The attacker had a gun.

I agree!! The gun control advocates are not calling for outlawing guns for everybody. They would just like to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and other undesirables such as felons.

Great post JP.

Totally agree with the background checks. However, automatic weapons are not illegal. You just have to register it with the feds and get some special tax stamp for it. I hope to gawd I don't ever have to use my weapons for anything other than pure enjoyment, but like any other tool. I would rather have it when I need it than not.

Darryl...

Sorry to offend your sense of blogging etiquette. Didn't realize that posting an opinion on a blog was such a egrigous use of public domain. Also sorry to hear that you are so narrow minded as to think that one mini-micro blog allows you top silo everyone into one nice little box that your little fragile easily offended mind can wrap itself around. I'll try to be more respectful of your delicate feelings. --The gun nut that believes in common sense laws...

all this and not a shot was fired

(note: the Egyptian people just overthru a real dictatorship with rocks and courage.)

I think background checks and tightening up gun show regulations are a tremendous idea. I don't think people should be able to buy automatic weapons, and I'd like to see a requirement that people buying guns have undergone some sort of basic safety and handling training. I'm a bleeding heart liberal and proud of it.

BUT -- I'm also a gun owner (Beretta handgun and I've inherited my dad's Browning shotgun), and my husband is a gun enthusiast who owns 10 or so rifles and handguns. He has a concealed carry license and goes shooting frequently. He earned a sharpshooter ribbon while he was in the military. I don't wish to outlaw all guns. I just want the laws on gun ownership be more like the laws on car ownership, in recognition of the fact that these beautiful little machines can be very dangerous in uneducated or criminal hands.

Your right, they shouldn't allow criminals to have guns.....OH! it's already against the law for them to have guns....Duh! As the anti-gun people always say. If they could just keep the bad guys from having guns we wouldn't need one for protection but, until you take them away from ALL the criminals we will need to protect ourselves and families. So, I'll just keep mine for now.....Thank you!

Sean Boi...

Not dense....but at least I can read. Perhaps you should do the same.

At the expense of being redundant for those in the nose bleed section. "The gun nut that believes in common sense laws..." Post 1.6

I was responding to the poster in the same manner that he responded to what was posted here. I do believe i said that some could say the exact opposite of what he Thoth about gun control. That doe not make me narrow minded. I suggest you look that word up if that is what you think.....

"They would just like to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and other undesirables such as felons."

Who gets to define the "undesirables" though? I'm not saying I would like former bank robbers and violent thieves to posses firearms but if you give the government an inch they usually take a mile. Just look at drivers licenses, originally created simply to confirm that you had the appropriate driving skills, they are increasingly being turned into a defacto national ID card, something that would have terrified people a generation or two ago. Firearms ownership restrictions themselves have been suffering from "mission creep" in recent years, once it was only violent felons, now any number of things can deny you a right guaranteed under the constitution (any felony conviction, "no fly list", domestic violence accusation, etc).

@JP Johnson, there is a HUGE difference in being WILLING to shoot someone for your or your family's safety and WANTING to shoot someone. I would prefer not to ever have to draw down on anyone, but I will do it without hesitation if the situation arises.

Also, what is the use of outlawing certain "Types" of weapons when the criminals have those same types of weapons, and the Government does as well? You do understand that the intended purpose of the Second Amendment was twofold do you not? 1. To provide a means of protection for one's self and family and 2. Provide as a stop gap against a tyrannical government.

I think that if someone showed up with an ax, the intruder would have done the same thing. Your argument for gun control is fallacious thinking. If you were up against two people, the best decision is to vacate fast. I agree with the right to keep and bare arms but it would be nice to hear people talk about facts.

So, you're only polite when people have guns? Maybe that's the problem. Maybe you should be polite despite having a gun or not.

JPJohnson,

I'm not aching to shoot someone like some of the crazies on this message board. I don't live in paralyzing fear that someone is going to come into my home and assault me. People puffing their chest out about guns are cowards hiding behind bravado.

Of course I fully expect Tea Trolls to misrepresent other people's view points for the sake of their own argument.

Hilarious, you denigrate "Tea Trolls" for misrepresenting other people's view points immediately after misrepresenting other people's view points. At least do two separate posts so your hypocrisy isn't so blatant.

Yeah Sean... That's exactly what I said. I'm only polite when people have guns. What is it with Sean's and not being able to read? Sounds like we have an epidemic on our hands. LOL!!

Johnr...

Who are you ranting against. I'm not seeing ANYONE here aching to shoot someone....not one post from anyone to that effect. Please elaborate...you seem to be upset about something beyond this article or any post on this blog. What's got you so angry?

Nobody will ever be able to outgun the United States government. This pro-gun argument is fallacious and spurious. I am not against guns, but get real. A lot has happened in over 230 years since the Second Amendment was drafted.

Did you notice the party affiliation of this brave, elderly man? He was not a Republican! I'm not either, but I am all for the safe and sane ownership of guns by law abiding citizens. I agree with the notion that criminals will always be able to get guns, so outlawing them only prevents law abiding citizens from having them. Not all Democrats are Liberals! Some of us are more Conservative than you think. Only a narrow minded loser sees the world in black and white.

Is this why gangbangers are so polite?

Once they start banning automatic weapons they will start banning other types of weapons. They just banned certain semi auto shotguns, they will try to go further. The BATF is anti gun and think they are the only ones who should have guns. Well, other than the guns they let go to mexico to mexican drug dealers!!!! You can bet the federal govt won't prosecute any of the officials who violated federal gun laws, because as usual our govt employees are above the law. This is something that needs to be fixed. When they commit a crime they should be arrested and tried!!!!!!!

I own several guns, and happen to think the gun laws in this country and jokingly broken. While I don't want to see any laws the infringe on my right as a citizen in good standing to own a weapon... I also don't want to it be easy for every psycho out there to get a gun.

If you have no criminal record, and aren't crazy you should be able to buy whatever you want. However the NRA, and the gun advocacy nut jobs out there don't want ANY kind of control what so ever. You shouldn't be able to walk into a gun show and buy a gun without a background check. People on the terrorsit watch list should not be able to buy a gun (which they currently can, thanks Republicans to blocking a law to stop that), and people shouldn't be able to buy 20-30 guns at a time without being checked out. Who the hell needs 20 AR-15's at once?

Making it so people the government is watching because they might be terrorist can't buy a gun seems like a common sense thing to do. I mean, we don't let them fly on planes, so why the hell are we letting them buy guns? Yet the NRA won't let a law like that happen because it might become a "slippery sloap". Reality check: There is a looooooooong way to go between making it so terrorist can't buy guns, and making it so a solid citizen can't buy guns. Were not just going to suddenly ban guns all together because we stopped letting terrorist buy them, and any such thinking is so idiotic its not even funny.

So while I agree that this story shows solid citizens should be allowed to own guns... thats not really something anyone is arguing against (aside from some on the fringe). This country needs some serious changes to its gun laws to make it harder for criminals/terrorist/the insane to get a gun. It might be true that if they try hard enough anyway they could still get whatever they want... but that does not mean we should make it easy for them.

Notice that the Congresman's son was NOT A MORON and did not shoot the fleeing perp. Yes, to the right to bear arms. No, to using them in a pea-brained way.

Well done, Congressman and family. You'd get my vote.

Good and well thought out post, John S. :)

Is nobody else gonna take a half a second from their bickering to commend the 77 year old Congressman/Veteran for his heroism?

They should not have struggled with the intruder (possible thief, rapist, and murderer) someone may have been hurt. They could have just called the police to investigate afterwards. Sarcasm! The police don’t prevent many crimes they investigate them, but the Congressman and shotgun intervened and prevented no telling what.

Jess,
Thanks for sticking with this thread...I'm glad that the Senator's grandson had a shotgun. I would do anything to protect my family, as all of us would...But I do believe in gun control, and I have MANY friends, NRA members even, who agree...Gun control laws written to demand background checks, a history of mental issues, a waiting period, will NOT ELIMINATE innocent people from being shot...BUT, it almost certainly will reduce this number. Further, if these laws make it more difficult for nutjobs like this to get guns, they have served their purpose. I have ridden a motorcycle for years, but I took a basic riding class before buying my bike and enjoying it. We all took Drivers' Ed before getting our drivers' licenses, and yet many thousands of people are hurt and lose their lives in car and motorcycle accidents...Why is it unreasonable to ask gun owners to take gun safety classes, get a license, and register our guns? I've heard that tired old argument about not wanting "big government" to know too much...If you are a responsible gun owner, that argument doesn't hold water...The only people who should be afraid of government knowing if they have a gun, or a bunch of guns for that matter, are the people who the rest of us would WANT the government to be keeping an eye on. Gun laws do not mean the end of the 2nd Amendment, they set the stage for a safer environment for everyone, especially us law-abiding gun owners...

Great point, V...

Also, who goes to a farm to rob??? Are farms the hotbed of financial transactions now? Nothing against farms/farmers, but that is like going to rob a day care center.

Squirejim...

Totally agree. I hate the drive by blog posters too. If you're gonna post, stay and support your position. :)

I am 100% for common sense approaches. I draw the line at limiting rifle or hand gun based on senseless arbitrary rules like clip size or intended function. I have my CHL and fully support the background checks and classroom time required to get it.

Jess...ABSOLUTELY! If a guy like you wanted to own totally automatic "assault" weapons, I've got no gripe! I have a friend, former Ranger Captain in the 1st Gulf War who has QUITE the collection of REGISTERED WEAPONS...Needless to say you and he are NOT the guys I worry about! The current laws that allow ANYONE to buy ANYTHING from ANYBODY on Craig's list for cash (ie UNTRACEABLE), are ludicrous!!! This needs to change...Thanks for the ORIGINAL post!

Jim

By no means do I believe Gun's should be banned, but CONTROLLED more strictly. more background checks and papers to prevent people like this criminal from getting a gun. But seriously, thank goodness nobody was hurt.

who goes to a farm to rob???

The steepest decline was in robbery reports — 8.1 percent — followed by murder with a 7.2 percent decline over all. However, there were some exceptions: murders rose by 1.8 percent in rural areas

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/25crime.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311008760-lCQxWUucWygqeuwiOQG33A

How distressing- First, an anti-gun democrat used his gun to stop a crime last week and now another democrat uses his guns to stop a crime in his home. What is the world coming to? I thought they were supposed to just allow the crime to occur and then call the authorities. Violence is never the answer.

Kind of "do as I say, not as I do"- isn't it?

Spot on, Squirejim!!

Your friend is the reason we are afforded these rights. Please thank him for me.

In regards to the laws, things definitely need to change but I eye all government intervention with EXTREME caution...especially the extreme libral tenancies of our current one.

While I understand all liberals are not anti-gun, the vast majority of them are. In any case, enjoyed the conversation with y'all...yes, even the ones that disagree with my points.

Y'all have a good day!! :)

@AnIndividual. You said:

"all this and not a shot was fired

(note: the Egyptian people just overthru a real dictatorship with rocks and courage.)"

Actually, they had most of the Egyptian Army on their side. Did you not see the tanks and masses of soldiers in the streets in full support of the people? But don't let the facts distort your ignorance. Carry on.

Jess is right. This burglar was CLEARLY a well-regulated militia.

Waiting to see how the NRA spins (warps) this one.

The bad guy had the easily concealed hand gun. Wonder if he had a 30 round clip.

And AZ just set a one month record for sales of guns.

All I can say is that when you break into my house, you better be faster than Quick Draw McGraw!

Im serious. After my alarm goes off, you have 3-5 minutes until the cops arrive.You will have been shot for roughly 2.5 to 4 minutes by that time. You will probably be bleeding out. I dont give that the greatest survival rate.

I am for gun control and when I say that, I am against handguns I but do not mind people that own shotgun if they are hunters. There is a differance.

Also, you can run from a knife but you cannot run from a bullet. Thousands of people killed by bullets would be alive, today if handguns had been banned. 35000 americans are killed each year because of guns.

America is a sick society full of people that have absolutly, no common sense.

When Florida passed their concealed carry gun law allowing anyone who qualified to carry a concealed weapon, the gun control advocates predicted wholesale melees and shootouts in the streets almost. Guess what? Crime dropped I think somewhere around 20 to 30 percent.

Criminals didn't like the idea too much apparently that that "helpless" little old lady or man they were targeting with their illegal gun might prove far less than helpless and fight back.

There was only one case also reported, based on when I read what I am reporting here, at that time where someone issued a permit to carry had it revoked.

The people who carry guns legally are more law abiding than the average person and are not going to shoot someone for the fun of it.

Fine, make it so that there are controls so that someone who isn't worthy to carry can't carry or buy a gun - but commonsense says it's not going to stop a criminal from getting a gun, if they want one.

Squirejim;

Tell me, how many gun control laws are enough? Currently counting all Federal, State, County and Municipal laws the number is 27,785 gun control laws on the books. It might be a good start to enforce the ones already written. For example, a felon in possession of a gun is supposed to go to prison for five years, just for having a gun. No crime, no shots fired, just having it. All the laws written are useless if they are not enforced.

Enforcement is the key, not more useless paper to make the politicians and naive feel like they're doing something.

And there are no laws allowing ANYONE to buy anything from anyone for cash. Class 3 weapons, ie fully automatic weapons have been illegal to own by anyone without proper license, registration and tax since 1934. Again, current laws provide a ten year prison sentence for anyone possessing an unregistered, (illegal) fully automatic weapon. Just possession. No shots fired, merely possession. Even the parts of one can get you a charge of conspiracy to assemble and illegal weapon. Why don't you study up on the NFA of 1934and GCA of 1968, you might find all this is covered by decades old laws that aren't enforced. It's about disarming the population. If it were about the laws, they already exist, and they would be strictly enforced. Like immigration law, they ignore them. The one side or the other can claim a crisis and the need for even more laws. Enforce the ones that already exist.

You copy and paste that same comment every time you post on a gun issue, chienetchats. So I'm going to tell you what I always tell you: 2 to 2.5 million defensive uses each year. Out of the 35,000 Americans killed each year that you claim are killed by firearms also figures in suicides and accidents. The truer number of Americans "murdered" each year by firearms is around 10,000. So I'd say 10,000 murdered vs. 2 million lives saved and the case is somewhere around 1,990000 to 10,000 in favor of the Second Ammendment.

They just made it a law in WY that you can carry a concealed weapon without a license. Guess what? There havent been mass murders or a bunch of kids killing each other. It has been pretty much the same as it always has been. Although, I feel much better :)

"Wonder if he had a 30 round clip."

Statistics (FBI I believe) have shown that a vast majority of criminals have little to no interest in large capacity hand guns or large firearms. Most prefer small to medium handguns and sawed off shotguns that can be easily concealed. The whole "gang bangers with AK-47s" is for the most part a myth.

All this talk of gun control, does anyone for ONE second believe the perp responsible for this crime submitted to a background check, finger prints (maybe from his priors anyway) or a safety course? All of which are mandatory for obtaining a license or buying legally. I laugh at you if you do. Law abiding citizens are not criminals, find where the criminal got his weapon and take care of the issue from there.

@ JP Johnson

Your right, just because your for gun control doesn't mean you want all guns banned. Just like the gun control laws they had in Chicago and DC right?

I don't know of a single proponent of gun control laws that has suggested that we outlaw shotguns. What they do propose is trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or would-be criminals. Your post shows that you have no understanding of the gun control issue at all.

"I don't know of a single proponent of gun control laws that has suggested that we outlaw shotguns."

There have been multiple attempts to ban all "center-fire ammunition", which includes shotgun ammunition.

Ano: The first gun I shot @ age 10 or so was a shotgun. It's still the best weapon for defending one's self in one's home, but I just bought my 1st. hand-gun last wk. after shooting hubby's ones & deciding I wanted a .22 revolver with a good grip, easier for me to load & using hollow point.

BTW, I'm 64 & I emphasize with this family. And I'm so glad they didn't have to shoot; I certainly never want to either. But, no amt. of careful precautions can cover everything. I'm getting my C.C. license this fall as did hubby this past Spring.

LOL chienetchats You are not an American you will never ever understand 8) growing up as a little boy it was a rite of passage to get a cowboy rig with caps heh.. We love our guns and it will never change....

Gun Control will never stop criminals from obtaining guns just look at Mexico.

@DigsInNY

You do realize that in most of the country, that is not the procedure. And do I believe the perp might have bought his gun legally? He certainly might have, had he not been convicted of a crime in the past, and if that was the case, there is not really any failure of the system here. Then again, he may have obtained it illegally. Who knows? Who cares? Criminals are, by their very nature, criminals. You can make the toughest laws, and they will still break them. Now, what would have happened if the victim did not have access to a gun? The criminal may have simply taken what he wanted and left, or he could have killed him. It is hard to know.

Well, I will just take a few seconds to say thank God that this man and his family are fine.

Ok, sorry for the interruption...

PS: War on guns will be just as effective as the war on drugs.. useless.

What they do propose is trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or would-be criminals.

If this were true you would get no argument from law abiding citizens or the NRA. However, it is not true. We already have laws on the books to do this. However, criminals tend to ignore laws. Until you can find a way to keep criminals from breaking the law, we'll keep our guns.

Flagrant attempts by the Obama administration like "Fast & Furious" (that are clearly designed to subvert the second amendment) and UN treaties to bypass the Constitution only add to the distrust between the citizens of this country and our government. It is a curious phenomenon; why are liberals constantly trying to take something away from everyone else? Why are they not turning in their own firearms?

Reasonable 22

What they do propose is trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or would-be criminals.

And how do you propose to do that, criminals dont pay attention to laws, thats why they are criminals. The easiest way to deter criminals from using guns is a mandatory sentence of execution if a crime is committed with a gun, but liberals are agains the death peanalty, so that wont work. You want background checks, let me tell you, at a Houston gun show they do everything but call in a proctologist if you want to buy a handgun, the criminals buy their guns on the street, they arent going to submit to a background check. The people you want to keep guns away from with your ridiculous laws are the people you never had to worry about in the first place.

Oh grow up, Ben. All Obama has done in his presidency about guns is INCREASE your gun rights. Yet the NRA has people so brainwashed that they think that this means he wants to ban guns. That's right. All he's done is expand gun rights... But they think he REALLY wants to ban them... But expanded them anyway.

This also in, 2 + 2 = 5.

Really...Obama expanded gun rights? I don't remember that; so I did a Google search, and found absolutely nothing!

Everyone knows that a felon who wanted to commit murder would probably resist the urge once he found out he isn't allowed to own/use a gun. There are already laws on the books that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people are not of sound mind. As someone else said, the ban on guns would be just as effective as the ban on drugs- NOT AT ALL. You anti-gun people are dreaming. Murder is illegal, yet the first 10 minutes of the 6:00 news is about who killed whom today. Oh please grow up and stop expecting utopia.

Toasty- Time to stop gettin' toasted. Let's see- The President and his administration created a 90% of illegal guns in Mexico come from the US, used it in public to promote more gun legislation, and then created an international gun trafficking program to get guns in the hands of the drug cartels (to be used against law enforcement and us), prove that the 90% did come from here and use those "facts" as a means to change gun laws. When Fast and Furious (and now Castaway) blew up in his face he took a side step and just last week offered up some new "common sense" gun law reform was necessary and decreed through an Executive Order.

Maybe it's just me but that all equals more restrictions, more bureaucracy, lying to the public, conspiring to make up statistics, illegal gun trafficking, and then sidestepping the legislative process to make up new rules. You are right, he's really pro gun rights.

The reason the man didn´t shoot the intruder with the gun is that he remembered the pharmacist convicted of murder for defending the two women and protecting his property.

Great to see old Boswell was able to defend himself and his loved ones. Wonder the outcome if ALL GUNS WERE BANNED so that only the criminal had a gun????? Folks, this is further proof that we must be armed and ready. Not waiting, just ready.

usa1967

Wonder the outcome if ALL GUNS WERE BANNED so that only the criminal had a gun????? Folks, this is further proof that we must be armed and ready. Not waiting, just ready.

Why would you ever wonder this? I wonder what would happen if lemons were purple. Who cares? It's a meaningless question.

If all guns were banned, this would probably have been a triple homicide and we'd have to pay for another expensive Washington funeral (which we cannot afford).

Don't gang up on Toasty. I don't usually agree with him, but I think this time he was just being funny.

Oh Jess, just STFU. This had absolutely nothing to do with gun control efforts but you want to make a big deal out of nothing.

"Really...Obama expanded gun rights? I don't remember that; so I did a Google search, and found absolutely nothing!"

Yes, he signed a bill allowing concealed guns in the National Parks. It went in effect in February 2010 I believe. Google "guns National Parks", I'm sure it will come up.

Well I see once again the topic gets hidden behind the right-wing "them Democrats want to do away with our guns" agenda.

The whole point is being lost. A 77 year old "liberal" Democrat tackles a would-be killer with a gun in his hand, and another cowardly liberal 22 year old gets the drop on the thug with... dare I say it?? A SHOTGUN...

Kinda of flys in the face of the garbage spewed here by the wingers doesn't it?

Notice that the Congresman's son was NOT A MORON and did not shoot the fleeing perp

Tell that to the family living in the next house he barges into. Hopefully they'll catch the guy; hopefully if they don't he won't decide it's best to just shoot the people he's robbing before they can resist him.

Before all you gun nuts get too much of a Viagra boost from this, the only gun control I've ever heard about that had anything to do with shotguns, was not sawing the barrels off.

Gun control is about handguns like the one the bad guy had. You can argue all day long about whether or not the perp would have had a gun if there were stricter laws, and there are twelve pages so far showing that you most certainly will. However, the shotgun would have been there if there was gun control or not!

So your point is?

Jess-1177200Restored

Nice. Let's hear from all the gun control people now. Let's talk about how writing another gun control law could have prevented this. After all...the attacker fought until a shotgun was produced. Only then did he run. An armed society is a polite society. :)

Wow!

An "armed" society is polite society?

By that logic the Middle East along with any number of "hell holes" around the planet should virtual "paradises" of civility and peace...You know, seeing as one thing these places all seem have in common is the "fact" they're all pretty much armed to the teeth with "politeness"-like all those AK-47 greeting cards available for purchase on nearly "every" corner in some of these Mecca's.

...Are they?

BTW: Didn't we shower Osama Bin-Laden with "politeness"-as well as give him "etiquette lessons" on how improve his "manners"-in order to have those wonderfully "polite" conversations on behalf of Afghanistan with Russia back in the 1980's?

What happened? ...Maybe we weren't "polite" enough to him and he took "offense" to our sudden "rudeness".

So if you think you can surpass that tidbit of utter "mindlessness" then by all means "please" try! ...We could all use a little extra "comic relief" in our day by laughing at the OMFG! level "irrational" comments from future maniacs such as yourself...

Cheers

Norton @#1.35

re:

Did you not see the tanks and masses of soldiers in the streets in full support of the people?

I will not join you in the personal insults, but I will answer:

Yes, I saw the army which was NOT shooting the people! That's my point.

I do not own a gun, I have never liked guns, I do believe in self protection, but what I don't like is a person who makes mistakes with guns, all you gun owners are saying yes to guns, but none of you are really saying that there should be training in firing a gun, who to point the gun at, when to point the gun, and other factors, I knocked on a neighbors door one day and he came to the door with his gun, open the door and pointed it at me, I knocked on his door to let him know that his car was on fire, his answer for why he pointed a gun at me was all he saw was a black man knocking on his door late at night, so for all you gun loving people, when you have a gun, you really need to think first, it is not shoot first and ask questions later.

Gun control is about handguns...

If you think gun control advocates are only interested in handguns you must not be living in the US.

Backcountry164

Gun control is about handguns...

If you think gun control advocates are only interested in handguns you must not be living in the US.

What facts are these comments based on? Or is this just paranoia brought on by glen beck, or Fox, or Palin, or whoever?

First, an anti-gun democrat used his gun to stop a crime last week and now another democrat uses his guns to stop a crime in his home. What is the world coming to? I thought they were supposed to just allow the crime to occur and then call the authorities. Violence is never the answer. Kind of "do as I say, not as I do"- isn't it?

Nope. That's what comes from arguing against a stereotype "straw-man" instead of the real thing. Most rational gun-control advocates aren't calling for a complete ban on guns, they just want to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. They don't see a problem with careful, law-abiding citizens owning guns, and some have guns themselves. There is no hypocrisy in owning a legally purchased registered gun while calling for background checks and registration for gun sales.

Your stereotype of all dems being defenseless gun hating ninnies just doesn't fit the facts, certainly not in this case.

According to KCCI news at 6 pm the intruders weapon of choice was dropped as he ran for his car. His weapon of choice was a BB gun. Little wonder that he ran when confronted with a shotgun.

I've heard people calling for the repeal of the second amendment for years. Many supporters have posted here today. I have a problem with them and their way of thinking and here is a sample why.

Regardless of any gun regulation in this country, people will still commit crimes with handguns/rifles. The people who want to repeal things like guns fail to remember that only law abiding citizens will follow the laws to the letter. That means that almost every person committing crimes now will keep their guns in hiding if the 2nd amendment was revoked. They would still commit crimes with them. Many others who believe they have a need for a gun will find someone to buy it from regardless of legality (much the same as people buy illegal drugs, etc.). How many convicted criminals who used a gun in a crime or possessed a gun obtained it legally? I don't know, but I bet the number is very low.

Leave the 2nd amendment alone and make the bad guys continue to guess who has a gun to defend themselves.

What facts are these comments based on? Or is this just paranoia brought on by glen beck, or Fox, or Palin, or whoever?

I'm sorry, my mistake. I didn't realize Assault "style" weapons were considered handguns. Oh...wait, they're not.

CM , and here is where you lost me , "registered " it is not the governments business what property a person posesses , nor is it anyone elses , tell you what , you register , all dildoes , vibrators , butt plugs , and ball gags ( all property ) and i might give consideration to registering my property , until then i consider what firearms i own no ones business but my own if they are as you said "legally" possessed .

Omni, I don't believe I would knock on that fellow's door anymore. If you knocked on my door late at night, I'd just use the intercom. I bet he was suprised when you told his car was burning.

And again I am pleased to live in Wyoming...

I am older than this youngster of 77 and still drive. You may generalize all you like, that is a mere reflection of your experience and deserved. The dangers I find on the road today are more younger people with their cell in one hand, a hamburger in another, a cig in the other, and a soda in the other. Naturally that leaves no hand to drive, 4 hands? What?

As to the article; my little town is reporting more and more crime. The economy? Crack Heads? I don't know for sure. I do know that I now prefer a 45 over the little Beretta, and a sawed off double barrel over a pump action.

lol McCool: Just don't get caught with that sawed-off. Same here with the drug issues esp. crack. A couple of months ago, they just busted the largest. crack house they ever had in our State. But even then, small towns are generally safer esp. if they have dedicated law-enforcement. We are truly fortunate here including the State Trooper whose car sits in his driveway down at the end of our lane.

Hey MrCool- I am with you on the 45, but my Mossberg pump with the 18 inch barrel, and a 5 round tube is my choice. I can discharge 6 rounds almost before the first shell hits the floor. The double ain't bad, tho.

The reason the grandson didn´t shot the intruder is that he remembers the pharmacist convicted last week of murder defending himself, two women and his property.

No! what this proves is that what comes around goes around. This Congressman had been for gun control for 4 terms. Now he says do what you have to do to protect your family. If he is for gun control why does he have a shot gun in his house? No its "do what I say not as I do." He has been trying to take away our right to bear arms but has one of his own. Serves him right to get some bumps and bruises. Maybe not for his daughter and son but he needed eye opener.

If all these politicians are so anti right to bear arms, why do they have secret service, and state police men protecting thm armed to the teeth?

.

..

..

.

Well Mr Cool. I am with you about the shotgun. I am fortunate enough to have a father in law that is a gunsmith. After 22 yrs he still amazes me. He is paraplegic and shoots PPC comp. He is ranked Marksmen and sharpshooter for the state and does this from a chair. He made me a PPC comp 38 pistol S&W that I can squeeze of all 6 under 3 sec. I hate to see what would happen if someone broke into either one of our homes.

all american-522351

No! what this proves is that what comes around goes around. This Congressman had been for gun control for 4 terms. Now he says do what you have to do to protect your family.

What do those two statements have to do with each other? Are you saying you can't be for gun control and want to protect your family?

If he is for gun control why does he have a shot gun in his house?

Um, first, because shotguns are generally not the subject of gun control. And, 2nd gun control means just that: control. It not called gun elimination, it's called gun control.

No its "do what I say not as I do."

Really? How is that? Did he ever propose a bill outlawing all guns, including long guns? Is so, please discuss it, otherwise you have no point.

He has been trying to take away our right to bear arms but has one of his own.

He has? Or has he been fighting to regulate which guns fall under the unfettered free reign of the 2nd amendment? I suppose you believe we should all have access to nuclear warheads. Hey, they are arms. Shouldn't we all be able to have them without the big arm of government getting in our way?

Serves him right to get some bumps and bruises. Maybe not for his daughter and son but he needed eye opener.

About what? About how not having gun regulations results in you getting robbed at gunpoint in your own house? I think he already feared that scenario, thus his position on gun control in the first place.

Debate much?

And, just how many wrecks are caused by teens for various reasons (texting, playing with music, cuddling, yakking and not paying attention, speeding, tailgating, etc. etc.? I believe insurance companies charge premium rates due to the data that shows excessive accidents by young drivers.

No julio...that guy commited murder...and there should be laws that require you to test your brains AND your ability when you buy a gun...just like there are when you get your license.

My father suffered from bi-polar disorder...he was able to get a gun when he went on one of his "missions"...he always thought a war was coming and wanted to protect my brother and I. Fortunately, he never hurt himself or anyone else (this was only when he went off his meds)...UNfortunately, he did thise several times.

It was always so reassuring to hear that there was always some gun shop that would sell him something...a******s

"The reason the man didn´t shoot the intruder with the gun is that he remembered the pharmacist convicted of murder for defending the two women and protecting his property."

Sorry, not true. He shot a robber in self-defense. Even though the kid he shot didn't have a gun, he was acting in concert with another robber that WAS armed. Where the pharmacist @!$%#ed up was this: He left his store chasing the fleeing robber, then came back inside, grabbed a second gun, and put five into the first robber, who was by this time no longer a threat.

I'm a redneck gun nut (and proud of it), but this pharmacist deserved the sentence he got.

The Congressman is one old man with carbon steel balls.

The grandson seems to have inherited a pair himself by way of his mother.

Thank you Stone Cold for articulating what REALLY happened. I'd have aimed for the one with the gun, but to pick up another gun & fire into someone on the floor, obviously NOT threatening anyone?????

This is what gives the anti-gun people their "ammo." ( All puns intended-lol)

Why suspicious, tommy- because of his position, his party affiliation,his age, what?

Why suspicious, tommy- because of his position, his party affiliation,his age, what?

Democrat with a shotgun.

Lots of Democrats have shotguns. You really shouldn't stereotype people, you know.

Lots of Democrats have shotguns. You really shouldn't stereotype people, you know.

They just don't want you having one.

Lots of Democrats have shotguns. You really shouldn't stereotype people, you know.

They just don't want you having one.

Nice try slick. I'm a meat eat'n, gun tote'n Progressive who spent 20 years in the military. Break into my house and see how "understanding" I am.

So am I my friend, so am I! It's one thing to own a gun but another thing to be willing to use one. Anyone who tries me will learn a very, very hard lesson.

Is it suspicious because they ran to get duct tape to put over the perp's mouth in case they had to make it look like a drowning?

HA.

The Democrats make sausage from the parts the Republicans didn't take in the first place.

tommy j -

You don't know whether the Congressman owns a gun. We know he was visiting his daughter and wasn't carrying one.

Why is so difficult for some to understand that there is a difference between gun control and outlawing guns? The U.S. is a violent country when one considers that there are more homicides than in either China or India which have populations of over a billion people. We should be able to find a way to control who can buy a gun and use it responsibly.

You people are funny, republicans this democrats that. What? you missed the memo that they are just opposite sides of the same corrupt coin? Regardless of party, If a politicians mouth is moving, it's lying to you. Why don't you look into their portfolio's. There you will see where their loyalties lie. The are Major share holders in big oil, big banking, insurance, and commodities. All the folks that brought on this economic fiasco and their in bed with every one, including BP. So a lot of that bail out money went into their pockets. Never considered that, did you? How else could they report multi-million dollar incomes on a salary of $120,000 to $160,000?

Republican and Democrat, please, not for a long time. But remain brain washed party Brahmin, be a good little party comrade. I laugh at the ignorance and naivety of many of you. You think these people care about you?, Beyond the money the extort from your wages, that is? They care only about their own enrichment. They care only for themselves and what they can gain from their position. They put Madoff in prison for running a ponzi scheme. I'd wager some of them got taken as well. Look at the government, there is a ponzi scheme unlike any in the world. Yet, they are upstanding, trustworthy people? Are you stoned or simple wish not to see the truth?

Wake up and smell the excrement.

Spoken like a good little Marxist. Those evil, nasty capitalist (who provide you with jobs and income) are here in force in America

I dunno.Ever since seeing Hanoi John Kerry pretending to go goose hunting with a shotgun to get the NRA votes in 2004,I've been skeptical of democrats and gun stories.I believe this one though.He's retired military and from Iowa so he is a REAL Democrat.Not a Socialist,Progressive or closet Communist like the left coasters and Obamites.

Arelar--what are you talking about? Are you responding to Wisconsin voter? About the only thing you could be discussing are his references to India and China.

Ummmm, Arelar, you do know that India is a capitalist country--right? You do also know that China, while still socialist, is rapidly evolving into a capitalist-sort of country (they have an unusual kind of capitalism--but they are allowing entrepreneurship).

Remember that socialism and democracy are both governmental systems--and they are both in the same general range of governmental systems (between absolute monarchy where the king owns everything and absolute anarchy where everyone is on his/her own). Capitalism and communism are both economic systems. There are jobs and incomes in both capitalism and communism, but communism has been shown to be more than a tad problematic when used in large countries (it works a smidge better--though not much better--in small countries).

One can have a socialist government and capitalist economic system (see Western Europe), one can have a democratic government and capitalist system (see the US, sort of), one can have a socialist government and communist system (see the old USSR--though this didn't work well), and one can have a democratic government with a communist system (see some countries in Central America).

Wouldn't it be nice if you actually knew what you were talking about?

Personally, I'd like to see some proof that there are gun control laws that have benefitted a community. People in the US (see Arelar) tend to be very poorly educated and easily misled. Unless one can demonstrate that specific gun control laws have had a tangible, strong benefit--I think that perhaps we should just accept that there are way too many guns in the US, too many are in the hands of idiots, and it is better to just have your own gun so that you can blow the idiots away if necessary.

And, no, I'm not a Marxist, either. Have a great day.

Wisconsin Voter-530116 There are already over 20,000 laws on the books regarding guns. One more or a thousand more won't make a difference. What will make a difference is ENFORCING those that are on the books now. You know, the ones the Obama administration is not enforcing or even breaking themselves. Google "project Gunrunner" or "Fast and Furious" or follow these links:

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker-part-two

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker-part-three

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker-part-four

http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/04/19/1800-missing-guns-1800-dead-bodies/

http://www.cbsnews.com/sharylattkisson?tag=contentMain;contentBody

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/03/official-correspondence-on-project.html

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/evidence-mounts-that-government-not-gun-shops-arming-mexican-cartels

http://www.waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=181

Score another one for us old guys.

There's nothing political about this situation other than the stupid comments on this board. I know alot of democrats that own guns and not all democrats are against guns just like not all republicans believe in the falacy of 'trickle down economics'.

Wisconsin Voter!! Gun Control, Gun Laws.... whats the difference. The Dems want to change the whole constitution. It dont matter. What matters is that the second amendment was put in place by our for-fathers. Not to be changed in any way. Its not like it is the 100th amendment or anything...it is the second. 2nd thing that came to their mind to be the rule and guide to this Nation. It all comes down to the Dems saying " Do as I say not as I do" and even if it was his daughters house, obviously she doesn't believe in her own fathers political views.

all american-522351

Wisconsin Voter!! Gun Control, Gun Laws.... whats the difference. The Dems want to change the whole constitution.

They do? Based on what proposed legislation? Or are you just basing this on Glen Beck?

It dont matter. What matters is that the second amendment was put in place by our for-fathers.

I think you mean Forefathers.

Not to be changed in any way.

Wrong. The FOREfathers wrote a constitution that actually can be changed.

Its not like it is the 100th amendment or anything...it is the second.

So that means it has more value than the 3rd, or the 10th?

2nd thing that came to their mind to be the rule and guide to this Nation.

AND?

It all comes down to the Dems saying " Do as I say not as I do" and even if it was his daughters house, obviously she doesn't believe in her own fathers political views.

Do as I say and not as I do? How is that, exactly? Did he own a handgun and rob a house with it? No, that would be the BAD GUY, that he is trying to REGULATE.

I'm not going to jump into the gun control argument pool and offer my opinion. The Senator pointed out that his former military training prepared him for the fight. He is 77 years old and took on an armed intruder who was much younger than him to protect his family. No matter how you look at it though, he and his young grandson more likely than not saved the lives of their family and are heroes in my book.

Well done!

Debbi 1138281

I liked your post.

Your right about not joining the gun control debate. It's been my experience when an article has the word "GUN" in it the second amendnment nuts crawl out of the woodwork and jump right in with insane comments. We all have to except that they won't be satisfied until even pre schoolers are armed to the teeth.

True that, Big Al!

Along with the right to bear arms (or thought foolish for doing so), living in a country that allows us all the right to voice our opinions is part of what makes this a great nation. And while I choose to NOT voice my opinion on gun control, I'd be proud if the Congressman (I mistakenly referred to him as a Senator) were MY grandfather, MY dad, or MY husband!

Score "1" for the good guys!

Arelar

Spoken like a good little Marxist. Those evil, nasty capitalist (who provide you with jobs and income) are here in force in America

Capitalists don't provide anyone with a job...never did...never will. DEMAND creates jobs. If you're waiting for the rich to make you a job...you'll wait forever!

When they show you who they are...believe them!

To Big Al: Condemning all who believe in the right to self-defense as "second amendment nuts crawling out of the woodwork" and making "insane comments" makes about as much sense as labeling all gun-control advocates as "tree-hugging liberals."

The constant name-calling (on this and other issues) is one of the reasons this country is in deep @!$%# right now. It's easier to spout shrill rhetoric and call names (tea-bagger, liberal, gun nut, etc.) than to try to come to any kind of an agreement.

I accept that there's plenty of gun-control advocates (some right here on this thread) that are reasonable, rational people. (It's the gun-banners like Bloomberg, Pelosi, Feinstein, Soros, that I have a problem with.) Why can't you accept that there are pro-gun advocates that are equally as reasonable?

Not all liberals are Bloomberg, and not all conservatives are Rush Limbaugh.

The most dangerous weapon of all is the human mind. Which means, you're pretty much unarmed!

Not to rain on your parade, but my bet is that by "take precautions" they meant LOCK YOUR DOORS. Even in Iowa. Even on a farm.

Listen up narrow minded right wing NUTS not all liberals are anti-gun. Some of us progressive thinkers love our guns and are willing to use them.

I've never in my entire life heard anyone object to anyone owning a shotgun. The most important aspect of this story is that a DEMOCRAT who was 77 wrestled an armed intruder to the ground. If he hadn't wrestled him to the ground and had a grip on his gun hand, what difference would the young guy running to get the shotgun make? Do you think he could've grabbed the shotgun with a hole in his back? Why don't you right-wing nutjobs quit making a federal case about evreything that is reported in the media? The guy protected his family - that's the big story here.

Michigal-1908675

Not to rain on your parade, but my bet is that by "take precautions" they meant LOCK YOUR DOORS. Even in Iowa. Even on a farm.

ummm do you think if someone wants into your house, locking the door will keep them out? FYI, i am not into robbing people, not even at gunpoint, but to put it honestly and as mild as possible, if i want into a house, i am getting in, depending on how badly i want in goes into play of course, still that 1 thing remains.

Once you start a crime, the old saying goes there is no turning back. your mind is in its setting to get the job done, and remove all obsticals in your way. that being said, a door the most common of obsticals.... need i say more? Thus lets take into account, how many criminals do actually go thru the door, rather the window?

This guy was making a stament however, and had it not been for hid grandson having the shotgun, this could have ended a lot more different than it did.

Actually Michigal a few years ago I did have someone try and get into my apartment through my window. Luckily he made enough noise and gave me enough time to grab a knife and stab his sorry arse a few times.... so you really don't need a gun. Just the willingness to hurt those who want to hurt you...........See... you don't need a gun (just a really sharp knife)

Sue!! Don't say that - now they are going to outlaw really sharp knives.

Jess, you know it is a funny thing that most of the people have never been in a fire fight, nor have been shot at let alone wounded,nor have killed. They would loose that split second that it takes. And everyone of them really do not know post traumatic stress syndrome is or have experienced it. Even though you will protect your family everyone will pay a price including the winner

Sue: But what if you had been sleeping more soundly & encountered him in your bedroom? If you are a woman living alone, learn self-defense including how to shoot.

Pat: from what I know, you are telling the truth. But...................! Choices HAVE to be made. I pray I never have to find out! But I'm not going to let some scum take my life or the lives of those I love. THAT'S MY CHOICE!

Hey Brain Dead! Gun Laws are not about keeping them out of the hands of lawful people. It is keeping them away from those who have no business having them. Did you notice that he got a shot gun and not some automatic rifle with "50 clips"? i think you should engage your brain if you have any before you type.

Hockey Guy--I won't belabor the point that most statistics of the sort you just used are made up. That's probably already obvious.

Now, dear, you try to find someone who is actually trying to take your guns (including all guns here--handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc.). Where is this group? Can you give us a link?

There have been some groups that have tried to ban handguns. But, there is no substantial, active group that is trying to take away guns from anyone. Seriously. Try and find one--this group does not exist.

There are some efforts to have sensible gun control laws patterned after the same laws regarding automobiles. There are some efforts to limit the kinds of guns available (such as handguns and automatic weapons) and some efforts to limit certain kinds of weaponry. But, there is no group out there--not a substantial, serious one--trying to ban all guns. I am very tired of listening to people's fantasies on this.

It is the NRA who uses this silly, slippery-slope argument--any effort whatsoever to just try and make sure that guns are in the hands of sensible people who know how to use them is met with this claim that someone wants to grab all the weapons. Have you fallen for it? Well, then, you are not too bright.

As I've already noted, because there are so many very dense people in the US who cannot understand the distinction between gun control and gun banning, perhaps we should just give up and let them shoot each other and themselves. I feel sorry for their teenaged children who will commit suicide with the handy weapon and the small children who will accidentally shoot themselves--but, you know, you can't fix stupid and it is hereditary.

For myself, I think that sensible people who know how to handle and store a weapon should have one. It is a good thing for the responsible citizenry to have handy weapons just in case. Run a little thing called a "poll" asking that question--and you will find out that the majority of those you think want to ban guns actually think that gun ownership is just fine.

Have a poll that doesn't include questions about "gun control"--ask specifically about banning all weapons versus allowing responsible people to own them--and you will find out that you are very, very wrong.

The part about keeping them (guns) away from those that have no buiness owning them; How's that been working so far? It's already illegal for a felon to possess a firearm, so I bet none do.

The shotgun was probably unloaded. But at least having a weapon and pointing at the intruder, he took off like the coward he was. Its one thing to have a gun and another thing to use it and take a persons life.

Megalodon - You're welcome to 'break into my house', i will even leave the door open for you. One thing you should know, I don't miss. I can drop a running dear at 200 yards.

Everyone should own a gun and know how to use it. An armed citizenry is the strongest form of deterent for the criminal element.

Mark C: Then explain the gun laws in NY City, Washington DC, & Chicago. They are all cities that have to one extent or another attempted to ban guns.

The desire exists in some segment, and that segment has found a home in the Democrat party, usually in the far left liberal wing. I am not aware of any groups that have publicly stated their intentions/desires (which I believe is the definition of cowardly. If you believe it, stand up and say it, then defend your position) regarding banning all firearms. However, the results of their activities exist. Therefore, logically, they exist as well.

The only better outcome would be if the intruder had been shot. Now he is free to rob again.

Jimee Johnson

Listen up narrow minded right wing NUTS not all liberals are anti-gun. Some of us progressive thinkers love our guns and are willing to use them.

Glad to hear it! You and your buddies need to be heard from. For your gun views anyway.

oh yaaaay!!! I feel so much safer...

@Sue Rarick: Holy crap! You just put it in words from personal experience! You CAN actually hurt/kill people with weapons other than firearms! Thanks for your honesty. Hope the anti-gun nuts who think outlawing guns read your comment and fully comprehended the significance of it.

"Gun Laws are not about keeping them out of the hands of lawful people. It is keeping them away from those who have no business having them."

Sorry, not true. Look at the recent laws in Chicago and Washington DC, and the current laws in New York City. They are specifically aimed at "lawful people."

Well done. Love it.

The debt-ceiling work is going on in committee and in the daily GOP press releases of excuses.

.

If he had not been home for the weekend his whole family probably would have been killed by this intruder.

Why are you such an ignoramus?

This is how it works at my work, if the boss is at work (committee chairman or speaker of the house in the case of congress) the rank and file are at work. Obviously this is not how it works in Washington. This speaks volumes for everyone involved. Lazy and on the dole.

"I can drop a running dear at 200 yards."

Yes, deer.

According to KCCI news at 6, boswell was home for the weekend, his grandson fired two shots into the air as the intruder ran away and the intruders weapon of choice was a BB gun which he dropped as he ran to his car.

Boswell owned the home for about 35 years and his wife called it their "little shangrila". BTW boswells official residence is in the Des moines area and was a well off farmer.

I love how all these flagwaving rightwing hate radio addicts jump down Boswells throat simply because he has a D after his name. Boehmer spends every night getting hammered in a DC lounge but Boswell is lazy? I have known this family for 50 years and there is nothing remotely lazy about he or any of his family. He is a fellow vietnam veteran and a patriotic American. Our politics don't always jive but unlike narrow minded c students i don't vote on one issue. So you stooges of the NRA ( National Republican Alliance) keep drinking the koolaid. I and Rep Boswell have both been lifetime hunters and we don't want your precious shotgun and never have. When it is time for you to loose your right to have a weapon it won't be the democrats coming after them. It will be some corperation or cabul of elite moguls telling thier shills, your heros, to take them from you.

Sally,

This needs to be enforced much more often. Also, why is it so easy for the community to collapse comments? It seems to be used only when other posters do not agree with a comment - all sides need to presented and preserved.

He should have broken into Bush's home. He took a surplus and turned it into debt; this is his doing.

You're right, the victims would have been robbed, the daughter possibly raped and all of them possibly killed. The only thing outlawing firearms would do is disarm the LAW abiding citizen and make it impossible for them to defend themselves.

Just because you pass a law doesn't mean a damn thing to criminals.

Once you manage to wrap your mind around that you'll see that we don't need more laws we need more enforcement of existing laws.

That wouldn't happen if congress were to ban the possession of fire-arms of any kind

You mean the grandson grabbing a shotgun to confront the armed attacker? Very true. Do you mean the attacker? Not a chance. The upside, however, would have been all the bodies in the farmhouse would have been morally superior to live attacker.

Yea concerned i agree. Kind of like Mexico right?

Congress has never tried to ban all guns, so it's hard to see what your point is.

Have you heard of the UN small arms treaty? Believe me banning and then removing all guns is the goal and will always be the goal until its achieved!

UN treaties/actions are binding only on international affairs, not within the borders of a sovereign country. That being said, the UN has involved itself improperly on purely internal matters (Lybia).

However, the proposed treaty (and by proposed I mean one that has nothing written down as yet) regards the export and import of weapons between countries. Even if written by the UN, signed by the State department, and ratified by the Senate, it would not eliminate the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution (1957 Supreme court case Reid v Covert ruled that the US Constitution overrules US treaties ratified by the Senate)

Lets keep urban myth out of the debate, especially one so easily disproved.

So who wanting to ban the possession of fire arms. You know, when you keep repeating the same jargon, you start believing it.

Want to, and can are 2 entirely different things.

I'm not going to worry, or fear monger, over what I think someone may want to do, when they are patently incapable of doing so.

Gary-2120635

You're right, the victims would have been robbed, the daughter possibly raped and all of them possibly killed. The only thing outlawing firearms would do is disarm the LAW abiding citizen and make it impossible for them to defend themselves.

Just because you pass a law doesn't mean a damn thing to criminals.

Really? Ah, heck. Then lets just forget laws about theft, or rape, about murder, about (etc. etc. etc) After all those laws are useless, because laws don't mean "damn thing" to a crimal. Why bother having any laws at all?

Then the grandson could have hit the inteuder with a rolled up newspaper ( You know, 1'st amendment) or a bible( You know, 3'rd amendment oops , forgot separation of church and state).

I don't think God would appreciate being asked to bless a doctrine on the right to keep and bear arms, given that their use often tends to violate his "Thou shalt not kill" commandment. I'm not against the 2nd Amendment, but I think I'd give my thanks to the founding fathers, not "the" Father.

True. Because the Founding Fathers really existed.

Howie, maybe my Bible doesn't read the same as yours, but the King James version says

"Thou shalt not commit murder"

"Thou shalt not commit murder"

Unless you're doing God's will.

Hallelujah, brother.

... the King James version says "Thou shalt not commit murder"

I have two King James versions, and they both say "kill".

But my point is still the same, either way. Why bring God into it?

Yes, notice we are talking NORMAL home protection here. E.g. a shotgun.

But the NRA nutjobs think full-auto assault rifles are just A-Ok to sell.

.

wasn't his house. his grandson grabbed the shotgun, try reading the article, it really wasn't that long.

the NRA nutjobs think full-auto assault rifles are just A-Ok to sell

That is pretty strong. Do you have some cite to support that contention?

Apparently nibor has never been to Iowa. Even us "liberals" enjoy our firearms here in the midwest.

Got to admit: that's a good one! It's like a Republican with a brain: you're not going to find very many of them.

UnitedStates....

Incorrect! i should have the same access to any gun that any criminal can have access to. if i want 15 Tommy guns with 100 round clips that's my choice and no agent of the government should stop me.

Nutjobs - try

Guns in Arizona: Sales at record pace

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/07/15/20110715arizona-guns-special-report-retail.html

United States 1776:

"But the NRA nutjobs think full-auto assault rifles are just A-Ok to sell."

That's funny. Nut jobs? Then why does my State REQUIRE a licensed NRA Instructor to teach the course you MUST pass for a concealed carry permit AND not only do OTHER States recognize it by reciprocity, but I'm sitting here look at a publication hubby got this Spring when he got his C.C. telling, "Seven Things You Must know Before Drawing Your Gun."

Doesn't sound too "nutty" to me; sounds like along with rights go responsibilities.

V. Bevis--the phrase was "NRA nutjobs" not simply "NRA." There are nutjobs in the NRA (of course, there are nutjobs everywhere) who take sensible positions and carry them to extremes. Yes, the nutjobs did in fact fight against sensible provisions concerning automatic weapons (of course--some were not so sensible and might have affected weapons that they shouldn't have--but the fight was to kill the bill, not to amend it to make it better).

In any case--I am pretty darned sure that you DON'T have to go to an NRA instructor, just a licensed instructor. Here is the certification title in South Carolina: South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Certified Concealable Weapons Permit Instructor. You don't mention your state, so I cannot check it specifically--but while NRA certified instructors might also be allowed to do concealed weapons training, I am fairly certain that a non-government agency would not be the only one allowed to train people. However, it may be that the only people who do it happen to also be NRA-certified, so this may be fairly moot.

Ia. ScooterTramp

wasn't his house. his grandson grabbed the shotgun, try reading the article, it really wasn't that long.

Your right the article wasn't long....and in the very first sentence it says it WAS his house.....

DES MOINES, Iowa — An eight-term congressman from Iowa helped fight off an armed man who invaded his farm house in Decatur County and attacked his daughter on Saturday night, according to a statement from his office.

V. Bevis - better check which states recognize your C. C. - I'll bet Nevada does not. Crazy - Texas recognizes Nevada's license, but Nevada does not recognize Texas or many other states.

"But the NRA nutjobs think full-auto assault rifles are just A-Ok to sell."

Bull@!$%#. Show me one NRA statement that advocates unrestricted sale of full-auto weapons.

You might be surprised how many democrats have weapons. We just know the difference between bearing arms and being obsessed with imaginary enemies.

Bean@home: I could be wrong, but every class I've found so far that teaches it & is recognized by the State of Ohio is an NRA instructor. I think it is recognized by 8 States, & by applying for one in Pa. (where our oldest lives), it added another 9 to it. I think ( hubby's not home now) it also includes S.C. as we cked. since we want to have permission to carry in the States our kids live in-our youngest just moved to S.C. last month.

BeaumontVegasBill: No worries there. I don't think we will be in NV anytime in the future. The 2 permits cover about all the States we most likely will be in.

Frankly, the credentials on the instructors are impressive. Many top shooting competitors, former Marine Corps. Instructors with many weapons, some coaches for Jr. competition teams, etc.

However, in case you didn't hear, Ohio has just now passed a bill last month that allow c.c. into places that serve alcohol. Of course, the owner can put up a sign not permitting it, but I'm not too sure what the thinking was allowing booze & guns to mix.

Arizona passed the same law last year. I agree with you - alcohol and firearms don't mix.

No, idiots and guns don't mix, and idiots and alcohol don't mix. Bringing an idiot into the mix is always a bad idea.

Are you saying that you should not be allowed to protect yourself after you have a drink with dinner?

The Ohio law prohibits you from drinking.

I am in PA. The Ohio law says that you are not allowed to have a drink if you are carrying?

That is what I recall from the MSNBC article after the law was signed. If you check your state you will more than likely find that they have laws against having a firearm in your posession while consuming alcohol.

PA has no such law. I just looked it up. I have been with people who have carried their guns (concealed) into restaurants and had a cocktail, so I did not think it was illegal here. Obviously, extra caution is a good idea in those circumstances.

I hope an exception to the Ohio rule is when one is drinking on his own property, where his guns are stored.

Thank you for your answers. Have a great day, Bassai. Be safe out there!!

"Are you saying that you should not be allowed to protect yourself after you have a drink with dinner?"

I'm saying (speaking as a recovering alcoholic) that even one drink has a negative effect on your judgment. That's not a good situation to be in if you're drinking. Also - assume you're in a bar carrying. You're not intoxicated, maybe not even drinking. Some clown sees your gun and starts in: "Ooh, you have a gun. You must be bad. Well, let's see how bad you really are."

"That's not a good situation to be in if you're drinking"

Sorry. That should have read: That's not a good situation to be in if you're carrying a firearm. My mistake.

Preach on, brother.

Many summers were spent in the 80s squirrel hunting and target shooting around Lake Red Rock.

YouJustSaidWhat

don't care much for tree rat myself, and as most Iowans know we didn't just hunt for "sport" but instead cleaned and cooked what we shot. ( a concept that is mostly lost on many vine readers / posters ). i myself mostly just tramped the fields for rabbit and pheasant, of course i also did deer, duck, goose and several others when i was younger.

Scooter -- no need for going into the timber, now, for your deer. All you need to do is drive up and down 14.

;)

Good day Scooter. My wife grew up in NW Iowa. She's not that bad with a pistol but she can do some serious damage with a 20 gauge. I would not want anyone to break into our home but if they did the rule is to say stop as the trigger is squeezed.

Moving to Idaho from Iowa was a real experience. You get up in the morning an chase the deer out of the yard. When the apples fall the black bear show up. We get lions in town once or twice a year and a few moose wander through. This is in the 3rd largest city in the state. We, if we want, can still open carry sidearms. Very rare to see it done. This year it was made legal to carry concealed on the college campus. The bad guy in Iowa was trying to steal a job. The congressmen keep saying they have millions of them. Got to eat and if you steal a fine Iowa pig he will squeal on you.

shhhh Quiet. They don't know we democrats like to hunt too. It's all part of our plot to take over the world and steal thier AKs.

There? No. They're? No. Their??? Yes!

also, it is not a "goverment". it IS a government. good lord.

There, there.

My shotgun is at my exes house. To lazy to clean it and she doesn't know how to use it... yet. Gosh I hope those godless democrats don't take it away from me .

Why should I be forced to stick with 100+ year old firearms technology, instead of the latest, and safest modern models? Why stop there, how about we force everybody to go back to flintlocks? I'll make you a deal, you can roll back firearms technology that the end user can have, and along with that, we outlaw type writers, computers, ink pens, and stick with ink & quill on parchment or linen paper ? Heck, lets not stop there, time to break out the horse and buggy too? And about those pesky flying machines, sheesh, we better work on that issue also.

The last time I checked my husband's gun collection, none of the shotguns he has were automatics that could fire multiple rounds before needing to be reloaded

Really? You might want to go check again.

You're post makes to much sense for the dense imbeciles who feel threatened by responsible gun control.

There is a distinction between semiautomatics, which fire, for instance, all seven bullets in a seven bullet clip, with seven seperate pulls of the trigger, and fully automatic weapons, which fire many rounds with one pull of the trigger. If you look at your husband's shotgun, it probably has two barrels. When you load one of those guys, it will then have two rounds loaded, one for each barrel. He will, therefore, be able to fire twice before reloading. What makes a pistol semiautomatic is that the rounds will move up in the clip so you don't have to reload between each and every shot. (If I'm not getting this exactly right, you gun fans will have to forgive me). That is very common technology, and it is not the same as a fully automatic weapon.

In the case of Ms. Giffords, the gun that shot her was a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock. He hit her, pointblank, with his first or second shot -- in other words, even a shotgun, loaded with the right ammo, could have hit her. But Loughner used an extended clip that could hold 15 rounds. (Those had been illegal under the Brady Bill, btw). Therefore he was able to kill and wound many more people than he could have with a standard clip. The fact is, what was needed to prevent the tragedy in the Giffords case was not banning semi-automatic weapons, which are most of the handguns and rifles sold, but rather that someone with such severe mental problems should never have been able to buy that Glock in the first place. And he for sure shouldn't have been able to buy that extended clip.

Semi-Automatic shotguns are awesome and totally dominate.............

DRK-1183578

Get your facts right. Loughner used an extended clip that held 30 rounds. Twice the standard Glock magazine of 15 rounds.

Mr Stripey I am 90% in agreement with you. It is absurd to expect our citizenry to arm themselves with such antiquated firearms. Not only for self-defense, but I honestly do not think its so crazy to have a firearm that is never used except to be there just in case of civil unrest, invasion or the extremely unlikely event that a revolution needs to take place. I know everybody will call me crazy paranoid for that statement, but if the firearm sits collecting dust, locked up and is never touched (and it will never be, this country has grown out of that stage but the principle is still there), then there's nothing crazy about it and in fact is a very American thing to do.

That said, I support some weapon control like explosives, fully automatic weapons etc. Don't care if Jimbob wants a semi-auto ar15 or Hal wants a semi-auto version of an ak-47. If I ever decide to purchase a firearm I wouldn't get something so heavy-duty, but it is their right

I seem to have created a storm here. Let me make myself more clear. I have never said that all guns should be banned. My husband is an avid hunter and collector of firearms. Semi-automatics are included in his collection. But let's be clear, for all the background checks that happen, people are getting around the system. Hell, our own government screwed up and let guns end up in the hands of the Mexican cartels. And as for the Brady bill, so called conservative Republicans, keep trying to weaken it every chance they get. My heart goes out to anyone who has lost a family member to gun violence. But I guess some people just have to learn the hard way. There are, unfortunately, ignorant, misguided people in this world, who are not responsible gun owners. What are you really afraid of, being invaded by Canada? And while I celebrate our Constitution, we must find a way of keeping guns out of the hands of people who don't know how to handle them. Handgun ownership in this country is running amuck.

As for the suggestion by some that we go back to the days of the horse and buggy, none of my husbands guns are antique or even vintage. Still the idea of horses doesn't sound bad, considering that gas prices are on the rise again.

You are correct Howy, he had two thirty round and two 15 round clips. I was mistaken. Still think 30 round clips should be banned, though.

Chief, I agree with you about the need for sensible gun control. I was just concerned because you seemed to be lumping semiautomatic guns in with fully automatic ones.

DKR , another correction to your post.

the AWB , also called the brady bill did not make high capacity mags illegal it made new manafacturing illegal , those already in possession and in inventory s of retailers were still perfectly legal for sale and possession. Some states , do however have magazine restrictions such as Cali , Mass , NJ and NY where it is illegal to have amag over a specific limit , and in at least one of those states one can possess higher capacity mags than the law allows with a special permit ( and fee). in most of the other states there is no restriction or ban.

@DRK-1183578

Those were actually legal under the Brady bill, as the Brady bill only effected long guns.

Chief , the brady bill , aka AWB , sunsetted in 2004 , as per the provision written into the legislation in 1994 , the reason it sunsetted is debatable , mainly because it was so easy to get around since the law was based on cosmetics , though the sunsetting occured under the bush admin , the main reason it sunsetted was it didnt have the votes in congress to extend it . and there still are not the votes in congress to reinstate it , even when the dems had control of both houses of congress and a friendly WH that would have signed it . that alone speaks volumes right there . Bush couldnt extend it unless it made it to his desk for signature , Obama is stuck in the same situation . its not that the law was weakened , the law was easy to get around because of the cosmetic features it applied to , that had absolutely nothing to do with the function of the created class of weapons , before the 1989 AWB in California there was no term or definition for an Assault Weapon . And since it was so easy to come into compliance as to make the firearms targeted by the law and make them NOT fall under the AWB . the law failed . Every weapon on the list , was reconfigured and perfectly legal for sale under the provisions of the law and still are if one cares to look. about the only place t it still applies is in Cali , where they have a state AWB that is more stringent and incliudes alot more cosmetic feartures that make a weapon fall into that catagory features that except for the magazine , have nothing to do with functionality .

All those gun laws here in California have absolutely done nothing to stem the flow of guns and violence in our State.

The only people affected are citizens who follow the rules.

Jimee Johnson

You're post makes to much sense for the dense imbeciles who feel threatened by responsible gun control.

Responsible gun control is one in the chest and one in the forehead.

Cleanup in aisle 8 !!!!

Fell free to try and ban "clips". I will stick with my high capacity magazines. Why should the bad guy have the advantage ? , but it's ok to force me to defend myself and loved ones with 100+ year old technology (Revolvers, pump style shotguns, bolt action rifles) ? Yeah, that makes sense.

Republican gun cronies will make sure that weapons manufacturers profits are not threatened no matter what. The useful idiots who vote Republican will help to insure this.

So, you have something against making a profit? I thought only commies did'nt like money. Look what happened to those bastards. This country's private sector is based on profit making endeavors. You have to be a Democrat, most of whom believe business is there to pay wages, pensions, and fund the vacuum that is the government. But, no profits, right?

What did happen to the commies, stan? Oh, right: the CIA devalued their currency and they collapsed! So, your point is that communism failed naturally because a super power on the other side of the planet manipulated it into failing "naturally"? Capitalism stood on its own 2 feet and just beat their system, right? The CIA never did that?

Communism failed because in inhibits a person's inate craving to be free. How many non-communist countries built a fence to keep their citizens IN? ie; East Berlin. Gone now, and Germany flourishes.

LMAO...he spells Jimmy with 2 ee's! And he calls republicans idiots!

Communism failed because it fails to take into account people's natures. People don't always want to work together for the common good, often they just want their own good. That's why all the communist countries so far have devolved into totalitarian states, because that's the only way you can make people consistently work for the state rather than for themselves and their families.

The good thing about our system of government is that it takes this tendency of people into account, with the system of checks and balances, for instance. It's messy, but it's the best thing people have come up with so far to govern themselves.

he got his brains from his Mamma and Papa who misspelled his first name and well,Johnson for a last name,ya know,Johnson has more than one meaning in some parts of society

DRK--so apparently Native Americans are not people?

Many Native American cultures (and many agrarian cultures) evolved communism naturally. The worst thing you could call someone in those cultures was "he who keeps his things to himself." Everything was jointly "owned"--they had no concept of land ownership, for example.

Small-scale agrarian cultures in which all people are inter-dependent can do fine with a communist culture--but when cultures are industrialized, things become much more difficult.

And, in any case, communism is an economic system--not a governmental system. Most Native American nations had a democratic governmental system with a communist economic system. It worked because it suited the situation. Have a great day.

Communism failed? really? I think the communists are the ones financing Bush's debt right now. The Bush family and corperate America have found out this system is great for capitalists. An enslaved population doing thier bidding. It's nirvana.

Eamonn 966189

Your uncle was a genuine hero. God bless him.

As I read your story I was thinking that this was another case of "only in America" could such an ignorant legal system punish the victim with such an absurd miscarraige of justice.

Appears I was mistaken. And now I'm bumming because as an Irish American I'm saddened and sickened to learn how the disease of liberalism has spread back to the motherland.

And you're correct, your uncle definitely deserved a medal for having the courage to protect his life and property.

May the wind always be at your back!

And may God bless your courageous brave uncle along with all of your family.

Wrong. You'll go to jail for that, my friend.

What you're supposed to do is stand the a--hole up, with his back to the front door. Blow a good hole in his chest at point blank range. Once he falls, and it is clear he won't be getting back up, then fire another round into the ceiling. That way, you can explain to the police that you fired a warning shot that he did not heed. Then, simply wait for the SOB to bleed out before calling the police...you don't need him testifying in court about your "excessive force".

Just make sure you don't shoot him again on the floor...that's called murder, and the forensics guys will figure it out immediately!

That's how you protect your home, folks. And yes, I'm sure I'm going to catch a whole lot of grief for this post.............

Ironic story, Indy!

Many yrs. ago when we lived in Indiana, (60's) hubby taught school. The school secretary there was the Co. Sheriff's wife & they had this discussion at the time. What she told him was to "never" let the intruder crawl off your property. Remembered it all these yrs. Might have had an influence on the 432 ft. driveway we have or the electric fence around the house. ( Keeps deer out, but cranked up as high as legally allowed.) lol.

Indy Patriot

That was probably the single best advice I have ever read on the vines. It makes so much freakin sense.

You could also grab the duct tape and.....oh nevermind

You are wrong. Citizens and congressmen in Mexico can own firearms. There are restrictions on the kind of firearms and the calibers. A shotgun is legal to any citizen in Mexico. It must have a 25 inch barrel.

By the way, it might have been more effective to lock his doors, own a couple of large watchdogs, and to have an alarm system. It is best to avoid the situation where gun play becomes necessary.

That would also have been a lot more costly. Not to mention, dogs @!$%# all the time.

Wow! What a hero. Fantasy is so great.

He has served us well. Unlike Senator for life Grassley. Never served but he can wave a flag like a cheerleader or our congressman Steve King who never served and turned down the head of the appropriations committee because he would actually have to sign his name on the bill cutting money to his district.

sandrat2152156

Your line of thinking is one of the main reasons there is so much bloodshed in Mexico these days.

The citizen's are forbidden from owning weapons to use to defend themselves.

Your logic is so goofy that you should immediately seek therapy. Or move to Mexico where your line of thinking is the law of the land.

Leave us "freedom loving" gun owning patriots alone. Betcha you'd sing a totally different tune if a dirt bag jackwagon were to break into your home with the intention of robbing you, and doing bodily harm to you and/or taking your life.

You week kneed types are all seriously flawed in your thinking. So as I said above, seek therapy!

sandrat2152156

Your name calling and insults clearly indicate that you're also suffering from "inane adjective & adverb drivel compulsion".

And that is in addition to your debilitating case of week kneed cowardice.

By the way, I am a proud member of the TEA party. You know, we are the folks that you types said were an insignificant group of people. LOL

Well, did you take notice that we fired 63 of your big spending democrats in 2010? That's what we refer to as a "good start".

We will be back next year to finish the job and cleanse Washington of the rest of the big spending democrats, and we will be electing the distinquished governor of Texas, Rick Perry as the next President.

"O" has got to go and his days in office are numbered. I'm am so looking forward to 1/20/2013 as it will surely mark the end of an error!

Hip hip hooray for the TEA party!

God bless America!

Later sissy!

Sandrat, Let's go shooting sometime. We'll take turns holding the target. You first.

Stan, read her posts: she's ANTI-gun...why would she go shooting with some hateful nutbag?

And harleyguy: really? You think Rick Perry the secessionist is going to win a national election? Aha...ahaha...AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hey! I've got a suggestion: you ultra-manipulated "tea party" types should run a Sarah Palin/Rick Perry ticket! See if you can't help Obama set a record for an historic landslide! HAHA!

Sandrat, several of my good friends are local and state policemen, so I take offense at your statement saying they are often the scum of society, or the worst of it. They are, almost to a man/woman, the BEST of our society. They risk their lives everyday for scumbag idiots like you, while being underpaid and disrepected by all the people who think they are above the law.

Speaking of laws: For those of you who think more gun laws will work and the criminals will turn in their guns? Tell me you've never driven over the speed limit, which is set by LAW. Or did a rolling stop through a red light or stop sign, which are set by LAW. No, we need enforcement of already existing laws.

sandrat? or maybe rugrat

Actually the worst society has to offer are usually living in their mamma's basement, posting on the Internet about how people who go out and risk their lives every day to protect them are the worst society has to offer.

zenphoenix42

You "types" are scared to death of seeing another Texan in the White House. LOL

Let's see whose still standing when the votes are tallied next November?

PittDeacon

As a young wild and crazy guy (decades ago) I was arrested and jailed 11 times in 7 States and I couldn't agree with you more! Mostly drunk, disorderly and fighting. Harley, Irishmen and whiskey were always a potent combination. LOL

Seriously, I pushed many officer's to the brink with my aggressive anti-social behavior back then (decades ago), and yet I never met an officer who lost his temper to where they hurt me at all. Don't misunderstand, I wasn't always treated with kid gloves, but I never got anything I didn't deserve.

And overall, all the officer's were all unbelievably tolerant of my shennanigans and so yes, I fully agree that policemen are the BEST that society has to offer. So do me a favor and pass on this former trouble maker's heartfelt and sincere "Thank You" to your friends in uniform. They deserve it. And in my book they are indeed the BEST, and I salute their daily efforts to keep society safe.

No doubt the "rat in the sand" will have a different perspective, if God forbid, he or she one day needs the assistance of a policeman or policewoman in a life or death situation.

don d 2555187

LOL

Mark C 3680148

I kind of think you're probably dead on balls accurate with your statement. How sad huh?

I'm on your side, DaceTheAce, but these blogs are powerless.

I hunt and love to shoot for sport. I do it legally and at proper places. I own handguns, pistols, rifles and 3 fully automatic machine guns (M-16, Uzi, and an AK-47). Owning ANY fully automatic weapon is FAR different than owing ANY other type of weapon. The costs are huge, the background checks are EXTREMELY THOUROGH and I have a HUGE responsibility of protecting it from getting into the hands of anyone not authorized to have it (by law I can use lethal force to protect it). I am responsible for what happens to them and ALL the law enforcement around me have been notified that I have them. I would love to see the same laws apply to all guns that apply to machine guns. Not many people own machine guns compared to other types of weapons. It is simply too tough, takes a long time, and too costly. I like to shoot them at gun ranges.

If an intruder came into my house (or anywhere else and threatened my life or intended bodily harm, I would use whatever tools I had handy, be it a gun, a baseball bat or a shovel, to protect myself. Would I try to kill them? No, only stop the threat, but to stop the threat might REQUIRE that I use force that could cause death. In doing so could cause me to face charges or to appear before authorities to prove my intent and level of force. My fate might fall in someone else’s hands.

Have I ever killed someone? Yes, I was a Ranger in Vietnam and have killed many people with a rifle, a bayonet and set booby traps. The first kill is the hardest but it gets easier. I have been retired a long time and have often reflected on the faces and gruesome remains that were caused by MY hands. Taking another human life is not as easy as some of these little ‘Rambo’s’ think- it sticks with you forever, even if it is justified. I was always scared and pumped with adrenalin. I was a kid then, and I was killing other scared kids (that would also have kill me).

I am for the right to have arms, but I am also for better background checks and maybe an insurance policy for liability on guns. Guns should be used to save a life not take one. ONLY responsible people should own guns, not criminals or little ‘Rambo’s’ who use a gun as instant courage.

After all this time and countless descriptions of the difference between full auto/semi auto, it never ceases to amaze me that there are still people out there ignorant enough to believe that any joe blow can walk into any gun store and walk out with a nice shiny new fully automatic weapon......Yeah, I'm looking at you DaceTheJoker

I'm sick to death of people, mainly conservatives, coming here and picking out the stories with happy endings and using them as a platform to start their pro-gun rhetoric/lunacy. I'm all for being able to protect oneself and his/her home and family, but even you gun nuts must admit that there is no reason why a private citizen should be able to purchase an automatic assault rifle. Pistols and shotguns are meant to protect, whereas anything that can go fully auto is meant to deal damage indiscriminately.

That's odd I feel the same way about people mainly liberals do the same thing with an anti-gun agenda.

Try an experiemtn for us and see how far you get with it. Go to a local gun shop and tell them that you want to buy a fully automatic assault rifle, money is no object. See how far you get with that.

No one can simply walk into a gun shop and buy anything like a fully automatic assault rifle as you describe. That has been unlawful for 70 years.

Yeah, if you want one of those, much better to go to a gun show. At least, that is what the front man for al-Qaeda recommends.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/closing-the-terror-gap-and-the-gun-show-loophole/2011/06/06/AGTKubKH_story.html

Do that. Let's see if you can prove your statement.

Sorry to burst your bubble but there are millions of AR-15 style weapons out there and more being sold everyday. Hunters of all types are using them now as well as in competitions occurring all over the US.

BTW: did you know that AR does NOT stand for "assault rifle? It's actually the designation given to the weapon by the manufacturer, which is ARmalite. Doesn't even mean it's automatic.

80 MILLION law abiding gun owners didn't shoot anyone today, a few criminals did!!

Did you even read the whole article youself DRK? Even the writer said the guy was wrong about full auto weapons at gun shows!

When was the last time you heard of someone going on a killing spree with a full auto? Do you even know the kind of time and money that has to be spent to get a full auto? To get a full auto you have to purchase the weapon, and no new ones have been available since the '80s, so the cheapest you will find one to purchase is around $2,000 (supply and demand, not much supply, still a lot of demand) then you have to pay the BATF their $200, submit sets of finger prints, get your chief law enforcement officer to sign off on it, undergo a background check, wait four months while a BATF agent reviews your file, then, if you are lucky, they will give the okay to let you purchase.

The fun doesnt stop there though; once you actually own it you have to keep it secure at all times, and no one is ever allowed to touch it without you being present. Oh, and if it breaks down? Yup, you have to repair it with whatever you can get your hands on, and pray to God that the receiver or auto-sear (whichever has the serial number on and is the "machine gun" portion) is not damaged, because there is no replacing that without repeating the process over again.

Now, if you are talking about semi-autos, why not? People hunt with them, there are shooting sports with them, people defend their homes with them. In fact, I have a very nice AK that is my designated home defense gun, and I know many more people using AR-15s, SKSs, even M1 Carbines. My point is, semi-auto guns are no more scary or dangerous than any other gun, and this whole "fully automatic" and "machine gun" bullcrap that you keep hearing is just fear mongering. Every single anti who whines about "machine guns" or "fully automatic assault rifles" or "high capacity clips" just shows your ignorance. How can you regulate something you dont understand? That would be like requesting a homeless man chair the FTC!

According to the ATF, sales of full assault weapons at gun shows are definitely a big problem, due to the fact that nonlicensed people can sell guns at those shows with no background checks or paperwork. Pages 8 and 9 of the below document are particularly jaw-dropping. So yeah, gun shows are a good place to go if you want an assault irfle or a kit to convert your semi into a full automatic.

http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/treas/treas-gun-shows-brady-checks-and-crime-gun-traces.pdf

DRK,

It's been put to you before in this discussion. Go out to a gun show and try to buy an automatic weapon or the "kit" to convert a semi-automatic gun to full auto. Put your money where your mouth is and prove whatever point you're trying to make. Report back here in 6 months with your results. It's easy, remember? The Brady Bunch says so! We'll be waiting.....

NRA Member,

I am also an NRA Member (Life). A bit part of what DRK says is true. At least in Nebraska,I as a private citizen can sell you a firearm in a private transaction without doing a background check. That's OK by me if I want to sell one of my guns to a good friend, fellow NRA member or give one to a relative. A perfect stranger is another thing.

Nebraska requires it's citizens to purchase a permit to buy (not own) a handgun. It is good for 3 years, costs $5 and is only issued after a background check. I would ask to see this from a Nebraskan I don't know or an equivilent from an out of state person (NRA members excluded) if I did ever decide to sell one of my guns. It covers all the requirements for an FFL transfer also, as does our CCP. In any case DRK is too brainwashed to understand!

Well, that's just super for you, Big Guns. And what mechanism, in Nebraska, makes your asking this anything but voluntary? If you sell a gun to someone and don't ask to see that permit, who will know? A licensed gun dealer knows his license and livelihood will be on the line if he screws up. He is out there in public as someone with a reputation. You're just some random guy. Unless you have the bad luck to pick an undercover ATF agent to sell to, who would know if you overlooked the lack of a license?

And by the way, by what mechanism would I "prove" anything to you about anything? I could take a pic of a machine gun from anywhere and post it here and forge a bill of sale -- what would that prove? This is the internet, dude. It doesn't work that way. You could, if you want "proof" that there's a lot of gunrunning at gun shows, read the ATF link I posted above -- but maybe that is too fact-based for an NRA member. Since it involves, you know, actual cases. Of people selling automatic weapons. At gun shows.

DRK

I DID read the link. As it is from The Brady Bunch and 1999 to boot, it's been read by me before...in 1999.

Now let's go over your "points".

My asking to see this handgun buying permit IS totally voluntary, but that's just me.

Of course, if ANY FFL sells a gun in Nebraska without a background check, or without seeing proof of eligibility in the form of our handgun buying permit or Concealed Carry permit....both deemed okay as proof of eligibility by the ATFE, they would face serious consequences.

I myself wouldn't worry about selling a legally transferable gun to an undercover ATFE agent. It's perfectly legal for citizens to sell or give guns to friends, relatives and the like. At a gun show or garage sale.

Go ahead, post a pic of a possibly full auto gun ,stating it as such, with a "bill of sale" on a publicly viewed forum. The ATFE would be knocking on your door tomorrow.

Now here is the nutshell of the matter. The Brady Campaign...or whatever it calls itself now, it's changed its name too often to remember, would have you believe that most guns used by common criminals or terrorists are bought at gun shows from folks like me. Are there some? Yes. But not near as many as they would have you believe. Full Auto guns? Get real! Read say592s post.

Do you truly know the difference between semi auto and full auto? A true assault weapon or a civilian semi auto version? An NRA member does because we are knowledgable about guns, instead of just believing what is fed to us by the media or anti-gun groups.

Hope this clears things up for you.....but I doubt it......

kid... and because of people like you our Constitution is being shredded pick the amendment its being attacked! you wont be happy until the country is a super communist state.

Then you wont even know what happened when you re paying 85% taxes and have rampant crime all around you.

of course you dont really care you just want you leftism!

Leftism? Is that like Communism? Never underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of the Conservative right wing NUT Republican!

Jimmee don't even reply to that Tool! In a few posts he'll be talking about "one world order" and the rest of their paranoid non-sense. The Tea Party makes this garbage up all th time to suit their rant of the day. They have no idea that it's actually THEM being led by corporate interests. A bunch of sheep if you ask me.