Last Updated:October 30 @ 05:57 pm

Kincaid: CNN's O'Brien Urges Obama to 'Track' People and Firearms

By GOPUSA Staff

The Washington Post story, “Media figures on left and right call for new gun-control laws,” hailed Soledad O’Brien of CNN for taking a stand in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. Pretending to be an intellectual heavyweight on the subject, she declared on the channel that the problem in society is “access to semiautomatic weapons.”

O’Brien’s embarrassing outburst, which continued for several minutes during an interview with Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), is another indication of why CNN fails to attract many viewers. I turned on CNN the morning after the tragedy occurred to get some basic facts and instead was forced to endure a liberal rant from Soledad O’Brien about what she thought should be done in light of what happened in Newtown, Connecticut.

In its story about the influence of these “prominent media figures,” the Post failed to note there is nothing sinister about “semiautomatic weapons.” These are weapons protected under the Second Amendment which a person fires one shot at a time. They are used for various purposes, including self-defense.

It appears that O’Brien may have been confusing “semiautomatic weapons” with automatic weapons.

If she did make this mistake, it would not be unusual for media coverage of a tragedy like this. The liberal media frequently jump to conclusions. In this case, they got basic facts wrong early in the story, including the name of the shooter.

We have learned over the period of many years that the media don’t care about the facts because they are pushing a liberal agenda of “gun control.” O’Brien has an agenda and doesn’t want to hear anything to the contrary. It is a mental state that does not serve the public interest and should not be featured on a channel that claims to provide news to its audience.

It is important for people to actually watch or read the exchange O’Brien had with Rep. Mack to understand the liberal fixation on guns rather than on other problems, such as mental illness, or other possible solutions, such as additional security for those at risk of being shot or killed.

O’Brien quickly labeled Mack a Republican and tried to put her on the defensive: “You support gun rights in this country. You’re a Republican, and I think that’s a position very consistent with most Republicans. What does meaningful action, that actually stops these kinds of shootings, look like to you?”

With this kind of introduction, O’Brien was making it clear that, in her view, Republicans were partly responsible for the tragedy. She was exploiting the tragedy for political gain, in order to bolster President Obama’s call for “meaningful action,” whatever that means.

Mack, a rather moderate Republican, replied, in part, that “the question for me is not just gun rights but mental health…And I think if we’re going to debate as a country, gun control, we need to debate what we can do better on mental, the mental health system.”

That the shooter was mentally deranged seems fairly obvious. Mack’s point was that society should address these mental problems. It was not something O’Brien wanted to dwell on. She granted the point but then quickly said, “But let’s go back to gun control. What do you think could be done to make people safe? I mean, there are people who have said, and I think honestly horribly have said that if people were armed inside the school, they would have been able to shoot the shooter. Do you agree with that?”

Notice the reference to self-defense being something “horrible.” Why was it horrible to consider arming people in the school who could have stopped the carnage? Why would it have been horrible to save some of those young lives?

Mack replied, “Well, yes. I mean, that is one portion of it I guess. You know, I think those of us who fly often know that we feel some sort of consolation or safety knowing that there might be air marshals on board. You want to know sometimes if there’s somebody there who can defend you in a situation.”

It was a perfectly reasonable point. The fact is that airplane hijackings and terrorism have been met with more, not less, arms. Additional firearms in the hands of the right people constitute a deterrent.

For example, what about armed security guards in schools?

O’Brien quickly moved on, saying, “But isn’t part of the issue…easy access? We do know that his mother had five legally obtained guns. She was licensed for five guns. At least one of them is this Bush .223—Bushmaster rifle, right? A semiautomatic weapon. He had easy access to that. So I find it hard when people say, well, you know, if you didn’t have a gun, you could do something else. Is the answer then arming more people? That doesn’t make any sense to me honestly.”

It didn’t make sense to O’Brien because she refuses to consider anything other than liberal legislation to control access to weapons by the law-abiding public. Her fumbling over the name of the weapon probably reflects ignorance about firearms. Perhaps she doesn’t like guns. Perhaps she has never fired them. Perhaps she has never been to a shooting range. Whatever the case, she has no sympathy for those who possess guns for these purposes, or for self-defense.

Eventually, O’Brien came out with her own dubious “solution.” She said, “…I think this conversation at some point has to go to what is the normal amount of guns that people can own and how they’re registered and tracked.”

What is “normal?” O’Brien didn’t say. Who would register and track people with guns? By chance, would it be the Obama Administration?

This is obviously a poorly thought-out “solution” to the violence, but it is typical of a liberal in the media who doesn’t think straight and prefers emotionally-charged rants to a rational treatment of a serious matter.

CNN suffers in the ratings and doesn’t serve the interests of an informed public when it puts a blockhead like Soledad O’Brien on the air to spout nonsense.

---

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 8.8/10 (189 votes cast)
Kincaid: CNN's O'Brien Urges Obama to 'Track' People and Firearms, 8.8 out of 10 based on 189 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

127 Comments

  1. jimnjoyComment by jimnjoy
    December 17, 2012 @ 1:51 pm

    A ban on firearms is tantamount to a restraining order. The person who wants to do harm will ignore it.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (81 votes cast)
    • buckeeComment by buckee
      December 17, 2012 @ 3:47 pm

      Some people have mentioned arming the teachers. At first this sounded like a good idea. I mean if they WANT to, have the belly for it, and are trained why not? But you cannot force them if they refuse, (and most will–they didn’t go into teaching to become Dirty Harry.) Additionally, these monstrous killers usually end up killing themselves, so I don’t see armed teachers as much of a deterrent. It will be just like ‘suicide by cop.’

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.4/5 (39 votes cast)
    • sniper4point0Comment by sniper4point0
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:25 pm

      Here it comes! A tsunami of “Ban the Guns”! Geez whiz! First, the shooter in CT commited a crime just to get the weapons used in “two” incidents. He did NOT,none reported, have a concealed weapons permit; ergo, he broke the law just transporting the weapons to the school site. What could law enforcement do about that? They didn’t know; therefore, nothing. It was reported that he turned a handgun on himself when he heard the police sirens; cowardly act for sure! Makes you wonder that if the school had a Quick Reaction Team in place equiped with/without lethal weapons challenging this young man, what would he have done. Police, in this incident, are an “after the fact” information gathering system; whereas, if this school, or any others for that matter, had insurgent response teams in place specifically for actions of this sort, could they actually save lives. I believe that “yes”, they can if they are trained and equiped properly. Make no mistake. This incident, as most all the others of this nature that have happened in this country, is an “insurgent” issue – NOT a concealed weapon, or handgun, or “assalt” weapon one. They say this young man was “mentally ill” – “really”? Does a mentally ill person have the where-with-all to commit murder in order to collect multiple weapons plus ammunition, bullet-proof vest, etc… then pick a target that is “weaponless” and of an age that cannot cause him harm? I’d say that the incident was pretty well planned. Perhaps, he’d been mulling this over for a while and some recent event pushed him into action.

      The common thread in 99% of the shootings is the fact that were there ample resistance/force in place at the locations, trained and prepared to counter the insurgecy then lives could have been saved. In most all the incidents, the shooter/s took his own life when faced with possible resistence. The principal of the CT school charged like a lion to save her school and students – unarmed, untrained, unprepared, but with the courage of a fighter. May God Bless her. What could she have done with proper equipment and training? I guess we’ll never know – but you can bet the “Ban the Guns” crowd couldn’t care less. Bless their little hearts, too.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (70 votes cast)
    • JamesTComment by JamesT
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

      Hi Buckee,

      Hopefully, armed teachers would put an end to these crazies before they are able to proceed very far into their killing sprees. A quickly executed “suicide by cop (or teacher, or clerk, or maintenance personnel)” sounds like an excellent alternative to waiting until the killer has taken out as many victims as he can or feels like before he kills himself.

      It is not the proliferation of guns, but the fact that we are quickly becoming one sick and twisted society, that is the cause of these mass killings. Guns are just a handy tool, but there are plenty of other tools these sickos can use, and if we do not allow properly trained law-abiding citizens to carry handguns it is one heck of a lot easier for these psychos to carry out their agendas. Imagine the difference if those heroic adults who gave their lives in Newtown had been armed and trained. The loss of life might have been so much less.

      And Buckee, I think you shame and degrade the actions, courage and memories of those who gave their lives to protect the innocent, unarmed, when you say that they did not sign up to be “Dirty Harry”.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (53 votes cast)
    • odayterrenceComment by odayterrence
      December 17, 2012 @ 7:50 pm

      buckee – Yes, you’ll have some teachers comfortable and some uncomfortable being armed or having access to guns on campus. I say let them make the decision and get the training. As for armed teachers not being a deterrent, I doubt that! The elementary school had a principal that threw herself bodily at an armed attacker. All in the forlorn hope of stopping him and protecting her students. Outside a school, there is no one more ferocious and determined than a parent protecting their child. Inside a school, there is no one more ferocious and determined than an educator protecting a student. Let’s give educators the choice of being armed on campus. That way, if a similar event happens again…perhaps the educator and student would both be alive afterwards to hug and comfort each other.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (31 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 17, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

      “Dirty Harry” “I don’t see armed teachers as much of a deterrent” – buckee

      “I know what you’re thinking. “Did he fire six shots or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk?” – Dirty Harry

      Does the school or does it not have armed citizens? Can they group their shots in a two inch target at fifty yards?

      you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya, punk?”

      It is the doubt that is the deterrent

      And when a couple of them actually do get a couple of well placed shots in the chest, so it explodes the heart, we can see how rational is the next one

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (7 votes cast)
  2. woodyspeddenComment by woodyspedden
    December 17, 2012 @ 1:57 pm

    Mr Kincaid

    Without commenting more about Soledad O’Brien, your position on semi-automatic rifles is simply not valid!

    Semi-Automatic assault weapons are capable of taking magazines of ammunition of 30 rounds or more. it has been a fact that for years people have learned to tape magazines together so that when the first high volume magazine is spent a rapid reinsertion of a second magazine is in play. If the shooter includes in his “kit” a second set of magazines you could be looking at the capability of several hundred operations of the rifle. This is in stark contrast to some of the “sport” semi-automatic rifles which often hold less than 7 projectiles. If you think this is “hype” be reminded that several of the children had as many as five rounds in them. So the “semi-automatic” weapon employed at Newtown, which shot twenty six people, fired perhaps in excess of 100 rounds in a matter of minutes. Works for Afghanistan perhaps but not for America

    Oversimplification of the differences of types of weaponry e.g. assault vs sport, is every bit as much of a pretension of an intellectual heavyweight as you accuse Ms O’Brien.

    I am a Republican and often take issue with liberal media such as you did. But it is important, if you are to be a critical commentator, that you have the facts straight.

    There is no place in society for assault weaponry except with Military and Police. If you support guns for sport there is clearly no need. If you support home security, most professionals will tell you that a shotgun is your best bet. Not only does the sound of “pumping” a round into the chamber scare off predators, but if they persist, a round of well placed double 00 buckshot should do the trick

    Respectfully

    Elwood Spedden
    Fort Collins, Colorado

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.9/5 (130 votes cast)
    • mike11cComment by mike11c
      December 17, 2012 @ 2:26 pm

      It is obvious that you have no idea what the purpose of the Second Amendment is. It’s not so we can hunt and shoot paper targets at the range. It IS so We the People will have the means to defend ourselves from an overly intrusive tyrannical government. Even if that tyrannical government is is Washington DC. You really should read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It may help you understand. I’m willing to die to protect my rights. Whoever comes to take my rights away had better be willing to die for that as well. This is not negotiable.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (166 votes cast)
    • edodanielComment by edodaniel
      December 17, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

      The Second Amendment says nothing about limiting the types of firearms that citizens can possess. The reason it doesn’t is because our founders discussed this thoroughly and the discussions were based upon what the King of England had attempted to do with his weapons restrictions and confiscations. Tench Coxe of Pensylvania, one of the founders, made it pretty clear when he said “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 Read that again if you missed the words “Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American” because out founders were very aware that the people of a country hav3 an absolute NEED to be armed equally as well as the military in order to provide a check on the excesses of power a strong military or big government tend toward.

      As for taping magazines together, yes it is a technique for rapid reloading of a magazine fed firearm but there are also tubular re-loading systems for the rapid reloading of tubular magazine .22 cal rifles and speed loaders for double action revolvers and back in the day of percussion cap revolvers it was a common practice to carry multiple preloaded cylinders.

      As long as the firearm is semi-automatic which limits it to one shot per trigger manipulation there are no real inherent differences other than caliber and accuracy.

      I see that you have fallen for the liberal “assault weapon” when you discuss weapons you do not personally approve of but unless you happen to have undergone the background checks and paid the money for a class 3 firearms license you will not be able to purchase any assault weapon. Assault weapons are capable of full automatic fire where more than one round goes downrange per trigger pull – the semi-auto look-a-likes that you can purchase for yourself are NOT assault weapons.

      The record for fast shooting is held not with any “assault weapon” but with a single action Colt pistol that requires two actions per shot – the hammer must be cocked and the trigger must be pulled.

      Many of the so called (because the media uses the term so often that those unfamiliar with firearms come to believe them) “assault weapons” are purchased and used in the many long range rifle matches held across the country every year that culminate in the Camp Perry matches in Ohio every year that determine who is in the President’s 100 shooters and who is the champion shooter in several classes. If you are unfamiliar with these matches you should do yourself a favor and become familiar with them so you can indeed see that there is a definite “place in society” for these weapons.

      Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:

      “The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

      Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:

      “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
      “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson`s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

      Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:

      “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

      Alexander Hamilton, of New York:

      “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” — The Federalist, No. 29

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (148 votes cast)
    • md67Comment by md67
      December 17, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

      Mr. Spedden,

      I am a Republican and a gun owner and could not agree more. There is no place in every day society for high capacity magazines. Especially when weaponry of this nature is unsecured and readily available to people who are mentally ill.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.4/5 (93 votes cast)
    • edodanielComment by edodaniel
      December 17, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

      md67

      Just because you have a personal dislike for something or have never experienced something or have no need for something does not translate to “There is no place in every day society for high capacity magazines.”

      Do you like fast cars or hybrid cars or all electric cars? “There is no place in every day society for these vehicles.” I think bicycles and horses are the better choice for transportation as they eliminate the need for petroleum products and the burning of coal to create electricity.

      “There is no place in every day society for …” is a rather ignorant statement when you pause to actually THINK about it as it only reflects a PERSONAL belief or feeling. It doesn’t encompass the actual NEEDS of competitors or the non-military or police in dangerous professions nor does it align with the Constitution which placed rather strict limits on what our elected officials and judiciary are actually legitimately able to do. They do of course exceed the Constitutional limits but only because they tried to extend their power in the past and got away with it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (109 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      December 17, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

      What I want to know is what was Lanza’s mother doing with an assault weapon? If she hadn’t had it her lunatic son wouldn’t have been to be able to steal it and a lot more people might be alive today, possibly including herself. The least she should have done was keep it locked up. Now before you guys start slinging the 1-star ratings, I’m not in favor of banning handguns, shotguns, or rifles, or even having any further restrictions on them. Assault weapons may be another matter, however.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.6/5 (71 votes cast)
    • mstrong1Comment by mstrong1
      December 17, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

      You are also clueless. Whatever the magazine capacity, with a modest amount of practice you can drop and replace a mag in under a second, so 10 or 30 rounds doesn’t matter it’s a one second change at worst. Revolver with speed loader, 3 second change. Shotgun with tube extension = 108) 30 cal projectiles in 2-3 seconds, you really just want modern, black colored guns to be prohibited. I can “shoot 100 rounds in a matter of minutes” with a small capacity bolt action rifle. Used to be (before psych drugs)that HS kids ALL had guns in their trucks in the school parking lot, but no one would consider shooting people with them

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (81 votes cast)
    • burningmanComment by burningman
      December 17, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

      Don’t forget to add the Federalist Papers to your reading list too.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (37 votes cast)
    • tommy2Comment by tommy2
      December 17, 2012 @ 3:28 pm

      After reading several of your comments I am rather aggravated that some of you are trying to decide what everyone else needs or does not need,such as high capacity magazines.Next it will be certain caliber weapons.I am a conservative ( Republican ) that loves guns and I have many.Several of my guns have High cap.magazines.I enjoy the freedom I have and respect “that Freedom” .The tragedy in Connecticut would have no bearing on the magazine cap.The biggest factor that would have changed the outcome of that is if the evil person was shot prior to getting at the children.These people maybe sick but they know they do not wish to be shot back at,this is the reason they pick soft targets such as these.Don’t give up your freedom and don’t give away my freedom.It is to hard to get back.Do away with these gun free zones ,but if you have to have a gun free zone than guard the damn thing,don’t go off saying nothing will happen because it is a gun free zone.People ,guns are not the problem here,it is the attention that the media gives these perverts and the fact that there should be less restrictions on concealed carry.Crazy people have a permanent presence in our society as well as the pure evil ones.Go after them ,not the tools,they will find another tool to complete their evil task,such as a bomb,automobile, machete or what ever comes into their minds. Your time would be better served by coming up with an idea as to how to pay for security,such as stop giving money to countries that burn our flags and kill our soldiers and call themselves our friends.All these “Gun free zones” like Malls,churches, restaurants,schools,etc.. need to be guarded or done away with the restriction.Any place where innocent people gather. DON’T GIVE AWAY YOUR FREEDOMS!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (93 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 17, 2012 @ 3:31 pm

      “Semi-Automatic assault weapons are capable of taking magazines of ammunition of 30 rounds” woodyspedden

      First, the use of the term “assault weapons” is one you will not be able to find a definition that defines anything, but does carry a lot of emotional assault upon the senses

      Just putting a killer design on a gun does nothing to change its firing ability

      There are only two factors for that, the speed of the firing pin and how fast bullets can be placed in the chamber and removed

      Second, your example of lots of rounds in the magazine is misleading. The more you have the great is the likelihood the gun will jam, and with a little practice switching magazines can be done faster with smaller clips, so that any reduced firing potential is more wishful thinking than anything

      Which takes your argument back to banning guns because they look wicked and they can shoot bullets, the liberal dream, banning guns, period but achieves no safety benefit while taking us back to the disarmed citizen while Eric Holder supplies the drug lords with automatic weapons

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (65 votes cast)
    • thewolfmanComment by thewolfman
      December 17, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

      Mr. Elwood, respectfully there is no place for ignorant comments such as yours. Professionals tell you that the shotgun is the best home defense weapon? So what. How good would its 3 rounds or 6 rounds do against the flashmob of 20 or more that recently attacked a man at his own house? When your 6 or 10 rounds are gone, I guess you just are required to sit back and let your family be raped and killed?

      You don’t know how many attackers or looters or whatever you may have to deal with, so MORE is better and NONE of your business trying to limit my rounds that I intend to have on hand for defense, and of course I want to be able to reload at least as fast as my opponents so why limit law-abiding people in need of weapons for defense to lower quality or lower capacity weapons. A few on this thread are saying moronic things like since criminals can get high-cap, we need to limit it. That is exactly opposite of the solution which is to arm the defenders at least as well as the bad guys.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (48 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 17, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

      “Assault weapons may be another matter” – LAPhil

      Please tell me what constitutes an “Assault weapon”

      Here is a picture of a gun to help you out
      http://library.thinkquest.org/J003080F/gun.htm

      Just putting an evil looking stock on a gun changes nothing about its firing ability

      Liberals, liberally use, the term because they do not know a thing about guns and are after the emotional sensationalism

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (37 votes cast)
    • klardComment by klard
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

      I am continually amazed just how persistent disinformation about firearms can be. What, precisely, is an “Assault Weapon?’ The definition is not the issue, rather the sinister sounding nature of the term. If certain groups of people can demonize those of us who cherish the Constitution in its original meaning via bogus terms and phrases, their mission has been accomplished.

      Currently, our own Federal Elected Officials simply reinvent the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution. Terms like natural born citizen. Now, anyone who first touches the earth within the confines of the USA meets that standard. However, those who authored our Constitution discussed its meaning in depth. A citizen does not constitute the higher standard of natural born citizen, who is the child of parents who are citizens of the nation. Notice that term is plural.

      We have a completely out of control budget deficit because the Fed’s have twisted the meaning of their authority within the confines of the Constitution. Only those areas specifically identified in the Constitution as being the purview of the Federal Government. Everything else is for the Individual States to resolve. I recall nothing about education, health care, or a myriad of other subject in the document. So, how shall we trust the Federal Government to decide what firearms are protected Constitutionally and which are naughty?

      What is the goal of Gun Control? What is the cost? What does history show us after gun control has been enacted in other nations? Crime rates soared after England and Australia inflicted the feel good solution of gun control on it’s citizens. The problem, you see, is that those with criminal aspirations simply do not follow the law.

      The real crux of the matter is that if we Americans are disarmed, we are defenseless against those that would do us harm. This harm may be perpetrated by insane persons, criminals, or governments. Before you simply dismiss the possibility of governmental harm against it’s citizens, read a little history. How many genocidal actions have been preceded by disarming the populace?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (56 votes cast)
    • usafoldsargeComment by usafoldsarge
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:11 pm

      Sorry Mr Spedden,”There is no place in society for assault weaponry except with Military and Police. If you support guns for sport there is clearly no need. If you support home security, most professionals will tell you that a shotgun is your best bet. Not only does the sound of “pumping” a round into the chamber scare off predators, but if they persist, a round of well placed double 00 buckshot should do the trick”…. DBLE 0 buckshot is the last thing you want to use in a house- each one has the weight and mass to penetrate and pass thru drywall and thin paneling- so much for your professionals with the profession un-named… Mike11c has it right- you have no idea what the 2nd amendment states, only what you want it to state. You should also read and read many times “edodaniel” has posted…. In fact you need to fully understand just EXACTLY what the words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON” means… Any restriction, no matter how small and in your mind-inconsequential- it might be, it is still an infringement! Why some idiot ever called the AK47 an Assault weapon is beyond me, but some one did, now everything that has a Banana clip is an assault weapon. The law that prohibits guns in a school zone really worked didn’t it…… Not really, because all it did was prohibit someone from LAWFULLY possessing and possibly using it early in the shooting to have reduced the number of dead…
      Also, the weapons he used were, in reality, stolen guns……

      Really, you, yourself need to get your facts straight

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (37 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

      “Eric Holder supplies the drug lords with automatic weapons” – jota_

      And speaking of Eric Holder, the Obama administration, Operation Fast and Furious
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious

      At least 150 known to be killed by these weapons and an unknown percentage of the 43,000 killed in the drug war and among this number are children.

      It is this administration who wants to tell us how best to protect the citizenry from guns.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (35 votes cast)
    • jw11Comment by jw11
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:49 pm

      B.S. My second amendment rights tell me I can choose the guns I prefer for personal defense. Shotguns are a good choice but that is not the only effective choice and it should be left up to the law abiding citizen to decide what they are comfortable for defense ans NO one else.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (35 votes cast)
    • bulldogComment by bulldog
      December 17, 2012 @ 8:17 pm

      @ LAPhil

      We usually agree, but on this matter I have to disagree with you. I do not own any guns, although I have used a few in the past, but I have to side with the 2nd Amendment on this issue.

      The 2nd Amendment was wrote to give the people the right to bear arms to defend themselves against an out of control, or non representative government. As such the people should have the right to own guns equivalent to guns the government has.

      Without this right we may never be able to have another civil war, and end up in George Orwell’s 1984. With this right there will most likely be another civil war. It may be many years before such an action takes places, and maybe not in my life time, but I truly think the way this country is going it will happen.

      May God Bless and Protect all of us and our rights.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (17 votes cast)
    • canyonratComment by canyonrat
      December 18, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

      When Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Have Guns.
      Gun free zones only tell the bad guys that they are safe to do as they please. They are cowards that pick on the defenseless. Semi Automatic guns are not assault rifles no matter how many bullets fit in the magazine. That is a huge liberal buzzword to be used to strip away freedom and control our lives. All you frightened liberals need to remember that Timothy McVeigh didn’t need a gun to blow up a building and neither did the 9/11 terrorists. They may be crazy but they’re not stupid. Let’s not be stupid and give up our freedoms and protections either.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (8 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      December 20, 2012 @ 2:29 pm

      Thanks for the education, Jota. I think I know what a gun looks like without you having to show me a picture, thank you. I also now realize I was mistaken about Lanza having an assault weapon, which he did not.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  3. Ben_ColderComment by Ben_Colder
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

    Focusing on gun control takes the eye off the real problem. It’s the shooter who is the problem. Would a bad carpenter blame his tools?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (83 votes cast)
    • usmc1Comment by usmc1
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

      Yes, a BAD carpenter would blame his tools, but the GOOD carpenter, having the very same tools, working right next to him would point out the fact that it is the idiot BAD carpenter that is the problem, not the tool! The trick is to try to keep the tools out of the hands of the BAD carpenters without infringing on the ability of the GOOD carpenter to aquire the tools and more of them if necessary!
      Actually this IS quite possible ….

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (20 votes cast)
  4. rwjacksrComment by rwjacksr
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

    O’brian is a moron, been a Moron all her life, she was born a moron and will probably die a moron. She is one of those people that would go to a gun fight with a butter knife.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (84 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      December 17, 2012 @ 2:13 pm

      And that would qualify as a classic example of the Darwinian theory of thinning out the stupid from the herd.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (21 votes cast)
    • Eagle OneComment by Eagle One
      December 17, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

      With Butter! :)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.3/5 (9 votes cast)
    • jw11Comment by jw11
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

      Very Nice!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  5. jhovjrComment by jhovjr
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

    Soledad O’Brien is not only a Liberal Hack she is a clueless Liberal Hack who has no business lecturing anyone on any subject. A journalists job is to report nothing more nothing less. unfortunately in recent years they have used their 1st amendment immunity to shape issues to conform with their own personal beliefs. They need to be reigned in and grant them their constitutional freedom of the press only in their reporting not for
    their rhetoric.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (74 votes cast)
    • klardComment by klard
      December 17, 2012 @ 5:19 pm

      The easy way to reign in Media Wonks is to let their advertisers know that you will not buy their products or services if they continue to advertize on the idiots show.

      “Money talks, BS Walks.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (20 votes cast)
    • woodyspeddenComment by woodyspedden
      December 17, 2012 @ 6:17 pm

      I assume here that you do not conclude that the author of this article is a “media hack”? The fact that he publishes an article on GOP USA makes him one like it or don’t.

      I am all for reporters being limited to reporting but that doesn’t mean that only liberal journalism falls into this category. While you may prefer the conservative biases of reporters on Fox News, they are nonetheless shaping the news just like on CNN

      But this takes us far from the core issue of restriction of high capacity, high impact weapons heretofore identified, by me, as assault weapons. I would personally not differentiate between a glock with 30 round magazines than I would from AR 15. These high capacity rapid firing handguns were designed (all of them including the Glocks, the Walther PPK’s, the Berettas et al) for police and military use. In fact the PPK at the end of the Walther Brand is German for police control weapons

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.1/5 (13 votes cast)
    • bulldogComment by bulldog
      December 17, 2012 @ 8:23 pm

      @woodyspedden

      The people should, and in my opinion do, have the right to these same guns as the Police and military. This is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

      It is the crazies that are the problem, not the guns.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (16 votes cast)
  6. mike11cComment by mike11c
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:19 pm

    There is one thing these liberals need to understand. There are many people, like me, who have sworn the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, and to bear true faith and allegience to the same”. That oath ends with “so help me God” and it does not expire. I will never allow anyone, our own government included, to disarm me. I have fought for these rights and I am prepared to do it again. In fact, I am willing to die to protect these rights. The big question is: are you willing to die to take these rights away? It will come down to that. I repeat, I will NEVER be disarmed!
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (71 votes cast)
    • pb1174Comment by pb1174
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:31 pm

      mike11c- unfortunately it would seem that the Obama administration, prodded by many in the “liberal” establishment would like to eliminate both “guns” and “so help me God”. I too have served and my bet is many of the authors on this site have too. I subscribe to the comment that these unstable individuals may pick vulnerable targets b/c they are vulnerable. An armed, trained and prepared guard or administrator may well have ended this at the front door. The first heroic administrator who gave her life was very brave but tragically unprepared vs an armed intruder. NO one yet knows what set off his sick mind but in todays rabid, increasingly divided, class driven society the potential increases for occurences as this. Our schools, workplaces and homes need to be protected and citizens are more “invested” in that process than the govt.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (27 votes cast)
    • klardComment by klard
      December 17, 2012 @ 5:26 pm

      Well said, mike11c.

      I’ve got your back.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (20 votes cast)
  7. Eagle OneComment by Eagle One
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

    Soledad O’Brien << ?? << Well, consider the source. Not at all relevant.
    Mr Kincaid, I believe you are trying to rationalize the thinking of a liberal hack. You sir, I am sorry to say, are trying to achieve the impossible. She, like most other lib's have not a thought or a care about gun owners with the exception of banning in their entirety every firearm in existence. Next will be bows arrows, sling shots then sticks and rocks. They have severe tunnel vision.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (24 votes cast)
    • jw11Comment by jw11
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

      Yes and these morons also forget what bombs would do also if the shooter did not have a gun but still had a sick mind to kill innocent people for no reason!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
    • patrickjnComment by patrickjn
      December 20, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

      Ms. O’Brien reminds me of the YAHOO piece where a woman called in to a talk show to complain about the deer crossing signs. She wanted the signs moved down the road to a place that would be safer for the deer, because too many deer were being killed by crossing at that spot where the signs were now placed. She evidences a level of stupidity so great that no amount of logical argument can penitrate such thick skulls. In effect, she was too stupid to understand either the problem or the solution.

      A discussion requires intelligent minds on both sides of the argument. We are seeing the problem first hand with the “Economic Cliff” negotiations in Washington. No amount of logical argument will change the situation. You have to change the participants. Even at that, half the country will not understand the problem or the solution.

      Gun laws limit legal access to automatic weapons. True Assault weapons fall in that category, and those laws are generaly enforced. Violators should be severelly punished. Short of that, the Constitution guarantees our right to own guns, regardless of what the idiot O’Brien says.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  8. skypilotdarkfyreComment by skypilotdarkfyre
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

    semi auto a problem? I’ve used semi-automatic weapons made in the 1890s. These are not new. until the 1930s the most powerful handgun in the world was the C-96 Mauser. This is old technology and has nothing to do with the current problems. No gun zones make a fine shooting gallery for a person who is mentally ill. No one can effectively resist an attacker. China just had 22 kids carved up with a knife. anti psychotic drugs have been tied to nearly all the mass shootings since the Texas towers more than 40 years ago, People have driven cars through school yards. The problem is not and never has been guns. It would take more room than this comment box for an accurate treatise on why but feel good laws are a part of the problem; along with drugs and moral foundations in society.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (65 votes cast)
    • jw11Comment by jw11
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

      GREAT COMMENT!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (11 votes cast)
  9. usmc1Comment by usmc1
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

    Instead of obama and other elected using this horrendous catastrophic event to grandstand, and the media included, ALL should just sit down and SHUT THE HELL UP!
    This is a time for grieving and mourning! Not for these corrupt, amoral, immoral, lying thieving politicians or this corrupt, amoral, immoral, lying thieving president to try to make names for themselves, or to look or sound important! There is a time for your grandstanding, and this is not that time!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (48 votes cast)
    • bellaislaComment by bellaisla
      December 17, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

      well, they are busy “ginning up” the crowd to advance their agenda. I call it politicizing. The sad part is, every nutbag in the country is going to get worked up and excited with the idea of maybe doubling down on the massacre. There are some very sick ******** out there who are loving this…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (40 votes cast)
  10. jcolesComment by jcoles
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

    Most of the folks here have the concepts built into the Second Amendment exactly correct…they are straight on why the Founders & Framers enshrined that God-given right of self-protection — including from government over-reach — in writing high up inside The Bill of Rights.
    It is Liberals (aka Progressives, aka socialists) who have it wrong…totally wrong.
    A civilian rifle built in the AR format is simply a repeating rifle…it is not a combat rifle…Libs not only don’t get the distinction they adamantly refuse to even consider that there is a distinction.
    Libs want to take away civilian repeating rifles because of their appearance and they focus on silly structural details like removable box magazines…guess what, Libs: most of my hunting bolt-action rifles also have removable box magazines and several have fairly substantial capacity magazines…
    The arguments Libs make against guns in general are simply supersilious, based on willful ignorance and loathing of the notion that humans are born free and have the right to remain so unless they are convicted in court of a crime — and in general even those restrictions on one’s liberties have sunsets…not so the tyranny the Left would impose on us…from before birth to the grave, the Left wants to own and control the people.
    But so long as there are people who believe in Liberty ownership of our lives will not transfer to Liberal control.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (43 votes cast)
  11. SpiderMikeComment by SpiderMike
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:44 pm

    O’Brien must of attended the Lenin School of Journalism.

    “The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” ~ Vladimir Lenin

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (42 votes cast)
  12. bellaislaComment by bellaisla
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

    I think the Obama Administration has already demonstrated their ability to track people and weapons. It was called “Fast and Furious” for the Mexican Cartels. Then it was “Fast and Furious, Part II” for Benghazi. Both ended badly.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (45 votes cast)
  13. mrparkerComment by mrparker
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:52 pm

    Stop the scapegoating. O’Brien, you wouldn’t know a semi automatic rifle from a fully automatic rifle if it hit you on top of your head.

    Here’s my problem with you liberals. When gun control hysteria started in the late 60′s, first it was mail order guns, then saturday night specials that were the “scourge” of the inner city(of course it was all many honest poor citizens could afford), now it’s developed into so called “assault rifles”, like the M1 rifle that won WWII, it’s semi automatic and was brought home by the thousands and sold as surplus. The semi automatic mechanism has been around since the 1880′s I believe,invented by John Moses Browning.
    STOP blaming the weapon, try to find out why people are committing these crimes. How about sensationalized reporting-”if it bleeds, it leads”- extremely violent movies and video games-”you killed me but I’ve got another life”. How about the death penalty- one that actually is applied within one year after conviction and one unbiased appeal. Don’t think it’s a deterrent? Ask any defense attorney that gets his client life without parole in a death penalty state- he acts like he won an acquittal.

    Study homicide rates by race if you want a real eye opener- take firearms away from blacks and hispanics and see what that does to the statistics thanks to this multicultural society.

    And if you’re worried about suicides, look at Japanese per capita rates compared to ours.

    Knee jerk liberals, too stupid to look beyond the paradigm of banning things.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (41 votes cast)
    • earlsfirst1Comment by earlsfirst1
      December 17, 2012 @ 10:53 pm

      Mr. Parker:

      The M1 rifle was designed by John C. Garand in 1he 1920s and 30s. He was a Canadian engineer working at Springfield armory.

      To extend your knowlege, John M. Browning designed a long line of rifles, pistols, shotguns, and machineguns.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  14. jenerseaComment by jenersea
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

    The vast majority of these gun haters do not live in the real world. They live in gated communities and have people protecting their homes that carry guns. They do not live where moments matter in situations. If you live outside of town or at the moment in town the cops are minutes away, you are dead by the time they get there. They want the pump shotguns, lever action rifles and all banned under the semiautomatic law. The world has lost its morals and these criminal tradgedies will continue to increase. You better protect yourself and not wait until the terror is at your door.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (32 votes cast)
  15. LAPhilComment by LAPhil
    December 17, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

    I understand everyone’s favorite big mouth lefty Ed Schultz now wants to get rid of the 2nd amendment entirely.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (11 votes cast)
  16. usmc1Comment by usmc1
    December 17, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

    I can’t help but wonder if there was ever a neutral/impartial press that reported only the facts, straight up w/o its opinionated bias or slant! Certainly not, so far, in my lifetime, of 75years! The press today is by far the most biased, most prejudiced, leftwing bleeding heart liberal, one-sided press this nation and the world has ever seen!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (42 votes cast)
  17. mstrong1Comment by mstrong1
    December 17, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

    I believe that in Switzerland ALL males are issued a machine gun and ammunition to keep AT HOME and are to bring them when called up. With EVERYONE having a machinegun, it seems there are ZERO mass killings. Explain that

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (30 votes cast)
    • bulldogComment by bulldog
      December 17, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

      Very true. It is not the guns, it is a problem with some individuals in our society.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
  18. gsreaganComment by gsreagan
    December 17, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

    It’s sad but the schools in Texas have a simple solution to the threat of school shootings. Most use off duty ARMED LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS to monitor the grounds and hall during school hours, some voluntary as they have kids at that school. Several school districts allow the administrators and teachers to PACK HEAT. Damn …. who would ‘a thought of that. There are some that restrict entrance and monitor incoming and outgoing people traffic. It doesn’t get much better than that.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (30 votes cast)
  19. agnesdayComment by agnesday
    December 17, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

    I hope I never have reason to use a semiautomatic assault rifle, but with crime escalating and law enforcement budgets plummeting, I would not bet my life on it. I am too old to go on patol for people I do not like, but I would provide a very warm welcome for those who would enter my house unbidden.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (22 votes cast)
  20. Pingback: Gun Control is Genocide - documentary by Mike Adams - Page 2 - ALIPAC

  21. JBQComment by JBQ
    December 17, 2012 @ 3:27 pm

    It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is. The right is treating this as a logical dialog. For the left, it’s a scam and a Cook County scam. Which pod has the “pea” under it? Rewatch the Paul Newman movie.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (6 votes cast)
  22. usmc1Comment by usmc1
    December 17, 2012 @ 3:28 pm

    I dare say there is anyone more pro the second amendment than I am; But there are steps this congress could and must take to improve and implement better gun control without stepping on said amendment!
    Unfortunately, I doubt seriously there is even one legislator, Federal or State, with enough gray matter to figure this out, who will not attempt to use this horrendous even to grand-stand, so I will try to explain it in the most simplest terms possible! Terms that even a legislator should be able to grasp and perhaps/hopefully understand!

    • First, make it unlawful for a gun manufacture and a gun dealer to sell a weapon that does not have a, serial numbered, gunlock installed, in/on, and sold with each gun!
    Perhaps this lock could/should be of the bio nature/type “keyed” at the time of the original sale, and “re-key-able” ONLY at a licensed gun dealer/shop. That “bio key” will/MUST then be entered into the national gun registration database at the time of the sale or transferee of ownership of the gun!

    • Second, No gun owner anywhere in America may sell a gun to anyone, unless that sale takes place inside a licensed gun store, and in front of a licensed gun seller at his or her place of business, the gun store.

    • The licensed gun store owner, operator, representative, or licensed to sell firearms employee must witness the sale and or exchange of all firearms/guns, and complete and have signed all transfer of ownership and registration documentation required.

    • The licensed gun shop owner/sales person MUST IMMEDIATELY enter that gun ownership transfer into the local and national registration data base.

    • The actual/physical exchange of that weapon MUST not take place until there is a completed background check of the ‘new’ buyer, and that buyer has passed!

    • Between the time of the gun sale, there in front of the licensed gunshot owner/employee, and actual physical transferee, usually 3-5 days, that specific gun MUST be dismantled and inspected, by a qualified and licensed gun smith to insure that it has not been modified in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.

    • Until has background check is completed and passed, the gun being sold/transferred MUST, after inspection for modifications, remain in the safe of the gun shop.

    • If the gun has been modified in anyway whatsoever, the gun smith MUST immediately notify local law enforcement, and the owner and prospective buyer notified that the gun must and will be surrendered to law enforcement for destruction /meltdown.

    • The original registered owner, or owner currently selling said gun, MUST then satisfactorily explain the modifications to local law enforcement, and all guns still in ownership by this gun owner MUST also be inspected for illegal modification, and the owner must face local statutes/laws applicable to illegally modifying the gun(s) while in his or her position.

    • Any guns found to be modified MUST, at that time, be confiscated for destruction!
    • At that same time any ‘large capacity’ magazines in position of the gun owner MUST also be confiscated.
    • Any automatic guns or military type guns, unless rendered unable to fire live rounds, MUST be confiscated.

    • The sale/purchase of ammunition for a gun MUST IMMEDIATELY be entered into the national database BEFORE the sale is completed and possession of said ammunition is accomplished by the purchaser. If it is found within the database that the purchaser of the ammunition has already purchased the same ammunition previously at another seller, and the quantity of this sale will put the purchaser over the legal limit of that ammunition, then the sale MUST not be completed, and the purchaser told why he or she cannot purchase the ammunition! Law enforcement MUST then be notified of attempted purchase of ammunition!

    • The supply/stock of all ammunition within a gun shop/store MUST be secures in a locked cabinet, display case or heavy duty wire/bar cage at all times and must never be left unlocked except to remove the quantity necessary to complete a sale of such and MUST BE IMMEDIATELY locked upon removal of the said quantity!

    • A separate bill/law MUST be written and signed into law that simply states that it is illegal for civilian, or police to own or be in possession of a “Automatic” gun, or any large capacity magazine.
    None of the above step on the second amendment; People, who feel the need to own a gun can still purchase and own a gun or guns.

    • Violation of any of the above requirements must result in sever punishments up to and including, large fines, jail time, loss of all associated licenses. This must include the manufacturer, gun shop owner or employe of gunshot, and purchaser of a gun sold to another person …

    • ALL guns within the home MUST be secured in a safe place, out of sight and reach of children with said gunlock in place. If the gun is stolen, it must be reported to law enforcement immediately upon discovery; Failure of this requirement will result in a large fine, and possible charge of accessory to any crime taking place following the loss of possession of said gun and possible jail time!

    • There must never be allowed, the sale of firearms/guns on the I’net! Period! To allow the sale of such completely violates and circumvents the above, hopefully, mandated requirements!

    • When a gun is found at a crime scene or confiscated it must be checked to see if it has been used in any, previous crimes on record; the history of ownership, as described below, must be investigated and if a violation(s) of required steps listed below are found, the “break” if you will, in the chain of custody/ownership must be sought out and the guilty MUST suffer the required punishment legislated for that violation, up to and including accessory to the crime in which the gun was found and confiscated!

    ALL of the above creates a complete traceable history of every gun sold in America, and points out the requirements of ALL involved with the sale or exchange of ownership of a gun …

    These nineteen requirements simply state, in basic English that even a sixth grader and/or a legislator can understand, without a brash of mumbo-jumbo legal-speak where-to-fore, and like language meant to muck it up, confuse and/or create loop-holes, within requirements for manufactures, gun shops/stores and owners, the sale of, or exchange of, ownership of ALL guns! This does not need or require a ream of paper, just keep it simple and straight forward! Perhaps if it could be stated simply, on one page/sheet of paper, those responsible, including legislators prior to signing it, just might actually read it.

    Equally important, there MUST NOT BE even one solitary, unrelated or non relevant to the above, issue or language, stuffed or hidden within this specific piece of, possible, legislation!

    And it should not require wasting OUR taxes on some committee to hash it around while they try to turn it into a legislative advantage or some pet project! This could/should be completed it just a few days! Congress should keep their corruption for future legislative shenanigans!

    What ever the verbiage or language of legislation passed and signed into law, regarding the manufacture, sale, purchase, resale or transfer of ownership, and registration of a gun or weapon, two copies of said law must be signed by the purchaser/ owner taking possession of said gun; one copy for the gun shop and one copy for the “new” owner.

    Perhaps knowing these requirements, and possible repercussions for failure to obey ALL of them, these requirements might go a long way to preventing another horrendous event like the one that just took place at that elementary school ….

    Note to both Federal and State Legislators: I believe 99% of your work to create such legislation is done for you above, so you should not require a bunch of committees, etc. nor should it cost “WE” the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of OUR hard earned tax dollars!
    And a note tothe NRA and all gun owners, gun enthusiasts, and the like:

    YES, YOU CAN STILL PURCHASE AND OWN GUNS PER THAT SECOND AMENDMENT! NOTHING IN THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS INFRINGES ON YOUR RIGHT TO PURCHASE AND/OR OWN A GUN!
    SO SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE HELL UP!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.7/5 (43 votes cast)
    • usmc1Comment by usmc1
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

      I forgot to include: to purchase additional ammo for a gun, the buyer of the ammo must have collectred the “expended brass”, (for those who do not know what that means, it is the casings after the buller has been fired), and return them to the gun store inorder to purchase the equivilant number of new ammunition …!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.2/5 (20 votes cast)
    • edodanielComment by edodaniel
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

      Having said that do you really think you support the intent of the Second Amendment? You do not!

      I am not going to respond to all your points but any type of registration makes confiscation easy for the government – Russia did it, Germany did it, England did it, Australia did it, Japan did it ad nauseum.

      Bio locks? THINK about that after doing some research on the many instances where a civilian picked up a fallen officer of the law’s firearm and managed to hold the criminals at bay until more officers arrived. Look up the thousands of times a baby sitter or friend of the family has used a firearm to thwart intruders and protect others – these couldn’t have happened with “bio-locks”.

      The National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibited ownership of fully automatic firearms unless you possess a class 3 license from the ATF which requires a rather extensive background check and fill out the ATF form 1, get it signed by the local sheriff, and then send it in with a check for $200 along with fingerprint cards, photos and a form attesting to US citizenship. It takes one to twelve months usually to get it back approved and that is if there are no “questions” about the application. Then there are various state requirements that must also be met and this ALL must happen before the firearm can be transferred to you.

      Many people make cosmetic modifications to their firearms and depending on the modification the owner may completely forget that they did it (such as changing from a wooden stock to a composite stock or vice versa) or replacing a tower front sight on an M4 with a low profile gas block which is but isn’t a modification as it alters appearance but not function.

      The simplest “cure” would be to return to what the founders had in mind and keep government from infringing on weapons ownership and carry in any way.

      Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:

      “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.” — An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
      “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” — The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

      “As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (26 votes cast)
    • edodanielComment by edodaniel
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

      RE: “I forgot to include: to purchase additional ammo for a gun, the buyer of the ammo must have collectred the “expended brass”, (for those who do not know what that means, it is the casings after the buller has been fired), and return them to the gun store inorder to purchase the equivilant number of new ammunition …!”

      So if you happen to like to shoot in rocky country where unrecoverable brass is a common factor what happens when you need more ammo? How about hunting in the woods or heavy brush where lost brass is a simple fact of life?

      Ws all your shooting on a controlled range where NCOs supervised the police of the range?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (16 votes cast)
    • usmc1Comment by usmc1
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

      many of the points Mr. Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania make are very true and valid; I guess I didn’t explain very well that part about “modifications.” I was not referring to cosmetic mods, or changing the stock say, from wooden to a “wire” or collapsable stocks …
      I am only referring to the inner workings of the weapon to mod it from simi to fully automatic, by filing down or removing the sear or any othe such mods to accomplish the same task. After twenty years in the Corps, I know a little of how to accomplish such, but at the same time, do not condon such…
      Perhaps bio locke arn’t the answer either; perhaps combo locks – anything but lost ‘key’ locks.
      I certainly don’t advocate people being able to defend themselves, as quickly as possible, against any and all comers, including this corrupt government and these trigger-happy police, who only know to shot first, and to shoot to kill ….!
      It’s been said that if you take the 2nd amendment away only the criminals will have guns. And before you go there, that includes the police and the government. Take away the secong amendmant and all the rest of the entire constitution, all inclusive, w/o exception will fall like domino’s! So yes, I do uphold, and will defend it with my last round and my last breath!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.2/5 (9 votes cast)
    • usafoldsargeComment by usafoldsarge
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:43 pm

      USMC1, you just wiped out the 2nd ammendment completely and facilitated the confiscation of all weapons.. The requiring me to sell my gun in front of a FFL agent provides the government with information of where weapons are and Who Has Them… Been a long time since a Jarhead told me to shut up… You have put so much **** in YOUR rules that it would be impossible for many to purchase a weapon… REMEMBER Jarhead, the guns used were stolen! If you are a supporter of the 2nd, you couldn’t help the anti-gun nuts any more if you carried a sign… A fresh round in exchange for a spent casing?????? We had a saying in the military that apparently you have forgotten: Walk around and let the world think you are an idiot- don’t open your mouth and remove all doubt……………..

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (19 votes cast)
    • md67Comment by md67
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

      Excellent post! Bravo

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
    • bulldogComment by bulldog
      December 17, 2012 @ 8:47 pm

      @usmc1

      What a crock you have posted.

      Have it your way and the Gestapo will have no problem confiscating the guns.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (9 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 17, 2012 @ 8:48 pm

      “I dare say there is anyone more pro the second amendment than I am” –

      AMENDMENT II
      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.

      infringe [ad. L. infring-ĕre to break, injure, damage, make void, O.E.D.

      You are pro 2nd amendment, but you think there are a number of things which SHOULD be done and none of them will infringe upon the right?

      Sorry, it just sounds crazy to me!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (6 votes cast)
    • earlsfirst1Comment by earlsfirst1
      December 17, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

      To usmc1:

      I’ve been attached to guns for 60 plus years and think I know a thing or two about converting them to fully automatic.

      I defy you to remove the sear of any firearm, convertible or not, and expect it to fire once much less an uncontrolled stream. That goes for filing the sear, too.

      That’s a bunch of garbage from the unknowing, just like the **** spread by Schumer, Feinstein, and Bloomberg.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (6 votes cast)
    • cdrcodyComment by cdrcody
      December 18, 2012 @ 12:12 am

      You were a Marine and you came up with this nonsense? The founders of The Corp must be spinning over in their graves.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 18, 2012 @ 8:26 am

      “You were a Marine and you came up with this nonsense?” -cdrcody

      Not to mention he is completely ignorant of laws which now exist

      He repeatedly list automatic weapons

      But seems to be totally ignorant of the fact automatic firearms have been restricted for use to the military and police for nearly seventy years.

      Also have to wonder about what he did in the military because his tactical understanding of fire power is lacking too

      Because the guns used would have still existed even with all the imagined restrictions he proposes.

      Once people start giving this a little thought, rather than wishing the problem away by vilifying an inanimate object, they will see he problem was NOT the gun

      The problem was someone who maniacal calculated where to get maximum results at the least risk, and restricting everyone else will not stop them in the least, but it does explain how the insane can walk among us and not be seen, they blend in with liberals

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (5 votes cast)
  23. NY GrahamComment by NY Graham
    December 17, 2012 @ 3:33 pm

    I expect ignorant commentary from liberal pundits. What I found truly disgusting, although not really surprising, was Obama’s speech to the families of the victims on Sunday night. He came to within an inch of calling for gun control before chickening out. I know that he never lets a crisis go to waste, but this was hardly the venue to start a debate on the subject.

    I also saw his face on the front page of the newspaper on Saturday. I thought to myself, how can the media possibly make this about him? They couldn’t find one picture of someone actually affected by the shooting, either a vitim or family member? This whole weekend has been the Obama show. I thought this would stop after the election.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (23 votes cast)
    • usmc1Comment by usmc1
      December 17, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

      That was just Obama grand-standint for political gain while trying to make himself look important, and pull the spotlight back onto himself. God forbid that anyone else might take away from him even one iota of the nations spotlight/attention! And anyone means exactly that, including those murdered little children! This is also the same case for that corrupt lying thieving amoral, immoral U.S.Congress, ALL inclusive w/o exception!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (10 votes cast)
    • cdrcodyComment by cdrcody
      December 18, 2012 @ 12:06 am

      “This whole weekend has been the Obama show. I thought this would stop after the election.”

      It hasn’t even started yet.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  24. leudnobComment by leudnob
    December 17, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

    A vast majority of the media people consider themselves experts when it comes to curtailing the rights of the individual. Much of this happened when “rights” were given to those with mental short comings and they were given a microphone to spew their ignorance into. All of this occurs with the federal government running the education business and those who graduate are more stupid with each passing year.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (15 votes cast)
  25. Robert Edward JohnsonComment by Robert Edward Johnson
    December 17, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

    If the anti-gun folks who pretend to care about kids (or anyone else) were any different than chickenhawks – both cynically exploit children, but for different purposes – they’d look into the fact that you could pretty easily get tek 9s and heavier-duty weapons way before all these mass shootings began, yet you didn’t see mass shootings. Grossman of On Killing fame believes it’s violence on tv, Michael Savage says it’s the meds (and I agree), but even though I disagree with Grossman’s conclusions on violence on tv, he gives good arguments against the gun availability argument, and I’d suggest Soledad O’Brien, Piers Morgan, et alius take a look.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.8/5 (5 votes cast)
    • woodyspeddenComment by woodyspedden
      December 17, 2012 @ 6:40 pm

      Once again things are taken from context. At the time of the constitution there was no military and no police. The only alternative was to allow citizens to own weapons (muskets remember) and call them to arms as a patriot military.

      We are now two and one half centuries later. We have enough military force and weapons to take care of nearly all realistic emergencies (nuclear not included since our response to that would enable a holacaust from which few of us would survive.

      We have thousands of police in every town and city, all armed with the weapons to secure serious emergencies.

      While you may not believe a multi-load shotgun with double 00 buckshot is sufficient to overwhelm a force of 30 bandits breaking down your door, there is little doubt that they would be armed with the type of weapons capable of taking you with your AR-15′s out.

      I am all for the ability to be armed with sensible weapons, not to personally wage war but for the ability (limited at best) to secure my family in a normal fashion. If there is a call to war, as so often has happened in my 75 years on this planet, the government will provide us with all we need to wage it.

      Get sensible folks. Most of your arguments about limiting assault weapons ( defined by me as high magazine capacity, high velocity weapons, be they AR 15′s or Glock 19′s or Sig Sauer 9 or Walther PPK’s ) are simply statements that you want no restrictions in your armed lives. Sadly for you there are many necessary restrictions on our lives. For those of you who make the constitutional arguments remember that the Constitution states the purpose of government is to provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare etc and those statements in the preamble alone cause restrictions.

      Frankly I am much more impressed when you just say “I want my gun” than when you try to justify owning military and police weapons.

      As to restrictions, look at the Australia data carefully and at Britain where last year there were 40+ murders with guns in a population of 60 million folks. We had 60000 murders with guns in a population of 340 million

      So much for the arguments about “needing a military weapon” to secure the safety of my family and friends

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.1/5 (9 votes cast)
    • klardComment by klard
      December 17, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

      @woodyspedden ;

      Your illogical thoughts regarding the Constitution is wearing a bit thin. We either have a Constitution, as written, or we don’t. Leaving judgement calls up to you or anyone else is a recipe for disaster, my friend. By the way, what other portion of the Constitution do you believe is out-of-date, or otherwise irrelevant?

      Is there any specific topics for discussion that you believe should not be talked about because the 1st Amendment was written before these ideas came to fruition? There was no Internet in 1776 so it isn’t covered?

      Also, you said “We had 60000 murders with guns in a population of 340 million.” The FBI Crime Statistics Report for 2010 states: 14,748 murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. That figure includes all methods, not just firearms. Quite a long way from 60,000. Sort of makes you look like you know not of what you speak.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (9 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 17, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

      “We have thousands of police in every town and city, all armed with the weapons to secure serious emergencies” – woodyspedden

      Do you read anything other than your own writings?

      It was never the concern there was no one to protect them, it was the fact those with the power of arms bring everyone else to their will.

      Everyone armed, everyone equal

      “Get sensible folks. Most of your arguments about limiting assault weapons ( defined by me as high magazine capacity, high velocity weapons, be they AR 15′s or Glock 19′s or Sig Sauer 9 or Walther PPK’s ) are simply statements that you want no restrictions in your armed lives.” – woodyspedden

      No!

      Here is the argument in a nutshell, every restriction on the responsible only enables the irresponsible

      Yea, we have nuts shooting up the place, but we also have the lowest crime levels in decades, because they now have to wonder, will they get shot

      And you have to ask, why the “gun-free zones” are now the target??

      If they were truly crazy they would attack a police station

      It is the fact they know there will be shooting ducks

      A few guns in the schools, so they have to wonder and this problem will disappear too.

      You are as screwed up as a liberal. They are always trying to make the world work the way they think it should work rather than studying how it does work

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "Welfare, schmelfare. I find it interesting that while America's median income has dropped from $54,000 to $50,000, redefining the poverty level..." Comment by billybob55
    Posted in America's Most Incurable Disease Is Spending
  • "I still don't get the distinction??" Comment by Bobinms
    Posted in Quarantine Questions
  • "I like his suggestion that all workers going over should sign a contract agreeing to the 21 day quarantine before..." Comment by ltuser
    Posted in Quarantine Questions

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer