Shared publicly  - 
This afternoon, Vice President Biden participated in his first +Google+ Hangout about the Administration’s efforts to reduce gun violence. Watch:

#firesidehangout   #nowisthetime  
edward wypijewski's profile photoJohn Poteet's profile photoSeth K's profile photoApril Leblanc's profile photo
It was a very interesting and enlightening conversation. I hope +The White House continues this series for as long as they can.
I'm inclined to think guns laws should stay as they are because it seems to infringe on people's freedom too much. Also deaths as a result of guns are fewer than through illegal drugs.
+Richard Osborne As they are, a lot of the gun laws aren't enforceable. I think that's one of the biggest issues people have been trying to pay attention to.
Was quite impressed with the whole production. I want Fireside Hangouts on a regular basis! Thanks PBS and the White House and, of course, our terrific Vice President Joe Biden!
There's no problem about guns laws, the think here how secures every single gun until appear new programs at schools, well, till those school programs became they must secure all the guns by GPS systems. Where those kids took the weapons for the all the bad things just happened because bulling?...
What if we stopped comparing gun laws to other laws that also need revision, and look at them on their own? Would these gun laws help save lives and reduce violence? If "yes", then what is the problem?

Let's not make distractions and smoke screens to divert attention elsewhere. Deal with the issue and move on to other issues.
Mr VP, the 2nd Amendment is clear and shall not be infringed upon is also clear. It is ridiculous to think that "criminals" or would be criminals are going to obey any law or executive order ever made.  It is also ridiculous to make law abiding gun owners "criminals" for practicing their 2nd Amendment right. 
The problem is not an inanimant object. The problem is the will of the person who controls that object. Prime example is 9/11/01 when not the first gun was used to commit the crime. 
A simple pot of hot coffee can be used as an assault weapon, are we to ban hot coffee for it ? NO. 
If our politicians were serious about solving the problem, then create a law that is worthy of its purpose. Making a law so tough that if a gun is used in committing a crime, it would make someone think twice about using a gun to commit a crime. Its not just guns. Look at the recent news today of a woman that met a man on a social site and she was stabbed 20 times after he had already killed another woman in another state. It is the will of the person who controls the object of choice to commit the crime. 
Crime is the problem, not the objects. Stop allowing criminals the right to life after they have committed murder, stop thinking that a domestic abuse class is going to stop domestic violence. Start treating these criminal for what they are, criminals, and act accordingly. I expect those who govern to have more intelligence and common sense then the general public.
+Anna Marie not to be a dick or anything, but I disagree a little bit with how people are currently interpreting the 2nd Amendment. I don't have a dog in this fight, so I won't get into a full blown debate over what the 2nd Amendment means to me personally, but I just wanted to convey that the 2nd Amendment is not nearly as clear cut as you and a lot of other pro-gun activists are claiming it is.
+Ben Smith it's also not as ambiguous as you seem to claim. Maybe try reading some of the discussions that were documented by those who drafted the 2nd Amendment. It's actually quite clear why they included it. Considering why, it is also fairly evident, if not distinctly clear what arms should be allowed.
+Peter Schrock I'm not trying to make it sound ambiguous so I don't know why you're claiming I am. I was simply pointing out that there used to be a debate about what the 2nd Amendment meant. That was going on in the Supreme Court until very recently. Up until about the 90s even the Supreme Court was pretty split about it. The idea that the majority of Americans thought guns should be an individual's right isn't an old idea. It's actually fairly new.

I'm not saying the current interpretation is wrong. I'm just saying it's not the only interpretation. There are two different interpretations that used to be far more popular. Even within the current interpretation there are people who think individuals should be allowed to have RPGs and there are those who think individuals shouldn't be allowed to have assault rifles.

I'd rather at least acknowledge these distinctions, instead of attempting to gloss over them and continue with an argument as if there are only two completely clashing positions on the issue.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How many gun owners are part of a "well regulated Militia"? Don't get me wrong, I can see how someone needs a handgun for protection, and a few shotguns and rifles for hunting. But when does the right of someone to have a hobby or collection outweigh the right of someone to live? I could use hot coffee as a weapon, but that's not its primary function! If someone wants to kill another person from 10 yards away, you use a gun or the Force.

It could just be the fact that I'm a school teacher or that my daughter started Kindergarten this year, but I would welcome laws that make sure anyone that purchases a weapon is thoroughly qualified to use it safely and responsibly, and has no history that shows they would do otherwise.
+Richard Osborne I'm curious as to what freedoms are being "infringed" - I hear this a lot and so far, it seems those who keep saying it are watching a different channel altogether. Nothing to do with the content just shown nor spoken.
So when do we start the Google+ Hangout to watch this TRAITOR SWING!!!!!
What "TRAITOR" Who, you? Look into a mirror and you'll see the who is who!
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason.
Also, in the context of the times of the 2nd amendment's drafting bearing arms meant a single-shot relatively inaccurate slow-to-reload rifle.  I'm fine with people having these.  You might get a shot off and kill someone but everyone else can probably walk away while you reload and a guy with a bow and arrow probably is more deadly within  range.

Modern weapons are far more lethal and probably not envisioned at the time of the drafting.  Limits to personal lethality are very reasonable just as limits on speech such as libel are still reasonable.
Glad to see the conversation occurring.
Ability to 'define' Amendment through study is mandatory for able Citizenry.
We are still living in the year 1775 it seems, only that those talking constantly about the 2nd amendment have grown smaller balls. What good are guns if you are a scared rat? Use a baseball bat instead. The dream about government taking away your guns are myths, dreams and evil virtual sentiments.  That will not happen, but the laws should provide for penalties that are very severe, in such that a lawful gun owner, being careless and cause death by the use of his/her guns; should be also charged with murder.
Case in point, the woman who had an arsenal of weapons that was used to kill those kids, would be liable for the crime. She did not secure said weapons and her estate should be responsible.
So, for gun lovers, who bought them, you care for them; or else you and your estate is responsible for any crime committed by the use of those weapons.
+Peter Schrock Actually, reading many of the debates and discussions of the time, all I really saw was disagreement about what things were covered and quite a bit of 'wink and nod of course we didn't mean XYZ'.  In general looking back at the original debates usually just highlights the point that this argument has been going on a long time.. either that (for other amendments  shows how narrow the worldview of the founders was (for instance, many drafters did not feel freedom of religion covered things like islam, judaism  and catholicism because they were 'obviously' not religions, and very few another other then abrahamic was covered).
+Mike Conley on contrary, it is not specific to what kind you are permitted. It is for the purpose of the people to defend themselves with whatever is necessary to ensure their freedom should the government become tyrannical.
Who said anything about the new laws taking away the guns of the people? They are meant to limit the lethality of the weapons and to assure that those who buy the weapons are of sound mind and are responsible enough to possess the weapons! 
+Tom Broad , could you show me some government documents or official position saying that they are going to take away the guns of the people? To my understanding, any new laws put in place are meant to regulate the future of guns but not affect current gun owners.

Also, if you couldn't tell by my comment, I was supporting the right of people to have guns even though they aren't part of a militia as the amendment clearly states. A well regulated militia is very different than a couple of dudes with guns taking out the bad guys.
+Peter Schrock I didn't read anything regarding legalizing uprisings against the government in the 2nd.  Perhaps you are confused.  I believe that would be a very poorly regulated militia.

The 1st amendment also doesn't mention limitations to speech, yet we have them in the form of libel, perjury, copyright, etc. because these rights are not so absolute that they trump a functioning society's needs.  For instance, I don't get to own an armed fighter jet or a nuclear weapon - there are limits to personal arms, obviously.
Good ol' Shotgun Joe. I love it, every time he opens his mouth....we get a laugh.
And by the way, let me just say that I appreciate the civilized manner that this conversation is taking from both sides of the argument!
It makes me wonder why people are so opposed to record checks! "They say, the president is imposing on my amendment rights". Fact is the ones whinning are the felons that should not had weapons anyway! They are pissed now the law applies to them rather than what they label as criminals. The sadder part is most of them are WHITE MALES that's use to the rules being in their favor. Now that the playing field is level for all, everyone is but hurt. America is changing ladies and gentlemen as well equality on all levels.
+Tom Broad nobody said anything about taking your guns away! At least from were I sit I didn't hear that anywhere. So I think you must be one of those felons, one of those felons that thinks he's an exception to the rule because your privileged. Or are you one of the men that feel the President will take away guns leaving you vulnerable to be enslaved under minorities? 
Thought this was pretty on target. One of the first time's I felt myself agreeing with things Biden said.  I don't know that the assault weapons ban is going to do very much in the big picture of gun murders, but it seems like most of the time there is a 'mass shooting' it is done with an assault rifle--the video game mentality.  Limiting the magazine size to 10 seems highly reasonable.

On the matter of the background checks, it seems like a no-brainer.  I can't see why a background check with a waiting period is a problem.  I would also go so far as to say that guns should be registered and verified once per year, but it should be a simple and cost-free process paid for entirely by the budget of the police department or whomever.

People's records of gun ownership should, however, be kept private.  What happened in New York is ridiculous.  
I think felons and other criminals support gun bans and the like.  It makes their jobs much easier when someone else has already disarmed their victims for them.
I am reading quite a number of comments that are interpreting the "well regulated militia" clause totally backwards.  If you look earlier up in the Constitution the Militia is defined as the forces provided for by the state, ie the way we currently use the term Army.  The people have the Right to be armed in order to regulate the forces of the state, in order to maintain a free state.  This does not give the government to power to regulate the arms of the people, it gives the people the power to regulate the arms of the state.
+Chris Cecil you forget, the state follows governmental Law! This is one country not 50 individual one's.
they are the state national guard (state militia) Not the average citizen That means YOU
+Tom Broad give me a link to the government documents that says Americans will turn in all weapons other than Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hanity. I will give you my ocean front property in Oklahoma. +Don Yeargin some people are too stupid to figure this out.
Seth K
+Chris Cecil I admire your diligence in trying to talk some sense into these people but I think no one is interested in logic or reason any more, no one could be bothered about what the constitution really says. The real problem we face today is trying to get people to understand why it is important that we protect our second amendment rights. No one can imagine a government so intrusive that it needs to be beaten back by sheer force of the people. The reason why no one can imagine such a government goes back, probably, to their public education experience that has undoubtedly been run by liberals from Wilson onward. Until people become properly educated it will be impossible to explain anything to them past the walls of their deep indoctrination. 
Also +Don Yeargin most claim they know their constitutional rights and can't even interpret an easy bake oven manual let alone a constitutional amendment. 
Mary Wu
+Richard Osborne But see -- if I choose to take illegal drugs and die, I'm making my own choice. If someone else gets a gun and kills me, I don't have a choice in that. I don't expect to be protected from my own stupidity, but I'd like to be protected (when possible) from the stupidity of others.
I believe the real problem is creating OPPORTUNITY #4JOBS  . When young kids spend 75,000 on education graduate and can't find work, they sit around getting yelled at by their mothers who allowed them to be RAPED and then the mother says GET OVER IT and the boy can't so he goes to the weapons he has learned to use playing the XBOX. All of the ASSAULT WEAPONS are in XBOX games and my nephew is now an expert in the Marines but he scared me growing up. This is the WILD WEST out here and men are killed just like in the old west, it just happened last month when two individuals looking for food tried to steal. PIERCE COUNTY WASHINGTON STATE is in desperate need of OPPORTUNITY or the killings will just continue in my opinion. In fact there have been 7 attempted and some completed killing attempts at schools since #NEWTOWN  . Get a wake up call and tell the REPUBLICANS that until they start to work with the DEMOCRATS that more CHILDREN are going to DIE. Personally I wouldn't have returned my child back to SANDY HOOK . We are setting an example of the world. We need to get our FINANCES in ORDER by working together then quit BULLSHITTING and create some GOD DAMN OPPORTUNITY - JOE! Where is the Friggin JOBS ACT, we have been waiting so long that most of us are just tired and starting to wake up to the LIES. Don't your SENATE HOUSE Colleagues get that we need 1 person to reach out and help another. Take on a special project. I am a DISABLED EX DOD CONTRACT worker on FT LEWIS WA ST who was FIRED and HUMILIATED after receiving a CONCUSSION BLAST and lost everything, my home, savings, everything. I just want to be productive from my small 5th wheel but no one will give me an opportunity to make any money. I get bombarded by offers of work at home for a disabled guy that are all scams. What is the GOVERNMENT doing about the ILLEGAL hedge fund managers manipulating $AAPL and is the SEC finally going to get this criminal activity under control. I have watched the criminal activities of the following BILLIONAIRES flash trade against E-TRADE / AMERITRADE acct holders #GUNS just a small part of a BIG PROBLEM called the RULE of LAW!

Are we gonna go after individuals in the world that commit crime as in BENGHAZI, then we need to do it and make a HUGE EXAMPLE on WORLD WIDE TV in their countries. We need JUSTICE to exist in the world. 

These CORPORATIONS need to be forced to brimng the OFFSHORE money home, TAX IT and create opportunity for American Citizens. The WAR is a CYBER WAR against these BILLIONAIRES manipulating scenarios the way they want and it is creating the BOYS who KILL CHILDREN! just my opinion!
Mary Wu
Did anyone see this from the Feinstein bill 

The legislation also protects the rights of law-abiding citizens who use guns for hunting, household defense or legitimate recreational purposes. The Assault Weapons Ban includes a grandfather clause that specifically exempts all assault weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment from the ban. The legislation also excludes:

More than 2,200 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles by specific make and model;
Any gun manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and
Weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement.

Seems to me like nobody is planning on knocking down people's doors and taking their guns.
Last five minutes really showed how ignorant Mr. Biden is on the issue. I guess we also moved from solving gun violence to making sure our law enforcement cannot be out-gunned. How ridiculous.

They will try anything to reach people, next they will say squirrels will be extinct if we don't ban AR-15s...
+Mary Wu why do you refuse to take the responsibility to protect yourself? "If someone else gets a gun and kills me". You most certainly do have a choice. Choose to not be a victim and take responsibility for your own Right to life and self-defense. If you are unwilling to do that, then please, please, at the very least, do not lobby to strip others of their Right to self-defense. Even if you refuse to use your own Rights, the mere fact that the are present in our society lessens your chances of being a victim, as it causes fear in the hearts of many people who would want to hurt you and empowers good people with the tools to come to your aid if they so choose. If I see someone being a victim of violence, I will attempt to help them. Up to and including laying down my own life in the protection of the lives of those others. Do you want me to be successful in protecting those people, then please don't try to take away these tools of protection. We all have the Right to protect our own lives, however we may choose individually not to use this Right. We should not be attempting to force our personal choice not to use this Right onto others.
so Michael you really need an AR-15? How many do you own? Do you have children in school. You are already someone that scares the shit out of us. They really want to determine that your mental capacity is not quite right and you should not be allowed weapons at all. BACKGROUND CHECK! I was a UDT SEAL so i know the two chemicals under your sink that can blow YOU up and that's not on the assault ban list, neither are grenades. I get my weapons in my capacity as a special operations tactical expert for insurgency from the DOD to carry concealed just as any federal agent. What you really don't like is the fact that a FED gets what YOU WANT. There are a lot of FAT, UGLY, STUPID #NRA  IDIOTS proving US RIGHT. If you want to do something for your side tell those IDIOTS to shut up or they will be on the evening news. BELLY's hands on hips saying I can wear my weapon anywhere i want to cuz i got a constitutional right. JIHADISTS and our enemies everywhere don't give a crap about that, we are looking at a NUCLEAR WEAPON from KOREA / IRAN, RPGS from anywhere now in MIDDLE EAST AFRICA and the WEAPONS were all manufactured in the USA. Wake up and get a CLUE the government is running guns in MEXICO and around the WORLD.  
+Mary Wu the grandfather clause is a huge problem. We need to think of the children!! They are not old enough to yet fully use their Rights. We can not let them be stripped of their Rights just because of their age. I want this country to be free for my children and grandchildren, not just myself. For that to happen, we must fight for their Rights also. The grandfather's clause just says we won't disarm you but we will disarm future generations of Americans. We can't let that happen.
Would anyone in favor of the Assault Weapon Ban explain to me the functional difference between the semi-automatic rifles that would be banned, and those that would remain perfectly legal?
+Gregory Volz - 42 of them, I have three children.. I am NOT sure THERE was a POINT from the REST of your POST.
lol he's teo'ing with an imaginary obama 
Ah ... the old "criminals won't obey this law, so why bother" argument. Using this logic, why have ANY laws? Further, these massacres you keep having are not perpetrated by hardened criminals. It's just looney kids who grab their parents' assault weapons and wander into school.
I would just like to see children live long enough to exercise their rights!  However, I don't believe guns are the real danger here... I believe selfish people who won't own up to the responsibilities of being a parent and cold-hearted doctors with scalpels in hand and vacuum by their sides are to blame!  1,200,000 children are aborted in America each year!  When will we finally take a stand against this legal "genocide" that is taking place in our nation!  Protect guns to protect life, protect children and ensure a future worth protecting!
+The White House
do you really expect me to jet the pond to join Mr Baidens hang-out ?
They are ment for physical  meetings of poeple not for stupid selfrelted selfloving propaganda of politicians fromthe past  !
+Michael Easlick You're being very lax with your own logic. This kind of throw-away argument is a sign of desperation ... and attempt to reduce the issue down to a single, "winner-takes-all" line and close off the conversation. The fact is that society has rules, to protect everyone. To say that there is no point having rules because some people will break them is really saying a lot about you ... eg that you intend to break these laws, but you'd rather it not be illegal ... as you don't want to deal with the consequences. This in turn proves that having laws works, as it is a deterrent. It doesn't deter everyone. Note that I'm not trying to reduce things down to "my simple analysis solves the world's problems". But I'm pointing the sensible way forward. Throwing your hands up in the air and saying "Not everyone will follow these rules" doesn't address the simple fact that those who do NOT follow these rules will be slowly, yet systematically, removed from society and places in your already overcrowded prisons ... but they'll actually deserve to be there.
Yo quiero hacerle saber que en el mundo global que vivimos,hay
maneras de proteger nuestra familia sin necesidad de poseer
armas de guerra,yo pago sístemas de alarma,ya que con dos 
nños pequeños en mi casa no podría permitirme ni de tener un
un arma ni de aire comprimido.
Prefiero pagar compañias de alarmas mas videos que solamente
con un botón la policia está en mi casa en algunos minutos,me
siento protégido al máximo,ya que jamás tendré personalmente
una arma.
+Daniel Kasak - I seriously do not understand your point.

Ban a firearm based on cosmetic accessories (go ahead, argue with me it is anything more then that). Ban a magazine based on an arbitrary number of rounds.

As a matter of fact, confiscate all semi-automatic rifles, not just the ones with the scary pistol grips and folding stocks. So now that there are no semi-automatic rifles in the Nation, anywhere, they are all gone (hypothetical), what happens?

People still die from everyday gun violence.

Millions of gun owners loose something they once could posses.

People still die from mass-shootings.

So what is the benefit of doing this? Why did we create this law? Do the FBI stats suggest semi-automatic rifles are the number 1 firearm being used in everyday gun violence? Or are they less than 1%. Are semi-autos with scary barrel shrouds a statistical zero? So how has this stopped everyday gun violence?

How would it had stopped a mass shooting involving handguns? Virginia Tech shooter used two, 10 round mag and a 15 round mag and was one of the deadliest shootings ever.... Almost all of the recent shootings, the shooter brought along a hand gun... Into a "gun-free-zone" too, another law that didn't work..

I don't get your terrible analogyabout speeding and laws not being followed. There is a law banning murder is there not? Here, I have a terrible analogy as well..

To prevent the 10,000 drunk driving deaths a year in the US I propose we ban Wine and glasses over 10oz. This is just as arbitrary as the stupid proposals by King Obama! It makes ZERO sense!

To top it off, we have to listen to Biden call a mag a clip, say a double barrel shotgun is great defense, assume it would take someone a minute and a half to two minutes to change a magazine. He has no clue WTF he is talking about...

If you had a terrible illness and was going to die, you would want an expert to help you, a Doctor, someone who has studied their field, knows what they are doing. Or would you rather have Biden who won't take the 2 seconds it actually takes to change a magazine decide what care you should receive? Why is it any different that we let these ignorant people try to cure the cancer that is criminals killing criminals and crazy people killing our students??

Asinine policies from asinine politicians that admit it won't fix the problem. With real statistics and real evidence that it won't even "save one life".
Corrupt. The Media. Our Politicians. Blurring and Smudging the lines to confuse and lead the people astray. 
Interestingly, the people who find this "too infringing" felt buoyed by the Supreme Court decision, though the conservative majority did not feel that way. Mandatory, 100% background checks and banning certain weapons are perfectly permissible, if you read Scalia's opinion. There are lots of reasons why you can't have an Apache helicopter or Hellfire missiles. So banning the manufacture and sale of Assault rifles is perfectly within the power of Congress. You may think that's a bad or good idea. That's what we can talk about.
I would like to ban assault rifles because of what they do inside the bodies of their victims. Because the spinning of the small bullet in human was our military's way of avoiding the prohibition on the dum-dum bullet, which was banned by the Geneva Convention as inhumane, as it is. You can argue about whether making a small hole going in, and then have the bullet destroy entire inner organs and make a very large hole on the way out, is acceptable in a military weapon, but if you want that power, and rapidity of fire-- 30 shots in the 27-second phone call to 911 in Colorado-- make anybody who wants these things on the street a crackpot Militia freak, a sadist, or just a lover of violence. There's lots of unbanned weapons you can use for self-protection, sport and hunting. Beyond saying you can't sell it, Feinstein's law doesn't even grab the already-existing stock. Every right we have in the constitution is qualified in some way; the 1st by libel laws, pornography controls, etc. please join the real world. You want an assault weapon? There are these organizations that have recruiters in every town. They will train you very hard in how to use these dangerous weapons, and send you places where you will have lots of sporting contests with the Taliban. Keep that shit off our streets.
"But the important thing to remember is that the Second Amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, it prohibits U.S. officials from suspending or infringing upon people’s preexisting God-given, natural right to own guns."
This is ridiculous. I was driving through Chicago and Indiana on the days of very cold weather. On the roads were these 18wheel tanker trucks spraying the road ways for prevention of slippery spots. The amount of small flying particles of dust clings to cars and trucks enters into the ventilation of your vehicle in turn you breath. Before, car accidents were many. That was due to people not paying attention or skilled on driving in poor weather. Now the accidents are fewer but now thousands will have respiratory and possibly lung cancer just because of the new system to prevent accidents. What was the cheaper solution? Education. 
we should just let the weak and paranoid die,saves a bundle of money.and strengthens natural selection theory.
Ultimately, the choice to love each other is the only choice for a survivable future.  The meek shall inherit the earth because everyone else will have died on their swords...  or guns...
They can have my gun when they pry it out of Charlton Heston's cold dead hand! Oh, wait......
+Teddy Roosevelt +Anna Marie +Chris Cecil 
Re: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The second amendment was written to provide for States to create their own militias, the Continental Army having been disbanded after the revolution. The republican (small R) majority feared a national army would be controlled and used by the northern states to keep them subservient. 

The army was re-etablished soon after to protect the borders from pissed off Native Americans.

+Peter Schrock Re: "Maybe try reading some of the discussions that were documented by those who drafted the 2nd Amendment." 
Do you have any links I could follow, I've pretty much used up Wikipedia.
Yes, "Gun Violence" not "Gun Control". Our slogan should be: "Stop terrorists and criminals from buying guns to kill Americans." Who wants to let terrorists and criminals do that? The N.R.A. wants terrorists and criminals to buy guns easily.
+David Hebert there is no harm in being politically motivated, that's how the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created. Politics is a good thing, what we see in the Congress today is the lack of politics.
+Michael McGuire  Politics was in play when the Consituton and Bill of RIghts were created as well as politics is in play in today's Congress.  The difference is that the Founders were trying to protect everyone's ass.  A majority of today's Congress is trying to protect their own.
Isn't it odd how those who focus on the "Shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment, completely miss the "Well regulated" part?
Since this administration has chosen to crap all over the US Constitution, I am happy that the PA Constitution states:

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
+Sharky B yes you have the right to bear arms, and the state has the right to define the conditions.

No one's trampling on your rights. You don't have the right to buy mortars, claymore mines, battleships ... 
+Sharky B  I would like to hear how the administration has crapped all over the Consitution.  But before you answer please refer to Washington DC vs Heller.  Take note of Justice Scalia's majority opinion. 
Two pieces of bullshit I wish we could dispense with for good and ever. Two STUPID ideas that cause gun people to think stupid things. One, more guns make you safer. An obviously foolish idea, which isn't really an idea at all, but a marketing concept to sell more guns. It's like advertising cars in the '50s: gee, there's a beautiful woman draped over that car. If I get that car, then I get the woman. Duh. The Harvard epidemiological study shows clearly the gun density, per county, means more death and violence. And really, look at the stats. Intentional death and wounding-- which is where the self-defense could come in-- is what, a third of the deaths by gun? Far more people die by suicide or kill themselves accidentally. How many people got wounded accidentally on Gun Appreciation Day? Stupid idea number two: that the constitution would say, sure, let's have a militia to rid ourselves of tyrants. Like, when the backwoods distillers launched Shay's rebellion over a liquor excise tax, oh, but George Washington himself, a distiller, rode out the last time with the continental army and shut them down. See, we aren't the royal government of Britain. The democratic republic means people vote. If the people vote, and all the other legal hurdles to a law are done, there's no tyranny, just disagreement. This is rightism you're talking about. Not constitutionalism. Some people think Obamacare is tyranny, but if so, it's the legal kind that was voted in by the elected officers and accepted by the Supreme Court. Guns don't have a role to play. Historically, people didn't want the expense of a standing army or the threat of military coup that brings, so we settled on a militia system. It was largely deployed to kill Injuns or to put down frequent slave rebellions. The only war that militias were involved in was 1812, when it couldn't win battles in Canada against small detachments of trained soldiers or even protect the Capital. Andy Jackson used it at New Orleans, to zero effect, because the war was over already. We had already won/not lost.

What has the militia done in times of slavery and segregation? Why, ridden around with hoods. Appeared in the only race riots we used to have: white race riots, which were frequent earlier in the 20th century. When the Black Panthers wanted their right to bear arms to protect against police brutality, the NRA wanted gun control. Now white people need to be protected from Universal Health Care.
+Gregory Oliver if you read it carefully, what it is saying is that in order FOR a well regulated militia. It isn't saying ONLY for. Again, if you would read previous posts, you would see that being discussed.
+Peter Schrock
 The Bill of Rights left the details to the states and the courts, today we respect that decision. Face it, what's good for Kansas may not be good for New York. Different strokes for different folks, and the Constitution guarantees that too!
Well since you are now so up to date why dont you tell us all about morgellums since I now suffer from this goverment controlled coverup. I made the mistake of flying but that just expidited the illness as all my roomies took the red wine test and they all have it too. Also just what in the hell is The National Bank Foreclose Act for when Wells Fargo refuses to implement any of it's requirements. I have over 20 counts of provable fraud against them and have been fighting to keep my home but now with this illness I have to just give up because I am battling it everyday instead. I am close to a possible cure or at least a way to make life livable again. So I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these matters and hopefully it won't be the same BS that always comes from the government. I was wondering how do you avoid catching this illness? Since most people are not aware of it perhaps you can explain how I got not just one but two micro chips out of my neck so don't even respond if you are going to say it's all in my head. Yes it is real stuff in my head and I have plenty of witnesses so unless we are all in mass hysteria it is really time to tell the truth.
+Michael McGuire I never disagreed with the idea that what's good for Kansas isn't good for New York and vice versa or for any state for that matter. But each state has the obligation to abide by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If the Judiciary system can establish a Federal Law through Roe V Wade that abortions are legal (which is a breach of constitutional powers, by the way) it probably will attempt (or Congress or Executive powers in this case) to ban the use of certain arms. Such powers is not authorized to the Federal powers but to the state. And that is the argument. Isn't it? Federal power is not authorized to override the power of the state, at least not on this issue.
+Peter Schrock the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. They did NOT "establish a Federal Law through Roe V Wade", they ruled on the constitutionality of establishling laws against a woman's decision to choose. And BTW, they did recognize a state's right to establish certain limitations on abortion, specifically the right to tie it to the trimester of pregnancy.

Congress and the courts have already restricted certain arms. Reread the posts mentioning Justice Scalia and the right to purchase automatic weapons, mines, mortars and other military grade weapons.

You keep on telling others to read up on the Constitution as if you were a Constitutional scholar yet you ignore requests for citations. You have not ever provided any data supporting your position other than bumper sticker prose.

It's very difficult to maintain a dialogue with someone who ignores all facts presented to him.
+James Webster "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169).

I believe that would include you, me and everyone posting comments on this page.

Although we are lucky enough to live is a time where the militia is not necessary, shouldn’t we still keep and bear arms to prevent the government from taking away our other rights and if necessary to rise up against an unjust government?
+Michael McGuire "it's very difficult to maintain a dialogue with someone who ignores all the facts", "you have not ever provided any data supporting your position". Let me ask you a few questions. Are you just responding or do you even look at the links I have given? If you actually read my posts, I have done exactly that. Where is your data? You replied with assertions and no support. As far as someone who has ignored all the facts, most of what you just responded with has already been addressed in previous posts. Did you read them or did you just jump in to give your opinion? Do you think repeating your case will refute the facts?
+Michael McGuire I think the problem is that some are looking at what has and hasn't been done. What I think should be the focus is not just what has and hasn't been done but also in light of how does it fall under it's constitutional powers. Since FDR, Republicans and Democrats have both exercised a great deal of power in gross negligence of what has been authorized by the constitution. If authority has not been given to excercise such powers, why do we let it happen?
wow, you know it is sad when a guy with a youtube account is quoting statistics and makes the VP look foolish.

Point blank, VP admits that very few crimes are committed with an "assault weapon" yet thinks that is where Congress should focus their time and energy, instead of spending 3 months fighting something that may save thousands upon thousands of lives. No one is saying those 300 lives are not important, but if Congress is choosing to save 300 over thousands, they are choosing that those 300 are more important than those thousands. 

I'm not sure how police are "out-gunned" seeing as ARs only fire a bullet each time the trigger is pulled. Just like the police's ARs that they have in their cars. If police don't have ARs (why not give them ARs then) then they have shotguns and according to Biden, a shotgun is more effective than an AR. That was possibly the most absurd thing he said during the entire chat. (which says a lot) He talks about a magazine (not a clip) reloading taking 2 minutes, unless you have never fired a gun, it would never take 2 minutes. Thats an absurd number. Biden was busy throwing numbers around that meant nothing or saying vague statements. I want to see the number of ARs used against police officers. He says he sees no sporting purpose for an AR. Why would he, he "owns" two shotguns. ARs have become widely used in sporting (3 gun competitions) or hunting. Yes, you do not NEED 30 rounds for hunting, but all bolt action rifles have a magazine that hold 4-5 rounds. You don't need 5-6 rounds (one in chamber) to hunt a deer either. See how easily that argument will be made when they want to take bolt action away. 

The 2nd amendment is not about sporting/hunting or even self defense, it is about protection from tyranny, which you then could expand into self defense, because protecting from a tyrant or a criminal isn't much different. The store owners in LA during the riots needed the large magazines, same in Katrina. A double barrel shotgun will not prevent a mob. Go watch a reload of a double barrel and tell me that you can stop a mob. 

I bet the next fireside chat will not contain someone who will call out the BS as well as the youtube gentleman did. 

Again, as I have been saying over and over, let us focus on the why not the how. Fix the why, and you stop all the different hows. 
This condescending, abusive creepiness that gun idolaters use by referring to the "irrationality" of gun safety is pompous, arrogant, and a simple attempt to rig the debate. The idea of making a "militia" out of a political tendency with false views of the 2nd Amendment and a weapons addiction? Irrationality has lots to do with your point of view, too.

Sent from my iPhone
Democracy is when 2 wolves and a lamb vote for what to put on the dinner table; Liberty is when the lamb is well-armed
Moral issue, not gun issue,,,,, 2nd. Amend. was put in place to protect all of us from a tyrannical government, when your government is wanting to take your guns.... you might want to start paying close attention to the real reason why,,,,,,
That's one of the two lies of the NRA and the gun cult. The militia amendment, with the inclusion of the private ownership of guns, was put there for the self-defense of the Republic. No way on Earth was it approved for White Militias or Black Panthers or any other adolescent hard-on fantasy. The way to prevent tyrannical government is to organize and vote. Our government belongs to the People. Some rebellion of ignorant gun nuts will and must be met with steel, if they can't be reasoned out of it. Just the way George Washington dealt with the liquor rebellion with the Continental Army.

Sent from my iPhone
If we want to get anywhere with 2nd Amendment interpretation, we have to figure out exactly what a Militia is referring to. I've heard it described as the precursor to the National Guard system, but just because it became that doesn't mean that it precludes a Militia as a fundamental element of gun-ownership. The 2nd Amendment however seems to be pretty clear about membership in an organization as the main reasoning behind bearings arms.
+Julian Harmsen The Supreme court as already ruled on what the 2nd amendment means. Individuals hold the right to bare arms for whatever reason. The Supreme court has also said that the government has the right to reasonably restrict ownership of certain arms. The only question now is what is reasonable.
+Mike Conley
Them by your logic you should be willing to give up modern off-set presses, television, the telephone, and the internet.  After all, they weren't around at the time of the revolution. 

And by the way, if you want to know the power of the written word, I call your attention to three books:  "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler, "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels, and "Quotations from Mao Tse-Tung" by the dear leader himself.  I would argue that those three books were collectively responsible for about 100,000,000 deaths in the twentieth century. 

Read some history and come back when you have an education.
Salam,YB,maaf,sukar benar saya mahu berurusan dengan YB,,SEHINGGA HARI INI,SAYA MASIH BELUM MENERIMA APA-APA BAYARAN,sampai saya pasrah,diharap YB dapat mudahkan urusan saya.thank you very much.
I bet Biden never even shot a gun!  
+Teddy Roosevelt Exactly how does that make any difference? He's the Vice President and you're an internet troll using a sockpuppet account. 
Schools are "Gun Free Zones"... if that is effective to those that use Guns I think the White House should use the same policy and not allow their staff members including secret services to have Guns. Lead from the front for once. Maybe your perspective will change and your ideological motivated politics will change.
+Michael J Pierce Good monkey!! You've memorized last weeks NRA talking point. Try thinking now. Kids and guns are a bad mix. 
+John Poteet I actually do not subscribe to any NRA material or read their documentation. So I guess you are the monkey for blindly thinking its an invalid point.
The only crazy interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that is was there so we could rebel against a "tyrannical" government, with gun idolaters confuse with OUR government, elected by the people proceeding by the rule of law. It was never interpreted that way, when it was passed, when the original threats were extinguished-- the British attempting to retake us, Indian depredations and slave revolts passed into history, as did the militia system entirely, before the 19th century was done. The idea that what the amendment called for was citizens marching on the capital with guns because of abortion or the income tax or whatever is frankly insane. Our laws have been put in place by a legitimate government. There are legal and peaceful means of changing any law through the lawful processes of democratic politics. This is We the People's government. Take up arms against it and bring down the people's wrath. Anybody know the 3rd Amendment? Yeah, the Army can't quarter men in your home. When has that been a threat since the British went home? We could repeal that with zero damage. And the Second should be rewritten to make it clear that it's not about a supposed right to Insurrection. The latest Supreme Court decision did acknowledge that private citizens have the right to bear arms, but it didn't say what arms, and it didn't say that a system for keeping guns away from criminals and people with mental problems is unconstitutional in the slightest.
joe biden is saying to invest in a shot gun, when in chance a shotgun can be more deadly than an ar 15. because if you go with 00 buckshot thats 9 pellets about 1/8th of an inch coming at you... this chat was totally needed and biden stumbled like a mofo.  he was challenged and he was made to stumble. his bill in 1994 did not decrease crime by limiting guns. more people are beaten with hammers than killed with assault rifles.. and they do have a sporting purpose, varmint control. 

this is all horse crap this gun control thing. the real issues need to be looked at period.  and they cant question the 2nd amendment.. limiting my magazines that i can use, and taking away the right for me to go buy an ar 15 to teach my child about gun safety shall not be questioned or taken away.  i was taught at 10 year old how to shoot and gun safety. i own several guns myself, rifles, pistols, several high compacity magazines and so on. and they will have to peel them from my dead hands to get them away from me. 
+paul smith Does it ever bother you that you're totally full of shit? Exactly what purpose in society does an assault rifle serve other than to kill lots of other people? So since your bitching about "limiting my magazines" I'm assuming that you have some list of people you're planning on killing. 

b.t.w.- Some of us liberals are perfectly fine with that cold dead hands thing. We're sick of you assholes threatening everybody in sight with your death machines and your death cult. 
+John Poteet Do you really believe an AR-15 is an assault rifle?   Do you know the AR only stands for ArmaLite Rifle followed by the version?  It is a semi-automatic meaning you have to pull the trigger every time you need to fire.  When you see an AR-15 laying on a table in it's camouflage trim, it look like a hunting rifle that +paul smith and numerous people use it for.  Sure, when you paint it black it looks spooky and scarier and the media has labeled it an assault rifle.  That it is not.  Connecticut has some of the most strict gun laws in the country and the AR-15 is not banned because it is not an assault rifle.   Although some folks make mention of prying guns out of their cold dead fingers, the sentiment needs to be respected.  It is liberty than is taken away when you make laws that are not well thought out.  Supposed gun bans do not work.  The more restrictive the gun ban, the less safe communities and cities are.  You can look to statistics in several states and cities such as Chicago for proof.  You can also go back over time.  Instead of believing what is fed to us, its time to start looking at the real facts and the real solutions.  The so called conversation going on right now focuses on the wrong things and will not solve anything.  Until people are ready to have a real conversation instead of throwing insults around at each other, there will be no solutions.  One thing is for certain, taking away constitutional rights is not going to help, it only leads us down to less liberty.  Constitutional rights should be something that no American is willing to give up.  We cannot choose which part of the constitution to ignore and which to allow.  That slippery slope goes both ways.  Liberty given by the constitution should be in the forefront of this so-called conversation.  
In June of 1902, Congress passed bill HR 11654 entitled “Efficiency of Militia Bill”, also know as the “Dick Act of 1902″. In this bill, the following is stated:

“Be it enacted that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen, respective of State, Territories, and the District of Columbia and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than 18 and less then 45 years of age, shall be divided into three classes; the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory or District of Columbia, or by such other designations by the laws of the respective States or Territories, as my be given by the laws of respective States, Territories, the national reserve as provided in this act, and the remainder to be know as the reserve militia.”

According to that statement, there are two levels of militia; the organized (National Guard and the Military Reserves) and the remainder (“every other able-bodied male citizen”). Now there has been much argument on this topic. So, let’s take it one step further. Let’s look into the US Code.

United State Code
Title 10
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United STates consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

The US Code specifically states, all male and female citizens and are able-bodies are militia. Therefore, we all have the right to own and possess a gun.

Many other arguments today are centered around the use of and ownership of assault style weapons. And while that debate can be extensive and frustrating, the real question comes down to is it legal to ban them. The answer is……. no. At least not according to SCOTUS.

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), 1939 Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, in which SCOTUS held that a sawed-off shotgun was not shown to have military value and/or to be included among military equipment; ergo, the sawed-off shotgun was not entitled to protection of the Second Amendment.

With all that we know now about the Second Amendment and SCOTUS v. Miller in 1939 we can conclude the following:

“That if a firearm has military value and is included among military equipment, the right of the people to keep and bear such arms shall not be infringed.”
Now, the last time the assault weapon was banned, we were reminded over and over that it was semi-auto, you stupid non-gun-nut, but once the ban went through, we were told that we were so stupid, because you could convert it to full auto with a kit in about 15 minutes. So which is it? Full auto is indistinguishable from a Tommy Gun, which is banned. And still is banned, quite properly, as Scalia said. So this distinction between semi-auto and auto is crap? Yeah, seems to me. If the max size of the mag is 10 rounds, maybe there's not too much difference in spraying a movie theatre in 2 seconds or 10.

As for the well-named Dick Act of 1902, we had two world wars and a lot of others between then and now, so I doubt that's still in effect, particularly if it ends with everybody who's heard the word "militia" eligible for a door-mounted Gatling or a mortar. And the Supreme Court ruling certainly didn't come to that conclusion.
As for the Dick Act, it seems pretty clear to mean a lot less than the right says it does. It was the act that federalized the militias, creating the National Guard. Which wasn't supposed to fight overseas. Well, that's changed, hasn't it? This was the ability that Eisenhower used, Federalizing the Alabama National Guard and putting it under the president, so they had to let those black kids in Selma in the schools. Can it be amended? Of course! If it's not already superseded, any law can be amended. Does it have anything to do with gun control? I doubt it. A simple price of legislation setting up militia, etc., defines term for its act. The National Guard fought for years in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the terms have changed. This is a right-wing myth. I ask for more expert legal minds to work on this. Because this is an example of lunacy: "truth" by cc: lists in e-mail. Oh, and a bill of attainder means they can't write laws for individuals. Like, "Joe is guilty of murder." That's for the courts.
You remind me of an idiot. No response to the argument.
Seth K
+Julian Harmsen In the historical context of why the second amendment was written it is quite clear that the the ownership of guns is to defend against an a tyrannical government, among other benefits. This was the reason why the supreme court ruled that ownership of a gun is constitutional independent of being in a militia. If you think that in our day and age a tyrant is an impossibility you are very much mistaken. I do not think that we have come to that point yet where we will need to fight for our basic freedoms, and naturally that should only come as the very LAST resort as a civil war would most likely destroy the republic. But once again the possibility is always present and should always be planned for in a logical way, which was what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish.

However, your attempted character assassination of people who want to own guns and calling people gun-nuts, is not conductive to anything but showing your elitist attitude and the general snobbery of liberals. Since you can not win a logical argument you seem to rely on character assassination.  If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine I am not going to come after you and force you to get a gun. You on the other hand seemed determined to tell everyone else what is appropriate for them and their family as it applies to all aspects of their life, not only gun control. This elitism is the reason why liberals try to make it impossible for gun-nuts to get guns through excessive legislation, they think that everyone else are idiots and that they can legislate everyone's lives for them.
The posts by +John Poteet really show how moral bankruptcy really shapes the extreme liberal perception.
Seth K
Oh yes and another thing, why can't liberals ever be forthright with their true intentions. Their true intentions are not to make our schools more safe, of course they will let no tragedy go to waste to fulfill their political goals. Their ultimate goal in all of this is to ban guns through excessive legislation. You can tell this is their true goal because of the very fact that we are having the debate on why we even need guns; this is not a debate about if this legislation on guns will make america safe (which it won't). The liberals here, in this very forum, will argue that we don't need guns because in the second amendment it says in a well regulated militia (which is out of context), or we don't need guns because we have police officers and the military, or we don't need guns for whatever other reason. It is very clear that the ultimate goal is to ban guns all together.
Tom Broad: yes, things are wrong. Let's get about fixing it. Constitutional amendment. Demonstrations. Get a blog. I sympathize with many of the things you talk about. But I'm not going to go down the violence road, and as long as we have a Republic we don't have to. And we have a moral obligation not to start an insurrection. The Bolsheviks were a bunch of intellectuals with a sanctification of violence above all. See how that worked out. 
Seth K: you think there's a deep, dark plot behind all of those guys, huh? We're not some monolith that "wants" something. Yeah, somebody says he doesn't want any guns, but the constitution doesn't allow that. 
See, Seth K, you believe "we all" secretly want one thing and we lying. You believe Fox News, huh? Obama doesn't have "a secret agenda." It's right out there. He didn't mention it for the first term. The party didn't want to. But after that school with those kids, it just seems to us that no civilian, no-one not in state militia with a leadership and command structure and orders from legally constituted authority, should have an AR-15. And certainly not with a large magazine.

Sent from my iPhone
Seth K
+James Hassinger  Yes I know that it isn't a secret, it's right out in the open in terms of actions. So why don't you just come out and say what your real intent is. The fact is the actions of Obama and all liberals speak a lot louder than their words or the words of the propaganda agency that is journalism. 

Also, what is your definition of a large magazine? I certainly want to be able to defend myself, but if I have to load my pistol with a magazine that holds, like what, three bullets. What if I miss the first two times? What if the criminal has five buddies outside? There is no way that we can legislate and try to cookie cut every situation into the law.

But then again I don't like to argue these kind of specifics, but these are the sort of problems that come about with legislation of this sort. Anyway, the real issue here is not only about self-defense its about legislation against normal law abiding citizens. You nor Obama gets to define how many bullets we need, how many carbs we can eat, what healthcare we must have, if we can smoke, what vehicles we can drive, ect ect ect... The list goes on and on and on. So the issue of gun control, you can see, means a lot more to people than what you give them credit for. Gun Control is a battle that is just a part of the larger war.
+Tom Broad A stunning display of conservative ignorance. You are the reason people are uncomfortable with assault rifles and high capacity firearms being in the hands of civilians. You're ignorant implications that you're some sort of heroic revolutionary but with all the details wrong. 

We don't want idiots like you holding so much as a slingshot. 
+Tom Broad If you look at +John Poteet 's other posts you will see that he just trolls accusing anyone that disagress with him and this administration as being neo-conservatives who only subscribe to fox news. All the while he alienates those who are moderate because of his narrow view of reality.
Well, there's this: "how do you think the civil war would have gone if america had just petitioned england to "please treat us fairly"?" +Tom Broad 

Prior to the Revolutionary War the Continental Congress, did in fact, petition England to treat us fairly as English citizens. The Civil War did not involve England. 

There's also the fact that the Magna Carta didn't benefit the peasantry at all but ensured only the rights of the petty nobility. And also your stunningly horrible spelling and punctuation. 
See how +John Poteet, just continues to talk down to people instead of simply correcting facts and proceeding with intelligent conversation?

And think the point that +Tom Broad makes is still valid. Its the fact that in the history of the world the conditions of people did not improve until there was an ability of the people to defend themselves from over bearing governments. A notable exception is in India independence and Ghandi's Role in the NON-COOPERATIVE and non-violent campaigns against the British Raj.

Gentleman like +Tom Broad are likely not going to bring their weapons to bare against the United States, but the fact of owning a weapon makes a staement of non-coperation and nonviolence. A person can own a weapon to be used only in defense of their life (not ideals), when fighting for their ideals by OWNING the weapon.
Dear Vice President Biden,

I am neither a gun advocate or opponent, nor to do I own a gun, so I would consider myself to be pretty moderate on the issue. But I have a suggestion that I think can help focus the gun policy conversation. 

Let's approach gun ownership, control, and safety as we do with vehicle ownership, registration, and operation. Owning and operating a vehicle requires very specific and fairly straightforward nationally-recognized laws such as amount of training, applying for and renewing licenses, acquiring insurance, transferring ownership, etc. 

We all know that a vehicle's primary purpose is transportation, but it can also be a deadly weapon (vehicular manslaughter is a crime, after all). This is why we have such laws. Since a gun's primary purpose is to kill, why not leverage the same kinds of regulations for gun ownership as we do with vehicle ownership?

I think you can draw many similarities between the two; enough, at least, to turn down the heat on the debate and give Americans something tangible to grab on to. 

Thanks for reading.

Not bad ideas, Jessica. But there isn't a chance that we'll get the gun nuts to go along with rational restrictions. And I don't use that expression as a slur, but as a description of the mental processes involved in those who give a semi-divine power, and erotic power, to their beloved weapons, holding those rights above all others.
I don't want to believe that the irrational fears of a few will outweigh the rational ideas of the many. Perhaps likening gun ownership to vehicle ownership will help average people on the fringes of the debate come to some reasonable conclusions and comparisons rather than espousing fear and knee-jerk reactions. Like many Americans, I've been thinking a lot about guns these days and I know there are no easy answers. At best, we fall into a series of tangents that pull us farther and farther from the center, making it almost impossible to devise FAIR and RATIONAL gun safety laws. When we ask the question: "what would fair and rational gun control laws look like?" Well, my answer: "The DMV."  :) Though I'm being cheeky, we should take a serious look at this. Vehicle owner/operator laws are widely understood, respected and honored by most people who don't think twice about them because they know that these laws were established for everyone's protection. And when someone breaks the law - whether it's as simple as driving over the speed limit or as severe as driving under the influence - you know there's a chance you could get caught because the law is black and white and, for the most part, nationally recognized (with some state-to-state variations). Let's just see where this goes...
Seth K
+Jessica Aebi I love the fact that you can put your plan into very clear terms and conditions. But there is a reason why the vice president, nor any of the people supporting gun control laws, never give a concrete description of what it is they actually want to accomplish. The thing is we already have this sort of legislation in place, and I think it is very silly to think that more legislation will make the US a safer place.
What do we want? Sensible gun regulation to decrease our-world-leading gun violence. 
I've been reading some of the comments here, and it proves the point that without a sensible and rational conversation on gun laws we really won't get anywhere or accomplish anything - except maybe increase our blood pressure.

We can turn the tide of this debate if we draw parallels to other laws that no one complains about, such motor vehicle laws. Why are we not up in arms about having to take a driving test? Renewing our license? Transferring our vehicle? 

Because these laws are fair, rational, and nationally enforced. Not only that; they were established for everyone's safety. Don't you prefer driving with the peace of mind that most people out there know that they are supposed to stop at a red light?

Please don't get me wrong: I am sure that many gun owners out there respect the laws. But are the laws adequate? Are they transparent? Are they portable from state to state? Are they easily understood? What are the loopholes? 

Let's continue this discussion, but let's use our inside voices from here on, mkay?
+Jessica Aebi yes lets compare proposed gunlaws to how we regulate automobiles. We currently have a skill test and a knowledge of how the law applies to the use of a car. You do not need a a licence to own any vehicle. There are laws about what kind of vehicles can be used on public roads. However, this is a far cry from the regulations proposed by this administration.

Compared to cars, gun laws would be written to require that every gun owner is required to take x number of hours of training and classes prior to being able to use a gun in public. Such as a concealed carry, many states currently require additional training for a concealed permit. Compared to cars, you would be able to own a gun without a license and use it on your own private property regardless of what type of firearm it is. Just like it is now in many states.

Compared to gunlaws, cars would required the purchaser to be licencesd, be over 21 years old in many states, restrict how soon the car buyer can take possession of the vehicle they purchased (up to a month is some states depending on the car purchased), people would be restricted by state to state laws in the kind of vehicle they can purchase and possess. Ownership of the car regardless of use could make the ownership a criminal if he owned a vehicle considered too dangerous.

So in this comparrision +Jessica Aebi , you infer that we should look at stricter gunlaws because we expect the same with motor vehicles, however the truth is that ownership of guns is far more restricted then you realize and that car ownership laws are far more laxed or non existent. Cars are regulated in their use, not ownership. This administration wants to make owning weapons illegal. This would be like being branded a criminal for owning a Corvet, mustang, or any other performance vehicle.
Aside from killing people or animals a gun has no function whatsoever. It's generally agreed that killing people is a bad thing and killing animals, i.e. hunting, has to be regulated for safety and resource management. 

The extremists who accept the deaths of children so they can keep their vanity guns unregulated are a tiny minority of moral cretins. 
+John Poteet Making guns illegal does not keep them out of the hands of criminals or the deranged that would harm children. 

Guns serve a purpose just like ANY weapon, to protect people from others willing to break the law with whatever weapons they can find, steal, or obtain. If we do not allow people to legally own weapons like firearms, there will be no defense against those willing to break the law.
I do hear your point, Michael J Pierce, but I would like to make something clear: I never said "stricter" gun laws. I was pointing to fair and reasonable gun laws. Again, I'm not anti-gun. I'm actually pretty agnostic about it, and see many different sides and can understand why so many people are up in arms.

My goal here is to point out that our debate over gun laws is so passionate (angry, even) that we lose sight of rational ideas that can help us move toward a common goal. This is why I find the likeness to vehicle laws to be an adequate analogy. And there's nothing more dispassionate and cut and dried than the DMV. 

By using the motor vehicle analogy, I am pointing to the variety of laws out that that most everyone agrees with - because they are baked into our culture. I, myself, find the DMV really annoying, but I know I'm going to have to do my time there at some point, because I have enacted my right and responsibility to own and operate a vehicle.

Let's look at this a little more closely. You can own a car and not drive it; you can drive a car but not own it. These laws should be examined separately, but in relation to one another - two sides of the same coin.

For example, if you own a car, you possess the title. If you sell the car, the title goes with it. The car is registered in the new person's name. Laws are followed even though they can be inconvenient. 

Secondly, you can operate a vehicle that you do not own, whether you borrow a friend's car or rent a car, as long as you are licensed and the car (or driver) is insured.

There are laws on both of these sides equal to the danger each one poses if the laws are not followed. 

So, bottom line is, shouldn't we enact laws that are equal or greater to how dangerous something is? Given that a gun's primary purpose is to kill or seriously injure, maybe they should be more strict. But we won't know this without proper examination. Because without it, it's tough to decide which laws are effective, which are too lenient, and which aren't lenient enough.

I don't have any answers, nor do I have any control over what happens in Washington. At least I've thrown one idea into the ring. Let's see if it sticks.
The whole guns protect me from bad guys meme sounds really great but in practice it simply doesn't work. It's a lie. 

Chris Kyle, former Navy Seal Sniper shot dead:

Keith Ratliff, gun enthusiast and video maker, firearms dealer, shot dead.

Meleanie Hain, gun carrying soccer mom shot dead by her husband.

Then there are the thousands of idiots that shoot themselves as well as the thousands of children killed when they find a loaded gun left out by an adult. Proximity to firearms greatly increases the chance the owner of the gun will become a shooting victim. This is just a fact.

Where ownership of firearms requires a significant investment in time, energy, funds due to stricter regulation gun deaths significantly decrease to 1/10th or less of the U.S. rate. Nowhere, not even Japan, is all private ownership of all firearms outlawed.  
+Jessica Aebi 

" And there's nothing more dispassionate and cut and dried than the DMV. "

Oh man I'll tell ya sometimes standing in line is a nightmare!

The interchangeability of vehicles between trusted parties is a great feature I would like for firearms and is legal in a few states. 

I definitely think laws should govern proper use not ownership as far as guns go. These are already in place in the form of aggravated crimes (a modifier to an existing law like assault  attempted murder, or murder that can increase penalties and sentencing)

So if you use a gun properly for self defense in public it really shouldn't matter if you own the gun or not. The problem with too many parallels is the fast difference in how cars and guns fit into society. Kind of like comparing internet regulations with cell phone regulations. You can heavily regulate one without much public outcry,but try to touch the other and the whole world seems to come down on you.

In the US Army I went through specific trainging about the proper use of weapons, but that is not all. I was also taught tactics, strategy, and situational awareness. Part of that was planning, in planning you have to understand that if someone wanted to hurt you and had time to plan it, there is almost nothing you can do about it unless you have a plan of your own ready to deploy at a given moment and a policy you operate by to help you to put your plan into action. opposing forces may want to set up an ambush and plan it for months gauging vehicle routes and then "set up us the bomb" right in our intended route. POLICY operated (and public knowledge in released ranger, us army,  and marine handbooks) dictates route planning, regular changing of that route, spacing of vehicles, and layout of bases (which i won't mention as I don't see these in public released documentation, but I have not gone through the army engineering core manual yet). Training and Tactics comes in with your weapon when Policy begins to fail. and You are left to change your plans and policy due to the actions of others.

Gun ownership gives people the power to react to danger.
Ownership of a car is regulated to this extent: it must be registered with the state, and there is an annual fee, which you can get out of by filing your intention not to drive it. If afterwards you put it on the road. You must give the state your VIN number. The car is subject to a smog test every year or so, to control emissions. If you can't get that down to the acceptable level, you have a ton or so of metal on your hands.

What the assault weapons ban and the magazine limitations represent are akin to environmental laws for weapons. 
+James Hassinger A vehicle does not need to be registered to be owned. You need to register the vehicle to park in on public roads and operate it.

Also, vehciles produced before certain years do not have to reduce their emmisions to pass SMOG testings.
The U.S. Army doesn't allow just anybody to carry loaded firearms on it's bases. There are very strict regulations as to who can carry a weapon, when it can be loaded and which personell are designated to open carry weapons and concealed carry weapons. 

A soldier carrying a loaded weapon anywhere on a military base without proper authorization is subject to discipline and/or courts martial. A U.S. army diesel mechanic simply can't wander around base with a loaded pistol. 

Here's a website for the shooting club on Quantico (marine base) to give you an idea.

Naval Family Occupant Housing Handbook
Michael J. Pierce: Try buying a car without paying for registration. Then, yes, you can park the Audi in your garage and never drive it again. But you have to turn in the VIN. That's as much to protect you as anything. Tracing it, etc.

But anyway, you have to pass a test, get training, show proficiency, be a certain age and be insured to actually drive the car you own. Would that it was necessary to do that to use weapons.
Seth K
+James Hassinger The places in the United States where murder rates are some of the highest: Chicago, Washington DC, etc... are all very liberal cites with extremely excessive legislation on guns of all sorts. Ironic really, I guess we'll just ignore that little fact. Oh yes and you should also turn your attention to Poland in which every citizen is given a gun and the murder rates are one of the lowest in the world. I guess we'll ignore that little fact as well. You can check the murder rates by country here:

There are a ton of countries out there that have higher rates than the United States, I think you'll find that the US is also one of the lowest compared to the world.
VP Biden : Thanks for starting the conversation in the Middle East, with Iran, with Egypt, Syria, etc., thanks.  In Africa, the UN and the AU must take over from France next month and make sure Mali and the whole North -Central African Continent continues towards Democracy, Free Elections, Free Speech, Free Media and Equal Rights for Woman.  The more Africa grows with the Rule of Law , the better for the whole World. This time that great Continent can grow with Justice, Democracy and fairness, and let's never forget that the Diamond , Gold and Oil traders are the ones that many times finance wars between tribes and provide weapons and explosives to all sides to create chaos and violence, so that no one looks to them and there and they can do their illegal extractions and criminal activities in secret, so this time Africa must break free form all these criminals, enough ! and thanks for your dialog with South and North Korea's new leaders , as well as Japan, China and the rest of the Asia -Pacific Community, we got so much to build and trade with each other, no time for useless conflicts , it's time to work together and develop all these deep-sea assets together,  its time for team work. Thanks.
+Seth K <<< Another idiot who parrots Rush Limbaugh; incorrectly to boot. Show us some proof that there is any nation in the world where every adult citizen is given a gun. It isn't true in Israel and it isn't true in Switzerland. How you managed to insert Poland into that b.s. meme is a mystery to me. 
+John Poteet  You don't know anything about dialog and conversation as you always belittle people. The US in not other countries. The countries you try to compare to are smaller than most of our states in population. Using statistics of American states and cities is a far better example, because not only of cultural difference there are also major difference to laws and punishmnet.
I agree. We need to argue like citizens. However, the Second Amendment is being used as a crutch to avoid the problems that a too-aggressive gun culture is making for all of us.
The problem is that violence is occurring with or without guns. Taking guns away from people that are responible is not the answer. Gun types, models, or ammo counts do not make a difference. Its the people using them.

Criminals do not obey the law, so why disarm those that obey the law?
+Michael J Pierce People, like yourself, who persist with falsehoods in the face of facts deserve to be belittled. 

Countries have borders. They can generally control was passes through those borders. Cities and states in the U.S. do not have borders or border checks. Conservitards make the repeated claim that gun violence is extreme in Chicago. Chicago has 2.8 million residents. That's a population larger than 15 states.

Chicago also suffers from the deep rural bias of the U.S. Congress that has no problem giving $300,000  a year to one rice farmer but refuses to assist urban populations. 

So when conservative gun dealers sell guns to Chicago residents, which they do, those guns end up in the hands of criminals. Since gun dealers, manufacturers and straw purchasers are protected from the consequences of their actions by NRA bribes to Congress you blame the city. 

Of course all of that is a little complicated for a tiny conservative brain so it's easier to insult you and remind you that your gun-toting heroes are in the habit of shooting each other, their wives, and their children. 

Like Chris Kyle. It turns out that bragging about how many people you shot makes you a target. Who knew?
+Michael J Pierce Why do you persist in repeating false memes? Nobody in the U.S. House or Senate is talking about disarming anybody but the severely mentally ill and convicted criminals.  

The proposals voiced are: 

1) Limits to magazine sizes to 10 rounds or less
2) Perform background checks on all, no exceptions, gun purchases or transfers. 
3) Introduce safe storage laws that require guns not kept on the person be unloaded and stored in a locked safe or heavy cabinet. Ammunition to be stored separately. 
4) Require gun owners to insure themselves for liability for the consequences of any use of their guns. (just like cars) 

That won't disarm anybody unless they're a criminal or unwilling to take responsibility for their gun ownership. 
+John Poteet My complaint is not with Congress, its with this administration which has made its intent clear in criminalizing citizens for the type of firearms they own. +John Poteet  You are either a liar or very morally deprived.
Seth K
+Jessica Aebi There are some people who would disagree that there is a common goal to this gun debate. But assuming that there is a common goal, and that it is a "safer" environment in the United States... 

In the first place there is no evidence that having a DMV for guns will make people any safer, and I contend that a DMV for cars has not made our roads any safer. Despite there being a DMV people still choose to do things that they shouldn't in their cars. As will be the case with guns, if there were a DMV for guns. 

I just don't understand this philosophy that in order for people to be good, weather it be in their cars or in gun ownership they have to have the government holding their hand and telling them exactly how to do every little thing. 

Again though, I do not feel that the goal is a safer country. The very fact that there is this continuous dialogue in the US that has painted gun owners as automatically prone to violence, that has attempted to persuade us that it is not even necessary to own guns, and that it is not constitutionally correct for citizens to own guns except for in a well regulated militia. This is the dialogue of our age, that has been repeated over and over and over again through this last decade... What do you infer from this? Do we infer that liberals in this country have the best interest of gun owners in mind when they create gun laws? or that their real intent is to continue to defame them, and make it too difficult, expensive, or risky for people to ever obtain a gun?

If I have learned anything in my life, there is no such thing as being disinterested as you claim to be. And especially not on the crucial topic of the second amendment (the importance of which can be understood by its historical context). You are either for keeping the second amendment around as it was meant to be kept, or not, there should not be any shades of gray. 
For a safer America we need better infrastructure, better road design, better construction design, and complete strategies for dealing with social violence. Dealing with just a weapon and mental illness or small pieces of an overall puzzle. Politicians rather go to their grave then admit the level of change required and a stop to ideological partisan politics.
Lacking facts the conservatives once again resort to mind reading. Requiring gun owners to use background checks before transferring weapons and demanding they store their weapons and ammunitions safely is "morally depraved" in their views. Restricting magazine size to 10 rounds or less is "morally depraved." Insuring your guns for liability is "morally depraved." 

Responsibility ≠ moral depravity. 

At least not for most people. For U.S. conservatives not getting what even when that risks other's lives is "morally depraved." Are we clear who the source of the problem is yet? It's not just guns. It's a faction of adults with the moral values of a two year old. They can never get past the word "mine" and realize they have to share the world with others. 
Seth K
+Michael J Pierce I agree, I think that private business and individuals should be responsible for improving these things, independent from government and partisan politics. We need to have more trust in the goodness of the individual and that he will act, as Emmanuel Kant argues, in his own best interest that becomes the best interest of all...
+John Poteet You excel in twisting words. But it does not subtract from your own abundant lack of facts and rationale of the ends justify the means. You would sacrifice freedom for imagined security.
+Seth K Its very likely that these things have to be accomplished by private organizations or some kind, because as it stands now government does not have the organization or ability to do so. Individuals and organization are ironically blocked in most respects to infrastructure by government using the topics as political footballs.
+John Poteet the facts show that most violence and deaths do not occur from guns. You are more likely to die in a traffic accident then to be shot. Also, its is a fallacy to think that removing guns would reduce violence. Gun control would only change the medium of the violence and not the end result.
Seth K
+John Poteet But look at the data you are sending... We may have a high fire arm related death rate, but the death rate includes criminals shot by police. Despite the apparently high gun related death rate, the homicide by gun in the US is still pretty low on the same chart. Further, we have a very low intentional homicide rate. Impressive really, considering our large population. 
More lies from conservatives. 

Guns provide no service whatsoever except killing or injuring people or animals. Automobiles are the major source of transportation in the U.S. and regulation has reduced the traffic accident death rate.

Overall homicide rates are lower in nations with comprehensive gun control regulations. 

U.S.  4.8 per/100k population. 
U.K. 1.2  "
Sweden 1.0 per/100k
Canada  1.6
Germany 0.8 per/100k. 

Note: these are intentional homicide rates. Actual rates of death by firearms in the U.S. is much, much higher because of the high numbers of "accidental shootings" and suicides not deemed homicides. 

The rate of gun death in the U.S. is 10.2 per/100k population yearly, More than twice the rate of intentional homicides. That includes the death of the neighbor kid shot by his 4 year old brother and all the suicides. 
+John Poteet I don't label myself as conservative. You do. And it is clear that you out right lie about the facts you present. Guns don't provide a service they are a tool. They are a tool engineered by society in the last several hundred years. They are a weapon like any other. IF you think eliminating weapons will stop violence you are wrong.
A common lie told by gun fondlers is that gun deaths include a significant fraction of shootings of criminals by police or civilians. When asked to prove this they can never show evidence.  It simply doesn't exist or the fraction is too small to correlate. 

So far 1645 people have been killed since the start of the Newton shootings. That includes 256 women and 94 teens and 29 children other than those shot at Sandy Hook elementary. 

Easily 99% of those shooting victims were not engaged in any crime at the time of their death. Guns kill family members not criminals.
+John Poteet Cherry picking stats does not make your point valid. If I did the same thing, it would look like this:

In Kenya, All Guns must be registered and you must provide a reasonable explaination why you need it.

Homicide Rate per 100,000: 20.1

In Mexico, you can apply to own "non-military" weapons, but must pass a background check performed by the Defense Ministry.

Homicide Rate per 100,000: 22.7

Our 4.8 looks pretty good.

No, the is evidence. There's the Harvard epidemiological study that shows that the counties with greater gun "density" have greater injuries and deaths from guns. There's the fact that background checks, if done universally, would help keep down smuggling to criminals. If we keep a good database, checking on a gun at a crime scene would take seconds rather than hours or days: the ATF is now forced to phone the manufacturer, and it's very slow and incomplete. There's a reason the ATF used that crazy idea to find the smugglers: Congress and the GOP has made it impossible to do their job.
+James Hassinger So how does gun density account for those legally owning weapons opposed to those illegally owning them?
+Michael J Pierce Are you pretending that law enforcement resources in Kenya are in any way comparable to the United States? How about economy? Education? Health care?

It's notable that you have to go to third world countries with massive economic inequality to find nations with firearms death rates worse than the U.S. That's comparing apples to salt licks. 

Try first world nations. Nations that you wouldn't be afraid to send your daughter to without bodyguards. In any of those nations they have effective gun control laws, reduced murder rates and lower rates of violent crime overall. 
Oh wow you mean there are other factors besides gun control? I am so happy you have finally come to terms that gun control is not the answer.
+Michael J Pierce Sorry, but no. Reasonable gun regulation is still what the American people want. Your fanatical defense of guns rather than children's lives just makes you that much more pathetic. 

I've repeatedly posted reasonable proposals for gun regulation and you return with a spew of lies. 
Why can't you address proposals for regulations that exist? Which one of these do you think will prevent responsible citizens from owning reasonable hunting or self-defense firearms? 

1) Limit  magazine sizes to 10 rounds or less

2) Perform background checks on all, no exceptions, gun purchases or transfers.  

3) Introduce safe storage laws that require guns not kept on the person be unloaded and stored in a locked safe or heavy cabinet. Ammunition to be locked away separately.
4) Require gun owners to insure themselves for liability for the consequences of any use of their guns. (just like cars) 

Which one of these is so beyond the pale that you have to resort to lies? 
+John Poteet Go look at gallup polls or stats on opinions. The American people do not want more gun laws because even the current laws are not adequately enforced. How do you expect to make additional laws to enforce criminal behavior when current regulations are not enforceable. You only serve to brand current law abiding citizens as criminals in the future going down this path.
+Michael J Pierce Gallup polls? The same fools who told Fox News that Romney was winning the election? Yeah, there's a credible source. Try "Reality." 

"According to the survey, released today, a majority of Americans support a wide array of policies being discussed in Congress: 89 percent support closing the so-called gun show loophole by requiring background checks for all firearms sale; 69 percent support banning the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons; while 68 percent support banning the sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Meanwhile, more than 80 percent favor prohibiting “high-risk individuals” from having guns, including those convicted of a serious crime as a juvenile or those convicted of violating a domestic-violence restraining order"
The problem with being conservative is that facts just hate on them.

"Public support for stricter gun laws has leaped to its highest point in eight years with 58% now in favor, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday. That's a 14-point jump from last year."

"Of those surveyed, 92% of Americans want background checks for buyers at gun shows and 62% want to ban magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, which have played a frequent role in mass shootings."
Look at polls before this huge public relations campaign to ban guns and you will see the difference. Same surge in polls occurred after columbine, but then returned to normal after it wasn't plastered in the news over and over again.

Once again +John Poteet you deflect from the facts. Gun control will not reduce violence.
I am military trained as an Infantryman while in the US Army. If I had to defend my family and home I sure hope I have an AR-15 because I know how to use one. I have shot a handgun only a few times and found that I was not nearly as comfortable with it or accurate. More accidents occur with handguns in a home then so called "assault" rifles.
And that assault rifle, legally acquired, is yours, unless you commit a felony. Not going to happen, right?
The gun fanatic +Michael J Pierce simply cannot respond to facts when they're presented to him. The American people want gun regulation. 

Not simply one poll but multiple polls show this is the case.

He claims to be an Army Veteran but gun regulation on military bases is more strict than in surrounding civilian areas. Safe storage, registration of weapons and casing of weapons in transit are absolute requirements of all but a very small cadre of personell on military bases. Weapons are checked out and checked in for training and only loaded in specified areas. 

+Michael J Pierce cannot address my specific gun regulation proposals because he knows he's wrong. They are less stringent, not more stringent, than required by military regulations. 
Look at American history, world history an economics: the basic "improvements", from the Erie Canal on, have been made by government guidance, government legislation and government financing. It properly belongs to government because these questions belong to us all, and because only the federal government is and should be large enough to take on the financing of the transcontinental railroad or the Eisenhower highways. And I'd like to see your definition of "partisan" when it comes to the gun debate. Do you mean that the NRA and the manufacturers own politics? That the Republic cannot make gun policy that is for the entire population's best interests? Or that Obama's a "socialist" when he makes a policy in this area that is eminently reasonable, which majorities of the American people, sometimes large majorities, support? A majority of NRA members support universal background checks. There were two polls by Gallup; one that asked if you support Obama's plans, and the other that asked the same questions but left Obama's name out of it. Which one got the majority? You're right. Now that's partisan politics. The GOP is getting senile. It can't control the only radicals on the American scene: the Tea Partiers.
Don't have to go far. You can go to Central America, where the prize for defeating the commies is crushing poverty and a revolting level of criminal gun violence. A hot export market for American guns! (Which don't come from the ATF, but from, I suspect, an unregulated and uncontrolled market... in wacko states like Arizona.
Modern governments are hopelessly lost when it comes to modern needs and population size as far as infrastructure is concerned.

Other countries are not the United States you cannot compare the going ons of another country and expect that you can make Americans fit that mold.

Gun Control will not reduce violence.
+Michael J Pierce Why not? Are Americans simply too stupid to not shoot each other where other nations have managed this elementary courtesy? It's pretty damn clear that first world nations with gun control have fewer shootings and fewer murders overall. 

The claim that this has nothing to do with checks on firearms ownership is extremely dubious. It's actually a lie. 
+John Poteet You should ask Joe Biden. He doesn't think gun control laws will lower deaths or mass shootings. CNN reported btw. Not Fox just in case you wanted to go there.
Maybe I have a higher opinion of the capabilities of the american people than Joe Biden does. We don't have to be belligerent idiots no matter how much Fox News and Clear Channel like to promote the idea. We can learn to get along and be civilized without constant displays of personal firepower. 

Other nations manage. The U.S. can learn. 
Hahaha you just brand anyone that doesn't agree with you and then try to make your point. Joe Biden is YOUR man in office.

Good luck with failing policies.
+Michael J Pierce Sorry asshole but it's the Republican party that's failing. They've lost the popular vote in the U.S. in five out of six most recent presidential elections. Popular gun freaks like Chris Kyle and Keith Ratliff are turning up dead of gunshot wounds; no surprise. Your demographic base of angry, old, white, men are aging out and dying off and young people are voting for Democrats. 

Shall we look at popular republican spokespersons? Rush Limbaugh? A drug addict.  Glenn Beck? So loony he was kicked off of Fox News. The Fox News crew? A few days ago the told the world that Germany had more solar power because it was sunnier there than on the U.S. East Coast. Your leaders are junkies, loons and idiots. 

Anybody reading this thread can see where you've repeatedly lied so let's add liars to the mix. 

Tell me about Democratic failures again? 
Wow I see +John Poteet This is all a game to you. A win or lose scenario. While you squabble over policy you have no understanding the people you support in office admit their proposals will not work in the way they are being pitched to the American people. 

There is no bench. I'm sorry you were picked on in high school but that's not my problem.
Democratic politics is a team sport. If you don't have a team you lose by default. 
+Michael J Pierce You're flailing here. You've got nothing and nobody in office supporting your views. The facts are: gun control works. 
He estado estudiando la segunda enmienda de la Constitución de
Estados Unidos,y puedo decirles que las interpretaciones de esta
tienen sentido en las épocas que fueron hechas,
La segunda enmienda que en inglés es la siguiente" A well regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free state,the rigth of the
people to Keepand BEAR arms,shall not be infringed",Wikipedia.
Traducción español "Siendo una milicia bien preparada necesaria
para la seguridad de un estado libre,el derecho del pueblo a tener y
PORTAR armas no será vulnerado",el verbo polisémico Bear equivale
a portar ,y como yo lo entiendo es portar sobre uno,
Todas las ex colonias del Reino Unido se vieron obligadas ha importar la parte escrita y en su mayoria no escrita y este derecho viene de Enrique II que pidió al pueblo de armarse en favor de proteger la monarquia,en el siglo 18 en la Constitución no escrita daba el derecho de armarse solamente a los PROTESTANTES para
defensa propia,hay una ley británica que viene de 1181 EnriqueII y
otra de 1689 hacia los protestantes,como hay pro armas que invocan
que derechos adquiridos no pueden ser quitados,desgraciadamente
para las dos teorias del derecho de portar armas uno desaparece con
la guerra de descolonización con Inglaterra,ya que la descolonización
borra ciertos derechos que otras colonias han podido conservar de
esta Constitución no escrita,que en las Constituciones como la
Canadiense se describen como costumbres según los Profesores
de Derecho Constitucional Canadiense André Tremblay,profesor de
Derecho Constitucional de la Universidad de Montréal.
Seth K
+James Hassinger 
Poverty in South America comes from corrupt socialistic taxes and policies, many of which democrats are supporting in our country today, including their gun control regulations.

The success of our country has never come from government, only from self motivated people who dare to pursue their dreams. A government that is so smothering, that doesn't believe in the goodness of its citizens, will crush success and excellence in the United States. I'm not saying that improvements haven't been made by government because they certainly have, but the question we need to ask is why couldn't a private company fund the building of the Erie Canal? If there was a demand for a Canal then somebody out there could have made a substantial profit building it. 

The tea part is comprised of rational individuals, who also represent the majority of Americans in this country. You can try to make tea partiers out to be some wacko cook fringe, but in reality they were bigger than the occupy wall street dorks, who claim to represent the 99%. The OW crowd was a totally astro turf movement. 
Seth K
+John Poteet The reason why the Republican party is failing is because they have strayed from the principles that made them popular in the first place and refuse to defend it.

Do you believe in individual and self worth? 
+Seth K Circular argument is circular. 

The Republican Party Platform of 1956

There are people who still express these ideals; nowadays we call them "Democrats." The Republican Party has been taken over by coalition of wealthy corporatists and religious fanatics. It's the party of Mammon. 
Seth K
+John Poteet Your definition of circular reasoning is incorrect as it applies to my statement.  

And I'm referring to the popular and successful ideas of Ronald Reagan, but just skimming over this document that you sent me I find no fault in it either. Your assertion that the democrat party has adopted these ideas is false. Democrats are more interested in the collective rather than the individual. You can tell this by their policies that are created to redistribute wealth, an economic policy that has never been successful. As the Republican Party Platform states, be conservative when it comes to peoples money... there is clearly no evidence of that in the democratic party, they are the party of entitlements, and Obama has spent more money in his first four years than all of the other presidents combined.

But I think the main philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe in the goodness of the individual and that he will ultimately choose to act for their own good and the good of their community as humans are social creatures and depend on one another. Therefor there is no need to mandate happiness or goodness. As the document states, we believe in the individual and keeping government interference at a minimum, only doing things for the people that they can not do on their own (the things that the individual can not do is a very small category).

Recently the republican party has been agreeing with Democratic principles, or at least seriously watering down their policies to appear more "moderate." They have not been as aggressive as they should be with the out of control spending, or with Obamacare. The republican party has become a party of appeasers, because they want the moderate vote. Romney got the majority of the moderate vote over Obama, but that didn't do him much good because they didn't get enough of their base to vote. Their base being the so called "radical" tea party people, and just general conservative principles. The sad thing is is that I believe that he was a true conservative, but he didn't come off that way because they were too concerned with getting the moderate vote.

Democrats on the other hand believe that it is necessary to command mankind to be happy, and that man, if left to his own devices will ultimately make the wrong decision. It is for this reason that every aspect of ones life must be dictated. People must be commanded not to smoke, not to shoot themselves or others. They must tell us what we can or can not eat, how much gas we are allowed to use, because that affect the planet... And since "greedy" rich people will never part from their money they must be punished. None of this is true of course, but that is the policy.

Do you deny this despite the daily examples we see of this?
Seth K
+John Poteet If you believe in the document that you sent me and the things written in it, you should declare yourself a conservative and work to reform the Republican Party as the party that it was always meant to be, as I am trying to do. The Democratic Party as it is today does few if any of the things mentioned in this declaration.  
+Seth K Anyone who says this: "popular and successful ideas of Ronald Reagan," is clearly delusional. The "popular" ideas of Ronald Reagan consisted of dog whistle racism and deleting programs for the poor; there were no successful Reagan programs. 

Ronald Reagan doubled the national debt. (a GOP habit) 
Ronald Reagan created the homeless problem.
Ronald Reagan destroyed college affordability for working families.
Ronald Reagan's bank de-regulation set up the Savings and Loan Crisis. 
Ronald Reagan defunded alternative energy research resulting in tens of billions of extra fuel costs for american citizens. Denmark now has the world's largest wind energy industry. 

It goes on and on. 
+John Poteet You are complaining about Regan doubling the national debt, but don't complain when Obama spends MORE than all of his predecessors? 
Seth K
+John Poteet While I don't believe that half of what you said in your latest post is true. You have not addressed the issues that I mentioned. Do you believe in the principles described in the document that you posted? Ronald Reagan won two landslide victories first for his fresh perspective, and second for reviving this nation after Jimmy Carter.

But just for the sake of argument. 

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office inflation averaged 12.5%, compared with 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office.

The unemployment rate declined from 7.5% to 5.4%.

Reagan promoted the proposed tax cuts as potentially stimulating the economy enough to expand the tax base, offsetting the revenue loss due to reduced rates of taxation.

Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.

Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue

Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.

Ronald Reagan doubled the national debt, because people feared the soviet union and so this deficit was justifiable. The growth in the economy more than compensated for these expenditures. 

Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.

Your claim that Ronald Reagan created a homeless problem has no evidence whatsoever to support it. He grew the economy to such an extent that nearly everyone had a job at the end of his eight years.

Taking Universities out of the private sector is what destroyed college affordability for working families, not Ronald Reagan.

The push of the Reagan administration for deregulation made it harder to catch the fraud associated with the loan crisis but it hardly "set up" the loan crisis as you suggest.

Ronald Reagan de-funded alternative energy research because it's really not a good investment. Nuclear energy is a good investment, as the energy produced is greater than the energy put into it, but the environmentalists will have none of that.

So are you convinced? Will you become a true conservative as I suggest and try to reform the Republican party as it should be? If you are not convinced here is a link that can help clear up some of the myths that exist about Ronald Reagan today:

I would love for our economy to go back to what it was during this great and successful time in United States history, Would you like to see this kind of growth again? If you believe the things that were in the Republic Platform Document that you posted, you really should consider becoming a conservative.

+Seth K Be prepared for your post being overlooked by your opponent. He truly sees politics as a game of winners and losers. party vs party. Black vs white. But I believe you have hit the nail on the head with this latest post. its a comparison Forbes recently made as well. Obama's policies have been nearly the exact opposite of Reagan's and unsurprisingly have had the exact opposite effects.
Seth K
+Michael J Pierce Thank you at least for recognizing my intellectual ability as valid. I also commend you for yours.
+Michael J Pierce You're right. There's no point in responding to that delusional line of garbage. 

On how Reagan left a legacy of homelessness.

"Another of Reagan’s enduring legacies is the steep increase in the number of homeless people, which by the late 1980s had swollen to 600,000 on any given night and 1.2 million over the course of a year. Many were Vietnam veterans, children and laid-off workers.

In early 1984 on Good Morning America, Reagan defended himself against charges of callousness toward the poor in a classic blaming-the-victim statement saying that “people who are sleeping on the grates…the homeless…are homeless, you might say, by choice."

This callous and dismissive attitude towards their fellow american citizens is the hallmark of the Republican Party; it's very essence. 

"Screw you, I've got mine" said every Republican, everywhere since at least 1980. 

The GOP exists to serve the very wealthy and does that by pandering to the prejudices of racist, miserly, religious, bigots of rural america. Their pretense of concern about fiscal soundness evaporates the second a republican president holds office when they immediately run up the credit card on military adventurism. 

Republican dominated states are poorer, graduate fewer high school students, have more divorces, more teen pregnancies, more bankrupticies, more murders, more violent crime, lower average incomes, essentially they just suck more than liberal states. 
+John Poteet I think you need to read up on what Obama has done. There are more people on food stamps then ever before, more people under the poverty line, and more people either under or unemployed. Thanks Obama.
+Michael J Pierce<< Always a lying asshole aren't you? 

 _"The percent increase in beneficiaries during Mr. Bush's presidency was higher than it has been under Mr. Obama:The number of beneficiaries went from 17.3 million in 2001 to 28.2 million in 2008 an increase of 63 percent in years that are mostly considered non-recessionary."_

When did that surge in Food Stamps applications happen? It was during the Great Bush Depression that's when. Of course assholes like you ignore the fact that half of all food stamp recipients actually have jobs. 

The truth is that most WalMart employees qualify for food stamps. So instead of paying actual, livable wages for it's staff WalMart keeps their hours low, shifts their schedules every week so they can't take second jobs and then takes back Federal dollars from those same employees who are forced to rely on food stamps to feed their families.
American conservatives LIE because their actual policies do not work. 
Seth K
+John Poteet The anti-reagan article that you sent me doesn't seem very legit. Its more of like some liberal professor from LA went off on a rant and published his rantings online. I'm going to fact check all of these claims, but I don't think that any of them are valid. This article does not cite any sources for the numbers that it pulls out of thin air.

But just assuming that this is correct. Why do you think it is the governments responsibility to provide for the poor?
Seth K
+John Poteet As for your comment that claims that Bush had higher beneficiaries than Obama. The Article that you provided from CBS news claims that " The number of people on food stamps is indeed currently at a record level..." The Article turns around and blames Bush, as most of the media is so fond of doing these days. While I do not agree that Bush did the correct thing in making food stamps more accessible to people, Obama has certainly not done anything to improve the situation, and has in fact exasperated the problem in terms of overall failure of the economy. 
Seth K
+John Poteet Oh my gosh, WalMart is so evil. If people don't like the way WalMart Treats its employees they can leave, its really as simple as that, no one is making them stay.

Anyway I think we are straying from the philosophical problem that liberals must face when it comes to this gun control debate, and pretty much everything really. My guess is that you know what I said was true but because you don't want to address it you are trying to change the subject. I have something else to add to my philosophical theory. Not only do Liberals believe that mankind is fundamentally evil and mean spirited. But they NEED mankind to be evil and mean spirited for their party to survive. Democrats for example depend on a perpetual victim or underdog. If they don't have a victim they simply create a victim or fabricate a fictional victim. 

Lets face it, the reason that you vote for Democrats is because you believe that there are people in the United States that are suffering at the hands of Republicans. There are people who vote for Democrats because they feel that the planet is the victim. Women are victims, black people are victims, etc...

This almost insane rant that america is full of racist greedy corporations or religious white men. Needs to stop.

True conservatism offers financial freedom and liberty from the government. It offers opportunity for all those who are brave enough to claim it. Conservatism is the party of individual empowerment independent of the government. 

Now you can continue to blame evil corporations or whatever other powerful invisible force, that has apparently caused poverty and unemployment in this country, or you can help people to be motivated to pursue their own prosperity, instead of trying to claim the success of everyone around them out of some misguided sense of entitlement and justice. 
+Seth K Conservatism is the freedom to starve at the point of a gun while the wealthy make demands as to what you have to do before you're allowed to eat. The ultimate goal of U.S. conservatives is a return to a slave-holding caste system. You're a liar, like Romney was a liar and like Bush was a liar. 

Lies and slavery are all conservatives have to offer. If they could tell the truth they would. 
Seth K
+John Poteet There is honor in working for sustenance  No one is immune to working not even the rich. The lies come from people who tell you that you can obtain something for nothing at the expense of people who have worked for it. I'm glad to live in a country where it is possible for me to someday become wealthy. I will live happily knowing that I obtained every dollar honorably and I hope that the constitution will continue to hold true so that my wealth and property will be protected from the uninformed masses, and a government that would take it from me. 

John you are a slave of the government. If you could see the way you advocate the unconstitutionality of the decisions made by liberals in general to take what is not theirs and give it to an uninformed voter. If you feel that big business is the reason why people starve, why don't you work to become super wealthy, become super wealthy and give your money to the poor. Start a good company that sells services that people need or want and become wealthy then use that money for charity. No one will try to stop you but the government. 
+Seth K Still worshipping Mammon? Still? There's no honor in greed or gluttony. There's no honor for the miserly employer. There's no Christmas Carol pageant for the boss that fires half his staff on January 5th after promising them full time work.  

You worship money and support the interests of polluters and usurers.   You support people who are desperate to excuse slavery and Southern treason because they really, really, want to go back to where they can own other people. 

Keep trying scum but you're going to keep losing. 
Seth K
+John Poteet I wouldn't say that I worship Mammon, I only recognize that it is necessary. Money can not buy happiness, but it can provide a lot of charity for people. It can also buy you time with your family. Isn't that something that you want for yourself? Everyone needs food, everyone needs a house etc... I suppose our only argument on this issue is where these things should come from. From individual effort, or from the government.

If you work for it yourself, the only person you owe your success to is yourself. If you worked for it you own it, constitutionally no one can take that away from you. The Declaration of Independence says that we all have the right to Life, Liberty, and the right to Pursue Happiness. These are rights given to us by God meaning that no one can take them away. 

If you obtain your money, food, house, car, and everything from the government. Then you owe everything to the government. It is not yours it is the governments'. The Government can give and take away as it pleases. And most importantly it can give all sorts of goodies to the people who support them in order to buy votes. 

You seem to be confused  You think that rich business people want to enslave people. All I see are companies that are trying to provide services to people at the most affordable price. Their motive is simply to make money. What other alternate motive could they possibly have? Why would business people want to enslave people, as you claim? 

When it comes to the government you can be sure that the only reason they do what they do is to buy votes. They don't  care who they may destroy along the way. Why do you think that the imaginary workers, that you mentioned, were laid off on January 5th? Could it be because the government took away too much money, and the company could no longer meet its promises?

It is not logical or reasonable to assume that there is no reason for all the people out of work in this country. It is certainly NOT logical to say that the business people fired their employees because they were just trying to be as mean spirited and greedy as possible since good companies require excellent employees.  Its like I said before: If an employee is not pleased with how they are treated it is fully within their rights to leave. There are in most companies incentives to try and get people to stay.
The military is here to protect the citizens of the US from threats on our shore or the shores of other countries intending us haarm they are not here to help promote a government that is committing crimes against humanity and treason. If they follow orders that protect criminals they themselves are criminal.
Add a comment...