorial depiction of the perp or use of his name following original identification. This should be a national press standard, but until it is adapted there is no reason for local media outlets not to do something on their own. For instance, when I was the exec. producer at one of my TV stops, I made it a house rule that any story done on an execution or a death penalty case had to include the names and a brief bio of the murder victims and the number of dependents they had left behind.
Unfortunately, as nearly as I can tell, journalistic codes and restraint have been sacrificed to the insatiable demands of the 24-hour media cycle; not to mention much of the media's desire to exploit these situations for ideological purposes in the same way as cretins like Feinstein, Biden, Cuomo and Bloomberg exploit them. That is not just irresponsible -- it is despicable and disgusting.

Please don't forget that Dianne Feinstein was the person who found the bodies of Harvey Milk and SF mayor Moscone after they had both been shot to death. she then had to announce the assassinations to the world. That helps account for her strong views.

Count me with Markoutwest. We need voices that speak to people who are not rabid anti nor rabid pro. After all, this middle ground is where common ground will be found. We need to engage each other respectfully on ways to get at the root causes behind the massive amount of gun violence in our society. I personally despise ARs, but that is NOT a declaration that I think they should be outlawed or confiscated. Frankly, gun violence is pretty much independent of military style weapons, large magazines, etc. Why should we gun owners/enthusiasts object to universal background checks? Shouldn't we be backing research aimed at better identifying those who are a risk for violence and better enforcing ways to keep guns out of their hands? Shouldn't we be FAR more active in backing creative ways to educate and assure that gun owners secure their weapons from access by youngsters? This business of vilifying politicians we don't agree with or respect does nothing to build the sort of respect that would make our opinions and initiatives more effective in the political dialog.

The disrespectful, hateful comments that are prominent here only assure that the gap will be widened and will alienate a great many people in the middle whose voices and votes we NEED in order to have sensible laws and regulations that are enforceable and ENFORCED.

I completely agree that our government does a really poor job of enforcing laws on the books and we need to find more and better ways to focus everyone's attention on that issue.

[Count me as a 70 year old former Licensed Dealer and a lifelong hunter and gun enthusiast]

It must infuriate them (the pro-gun control/anti-2nd Ammendment crowd) to no end that, thanks in no small part to the web and social media they no longer enjoy the stranglehold on public discourse and information they had in the good old days of the Bill Clinton-era Feinsein ammendment. For every piece of emotionally-charged invective, innacuurate/fear-based rhetoric and outright falsehood they inject into the debate there are countless blogs, mass mailings, internet petitions and counter-postings setting the facts straight, and I bet it drives them nuts. From the USA Today/Chicago Sun-Tribune's schematic describing a sling swivel as a bayonet lug/greande launcher mount,to Jesse Jackson's anti-aircraft assault weapons speech, Feinstein's "imploding" bullets and Charlie Rangel's "creative" firearm fatality statistics it seems they just can't catch a break(LOL).
Far more frustrating still is likely the increased flow of information's effect on the 2 houses of Congress. Senators and representatives who might otherwise be more susceptible to a back-room deal or strongarming from the likes of Feinstein, Reed, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. are reminded of the consequences of supporting such legislation prior to the 1994 midterms. Any thoughts of aquiescing for the sake of convenience on their part and they are reminded of the potential for lasting and permanent harm to their status as an incumbent.

The Blue Jackal Tribe are coming after our guns. They'll take any concession they can get and then come back for more until the 2nd amendment is no more. They are single-minded and fanatical in their ideology. They will deconstruct the culture if they are able. Would anyone posting here have imagined "gay" marriage to be a topic of legality, let alone a civil right, forty years ago? Thirty? Twenty? Ten?

Would that we all could be assured that Capo Cuomo will never have the opportunity to achieve higher office; his obvious goal as evidenced by his illegal and high-handed actions here in New York State. His approval rating has come far down in the real upstate New York, although it seems his agenda is popular in New York City, the citizenry of which cannot be said to be part of New York State, but which contributes more than its share of corrupt public enemies to our vile state legislature, the shame of the nation. We all fervently wish that New York City and our contemptible governor would secede and resign from the rest of the state and never again bother the rest of us.

bastranger: I agree with finding common-sense, middle-ground solutions to violent crime. The problem is that laws that chip away and our civil/legal rights are not common-sense or middle-ground, and as I stated in my first comment, will always result in passionate responses. Remember Patrick Henry: "Give me Liberty, or give me Death".

@bastranger:
I want no part of your "common ground" when it comes to giving in to your Saul Alinsky community organizing of my essential God-given freedoms!

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Maybe work on a friggin' budget DiFi and leave the Constitution and the Bill of Rights alone

Mr. Drumm,

With respect, it isn't those politicians we need to influence. They will be influenced best if we do a good job of building enough respect with the 'swing' voters in their districts. A serious 2-way dialog where we are as willing to listen to the 'undecideds' as we are to preach our dogma will go a long ways in advancing our cause with those voters.

To Kudukid: Just how does it infringe your freedoms to have a background check that is backed up by reliable data and prevents mentally disturbed persons from legally acquiring a weapon?? How are your freedoms infringed by a conversation that SOMEONE should have had with Mrs. Lanza advising her that she needed to secure her arsenal from her son? There are no silver bullets that will solve all our problems, but we gun owners and enthusiasts need to step to the plate with sensible ideas that help prevent the heartbreak resulting from lives cut short.

Steward,
See your point, and you're probably right about the predictable reaction. Of course, the difference is that I am suggesting the media should voluntarily adapt better professional standards, not be restricted in any way by laws or executive fiat. It is not a violation of anybody's fundamental rights to act responsibly, on your own.
Same thing applies to practicing good gun safety as opposed to say, having some politician with no knowledge of guns and shooting legislating things like magazine capacity. Living in a free society carries both risks and responsibilities, but I'd rather run those risks than have some would-be totalitarian supposedly reducing my risks by restricting my fundamental rights.
As for those who advise we seek "common ground" by compromising our fundamental rights, it strikes me that is like trying to placate the crocodile by offering him less vital parts of your body. We're dealing with people who want to ban guns, period, regardless of what they claim now. And as far as background checks go, the ones already in place are not being enforced and did not prevent any of the mass shootings. I would suggest everybody examine Schumer's background bill carefully, because it is an abomination.
Charles C. W. Cooke has a pretty good column on the Schumer legislation posted now on National Review Online. If you didn't know what was in Schumer's amendment you better start finding out.

@bastranger: With all due respect on my part there is already plenty of "dogma" out there, mainly on the part of the gun control/anti-2nd ammendment crowd. The whole "there's no good reason to own one" and "they're only good for killing", and my personal fvorite (sarcasm!)"think of the children!", etc. We don't need more dogma. What we need is informed dialogue, REAL facts/statistics to combat their fear-mongering BS and above all, a unified front where there is no seam between hunters, target/3-gun shooters, military style rifle enthusiasts, cowboy action shooters, skeet/trap shooters and the like. Then AND only then will hopefully they get the message that to disrespect or to impede on the rights of one is to impede on us all. Just like when vendors/exhibitors and would-be attendees alike stood up to Reed Exhibitions and their disdain for modern military-style weapons prior to the now-cancelled Eastern Sports show last month, real one-front action yields results.

@bastranger:

First, if you actually believe a "universal background check" will change crime at all, there is no hope for you.

Second, what part of the phrase "shall not be INFRINGED" don't you understand?

You have apparently become completely anesthetized to the endless assault that our own governments have perpetrated on the 2nd Amendment. Now all we have to do is find "common ground" to erode it "just a little bit more".

from the "political hypocrisy knows no bounds" department: president pinhead recently signed into law new regulations that provide lifetime secret service protection for him and former president george bush. all the while trying his very best to deny the rest of us our God-given right to self protection. the same can be said of our wonderful gov. hickenloopey here in colorado who enjoys all kinds of law enforcement protection while signing into law all kinds onerous firearms restrictions that affect the rest of us. gotta be a special place in hell.

Nyflyangler:

Attacking the character of the person you disagree with works in 2013, it is still the last recourse of the person who has lost the argument. I'll match I.Q.s with you any day of the week.

bastranger and others;

Once upon a time we on the shooter side were willing to bargain. But we learned the hard way, in the '90s, that meeting the antigunners halfway today doesn't mean a solution; it means that they will come at us again tomorrow having gained ground. Why does compromise always mean us going their way?

This is the hard truth. Nothing that is being done will take a gun out of the hands of anybody but law abiding people. There will be another mass shooting; President Obama will again address congress, his outrage barely controlled, and theatrically wipe another tear away; and any deal we make today will mean nothing then. We don't deal because we have learned we can't deal. They don't want a deal. They want our guns.

What's good about this? the free exchange of ideas and fact, more important than ever in the wake of Sandy Hook and the actions of those who seek to exploit the tragedy to further their ends.
What's bad? There are still some in the hunting/shooting community who have bought into one or more of several illusions/false hopes when it pertains to the 2nd Ammendment. The first is that if we in the shooting community concede just an iota in the name of appearing reasonable, then that will be it. The next one ties intot his but is no less insidious. That is the notion that there is credence to the idea that there are firearms with a "legitimate" purpose/reason for owning or shooting them and ones without, and if you can't use it for hunting or it isn't what you grew up taking to deer camp with you, then there's no good reason to own one.
I recall an older gentleman who owned a gun shop I worked in as a kid whose specialty was old surplus Mausers and Enfields; i.e., taking the old beaters and making tack-driving deer, elk and bear rifles out of them. He told me that the same thing was said about those old warhorses when he was younger; that they were junk, made for only one thing, had no place being used by "real" sportsmen or hunters, etc. All the while the price for a new Remington, Winchester or Stevens rose to the ridiculous price of $100 (I know, don't we wish?).
It just goes to show you how little things have actually changed in the minds of some. And in their minds if the Feinsteins, Schumers, Cuomos, Pelosis and Reids of the world don't come after what they consider "legitimate" firearms, why should they care?
bastranger, I'm sorry but this is directed at you. Just because you don't care for a particular type of firearm doesn't mean those who collect and shoot them don't deserve the same consideration, because in the long run the anti 2nd types don't care, they don't see any reason for anyone not in uniform or wearing a badge or who isn't stupid rich/well-connected having any type of firearm. There is also the shifting paradigm as it pertains to non-native and invasive species, such as feral hogs in the south and west. In these cases, the types of rifles you despise are allowed if not actively encouraged.

Dreh dich nicht um - oh, oh,
Der Kommissar geht um - oh, oh. or in English:

Don't turn around, oh, oh.
The Kommissar's in town, oh, oh.

Today New York State is offering $500 bounty for those little Nazis to turn in those neighbors believe harbor illegal guns on SAFE Act. I feel safer already!!!

By coincidence: NYSR&P-NRA filed legal challenge in federal court to NY SAFE Act and, presently 52 of 62 county gov'ts are officially opposed to SAFE ACT and want repeal.

Main Stream Media on subject: Silent.

@bastranger: I have the RESPONSIBILITY not to be the one behind the trigger of my lawfully owned firearm at one of those tragic shootings. I have the RESPONSIBILITY to make a reasonable effort to secure my firearms from other less responsibility persons. I have the RESPONSIBILITY not to sell my firearm to some **itbum who shouldn't be possessing said weapon.

Feinstein, Obama, et. al. have the RESPONSIBILITY to uphold the Constitution that gives me the RIGHT to own and operate any firearm which I can legally purchase.

For 60 years, I have upheld my responsibility and plan to continue for the rest of my years. WHEN Feinstein, BO, et. al. can say they will do the same, WE HAVE A COMPROMISE!!!!

I wish that you would devote more energies into beating up Gov. CUOMO from N.Y. He by far will be the greatest threat to the American public. He's about as spineless as a person can get.

Well Bubba, I sure wouldn't want you to be "inconvenienced".

The same Constitution that contains the 2nd Amendment (note it is an AMENDMENT!, just the same as a new AMENDMENT could nullify that 2nd Amendment.), also guarantees the right to peaceful assembly. I'm pretty sure you'd agree that our politicians are EQUALLY responsible for guaranteeing that right of peaceful assembly, wouldn't you?

Now, if you or I were the politician swearing to uphold the Constitution - ALL OF IT, wouldn't we recognize that there has to be a point of compromise? Wouldn't we?? If people are not able to assemble peacefully (in a school room, a theatre, a church or any other crowd, then wouldn't you and I, as politicians, feel duty bound to take some sort of action to uphold that right, just as energetically as we would feel duty bound to uphold the 2nd Amendment?

My rights stop at the end of your nose and your rights stop at the end of my nose - right? So, if you, or someone else is endangering my right, or my granddaughter's right to assemble peacefully, I would be remiss if I didn't DEMAND that the politicians I voted for start looking for the RIGHT compromise that keeps my nose (or my granddaughter's) just as safe as your nose.

Labrador,

With genuine respect, the US Constitution is about WHATEVER the people AND 2/3 of the state legislators wish it to be.

If we gun owners/enthusiasts succeed in alienating enough of the people in the middle (NOT the extremists on the left and right ends of the spectrum!), then we can plan for a constitutional amendment not to our liking.

Bastranger, maybe the politicians should work to enforce the laws that are already on the books.
As for Feinstein, maybe she should start small and work on a national ban of pop tarts since they could be shaped to look like a gun and have a 7 year old suspended from school for 2 days. She could create a list of flavors that are banned and ones that would be safe. I don't know if a limit should be placed on the number of pop tarts someone could have or if there should be storage requirements.
Although I am against the assault weapons bill, I called her office and offered her some help to get it passed. I said she should offer to give up her seat and any benefits if the bill passed and someone died from an assault weapon, the person on the phone got nasty, and said do you think she would do that?

Well, Bubba -

I guess I mistook this forum as a place to have reasoned conversations about issues that we're all very concerned about.

If I go away it won't be because you or someone else told me to, it will be because I didn't find any reasoned conversations about how ALL our constitutional rights can be respected - not just one isolated one.

Everyone here knows that there are leftist extremists who want to see all guns confiscated. Just as surely, we all know there are extremists on the right who want absolutely no controls of any sort imposed on gun ownership. Neither of those extremes are about to change their minds. However, both extremes (left and right) put together don't have the voting power to get their way without a lot of people in the middle agreeing with them.

If your interest is only to draw a circle around the extremists on the right and not even listen to or reason with the people in the middle, that is certainly your right, but in my opinion, it is awfully nearsighted and intended or not, it will alienate supporters that we gun owners and enthusiasts NEED from the middle ground.

I think I'll stay around for a good while longer and speak my opinions. That IS my constitutional RIGHT, is it not??

bastranger

Unfortunately, (fortunately?) the only amendment under attack to the point it needs to be vehemently protected is the Second Amendment.
I don't see that the 2A is any more or less important than any of the others, but the 3A comes under fire more than the others. ...and much more often.
As far as "common ground" or "sitting down" with "Anti 2A" groups? You'd have better luck convincing me it would be okay to loan you my wife occasionally! Next thing you know, you'd want to hug and kiss her and have her spend the night! There's just some things you just don't compromise! The 2A is one of them.

FirstBubba,

I'm really not communicating too well, am I?

Please look back and find any one of my posts that said we should be ""sitting down" with "Anti 2A" groups". You are the one that added 'with "Anti 2A groups"' to my words.

My focus is on the VOTERS in the middle whose support we'd SURE like to have at the voting booth. IF we get that support, then we can expect to see more moderate, sensible lawmakers start to appear in Washington DC. But, if we instead draw acircle around ourselves and double dare anyone who isn't a rabid supported of our gun rights to cross that line, then over time, we'll lose too many of the people who COULD be supporting us.

We need to show them that we care about their concerns and that we have constructive ideas to bring to the table. We DO care about the concerns of the average Joe and Jane who simply want their kids to be safe in their home and in their community - don't we??

As for biden, I listened to his statements, and yes a doctor should check him out. A Proctologist to run a brain scan to see if there are any live, working cells.
bastranger, you should quit while you’re behind. I don’t know what country you live in but here in the USA, the GOD fearing, hard working, flag waving, red blooded AMERICANS enjoy our rights and don’t really want the government telling us what we can or cannot own, as long as it is used in a sensible way.

bastranger, I kept reading your response over and over, and I think that you are finally stating clearly how you really feel and what you were trying to say. You said that you would sit down and discuss the issue. I can understand that. The problem is that those that are in control, both sides, don’t want to have common sense resolutions. I feel banning “assault weapons” is not the answer. When they are used wrongly, there should have been some way for the person who used them to get help before a tragedy occurred. As for your redneck statement, been there done that, and thank you.

We all know what she really needs but I dont have any friends that can drink that much.

bastranger:

With all due respect, I don't want the power to assess my mental status to be the property of any American politician. Giving that power to the clown college we have running the country now would be unthinkable.

All these mass shooters had one thing in common. They were all sane enough to take their guns to places they knew nobody else would have one. And they opened fire.
If there is one single right that natural law demands, it has to be the right of self defense. If we can't exercise a right that every skunk and porcupine has, if the definition of a law abiding citizen is someone who is helpless in the face of a life threatening attack, then we have no personal rights at all. The way to stop these killings is to let law abiding citizens be who they are. Every law enforcement vehicle carries a big piece of chalk, to outline people the police weren't there to save: empower the law abiding citizen, and that chalk will seldom be needed.

P.S. If Judy Garland was still alive today, she would dress like Diane Feinstein, wear her hair the same way and be on a first name basis with those Flying Monkeys. :)

And now NYC's Bloomberg launches $12 million TV ad campaign to push for gun control laws.
The "anti" crowd never rests. We (Pro 2A) must remain ever vigilant and stand firm to maintain our 2A rights.
The 2A may not be the "most" important, but it helps insure all the others.

how about a law that requires elected officials to simply do the job they were elected to do. not try to INTERPRET the constitution to benefit their special interests. or to keep them from leaving a "legacy" that cost tax payers billions, that we need like a pair of cement boots. also a law that would require them to actually work. throw out the ignorant "tools of the trade" such as filibusters, and tacking a bill onto another bill. more good legislation has been thrown down the toilet because of this type of tomfoolery than Billy had beer. personally, i am sick of them restricting my rights, costing me money for crud i do not want, while they sit there and send our jobs over seas. a 50% tariff on every single item that came into this country would do us all a huge amount of good. it would make products produced on foreign soils much more expensive than products made here. and it if used properly, could pay off the national debt in the mean time. people forget that was the way we kept America strong for many, many years. as far as gun legislation goes, there is only one gun control bill i could get behind. and that is all of these fraidy cats who want to ban guns have to take 50 hours of shooting classes, 40 of which would be actual shooting time. if they really want to ban something, they aught to know exactly what they are banning. not just looking at a book with pictures of evil black rifles.

to haverodwilltravel: Thanks for the heads up. I've planned an extended sightseeing tour of Syria, where it's safe, in anticipation of Senator F.'s vengeance.

ots of people on here bemoan the circle the wagons/siege mentality displayed by many in the pro-2nd Ammendment movement, where any effort to meet with the opposition and share a civilized dialogue in the hopes of reaching an agreement that preserves our constitutional rights can be reached is seen as being wishy-washy, weak-willed RINO, sellout, etc. etc.
I agree the rhetoric is rather self-serving at times, and that the vilification of those at the forefront of the gun control/ant- assault weapon movement does little to serve our interests. It should be noted that in terms of the narrative carried by most of the news media and those in power who seek to have our rights curtailed, the deck is surely stacked against us. They on the other side also have no problem subverting/misrepresenting the facts and in some case using blatant falshoods to further their agenda, while we're stuck in the back of the hall so to speak trying to make the facts known.
I believe that the most potent weapon we have on our side besides the truth is this media we see employed here and the ability of those who support the 2nd Ammendment to communicate and share ideas so freely, as well as have more direct contact with hthose in D.C whose job it is to represent us.
I stated in my 1st post on this page that it's the anti 2nd Ammendment crowd's lack of full control over the flow of information and public discourse that has impeded their efforts the most in my opinion. We're not stuck playing catchup like were were in 1994. This, like any other asset or resource can be misused as well, and when we stoop to the same level of those who don't respect the right to keep and bear arms we lose much of our credibility. Their weapons are fear, hysteria and inflammatory rhetoric, ours should be truth (above all!), a clear understanding of the constitution and what a right is/means and most of all to constantly exercise those rights and share them with the next generation, instead of letting the media teach them what firearm ownership is about.
That last part I like to call the "Dianne Feinstein Irrelevance Act of 2013".

All battles are won and lost in the middle ground. There is no middle ground here. This is all about power and money from BOTH sides. This nonsense has done more for firearm and ammunition sales than Annie Oakley, Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, Pearl Harbor and Zombies combined. Guns, religion and politics are BUSINESSES, plain and simple. Stuff gets endorsed here on FS that the writers have NEVER EVEN TESTED, fishing tackle included. Goodness, in the music industry that used to be called payola.

Cuomo grandstanded (and drastically overreached) in order to foment his future political aspirations and bolster the finances of a historically pathetically managed state. I personally guarantee that he will attempt to become president and all this nonsense will shoot him down in a hurry, deservedly so.

"Newsday" 3/24: As the legislature began the process of enacting a new state budget Sunday, its top Republican (Skelos) said Sunday they effectively will cancel a ban on the sale of gun and rifle magazines larger than seven rounds that was set to take effect April 15. (Good!)

PS I am hugely appalled that no one places the blame squarely on Mrs. Lanza. If my son was coo coo for cocoa puffs, my firearms would be inside a bunker. One of our biggest problems as a nation is when we let the notion of personal responsibility go by the wayside.

Both sides want our money and the power that it brings. If people actually got crazy and decided to work things out, A LOT of money would be lost. Wherever there's a chair there's a rear end.

PS It would be nice if could get some friggin' .22 ammunition, the zombies in my neck of the woods are small in stature.

bastranger

Until you've "walked a mile" in Nancy Lanza's shoes, you don't need to be critical of her actions.

Firstbubba,

No one can walk a mile in anyone else's shoes. Suffice to say, I have buried 2 of my 3 children, both from tragedies I don't care to elaborate here. BUT, I believe I understand a parent's struggles to help his/her child through serious problems that contribute to the tragedy. I don't think you've walked a mile in my shoes either, but I'm not about to criticize you for caring enough to stay in the conversation.

@FirstBubba: I understand the whole "walked a mile in her shoes" argument, but the unfortunate fact is that it's people who live in the same socio-economic bracket as the late Mrs. Lanza in my experience have the most issues coming to terms with OR effectively dealing with their children needing help. James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho and Adam Lanza were all the children of upper/upper middle class homes and the reaction of their families were unfortunately much the same.
My 1st foray into human services was a volunteer at the campus ministry office (I went to a small Catholic college) where kids who were having issues and their parents would meet with CM staff, who in addition to being clergy were credentialed caregivers. Whenever it was little Johnny or Muffy from say, Bryn Mawr or Boathouse Row in Philly or Potomac MD (3 crazy-expensive/exclusive places to live!) time and time again I heard not concern for the child, but what the parents were afraid others would think of them. WTF?!
As I said before, the whole "mental" part of mental illness needs to be forgotten about, and let it be treated as what it is: a chronic condition like asthma, hypertension, diabetes, etc. that needs to be managed effectively on a day to day basis. Then and only then will the whole "oh no, what will the neighbors think?" B.S. become a thing of the past.

Mr. Drumm,

Thanks for the thoughtful comment!

To egg,

If I counted correctly, you used the term 'I' 12 times in your post. No problem with that, you are focused on #1 and that is your right.

You told me all the reasons you carry a gun, as if I had somehow suggested that you shouldn't carry it. I don't know where you got that idea, because I strongly support your right to carry. I choose not to, but I am glad there is a right to carry.

There seem to be lots of people out there who are ignoring the fact that Adam Lanza murdered his own mother, in the course of stealing her guns. She didn't give them to him. Also, there has, so far, been no reputable source to prove that an "assault weapon" was even used in the Sandy Hook killings.
A couple of the problems with the people who want "to have a meaningful discussion about gun violence"? First, they need to drop the word gun from their agenda. People bent on violence use whatever weapon is handy. Am I the only one who remembers that, on the same day as Sandy Hook, an insane criminal in China achieved a nearly equal casualty count with a knife? Second, everyone I've heard asking for "a meaningful discussion", later in their diatribe, comes around to their real agenda of disarming the law abiding.
The mainstream media absolutely attacked the NRA's suggestion to increase armed security in schools, yet, the voters of Newtown agreed with the NRA and elected to increase armed security in, especially, their primary schools. The next logical step would be to ablolish "gun free school zones" and end the lunatics' belief that they have no chance of being stopped, if they choose a school for their criminal acts.

JamesNCV, I have no quarrel with your position. But I do believe that we need to expand our discussion beyond 'laws'. If our society can find ways to reduce the frequency and severity of incidents which inflame public opinion, then laws will be fewer and more moderate.

Wouldn't you agree?

For instance, lots of people (on our side) get really uptight at the notion of requiring medical professionals to ask about guns in the home.

OK.

Instead of making a law requiring it, how about simply encouraging medical professionals (and some other sorts of professionals) to simply suggest some guidelines appropriate to the situation without being REQUIRED to ask about guns in the home?

I wouldn't be uptight if someone offered that sort of advice to me, not even knowing whether I own guns. I suppose there are some who would have a chip on their shoulders and blow up over it, but so what? For all we know, it could have made a difference in some of the recent cases.

@bastranger:
I hope you weren't being sarcastic! If I offend someone or if they're taken aback by how I make my point, esp. as it pertains to my experience with the mentally ill, sorry. I call it as I saw it, and I didn't sugarcoat things with the people on my caseload, I certainly won't do it for people whose well-being I am not partially responsible for.
I have seen the anguish and heartbreak on the part of families with a mentally ill loved one,esp. if/when that person refuses to follow their treatment or do what's needed to stay safe and functional. Too often I watched people decompensate until they hurt either themselves or someone else, and then they wind up locked up where apart from meds there is little in the way of being treated.
Ironically in PA the people who cried for the state-run facilities to be closed are also the ones crying loudest for our 2nd Ammendment rights to be curtailed. At least in the state hospitals there was some effort to see them develop sufficient coping skills to someday be discharged.
Having said that, I will paraphrase Mr. Colion Noir (great guy, love his videos!) when I say that instead of focusing on just "gun violence",the giant talking heads in D.C. could do well by spending their time addressing the problem of violence in general. Do something meaningful instead of just a knee-jerk approach that makes it look like you're actually doing something, when instead you're doing quite the opposite, if not making it worse altogether.

The 4th law is something that really should be put into effect. I agree with Mr. Petzal that one mass shooting is an inspiration for another unstable person to attempt a violent act that could kill many people.

Once upon a time we on the shooter side were willing to bargain. But we learned the hard way, in the '90s, that meeting the antigunners halfway today doesn't mean a solution; it means that they will come at us again tomorrow having gained ground. Why does compromise always mean us going their way?

Focusfront-
This is the hard truth. Nothing that is being done will take a gun out of the hands of anybody but law abiding people. There will be another mass shooting; President Obama will again address congress, his outrage barely controlled, and theatrically wipe another tear away; and any deal we make today will mean nothing then. We don't deal because we have learned we can't deal. They don't want a deal. They want our guns.
AMEN BROTHER!!!

Mathew Drumm,

No I certainly wasn't being sarcastic. I have great respect for folks such as you seem to be (it is darned hard to communicate accurately in this sort of back and forth).

What I mean is that you seem to be one who has lived in the trenches dealing with mental disturbances and your opinions carry a lot of weight because of that. Don't lose hope that your efforts can make a difference.

For the life of me, I can't grasp the logic of those wanting some of us to go away. Help me understand what the use is in having ONLY comments that agree with a hardline defiance - an 'us against the world' stance???

That approach seems to me to lead to a downward spiral, losing more and more support from folks in the middle of the spectrum who WILL, after all, be the ones who decide who to vote for and tilt elections one way or the other.

Well MReader, You're certainly right that the thread has gotten pretty long. Your scenario seems to me a really bleak assessment of where our society is headed based on a conclusion that the 'disinterested' people in the middle between 2 extremes can't be motivated enough to hold a meaningful discussion, get energized about finding better candidates for office and then voting for them.

Can't say I disagree with you. What really disappoints me, however, is the notion that gun owners and enthusiasts taken as a whole, are more interested in circling the wagons and defying anyone to cross them than they are about actively working to refocus political attention on real root cause issues. I don't see that as compromise. Not at all! It strikes me much more as the sort of 'investment' in the political process that all of us have a vital stake in encouraging.

But then, perhaps a F&S audience isn't a sensible place to hold that conversation??? It is a shame.

Please forgive my over judicious use of the apostrophe and certain omitted verbs. Thanks.

You forgot the Illinois dumb ass amendment, in that anybody north of I80 is automaticlt a dumb ass and cannot be elected as anything.

voiceofreason,

You said - "There seem to be lots of people out there who are ignoring the fact that Adam Lanza murdered his own mother, in the course of stealing her guns. She didn't give them to him. "

I may be wrong, but I don't think there's been any information saying he murdered her while taking her weapons. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. And, maybe that's not what you meant to say?

Anyway, I'd say it is pretty clear that she didn't secure the guns in a way to keep him away from them, but we'll probably never know the whole story there.

Regardless, it is a lesson that all of us should secure our weapons and seems to me it would be good for us to 'preach' that message when and where we get the chance.

To me, this is one of the topics of conversation that we 'gun nuts' ought to be more proactive in taking to the broader community. We can do it by writing to local papers, speaking to parents at church and school functions and a whole host of other ways.

MReeder (sorry about misspelling your handle in my earlier post),

I'm with you pretty much. What I'm thinking is that the rivers we need to swim might not be so wide if we spent some of our energy reasoning with the voters who are up for grabs.

Just as surely as you KNOW who you will and won't vote for, our counterparts at the other end of the room aren't about to change who they will and won't vote for. BUT - those folks in the middle are up for grabs. You wanna fight the entrenched folks at the other, tooth, nail and big clubs - fine. But, if I'm standing in the middle, I'm going to go to the side of the ones who've helped me understand their point of view and persuaded me of their logic.

Those here who say there's no use talking to the folks in the middle are handing a gift to their opponents.

bastranger:
You talk about responsibility. I always act responsibly with my guns, and am teaching my (4) sons to do the same. I also take advantage of opportunities to teach others about responsible gun ownership and use. Most recently, this was at my nephew's 14th birthday party, which was a shooting party with his friends. Other than that, I maintain that criminals need to be held responsible for their crimes. I continue to suggest 20 years minimum, no parole, if a crime is committed and the perp was carrying a gun. By carrying a gun, they are threatening people's lives. And of course, for anyone who actually commits 1st Degree Murder, I believe they should be tried, and even have a chance at appeal, but should then be executed. Gun owners certainly should be responsible with their guns, and those who aren't should be held responsible. But that doesn't mean that the 2nd Amendment needs to be attacked through any gun-control legislation.

Call me crazy for suggesting this, but what would happen if the mental state of someone such as James Holmes was totally disregarded? Then he was brought up to face each and every one of the several hundred (yes you read that right!) felonies with which he's been charged. Seeing the trial, conviction and subsequent sentencing (CO said they're going for the needle!)could and should serve as a deterrent to any other deluded fool thinking of writing themselves into history with the blood of others.

BA, put a spur under your seat again. I got you fired up and you said how you felt. I would like you on our side because you want to have reason in these debates. Don’t get upset because I shortened your name.

Steward, I saw that you responded to bastranger, he is only a one star, did you get permission from mark-1 to do that?

Good luck with the 1917.

FirstBubba,

You're not the first person here to put words in my mouth.

You said -

"I get really frustrated when folks like ba keep saying, "...sit down with..." those anti gun bozos!" "

I encourage you to go back and find anywhere that I said to sit down with "those anti gun bozos".

I've tried to wear out the term "folks in the middle". I've tried to make it clear that "those anti gun bozos" pretty well have their mids made up and aren't any more likely to change their minds than you or I are likely to change our minds.

Several folks here have said we can just forget about the voters in the middle and I consider that a copout, particularly because I HAVE invested a good bit of time and energy talking to them and the thing it accomplishes is that they stop considering me a 'pro gun bozo' and start talking about how they really hadn't considered a lot of the things I brought up with them.

As to your, my and others' personal tragedies - it isn't about whose is worse - they're ALL horrible beyond words. What it IS about, for me, is a kind of caring about people in the aftermath of a tragedy and letting them KNOW that you care enough to join them in trying to make sense of it and to do something meaningful so that the tragedy has a lasting POSITIVE influence.

That's thinking outside the box Mike. When it comes to universal background checks these are the concerns I would have.
1. Who or what commission would set the standards?
2. Who pays for the background checks? I ask this because in my state for a CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit) we are now required to authorize the sheriff to search our mental health records and the cost is passed on to us. I have a real problem with someone charging me in order for me to exercise my constitutional right (or limit it).
3. What are the protections, which must be in favor of the gun owner. Example: If I am prescribed a medication for a non mental health problem (like a strong antibiotic) and I have a reaction to it that causes erratic behavior and have to have the medication adjusted. Will that constitute a "fail" on a background check. (This just happened in "Kalifornia" and the police forced their way into the house and confiscated the "husband's" firearms (his wife was the one being treated).
4. Will there be a "fair" appeal process based on a process that the person needing the background check is "innocent until proven guilty" so to speak.
5. Will there be instituted a punishment or fine process for people who serve on said committee and are found to have an agenda to deny as many people as possible.

I ask all these questions, because legislation is never perfection. Some situation or case always seems to slip through the cracks with the citizen left holding the bag. My concern is that the standards, at least at this point in time while many persons are still in a state of fear from the recent shooting, may be too stringent if not carefully thought out. The last thing we want to do is create an elitist group of haves and a disgruntled group of have-nots (who were denied and feel they were unfairly denied). I won't even go into the problems that would cause.

Mark-1, you are correct. They show up on every Blood Sport, 2nd Amendment and Political site spewing the left wing agenda. Like the media, some lurk until they find those of us who refuse to drink the Kool Aid, then they get their marching orders from Obama and Soros operatives to flood the bulletin boards with "reason". Their reason and logic...or shall I say lack of reason and logic.
We catch them all the time on a site I moderate...just toss them a blood sport question they can't google and wait for the sputter. LOL

This might be most poorly written articles I've ever read on this site. Get the tinfoil off your head and step outside your house. I am a hunter. I am not a NRA member. I own shotguns and a rifle. I will likely never be a NRA member and am very happy that most senators are not. I dont see what was wrong with what Joe Biden said. Shotguns are the best gun for home defense. Police investigations have found that most GSW that occur during home invasions are the accidental product of the resident firing a handgun, missing the robber, and the bullet hitting a family member in another room. Most shotgun shot wont go through 2 pieces of dry wall with enough velocity to seriously injure someone accidentally. I believe hand guns have 2 purposes and are open for being outlawed. The first is to shoot people, the second is for target shooting. Target shooting isnt such an important activity that we need to allow people to be shot. If you reduce the supply of guns that can become illegal, economics dictates that the price of illegal guns will go up - likely to the point where criminals cannot afford them. Your article is ignorant and does not reflect the view of over half of the hunters that I know.

hey boys, girls, and children of all ages: i hate to tell you but even though this assault weapons ban was turned down, it won't stay for long. what is the liberal democratic society talking about now? wanting to change the definition of marriage. now if that goes through and it will (another hot topic of discussion) it's only a matter of time before obama and his henchmen attack us again, harder and with more force than last time. this liberal muslim extremist has only one thing in mind...destroying this country inside and out. oh and by the way, now we are funding another muslim country besides egypt...pakistan, yes pakistan, the same country that kept bin laden secretly hidden for almost ten years.

"When was the last time anyone in the USA committed a crime with a full-auto enabled or burst-fire enabled firearm?"

I hate to bring this up, cause we're on the same side of the politico-philosophical razor wire, but the North Hollywood fiasco comes to mind, as far as "bad guys" having the automatic weapons.

Then, there are these affairs. Crimes committed while using automatic weapons (although to be fair, Lon Horiuchi was using a glorified deer rifle.)

1. Ruby Ridge
2. Banch Davidian eradication
3. Ethan Gonzalez "repatriation"

So, it seems that two types of individuals should not own automatic weapons; criminals and Federal agents. Call your congressmen today.

They’ll get so expensive criminals cannot afford them. That’s an intelligent thought. Do you think that maybe there might be some other way for a criminal to get a gun?

Young Gun - "If you reduce the supply of guns that can become illegal, economics dictates that the price of illegal guns will go up - likely to the point where criminals cannot afford them."

That's an interesting thought seeing as unless the criminal is a first time buyer, they're not going to be buying their firearms at a gun shop. Why? Because they wouldn't pass the background check that's already in place. So what's going to stop criminals from stealing them or getting them from other sources? Nothing...because that's how they already get guns. So out of all the legislation that is proposed, the question needs to be WHO will this legislation affect, because it's the person behind the trigger you need to worry about. If the legislation does not target criminals or the mentally ill, then it's not doing anyone any good. So far, all of the proposed legislation has targeted either guns or law abiding gun owners. Not criminals and not the mentally ill.

Well, for me, the bottom line question is -

Is there ANY sort of person who should NOT be able to walk into WalMart and buy a gun? ANY sort of gun.

If the answer is 'Yes', then how should we, the people, try and make any sort of way to prevent it?

If you believe the answer is 'No', any and every person should be able to buy a firearm at WalMart, I'd like to hear your thinking about that.

@bastranger: YES, there are people who should not be allowed to buy a gun from Walmart or anywhere else. Those people are already specified in the background check questionaire! There are people turned down under the current system.

Now to answer your question from a while back about what I think legislators should do to improve "our safety" or prevent tragedy like Sandy Hook. Thanks for asking and here goes. They should START by enforcing the current laws. For example, statistics show that of the people who are turned down under the current NIC background checks (those people ILLEGALLY trying to buy guns, VERY VERY VERY few people have been prosecuted!! I don't recall the exact numbers but they have been published by the NRA several times in the last few months.

Sandy Hook was caused by a lawful gun owner doing something stupid. The perp's mother knew he was unstable but failed to secure her guns from him. What can a legislator do to fix stupid? NOTHING!!!! In the words of Ron White, "You can't fix stupid!" In the words of a very long term MO state Senator that I had the pleasure to work with: "There are two things that can NOT be legislated, morality and common sense!"

In conclusion, what you are failing to grasp is that Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et. al. know they can't do anything to prevent these tragedies, THEY JUST WANT OUR GUNS, and tragedies give them an excuse to go after them AGAIN.

bastranger

" We need voices that speak to people who are not rabid anti nor rabid pro. After all, this middle ground is where common ground will be found." THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND -- THEY WANT OUR GUNS AND WE NEED TO KEEP THEM.

"Just how does it infringe your freedoms to have a background check that is backed up by reliable data and prevents mentally disturbed persons from legally acquiring a weapon??" THEY WANT TO EXPAND BACKGROUND CHECKS IN ORDER TO HAVE A COMPLETE REGISTRATION OF ALL GUNS --- DON'T BELIEVE IT, WORDS FROM BIDEN, FEINSTEIN, ET. AL.

The QUOTES are directly from your posts. Now, you can do an Obama and say "well I misspoke or ah, uh, umm ... or you can realize you don't have a realistic grip on the situation.