Obama’s gun control wish list

| December 19, 2012

I remember when the Democrats were telling us gun nuts during the election earlier this year that we were being irrational in our fears that this president would be coming for our guns, because he hadn’t up until now. ABC News reports that they’ve gotten a bit more specific on the kinds of gun laws they’d like to see;

The White House today indicated President Obama would support legislation that would reinstate the ban on certain types of semi-automatic rifles – known as “the assault weapons ban” — and may support other efforts, such as a proposal to ban high-capacity magazines, in the wake of the deadly massacre in Newtown, Conn.

“He is actively supportive of, for example, Senator Feinstein’s stated intent to revive a piece of legislation that would reinstate the assault weapons ban,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters, publicly backing for the first time legislation Feinstein plans to introduce. The White House had previously been reluctant to publicly named any specific action it might support in an effort to prevent future massacres.

“Certain types of semi-automatic weapons” means that they don’t know what they’re talking about. They plan on going back to banning the sales of scary-looking black rifles with bayonet lugs and flash suppressors – which has nothing to do with the lethality of the weapons, but everything to do feelings of fear. It certainly won’t “prevent future massacres”.

They don’t need to ban high capacity magazines – I spent three hours last night looking for magazines. Cheaper Than Dirt and Amazon have apparently quit selling them, while everyone else is just out of them. Everyone is back ordered on 5.56mm ammo, too, well, except tracer ammo.

The article goes on to say that the president wants to “close the gun show loophole”. I don’t know what that means – I’ve bought two guns at gunshows in the last few years and both times I had to go through the same background checks I would in a store.

The president says that he reached out to my Senator, Joe Manchin for advice. Funny, but I tried to reach out to Manchin yesterday, too, but I went straight to voice mail.

ADDED: NBC broadcast new is reporting that Joe Bite-Me will be spearheading the anti-gun legislation, you know like he spearheaded the strategy in Afghanistan, so we’re boned.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Comments (150)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. RUSH is the greatest Band says:

    I have a hard time seeing a teacher or a principal being or wanting to be proficent with a pistol.. I think it would just be easier to have guards who have years of training in the military or law enforcement using firearms and have that type of mentality..

    Most educators are females who are afraid of firearms or have never used one.. They didn’t become teachers to use firearms I just think it is a bad fit to be honest.

  2. PintoNag says:

    An unarmed security guard is called a “target.” And it’s no kind of security, either. Anyone can dial 911.

  3. Hondo says:

    OK, Joe, I’ve got a few questions for you based on your comment 100:

    1. Why is having 1-4 armed private security guards at a school acceptable while even one armed law-abiding citizen minding their own business at home not acceptable? (Hey – you’re the one who said you’re OK with repeal of the 2nd Amendment. One logical corollary to repealing the 2nd Amendment is that you believe it’s OK for private ownership of firearms to be made illegal.)

    2. Why is it OK for said private security guards (NOT COPS) to have a firearm instead of Joe Normal sitting in his house having dinner with his wife?

    3. Why is it OK for said security guards to shoot someone trying to commit a crime at a school but not for an armed law-abiding lady to shoot someone who’s broken into her apartment at 3AM, is holding a knife, and threatening to rape her and then kill her?

    4. Why is it OK for someone to have a weapon at work, but not for that same person to have that same weapon at home? Hell, you’re willing to trust him/her with it around other people’s kids!

    I’d love to hear your answers to the above. I’m guessing I won’t, though.

  4. RUSH is the greatest Band says:

    @102 I would like them to be armed but I doubt school boards would allow that.. At least it provides an extra layer a shooter has to breach before making it to the faculty and children..

  5. Hondo says:

    RUSH: Fair enough rationale for your position. I don’t agree, but I’ll allow you could be right. But you also might well be surprised, particularly in rural or inner-city areas.

    I’m guessing you didn’t go to school in a rural area. Some of my teachers in junior high and high school were hunters. They’d have had no issue with being proficient with weapons – they already were.

    And PintoNag is right. If they’re not armed, in this context security guards are just additional targets vice providing any meaningful security. Don’t think there’s all that many people willing to work as an unarmed security guards, either – even these days. But I could be wrong.

  6. Detn8r says:

    Rush, both you and Hondo are on the right track. Like Hondo, I believe the option for a school employee should be compulsory. However, in my neck of the woods, quite a few of the employees would rush to the chance. But, then again, I live in WV where most of the teachers come from the local community and have grown up shooting and hunting. You are correct in making the generalization that most do not come from that back ground, nor, elected to teach while armed.

    Either way, the armed individual should be vetted, trained and given refresher training on an ongoing basis and in good shape, mentally and physically.

    I think some of the more educated members of this forum could actually write a viable porposal regarding this option. Lord knows, Biden and clowns will not come up with anything viable.

  7. Joe says:

    1) Gotta get thru the transition during the repeal/rewrite of the 2nd, protect the kids in the meantime with trained guards (vets?).
    2) I would hope we get to the day when neither of them need guns.
    3) It’s OK in cases of imminent danger. Nonlethal force? Legalize private use of tasers?
    4) See #2

  8. RUSH is the greatest Band says:

    @105 No I went to school on the Jersey Shore very anti gun here, the first time I fired a weapon was at basic training so you’re probably right about rural areas..

  9. UpNorth says:

    Rush, that would be a problem. Then you get into standards, and who sets them. That, of course, will lead to hearings in the state legislature, or Congress.
    First thing you know, you’ve got a bureaucracy and friends of friends getting those jobs. And, they’ll have to unionized. The NEA will insist on it, so will asshats like Schumer, Durbin, Pelosi and Reid, not to mention Baracka the First.
    But, it’ll still be good, because “something” was done, right Joey?
    @87, Hondo, the Bath, Michigan school house was destroyed by dynamite, by a man who lost an election, and beat his wife to death with his fists, then drove to town after the school was bombed and blew up his truck.
    By Joey’s logic, we can ban elections, wives, fists, dynamite, schools, towns and cities and trucks.

  10. Joe Mama says:

    #42 – No guns, no killings? Knives, hammers, baseball bats, punches, beatings, drapery cord, etc. etc. (shakes head).

  11. Joe says:

    #110 – fewer people taken out in a given amount of time. You’re probably not gonna take out 20 squirmy, innocent little kids and six adults in 3-4 minutes with a bat.

  12. UpNorth says:

    OK, Joey, you’re determined to eliminate yourself from consideration. #2 is idiotic. We don’t need to ban guns, or eliminate them, murder is already against the law.
    If you want to repeal the 2nd, we get to repeal/amend the First. And, you won’t like what we come up with, guaranteed.
    #3. BwaHaHaHaHa. You’re good entertainment, but no one who lives in the here and now should even take you seriously.Why do you think that the law provides for self-defense? Non-lethal force creates the same thing that no force creates, victims.

  13. Hondo says:

    Joe: you didn’t actually answer my questions.

    Your answer to question 1 sidestepped the question entirely. Please answer it – the question was why it’s OK to have armed private guards at schools but it’s not OK for private citizens to be armed.

    Your answer to 2 is a non-answer. You didn’t even attempt to answer the question; you wished for Utopia instead. Try again.

    Your answer to 3 is illogical. A person facing an armed intruder in their home is in just as much danger as a person (child or school staff) facing an armed intrude at that a school. Your stated position is that it’s OK to use deadly force under conditions of imminent danger. That is not logically consistent with other positions you’ve taken, which would allow use of deadly force in one situation but not the other. And the use of a tazer? Please. If it’s a wand, you’d never get close enough. And a person being tazed can still carve/slash the hell out of you with a knife if they’re close enough before they’re hit with the tazer.

    Your answer to 4 is a repeat of 2. Utopia is not an answer; that’s a pipe dream.

    Big NO GO; try again. Maybe you should actually think about the questions first this time. And maybe you should actually answer the questions, too.

  14. Joe says:

    OK Hondo,

    #2 – because now it seems schools have become targets. protecting hundreds of kids at one site is qualitatively a different matter than protecting one home.

    # 3 – there are more and more non-lethal weapons being developed all the time (sticky goo, noise, light, tasers, etc.), I don’t claim to know them all. You probably couldn’t kill 20 kids in under 3 minutes wtih them.

    #4 – let’s see; strive for utopia realizing it’s unreachable but still a noble goal, or sit on our asses and say not much can done but I want to have a bunch of guns.

  15. melle1228 says:

    @114 Utopis is a subjective term. I can GUARANTEE you that what YOU envision utopia as is not my vision.

  16. Joe says:

    I shudder to think what your vision is….

  17. melle1228 says:


    My “vision” is based in reality, because despite all YOUR dreams, I realize that human nature is flawed. If you base your vision of Utopia in reality then MAYBE it is attainable. If you base it in fantasy, then you can try until your blue in the face- but all you will get is fascism cloaked in “what is good for you.”

  18. Hondo says:

    Jeezus, Joe – how freaking long did the OKC bombing take? Less than one damn second! 168 dead, including a shitload of kids (19 under the age of 6 plus an unknown number between the ages of 7 and 20), plus 680 injured. The Bath school bombing? 44 dead, no guns. The Daegu Subway and Hartford Circus fires? Nearly 200 and 170 dead, respectively – no guns. Ditto the Lady of the Angels School fire, which killed close to 100.

    In fact, a quick look shows that in history the biggest single-event mass-murders by individuals have not involved firearms. Rather, for those the weapons of choice were intentional airplane crashes, bombings, and arson. (The Kaytin Forest massacres and many others indeed used firearms, but were government-run massacres vice the acts of an individual madman or evil bastard.)

    An insane or evil bastard can find many different ways to kill a number of people in a single incident, with or without using a gun. That strawman was both stupid and irrelevant the first 47 times you tried it. It still is.

  19. Old Trooper says:

    @118: Save your bandwidth, Hondo, Joe is incapable of understanding logic, and facts that don’t fit his narrative, so it’s best to just ignore his dumb ass.

  20. PintoNag says:

    Let’s see. Jonestown was supposed to be Utopia, wasn’t it?

    I know that was about a million years ago, but it makes for a good example. And that “mass murder” was voluntary!

  21. Hondo says:

    Joe: you still didn’t answer question 1.

    Your answer for 2 actually does answer the question, even though it’s illogical. Why is protecting a number of people inherently more important than protecting onself? Why should individuals be denied the right to protect themselves when their government has no obligation to do so and demonstrably cannot do so?

    Your answer to question 3 is again a non-answer. Again, you’re wishing for Utopia. We don’t live in Utopia. Why is it OK for a guard to shoot someone at their work site in order to protect himself/herself and others, but not OK for an individual in their own home to do the same? You appear to be deliberately avoiding answering that question. Ditto for question 4.

    NO GO number 2. Try again. And this time remember: the questions ask WHY. And your answer should be one that doesn’t depend on a Skittles-shitting unicorn providing a magic solution to the problem, too.

  22. Hondo says:

    PintoNag: great point. What is passed off as Utopia – never is. The Soviet Union was supposed to be a “worker’s paradise”, too.

    In fact, Franklin put it quite well, albeit in a slightly different context: “Those who beat their swords into plowshares often end up plowing for those who didn’t.” But the same basic idea is apropos here, too.

    I’ll take my chances being a free citizen in a free but sometimes chaotic and tragic society over being the subject of a dictator any day. Obviously, Joe would prefer to trade his freedom for the illusion of security.

  23. Joe says:

    Do you wear a tricorne hat and carry a musket when you start spouting this revolutionary war stuff? I think a few thousand nuclear warheads pretty much precludes the chance of invasion and “plowing for those who didn’t”. Sometimes I wonder if you guys and girls were born about 250 years too late. Were not talking about throwing off the yoke of the King George III, we’re talking about the cold blooded murder of 27 citizens, most of them innocent kids. You cry crocidile tears today, then go back to caressing your guns. Are you gonna cry some more after the next slaughter and then go back to business as usual? How many of these incidents is it going to take?

  24. Joe says:

    And since when did you guys have a monopoly on the definition of “freedom’?

  25. Nik says:


    “Save your bandwidth, Hondo, Joe is incapable of understanding logic, and facts that don’t fit his narrative, so it’s best to just ignore his dumb ass.”

    Exactly. I’m not bored enough to be entertained by him.

  26. melle1228 says:

    @124 Because Joe the fundamental difference is that most of us understand what freedom is not. Freedom is NOT more government intervention into our lives.

  27. Joe says:

    Gotta run. Been real.

  28. UpNorth says:

    Jeebus, Joey, how can you type that shit with a straight face?
    It hasn’t been necessary to worry about a king, we got rid of him, and the idea that a free citizen is allowed to own a firearm has kept his successors honest, for the most part. Up until the bullshit I heard spewed today at noon.
    And,no we’re not talking “about the cold blooded murder of 27 citizens”, you’re talking about “oh my God, do something, even if it’s wrong”. Putz.
    Sparky gave you some great advice, months ago. GDIAF.

  29. JohnG says:

    One of the best arguments for keeping guns legal comes from the FBI’s own figures. According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment, in 2011 there were 1.4 million active criminal gang members in 33,000 gangs. This was an increase of 40% since 2009.

    These gang members were responsible for between a low of 48% and a high 90% of the violent crime in their areas of operation.

    You might not have visible gang problems in your neighborhood now, but you will eventually. As government money runs out, as it will, and as gang competition increases, as it is, does anyone think the gangs are going to stay within their increasingly poor local turf? Or are they going to look elsewhere? How tempting would a nice, prosperous unarmed neighborhood be?

  30. Ex-PH2 says:

    Hondon, you know as well as I do that this isn’t about freedom. It’s about whether or not Joey can hog all the attention by letting all of us know that he’s the only person in the whole wide world who knows ANYTHIN at all about ANYTHING.

    I don’t have a gun. I don’t need one. In spite of my lack of gun ownership, I have no need to go buy, even though there are many gun shops within a short distance of my house.

    And yet, I still support the 2nd Amendment because if my neighbors feel a need to own guns, then they should have a right to do so, because that is what freedom means. They aren’t going after school children. They aren’t stalking people and making threats. They aren’t holding people up at gunpoint. They aren’t criminals.

    If they choose to give up their guns, that’s their business.

    However, as both I and someone else in previous posts have pointed out, ad infinitum, the generous offers by the city of Chicago to buy back guns HAS NOT TAKEN ANY GUNS OFF THE STREETS BECAUSE CRIMINALS STILL HAVE THEM.

    Little girls and their grandmothers still get shot in their own homes. Promising basketball players still get shot in drive-by shootings. Gangbangers still come out of alleys looking for targets. Jerks still pull out a gun at a party and kill someone.

    So what part of that do you not understand, Joe?

    I’d really like to know just how dense you are.

  31. Hondo says:

    Joe, if you really don’t understand the application of the Franklin quote to this discussion, I truly feel for you.

    But maybe you should go into the music business. You’d obviously be perfect to perform under the stage name “1-DMF”. (The “D” stands for “Dumb”.)

  32. Hondo says:

    “Gotta run. Been real”

    I’ll translate that: “Holy shit, they’re onto my BS and I’m out of ideas. Time to cut and run!”

    And quit using murdered children as a prop to score political points. That’s disgusting.

  33. Ex-PH2 says:

    That’s what I said, Hondo. It isn’t about discussing the subject at all. Nothing he says stands up to scrutiny.

  34. cannoncocker says:

    On lunch break from school, right now I don’t have the time to quote specific post numbers for rebuttal so I will just list some things that came to mind from reading recent posts;

    1. Teachers/principals not wanting to carry a firearm:
    – My mom is currently a high school Spanish teacher. She got out of the Army as a SSG back in the ’80s. Obviously she has received adequate weapons training in her time. My dad is currently a Professor of Accounting and Business Ethics at a community college. He retired from the Army in ’98 after 28 years in the Army. He was also on his school’s rifle team when he was in college in the late ’60s (side note, can anyone today even imagine a college with a rifle team? Well they had one at my dad’s school, no shootings either). Both my parents have a Permit to Carry Weapons. Obviously they cannot carry when they go to work. Too bad.

    2. The me, me, me, I, I, I, attitude;
    – Me, me, me, I, I, I, is how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is written. Those documents repeatedly specify that they protect the rights of the individual citizen. Not groups or society in general, but the individual. Individual rights to free speech, assembly, right to keep and bear arms, secure in the home, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It is not selfish to have a me, me, me, I, I, I attitude. Don’t like it? There’s an amendment process for that.

    3. Gun free zones and how many mass shootings have occurred in them;
    – The gun free zone is a product of the gun control crowd, just like you Joe. This is possibly the easiest logic process to walk through. Gun free zones create a large group of people who are not allowed to be armed. A mentally unstable individual will choose these venues to carry out their last act of anger and vengeance on the world for the simple fact that they are unarmed, unprepared, and defenseless in almost every way. The gun free zone is what the gun control crowd wanted, and they got it. The gun free zone is your baby, Joe. It belongs to you. Including the blood spilled in the gun free zone. It’s yours Joe. Own up to it.

  35. Hondo says:

    Bingo, cannoncocker. “Gun-Free Zones” do nothing more than create an area where people are unarmed and defenseless. They’re nothing but publicly-identified soft targets.

    In military terms, all they are is potential kill zones. And no, I’m not referring to the video game of that name, Joey-boy. That’s a standard military term relating to the geographical location in an ambush where the enemy is engaged and destroyed.

    As you observed, cannoncocker: anti-gun liberals indeed are the ones who created “Gun-Free Zones” and the resulting soft targets. Anti-gun liberals – not law-abiding gun owners – publicly identified these soft targets on creation. And anti-gun liberals – not law-abiding gun owners – were responsible for passage of the laws making armed self-defense there unlawful. Ergo, anti-gun liberals – not law-abiding gun owners – are the ones who are responsible for the predictable consequences.

    The reality is that your side created the problem, Joe. The responsibility is yours; the blood of innocents is on your hands. Own it.

  36. Old Trooper says:

    @123: Joe, you know as much about history as you do anything else. How is you are allowed to walk around unsupervised? Did we have nukes in 1941? No, we didn’t, but what stopped Japan from invading the mainland was the words of Admiral Yamamoto, who said “We cannot invade the mainland of America, because there will be a gun behind every blad of grass”. Our country has a very long history of firearms. Presidents have spoken highly of marksmanship and promoted gun ownership. People like Joe think that just because they don’t like something, that it should be banned. Well, I have heard the argument that a “majority” of people don’t want guns, so we should get rid of the 2nd Amendment. I asked “if a majority of people think that you don’t have a right to privacy; should we get rid of the 4th Amendment, too”?

  37. Nik says:

    From the DOJ (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm):

    According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from –

    a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
    a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
    family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

    Translation…most guns used in crimes were not purchased legally by the offender.

    Murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults in which firearms were used, numbers of offenses and rates per 100,000 population, 1994 to 2007

    Year A B C D
    1994 208.4 6.3 98.9 103.2
    1995 192.0 5.6 90.6 95.8
    1996 172.8 5.0 82.4 85.4
    1997 154.9 4.6 73.9 76.4
    1998 135.0 4.1 63.1 67.8
    1999 124.1 3.7 59.9 60.5
    2000 121.5 3.6 59.3 58.6
    2001 124.3 3.9 62.3 58.2
    2002 124.3 3.8 61.5 59.0
    2003 119.6 3.8 59.4 56.3

    2004 115.3 3.6 55.5 56.2
    2005 124.2 3.8 59.2 61.1
    2006 129.9 3.9 63.1 63.0
    2007 127.7 3.8 63.2 60.7

    A. Rate of Total firearm crimes
    B. Rate of Murders with firearms
    C. Rate of Robberies with firearms
    D. Rate of Aggravated assaults with firearms

    Center of Disease Control states “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.” (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm)

    National Research Council states “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence”
    “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small….”

    More data

    Nonfatal firearm-related violent crimes, 1993-2009

    A B
    1994 6.0 11%
    1995 4.9 10%
    1996 4.6 10%
    1997 3.6 9%
    1998 3.0 8%
    1999 2.5 7%
    2000 2.4 7%
    2001 2.3 9%
    2002 1.9 7%
    2003 1.9 7%

    2004 1.4 6%
    2005 1.9 9%
    2007 1.6 7%
    2008 1.4 7%
    2009 1.4 8%

    A Firearm crime rate (Victims per 1,000 residents)
    B Firearm crimes as a percent of all violent incidents

    *Victimization rate trends excludes NCVS estimates for 2006 because of methodological inconsistencies between the data for that year and the data for other years.

    Nonfatal firearm incidents and victims, 1993-2009
    A B
    1993 5.9 11 %
    1994 6.0 11
    1995 4.9 10
    1996 4.6 10
    1997 3.6 9
    1998 3.0 8
    1999 2.5 7
    2000 2.4 7
    2001 2.3 9
    2002 1.9 7
    2003 1.9 7

    2004 1.4 6
    2005 1.9 9
    2007 1.6 7
    2008 1.4 7
    2009 1.4 8

    A Firearm crime rate (Victims per 1,000 residents)
    B Firearm crimes as a percent of all violent incidents

    *Victimization rate trends excludes NCVS estimates for 2006 because of methodological inconsistencies between the data for that year and the data for other years.

  38. Nik says:

    Bah. Tables got dicked up. Still pretty easy to follow and understand. In the years since the ban on the big bad scary weapons went away…no appreciable increase in those crimes and injuries.

  39. Ex-PH2 says:

    I’m curious about something, Hondo.

    Aren’t Joe’s postings mostly between 8AM and 5PM?

    And aren’t those the hours most people are at work?

    And in the work atmosphere nowadays, aren’t most people being closely monitored by their supervisors in re: what they’re actually doing at their desks?

    And might the posting times indicate that Joe is either goofing off on his employer’s dollar, or (and I like this one, too) home alone while Mom and Dad are at work and he’s on school holidays?

    So either he’s shafting his employer, which can get him fired, or he’s been impersonating Ferris Bueller, except Ferris wouldn’t waste his time being a jackanapes when there’s SO MUCH MORE to do with FB’s day off.

  40. Nik says:

    Now, I predict someone will say “Look at the decline right after the ban was passed…see? It was working.”

    I’ll counter that with some more facts.

    Three Strikes Law enacted as below:

    In 1993: Washington
    In 1994: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, North Dakota, and Louisiana
    In 1995: Arkansas, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin
    In 1996: Florida, Tennessee,and Virginia

    I think it no great coincidence that violent crime and crimes involving firearms plummetted right after manditory tougher sentencing put in place in almost half the states.

  41. NHSparky says:

    Nik–and yet funny, ain’t it, how many lib-ruls want to repeal 3-Strikes laws because they’re so “unfair”?

  42. Nik says:

    Yah. Seems like their motto is “If it ain’t broke, fix it.” Los Angeles’s 2010 homicide count was 297, less than a third of the 1992 high of 1,000 homicides.

    To be sure, some adjustments to those laws need to be made, mostly on the qualifiers, but generally speaking…they work.

  43. David says:

    picky objection – cannoncocker, assuming a woman in the service received adequate training prior to the ’80s is highly suspect – women’s only Basic (which ran until I believe ’76 or ’77) had minimal firearms instruction. Men’s Basic was originally more intensive, then in ’77 a new “gender neutral” training which was very similar to the old women’s training was bought in. I was in the last of the old-era BCT cycles, my wife in the first of the new – she fired less than 50% the rounds I did, never fired an M60 at all, never even saw a LAW or .45, and threw something ike 3 grenade simulators.

  44. MCPO Assualt Rifle Wish List says:

    So tomorrow I am purchasing my first assault rifle. My local gun shop has an awesome collection. My pistol collection is extensive and I have a variety of other long arms from a Model 99 Ariska to an early bolt action Mossberg, and two very old rifles from the early 1800’s. Considering the climate … I thought I should do my part and support the economy.

    My questions is: considering I may want an AR-15 and or M-4 type and or variant, what is the best make and model for the money.

    Must be upstate compliant!

  45. USMCE8Ret says:

    I think I’m caught up now…

    @123/Joe – You ask: “How many incidents is it going to take?” I’ll get to your answer in a second.

    You’ve made it pretty evident how you want the government to respond, and that you hold the value of many lives more valuable than one (“for the greater good” is not something anyone here subscribes to, in case you were wondering), but you’re entitled to your opinion.

    Hondo and others have explained that we don’t live in a Utopia. Never have, never will. While we recognize this world can be a terrible place, those terrible events can be mitigated by the rights given to us, and be law abiding while we go about and do it.

    You use words like “I wish” and “I hope”, but through the course of the discussion here, what you’re asking for (“Utopia”, while a noble idea – just isn’t possible) translates to dreaming.

    @139 – I noticed that, too. Maybe he got caught and was fired after muttering rantings under his breath at his desk for 9 hours strait.

    @140/Nik – Good points. Also… Well into 5 years of the last Federal Assault Weapons ban, an incident in Littleton, Colorado occurred. Need I say more?

  46. Ex-PH2 says:

    @145 – Or maybe he’s some disgruntled college kid who thinks he knows more than he actually does.

    Here is an article with a video regarding our president’s response to an online petition on gun control, which garnered (I think) some 400,000 signatgures, less than all the secession petitions gathered after the elections:


    Notice in the video he addresses everything in a calm, deliberate manner as a parent calmly telling boisterous childre “yes, we’ll deal with that soon”. Great coaching by VJ, by the way. But the crux of the statement is blah-blah-blah which means nothing real will be done. He says clips, not magazines — okay, he probalby thinks magazines are National Geographic and Newsweek, so I don’t care about that part. But the liberal side of the fence wants action NOW!!!!! and I don’t think they’re going to get it, from the way this speech comes across. Or at least, not the way they want it.

  47. Ex-PH2 says:

    @143 – In womens’ basic training, there was little to no arms or weaponry training or handling prior to 1979. In the Navy’s RTC(W), we did not receive any instructions of any kind in regard to any weapons other than nuclear, biological and chemical warfare, and for chemical (nerve gas) warfare, our instructions were to inject atropine into the thigh — assuming that any of us even had access to atropine.
    I don’t know about the Women Marines, but I never saw any of those women with weapons, either.

  48. USMCE8Ret says:



    When he said, “This is what we’re going to do…” I fully expected a cartoon narrative to interrupt and explain in a short little 2 or 3 minute story how the gov’t is going to handle it, and then pan back to the President so he could finish. That would certainly satisfy the cry babies that are panicking on the left.

    Of course, I’m still waiting to see a video posted by the WH to address the petition that has been submitted to allow military members to put their hands in their pockets.

  49. USMCE8Ret says:

    @123 – Sorry, your answer is “ZERO”. (I owed you that.)

  50. mike says:

    I dont know about everyone else but I will not honor any type of gun ban that has feinstiens name on it, I have served my country and I have been a law abiding citizen for 55 years, this ban will turn me into a criminal, so what ?
    F*** the government.
    If its time to bury your guns,then it is time to use them.